Martin Whitfield
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“To ask the Scottish Government, regarding any impact on its energy policy and strategy, and in light of reports that Torness nuclear power station is due to close by 2030, what its response is to the United Kingdom Government’s new fusion strategy, which aims to deliver thousands of jobs and long-term energy security. (S6O-05690)”
“I ask members to note my entry in the members’ register of interests. As we come to the conclusion of today’s debate, I rise to offer the full support of Scottish Labour for the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill.”
“The last few motions before us today are the final motions from the committee designed to put the standing orders book in its best possible state for the next session. The first motion, regarding the sixth report, relates to cross-party groups. We have had some challenges this session with the compliance of cross-party groups.”
“Last year’s fostering and adoption statistics show that children who are going through the adoption system face significant delays, with some waiting for six months or longer.”
“I will dwell on the comments he made as convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, because it is a tribute to him that he saw, in that committee, the ability to fulfil a role that is crucial for committees in a unicameral Parliament.”
“The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that motion S6M-21167, in the name of Graeme Dey, on a motion on legislative consent for the Armed Forces Bill, which is UK legislation, be agreed to.”
The complete record
Every one of 844 lines we hold for Martin Whitfield, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 17.
“I will start with that of the cabinet secretary. I remind her of the requirement in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which states: “The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing the standards and ... requirements to which every education authority shall conform in discharging their functions under section 1 of this Act”. That relates to providing the right educational environment and the right number of facilities in which education can take place. I make that point because we do ban things for children. Roz McCall is right that children are entitled to a childhood. They are entitled to be told not to smoke, and they are entitled to be told not to drink alcohol. In due course, they might be entitled to be told not to attend greyhound races.”
“However, a lot of this afternoon’s contributions have shown how seriously we now need to take mobile phones, the internet and the worldwide web of fake and false information, because they have a negative impact on our pupils throughout their whole lives, but particularly in the classroom. To pick up on what Neil Bibby said, the evidence of bullying that continues on our school estates, which then carries on afterwards through the use of mobile phones—there are sickening examples of children being filmed fighting each other, which has often been provoked by the use of mobile phones—is incredibly worrying, as is the content that is being beamed down to those phones. We need to be concerned, because smartphones are damaging the environment in our classrooms. That brings me to the speeches of various members.”
“It is a pleasure to close for Scottish Labour in the debate. I will perhaps contradict some of the contributions, which I have found remarkably interesting. Before I start, I should declare an interest to those viewing and those in the chamber, which is that I was a teacher some while ago, a role that straddled the start of my time in this place. Mobile phones and digital technology have generally had a huge impact and have huge potential, and they touch every aspect of our lives. Even in the 1980s, when telephones were still attached to the wall, they tended to cause anger among parents when phone calls came in. They are genuinely a hugely valuable tool that allows young people to access information.”
“As members know from some of the testimonials, the fact that some companies have gone out and got international contracts that they would not otherwise have had is indicative of their commitment to pursuing those opportunities. The member is absolutely right to highlight that.”
“The Sunday Post asked CodeBase what kind of selection process was carried out. The response was: “Ultimately, the value they” —that is, the contributing individuals— “derive from these programmes depends on their own commitment and approach.” Techscalers have a crucial part to play in the tech ecosystem and are worthy of public money to support that, so will the Scottish Government’s scrutiny and accountability reflect that individual commitment and approach? Kate Forbes: Techscaler is in only its third year. As I said, it is improving year-on-year, and the feedback processes allow it to keep improving. One important area is the balance between application processes and selection, which means tailoring programmes to those who would benefit most.”
“I will leave it there, because I know that time is short. The Presiding Officer: Mr Mountain, can you please confirm whether you are pressing amendment 207? Edward Mountain: Yes, I am pressing it. Maggie Chapman: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In my remarks, I referred to amendment 252; I should have been referring to amendment 38. That was my error—apologies for that. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Chapman. Your comments have been recorded. The question is, that amendment 207 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed. 17:45”
“Edward Mountain: I have listened to the arguments that have been put forward and I could go through all the reasons why I do not agree with them. I do not think that the cabinet secretary’s definition of a structural change is one that would be recognised. Affixing things to the wall is not changing the structure of the property. Structural changes in a building would, in most cases, require a building warrant to be approved. I have heard the arguments, and I will make the case one more time for using recorded delivery for the delivery of notices. I guarantee that what is in the bill will be a recipe for disaster and for argument. As a landlord, I have tried to avoid that, and I think that the cabinet secretary and members who vote not to have notices served by recorded delivery will be making a mistake.”
