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 11 of 17.
“I want to get every member who has pressed their request-to-speak button in, but I will require members to stick to their speaking time allowance. We move to the open debate. 17:33”
“In winding up, I will finish with one straightforward question, which I urge the minister to answer in her speech at the end of the debate. Will the Scottish Government finally lodge the financial resolution before the deadline of 27 September—yes or no? If the minister is just playing for time, hoping that the bill will fall without a fight, she misunderstands not only Parliament, but—just as worryingly—our schools and our education system, which is allegedly built on the principles of inclusion, fairness and opportunities for levelling up, and on building much-needed resilience in our young people. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I advise members that there is a lot of interest in participating in the debate.”
“All I hear is that the bill is not affordable, yet when it comes to spending money, the Scottish Government is content to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on the ferry fiasco or on meeting the costs of delayed discharge. In addition, if The Scotsman newspaper’s reports are anything to go by, the Government does not see the need to recoup £36 million in Social Security Scotland overpayments. As we all know, politics is all about choices and priorities—that is any Government’s prerogative. What I do not understand in this case is why the minister has chosen to isolate herself from the rest of Parliament and from the outdoor education sector, particularly given the commitment that the SNP made in 2021.”
“I did so, and—as I have explained—I made targeted adjustments, in particular around age groups and additional support needs. By refining the cost estimates and focusing support on primary school children who are eligible for free school meals or whose families receive the Scottish child payment, the bill would continue to deliver for those who are most in need, with a significantly reduced funding model. The Scottish Government, however, has not kept its side of the bargain by telling me what it would see as an affordable bill; by bringing forward potential amendments for stage 2, which the minister promised to do at the Education, Children and Young People Committee; or by declaring an official position on any of my alternative funding proposals.”
“I need not remind members of my view that, if the Scottish Government does not act now to enable legislation on something that is proven to have such a positive impact on so many youngsters, that is tantamount to failing them. The United Kingdom Government, on the other hand, understands the urgency. That was exemplified in August by the Prime Minister’s unveiling of an £88 million investment for high- quality extracurricular activity, including outdoor education, to rebuild confidence and reconnect young people with the world around them. Young Scots must not be left behind because of inaction from the Scottish Government. During our meetings, the minister asked me to present ways in which the cost of the bill could be reduced before a resolution would be considered.”
“Liz Smith: Perhaps the member will be able to see from those submissions that I have reduced the cost of the bill quite substantially and ensured that it is a targeted in a way that I think would benefit those who are most in need. In case the minister is in any doubt about this at all, I stress that the idea that the stage 1 vote reflected agreement among members across the chamber to implement some kind of non-statutory or pilot measure is incorrect. Members understood that other, non-statutory policy initiatives in the past have not worked—as Willie Rennie quite rightly, and articulately, pointed out in committee evidence, they have not been working for a long time.”
“I thank individuals such as Pam Duncan-Glancy, Martin Whitfield, Ross Greer, Fergus Ewing, Willie Rennie and Jamie Greene, and several other members, along with the Education, Children and Young People Committee and its convener, Douglas Ross. John Mason: Will the member give way? Liz Smith: Yes, I will. John Mason: Would the member accept that the key problem here is finance? She wants to make outdoor residential education a universal benefit, which would cost somewhere in the region of £30 million. That is the problem. If the provision in the bill was targeted, there might be more support for it. Liz Smith: Mr Mason, if you have been reading the submissions to the Education, Children and Young People Committee— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Through the chair, please, Ms Smith.”
“Will the member give way? Liz Smith: Yes, I will. Martin Whitfield: In a very articulate opening to her speech, does Liz Smith not capture, in a nutshell, the essential point here: that the Scottish Government is undermining the will of the Parliament? Liz Smith: Yes, absolutely. The bill passed comfortably at stage 1, with members—including several SNP members—wanting it to progress to stage 2 so that the technical details could be further pursued. Again, I thank colleagues across the chamber, whether they are in the SNP, the Greens, the Labour Party, the Conservatives—like those of us on this side of the chamber tonight—or the Liberal Democrats.”
“I accept the point that the member has raised, but I hope that he will take some comfort from the action that we are taking with regard to the data summit and the work that I will undertake later this afternoon with the education and childcare assurance board.”