“I would like to know what she means by structural change. Màiri McAllan: In the context that I have referred to, I suppose that we are talking about things being affixed to walls. However, that is exactly why I have been stressing the point that consulting on those matters and making the changes via secondary legislation is the appropriate way to do it. I spoke about support aids because that involves affixing items to walls. To reassure members, I note that the regulation- making powers in the bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That will ensure that powers are exercised appropriately, that a reasonable balance is achieved between tenants’ rights and those of the landlord, and that Parliament has a fulsome part in that. The Presiding Officer: I call Edward Mountain to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 207.”
“Amendments 212 and 213, which are also in my name, are intended to reverse changes that were made at stage 2, the effect of which would be that it was always reasonable for structural change, however minor, to be refused. I listened to what Mr Mountain said. I am not able to speak to the manuscript amendments that he referred to because they are not up for debate. However, those restrictions would limit our ability to allow changes that support disabled people and their families—for example, the installation of support aids. I do not want that, and I am quite sure that Mr Mountain would not want it, either. Edward Mountain: I seek clarity from the cabinet secretary on the definition of structural change. Structural change means one thing to me as a surveyor; it might mean something different to her.”
“If agreed, that will mirror the timeframe that is proposed under amendment 87 for responding to a pet request, and it will ensure the consistency that we are trying to support. Turning to my amendments in the group, I am seeking Parliament’s support for amendments 95 to 100, which will make changes to various duties to make regulations regarding requests to make changes to a let property. As before, those duties were originally set out as powers in the bill, but changes at stage 2 turned them into duties. While they are duties, Parliament’s role is undermined, so my amendments are about restoring Parliament’s role in scrutinising what the Government does. I assure Mr Mountain that he ought not to be disappointed about that, because it is about ensuring that Parliament has its rightful place in approving regulations.”
“As it is drafted, it would apply to a very broad range of changes and we believe that it would face problems with implementation, particularly in respect of communal gardens. Such issues would have to be made clearer in any drafting. I do not want to create confusion for landlords and tenants, so I cannot support that amendment. Again, it comes down to what I said earlier: the best way to develop the detail of all of this is through secondary legislation that is supported by consultation and engagement with tenants and landlords, and I will be pleased to include some of the matters that Maggie Chapman raises in that work. I welcome Maggie Chapman’s amendment 94, which will reduce to 30 days the period in which a landlord in the private rented sector must respond to a request to make changes to a let property.”
“Although I understand Mr Mountain’s concerns, I cannot support that proposal. Maggie Chapman’s amendment 38 would mean that certain changes to outdoor space connected with a let property would be category 2 changes, and a tenant would have the right to make a request and not be unreasonably refused. I have a lot of sympathy with what Maggie Chapman has said. People’s ability to enjoy green space is fundamental not only to their ability to feel comfortable at home but to their mental and physical wellbeing, so I do not have any objection in principle to the idea that prescribed changes should include the use of a property’s outside space. However, I am afraid that the amendment is too broadly framed.”
“However, I do not think that the inclusion of a blanket provision in the bill would be the right approach to take. The substance of the approach and the kind of restriction are likely to be disproportionate. However, the best way to test all of that is to engage in consultation and to set out what is to be taken forward in secondary legislation, and, of course, Edward Mountain can be part of that process. Amendments 208 and 209, which are also in Mr Mountain’s name, relate again to the question of recorded delivery, this time requiring that a request for a category 2 change, and the response to it, be sent by recorded delivery. As before, the landlord and the tenant should be free to agree the form of written communication that will be used during the tenancy, and I think that it is common for email to be used.”
“The amendment would still allow landlords to refuse if they felt that the ask was unreasonable, so there are appropriate safeguards. Amendment 94 will reduce the timescale for landlords to respond to a property change request. As the Government has supported the timescale for pet requests, I look forward to it supporting amendment 94, and I am grateful for the conversations that I have had with the Government on the matter in recent weeks. Màiri McAllan: I will begin with Edward Mountain’s amendments 207 and 210, which would mean that a tenant was required to reinstate the property to its original condition following a category 1 or 2 change. I understand that the provision may reflect some landlords’ concerns, some of which will be perfectly legitimate.”
“We need to do much more to ensure that green space is protected and looked after, and my amendment 252 is a small contribution to that. According to TDS, which runs the SafeDeposits Scotland scheme, disagreements over gardening are the fifth most common reason for deposit disputes, so having more clarity will benefit tenants and landlords. With young people in the most deprived areas of Scotland having significantly worse access to play space, the amendment also seeks to make it easier for modest changes to be made to gardens and other spaces, so that they can enjoy the benefits of outdoor play. I listened carefully to comments that were made at stage 2, and I have changed the category from category 1, which would not require approval, to category 2, which would.”
“Renters could submit a category 2 change request, and that should not be unreasonably refused. The physical and mental health benefits of gardening and growing our own food are well established, and the amendment seeks to ensure that there can be no undue barriers to renters using outdoor spaces that are part of the property that they rent to grow their own food, as well as to promote animal and insect life by, for example, planting flowers that support pollinators. Domestic gardens can be mini-havens for nature, and that kind of action is vital as we face a nature emergency, with many of Scotland’s animal, insect and plant species threatened with extinction. Urban creep, whereby green space in urban areas is lost, such as when gardens are turned into driveways, is driving nature loss and urban flooding.”
“I remind people about the manuscript amendment. Maggie Chapman’s amendment 38 proposes that tenants may make changes to properties if those changes promote nature recovery. I absolutely understand why that might be appropriate. For example, tenants may want to change their garden into a vegetable garden, but if the existing garden is established and it already has trees and plants that improve the amenity of the property, they should need to negotiate those changes with the landlord, rather than having an automatic right to go ahead. I will leave it there and will listen to the arguments that are made. I believe that I will also get a chance to sum up. I move amendment 207. Maggie Chapman: I have a couple of amendments in the group. Amendment 252 establishes the right to grow in outdoor spaces of rented properties.”
“I think that a lot of the disagreement between the cabinet secretary and me stemmed from the fact that it is not clear what are classified as category 1 and category 2 changes. I will speak briefly to the other amendments in the group. Maggie Chapman’s amendment 94 seeks to change the number of days’ notice that the tenant is required to provide to the landlord from 42 days to 30 days. I think that 42 days is the right length of time, for the reasons that the cabinet secretary noted earlier. I am disappointed by amendments 95, 96, 98 and 99, because they will change the wording that the committee agreed to in amendments that I lodged at stage 2, which will mean that ministers “may” instead of “must” specify changes. That is disappointing, as it overrides the committee’s discussion. Amendments 212 and 213 do the same thing.”
“I lodged the manuscript amendment because I received a letter from the cabinet secretary 47 minutes after the lodging deadline to say that I was being discriminatory against disabled people by not allowing category 1 changes for disabled access. I never wanted to do that. I lodged my manuscript amendment so that it would be entirely clear that I believe that the bill should allow disabled people to put in anything that they want to in order to make their lives easier, provided that it does not require structural changes. As Ms Chapman will know, in most cases, structural changes would require a building warrant. I am disappointed that I was not able to clarify that.”
“Very nice. Edward Mountain: I think that Mr Whitfield is saying that that is his house. I have not been to your house, Mr Whitfield. All that I am trying to suggest is that, at the end of a tenancy, the property should be returned to the landlord in the state that it was in at the beginning. Maggie Chapman: Does the member intend that disabled people should have to pay to take out disabled aids that have been put into a property? That situation could fit into amendments 207 and 210. Edward Mountain: I will come to that specific point, if I may. I know that the member kept an eagle eye on the various amendments that were lodged and will have seen my proposed amendment 399, which was not selected by the Presiding Officer.”
“I always want to hear from members across parties about ways in which they think we could improve provisions. I absolutely assure Martin Whitfield that I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss aspects of this bill.”
“The minister said that the Government respects the will of the Parliament. That is as it should be, although the progress of this part of the bill has involved a U-turn for the Scottish Government. Surely, good- faith engagement is the absolute minimum that any member of the Parliament should expect from the Government. I am therefore glad that the minister has said that she will commit to engaging in good faith with Liz Smith on the bill. Will she also make that commitment to all the parties and representatives who sit in the chamber, both on this bill and as other bills progress? Natalie Don-Innes: I believe that I said that in my closing line. I said that I look forward to working with Liz Smith and engaging with her and the rest of the Parliament. I take a very open approach on any bill that I am involved in.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Stephen Kerr to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. 16:57”
“Maggie Chapman: I wonder whether Martin Whitfield will acknowledge that, if a committee required to take evidence, it would be possible for it to do so in camera so that some of the frank conversations that already exist between commissioners and the corporate body, which meets in camera, could still happen. Martin Whitfield: Given the shortage of time, I will conclude, but I am more than happy to discuss that. I am challenged by the idea that we are going to hide this behind a camera being off. The Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, Derek Walker, has said: “being the guardian of the interests of people not yet born is the greatest privilege.” One of the roles that commissioners have taken is giving a voice to people who do not have a voice in this place.”