“I want to see far greater consistency in that regard. One action that we are taking, which we announced in the programme for government, is to hold a data conference with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and statisticians in the Scottish Government to talk directly to them about the practicalities of how they gather data at local level. We are also having discussions—later this afternoon, in fact—with the education and childcare assurance board, along with local government, to talk about the operability of SEEMiS. As the member will know, as a fellow teacher, the operability of SEEMiS varies between different local authorities. That may change the way in which incidents are recorded and, in so doing, may not allow us to take a consistent look across the piece.”
“In her statement, the cabinet secretary talked about working with local councils to improve consistency in recording and monitoring incidents. In 2023, she spoke about work to alter school inspections in order to capture that data. How will the consistency in applying consequences be monitored across local authorities by the Scottish Government? Jenny Gilruth: In Scotland, we have 32 local authorities with a statutory responsibility for delivering education. One of the challenges that we have often seen with recording bullying incidents is a lack of consistency across the piece. That is why, for example, when Opposition parties submit freedom of information requests to local authorities, it is very difficult to get a read-across, because the authorities might use completely different systems in recording and monitoring.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it will deliver on its commitments in the Promise, in light of the publication, “Education Outcomes for Looked After Children 2023/24”, showing a decline in most key educational outcomes. (S6O-04884)”
“As I said earlier, I note the concerns of the DPLR Committee regarding timescales, and, once again, I apologise that the Parliament was not given more time to consider the changes. When working with UK bill measures, that is not always feasible, but I accept the importance of giving parliamentary committees more opportunity to scrutinise proposed legislative changes, especially changes as important as these. I hope that the Parliament will agree that the changes will help to protect and enhance the best interests of Scotland’s children and young people and will, accordingly, give consent. Parliamentary Bureau Motions 16:36”
“Creating central regulations will provide consistency, reduce the administrative burden of updating byelaws and allow for engagement to ensure that updates reflect the needs and interests of children and young people, as well as local communities and economies. The provisions on community-based accommodation will provide flexibility and choice in providing the most appropriate placement for a child, if deemed appropriate and in an exceptional circumstance, and if it fully meets their care needs. No significant issues were raised about either of those changes by stakeholders, and there was recognition of the value of them. However, it is recognised that further engagement will be undertaken with key stakeholders.”
“I will quote a young person who was engaged with the proposed changes: “I think that it will make young people happier and able to work and gain more experience.” Although it would have been our preference to legislate on this devolved matter here at Holyrood, it would have been wrong to pass up the opportunity to update what is an outmoded statutory framework. A system of 32 local byelaws on child employment lends itself to inconsistency across councils in relation to permitted and prohibited types of work. Some bylaws are out of date and are not reflective of modern-day employment opportunities. Most have not been updated since the early 2000s—indeed, one dates back to 1973. Some still refer to the prohibition regarding children working as chimney sweeps or on merchant ships or undertaking work in coal yards.”
“No Government or Parliament on these islands has done more to progress the rights of children and young people. We are rightly proud of what we have achieved together in this Parliament in that regard. We are also rightly fierce in protecting the best interests of children and engaging with them to get their views on decisions that affect them. The provisions on employment should give children more choice and opportunity to make decisions about when they work to gain income and independence. They modernise our approach to children’s employment and will make protections and opportunities more consistent across the country.”
“As I said to Martin Whitfield, this is about getting the wording of the legislation right, and the bill does not make cross- border placements more likely. The point about family farms was a very good one for Roz McCall to raise. I do not have the answer for her today, but the bill provides a power for ministers to create a single bylaw—that is probably not the correct term—that would apply across the whole of Scotland. There will be consultation on that. I will ask officials to take on board the very fair point that she made to ensure that whatever is brought forward captures that issue that she has rightly raised. The Parliament will have a role in that regard. I thank all members for their constructive and thoughtful contributions.”
“As I explained, there would have been a legislative compatibility issue had we allowed consideration to run beyond the timeframe that we have. As I understand it, Roz McCall was talking about the proposed community-based secure accommodation in England. She is no doubt aware that no such accommodation is currently available. The bill provides for such facilities to be developed. If the bill is agreed and receives royal assent, the UK Government will consult on the provision of and the requirements for the facilities. In effect, we are future proofing our approach by referencing the existence of such accommodation. I give her the reassurance that this is not in any way a change in our approach.”