“Is the Ethical Standards Commissioner working satisfactorily if X number of complaints are processed? Will the committee want to look at those? We sit within both primary legislation and standing orders with regard to how this is dealt with. It is a complex question, which is why I raised with Maggie Chapman the issue of the SPCB giving evidence to a parliamentary committee. There is a challenge in that role that needs to be considered carefully. Maggie Chapman: Will the member take an intervention? Martin Whitfield: I am conscious of time, Deputy Presiding Officer— The Deputy Presiding Officer: The intervention will need to be brief, because Mr Whitfield will thereafter be concluding.”
“I want to deal with the question of the amendment in my name, which has so upset colleagues across the chamber. I apologise for that upset, but I will pick out the reason for the amendment. I will also ensure that I allow time for the SPCB representative to respond, given what Maggie Chapman said about the disadvantage of losing a direct, specific order from Parliament. The motion opens by pointing out, rightly, the challenge for parliamentary committee resources, yet the specifics draw attention to the creation of an additional committee. I understand and agree with the proposal to temporarily give one committee the responsibility for all commissioners. However, we will then have to explore where, given their statutory functions, some of the commissioners will report to.”
“We have a frustration—we can use the example of climate matters, which Sarah Boyack also raised—that creating a new commissioner just gives the Government another group to ignore. A commissioner does not necessarily have more clout or more effectiveness, and there are other bodies—international bodies as well as third sector organisations—that have the ability to do research. It is not the case that a commissioner will make the Government suddenly jump into action. Therefore, the better question is how, for example, parliamentary committees can be more effective in influencing the Government. Martin Whitfield: Yes, absolutely, and I welcome that intervention, because this issue sits in a complex network, or jigsaw, work on which is on-going and will come to the chamber before the end of the parliamentary session.”
“I want to start with George Adam, simply because of his invitation to me to continue to petition for his transfer to my committee, which would therefore mean its expansion. The comment that he rightly made about coherence over clutter is massively important, as is having the status to take on the Government. As a number of contributors have pointed out—this was most clearly expressed by Lorna Slater—we create commissioners that the Scottish Government will not listen to. That is the challenge, but is it the fault of the commissioner, of cross-party groups, of committees or of individuals out there if the Scottish Government chooses not to listen? Lorna Slater: The member raises a good point.”
“That lack of clarity has led to duplication, inefficiency and confusion, and that confusion exists not just in the Parliament but among the public, whom we serve. Let me also be clear that commissioners are essential to our democracy. However, we need to understand their roles: there are statutory commissioners, such as the Scottish Information Commissioner and the Ethical Standards Commissioner, who are regulators, enforcers of laws, upholders of standards and insurers of compliance; advocacy commissioners, who amplify the voices of the underrepresented or unrepresented and promote systemic change; and there are those who straddle both roles, who are expected to advocate, investigate and, in some cases, regulate, often without the resources or the clarity to do so effectively. There have been some fascinating contributions to the debate.”
“It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. As others have done, I start by thanking the convener of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, its members and those who supported it, along with the commissioners who contributed so much to its work. At the outset, I want to say that I support the recommendations in the report, which is a timely and necessary intervention in a system that has basically grown without a strategy, coherence or sufficient scrutiny, as we have heard this afternoon. The report rightly identifies that Scotland’s commissioner landscape has evolved in an ad hoc manner. We have a patchwork of bodies, some of which are statutory regulators, some of which are advocacy focused, and some of which are attempting to do both roles.”
“I move, That the Parliament welcomes and notes the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee’s 1st Report, 2025 (Session 6), SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review (SP Paper 828); recognises the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations, including concerns that expanding the number of SPCB supported bodies risks further fragmenting the current landscape, increasing complexity for service users, and placing additional strain on the SPCB and parliamentary committee resources, and agrees with the Committee’s recommendations that: (a) the SPCB supported body landscape should not be expanded to include new advocacy-type SPCB supported bodies; (b) any future proposals for new SPCB supported bodies must satisfy two-tier criteria, as set out in paragraph 150 of the report, comprising both justification and effectiveness tests, and that a parliamentary committee should be given the remit of assessing proposals against these criteria; and (c) a parliamentary committee should be given the specific responsibility for the accountability and scrutiny of SPCB supported bodies for a fixed period as a pilot exercise in Session 7.”
“We welcome the SPCB’s positive commitment to work with the parliamentary committee and with officials to explore what would be desirable within the broader constitutional framework and how that can be achieved. I thank the Minister for Public Finance and the members of the SPCB for their positive responses to the committee’s conclusions and recommendations. Members will see from the report that we have also recommended a series of targeted improvements that could be made to improve how the SPCB-supported bodies landscape and the wider public sector operate. I will cover that in more detail in concluding the debate. The committee is confident that our conclusions and recommendations will create a clear strategic framework for the SPCB-supported bodies landscape, and I urge all members to support the committee’s motion unamended.”
“Through reviewing alternative models both in the UK and internationally, we have concluded that a parliamentary committee should be given specific responsibility for the accountability and scrutiny of SPCB-supported bodies for a fixed period as a pilot in session 7. We do not make that recommendation lightly, and we understand that the existing capacity issues for MSPs and parliamentary committees are significant. However, we firmly believe that a single committee with accountability and scrutiny functions for all the SPCB-supported bodies is absolutely necessary in order to enhance effectiveness and the delivery of outcomes. In response to our report, the SPCB acknowledged many of the complexities that we identified in making that recommendation.”
“The proposal for the role of victims and witnesses commissioner, which was established through the passing of the bill yesterday, was well advanced when our committee was given its remit, and it was obviously a factor in our considerations. I am happy to follow up on the point that Martin Whitfield has raised later in the debate, if that would be helpful. Although we acknowledge the adaptability of SPCB members to give effect to the will of the Parliament and put in place oversight mechanisms, we do not believe that that can be sustained without diminishing other core functions of the SPCB.”
“Only yesterday, in passing the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, we brought into existence the role of victims and witnesses commissioner. That bill gives the commissioner a direct power to impose a response to its annual report. Did the committee consider that as a way of ensuring scrutiny? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back for interventions, Mr Macpherson. Ben Macpherson: Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank Martin Whitfield for a constructive intervention. The committee took into consideration the processes that were put forward in Government bills and in members’ bills.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with outdoor education centres and schools regarding the financial and staffing implications of the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill. (S6O-04958)”
“I object in relation to amendment 21. The Presiding Officer: That being the case, we will put questions on each amendment individually. Amendments 18 to 20 agreed to. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. As this is the first division of the stage, I will suspend for about five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system. 14:48 Meeting suspended. 14:54 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: We will proceed with the division on amendment 21. The vote is closed.”
“The golden opportunity surely rests with both energy sources. The question that has still not been answered is, when will the energy strategy be published? Will the Scottish Government undertake to publish it before the end of this parliamentary session? Richard Lochhead: My colleague Gillian Martin will keep Parliament up to date on that in due course. On the jobs question—which is why, as employment minister, I am here—I emphasise to the Parliament that we have a massive opportunity to create new jobs for Scotland in the energy sector. From independent analysis, we can already see the evidence of the tens of thousands of new energy jobs that this Administration has created. We should surely all work together to capture that prize.”
“Transport is not just about moving from A to B; it is about opportunity, fairness and dignity. If young people cannot rely on public transport, they cannot rely on us as their decision makers. Let us do more than just acknowledge their voices; let us listen to them and act on what they are telling us. If we want young people to believe in politics, they need to see that, when they speak, we hear and we deliver. 13:08”
“We hear about wheelchair users who are abandoned at stops. Those are not isolated cases but everyday barriers for our young people. The manifesto highlights safety. Young people, especially young women and girls, want public transport to be safer, with better lighting and working closed-circuit television. They want a culture in which harassment is never tolerated. The Scottish Youth Parliament is right to be ambitious. It is calling for a properly integrated network where timetables connect and for transport that disabled young people can truly rely on. It is also calling for an expansion of the free travel scheme, because a 22-year-old apprentice on a minimum wage faces exactly the same barriers as they did only a few days earlier when they were 21. Those are bold demands, but they are rooted in real experience.”
“It calls for cheaper and fairer ticketing systems, a joined-up network across buses, trains and ferries, and real accessibility for disabled young people and those with additional needs. It presses for better provision in rural and island communities, which we have already heard about in the debate. The free bus travel scheme for under-22s is a welcome step, and it has made a massive difference to thousands of young people. However, as MSYPs have said, there are issues for people who live in rural communities, on islands or, indeed, in cities, where, at certain times of the day, services are cut. What is the point of a free bus card if there is no bus? The services must be there. We hear stories from across Scotland about buses that never arrive, services that are cancelled at short notice and connections that do not link up.”
“I, too, thank Sarah Boyack for securing the debate on what is an incredibly important motion in a week when we are joined by MSYPs in the gallery for today’s debate and in the garden lobby, where people can meet them and discuss the Scottish Youth Parliament’s manifesto. That manifesto, entitled, “Dear Scotland’s Future”, is based on the voices of more than 5,000 young people. It makes it clear that transport is about much more than convenience. It is about reaching school and college; it is about travelling safely to youth work and community groups; and it is about the opportunity to take up jobs and apprenticeships. It is also about staying connected with family and friends, because, if that is impossible, we will hold young people back. The manifesto sets out some clear priorities.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, as part of the cross- Government co-ordination on islands, what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding action to ensure that island communities are protected through an effective flood resilience strategy, in light of Audit Scotland’s reported findings on weaknesses in preparedness. (S6O-04901)”
“I want to include them, but that will require me to ask Liz Smith to move a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I therefore ask her to move such a motion. Motion moved, That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Liz Smith] Motion agreed to. 18:03”
“I extend the invitation to colleagues to work together to find that common ground.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2024; c 23.] Liz Smith has done more than accept that invitation—she has sought to find common ground, and the Scottish Government has fallen short. The Government has not just set the Parliament a tough test—it is potentially putting itself on a collision course with this place. I urge the First Minister, through his minister, to honour the commitments that have been made to our young people and to the Parliament on outdoor education, to lodge the financial resolution, to let the bill proceed and to let us do the right thing by the next generation. The Deputy Presiding Officer: A number of members still wish to participate.”
“The First Minister is one of only three core members who are required to constitute a Government—the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General are the others. That means that those who speak on behalf of the First Minister speak for the First Minister. The undertakings that are given are given for the First Minister, and promises that are made are made for the First Minister, because that is the Scottish Government in the Parliament and in this country. On 4 September 2024, the First Minister said: “A quarter of a century after its creation, this Parliament faces some of its toughest tests.” He also said: “My Government does not command a majority in this Parliament: we have to work with others to make progress on our agenda ...”
“If that happens, it will be not only a loss for outdoor education but a failure to uphold the democratic will of this Parliament. Let me be clear that the financial resolution process should focus solely on affordability—that is its purpose. Issues of implementation and commencement can and should be addressed at stage 3. The mechanism exists, and the support is there. What is needed is action by the Scottish Government. I could be cynical and suggest that, if it wanted to, the Scottish Government could still vote the bill down at stage 3, but perhaps that is not as attractive an option as it appears. I highlight to members section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, which defines membership of the Scottish Government.”
“The Scottish Government has not defined what level of cost it would consider affordable. The Scottish Government has not conducted financial modelling on any of the proposals that have been submitted. The Scottish Government has not produced draft amendments, despite making a commitment—a promise; an undertaking—to do so before the Education, Children and Young People Committee. The Scottish Government is pursuing a non- legislative pilot, with estimated costs of £6 million to £8 million, rather than progressing a bill that has already been endorsed by the Parliament. Crucially, the Scottish Government has not confirmed a date for Cabinet to decide whether to lodge a financial resolution. Promises were made—promises that should be kept. The bill will fall on 26 September if a financial resolution is not lodged. That is a reality.”
“The bill is about not just outdoor learning but equity—ensuring that every child, regardless of background, has the opportunity to experience the confidence, resilience and teamwork that residential outdoor education uniquely provides— yet I am deeply concerned that, despite the clear will of the Parliament, the Scottish Government’s lack of engagement is putting the bill at risk. That is why it is not my usual pleasure to speak in the debate. In a meeting that was held on 12 August, and as has been confirmed in a letter from Liz Smith, it was made clear that the Government has no position on the revised policy proposals, including limiting the bill to primary pupils or targeting provision to those who are experiencing poverty or who have additional support needs.”
“It is normal to start by saying what a pleasure it is to speak in a debate, and it is certainly a pleasure to follow Brian Whittle. I reaffirm my strong support for the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, which received the Parliament’s backing at stage 1. As we have heard, it carries the hopes of countless young adults, educators, children and outdoor education providers across Scotland. I thank the bill’s sponsoring member, Liz Smith, for her tenacity with it and for securing the debate.”