“16:30 Graeme Dey: I will deal first with the legitimate points that members have raised. I absolutely take on board Douglas Ross’s point about the workload of the Education, Children and Young People Committee and its having had insufficient time to deal with the issue. He noted the date of 14 May. I should explain, in case it has not been clear, that there continued to be to-ing and fro-ing between the two Governments. As I understand it, that was in part because of a clause in the bill and the fact that we were completing the work on reimagining secure care ahead of making it public. For our part in that to-ing and fro-ing, I apologise. As I said earlier, as a former Minister for Parliamentary Business, I could not agree more about the need for the Parliament to have an appropriate amount of time to do its work.”
“On his underlying point, of course there should be concerns about differences that might occur in the future, whether at a Government or a parliamentary level. I have raised that issue in a number of debates during this parliamentary session. I am less in agreement on whether this is the point at which to draw the line in the sand. I understand from Roz McCall’s contribution that the Scottish Conservatives will not oppose the motion but will merely abstain. As with our previous discussion about framework bills, a large number of questions has arisen in recent years, from both Governments and from both Parliaments, and we need to seek answers to them, because people outside the chamber are looking for them. Given the minister’s reassurance about cross- border placements, for which I thank him, I will leave my contribution at that.”
“I thank the minister for stepping in to cover the debate at this late stage. Jeremy Balfour: Martin Whitfield will be aware that the legislation that we pass does not last just for the duration of the current Government; it lasts for years to come. I am happy to accept what the minister says, but we do not know how the legislation could be used by future Governments, which might have a very different view. Is Martin Whitfield not concerned that, if there is a Scottish Government policy change, the legislation could be used in a way that would have a damaging effect on young people in Scotland? Martin Whitfield: I am grateful for Mr Balfour’s intervention. Of course, no Parliament or Government can bind future Governments.”
“Indeed, if we take the comparator of reverse cross-border placements, I believe that there are currently only three England-based children resident in Scotland under the system—this time last year, there were 20-odd. The direction of travel has been set. I understand the commissioner’s query, but, in reality, the bill changes nothing about the approach that we will continue to take in Scotland. I hope that that offers reassurance. Martin Whitfield: I thank the minister for his intervention. Unlike Roz McCall, I am reassured by that, because I think that, when the Government gives such assurances, we should be able to rely on them. I thank the minister, who I know is stepping in today for the debate on the LCM. Jeremy Balfour: Will the member give way? Martin Whitfield: I will finish my point, and then I will come to Mr Balfour.”
“There are two processes here—one relates to employment and the other, which I would like to spend a few moments discussing, relates to secure care. I echo what Roz McCall said about the current state of secure accommodation in Scotland. As of today, there is one vacant bed. No doubt we will, sadly, return to that issue after the recess. Will the minister intervene in relation to the question that has been raised by the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland about ensuring that cross-border placements are only ever used for a young person in appropriate and exceptional circumstances? Graeme Dey: I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. Let us be absolutely clear that the bill does not in any way change the approach in Scotland.”
“I will speak on behalf of Scottish Labour to various elements of the LCM. I compliment both committees that were involved in this matter—I appreciate the challenge in being able to scrutinise legislative consent memorandums. Without repeating what I said, I refer to my earlier comments about how LCMs are dealt with in the Parliament and the obligations on Governments in dealing with and facilitating the matter between them. I suggest that the Parliament could help with that, most probably in the next session. What fundamentally underpins the bill to which the legislative consent memorandum relates—the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill—is an attempt to break the link between a young person’s background and their future success, which is a goal that we share in Scotland and in Wales, Northern Ireland and England.”
“I would add to his list the work to prevent fire and rehire, sectoral collective bargaining, which has been mentioned, introducing rights for trade unions for access to workplaces, repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 and some of the provisions from the Trade Union Act 2016, and bringing together the powers of existing labour market enforcement bodies along with other powers under the secretary of state and enforcement officers. I welcome all those elements of the bill. I also welcome the approach that the Scottish Government has taken with regard to discussions with the UK Government. If the economy is to grow across the whole of the UK, with the greatest respect to Murdo Fraser’s contributions, it will be through the workers of this country. We will support the LCM this evening. 16:05”
“I thank the minister, the committee and its convener, Clare Haughey, for their contributions to the debate. As Murdo Fraser rightly pointed out, the purpose of the Employment Rights Bill is to put into legislation the Labour UK Government’s plan to make work pay—a fascinating principle that underlies the suggestion that, by working, people can afford to live. I thank Murdo Fraser for articulating many elements of the bill.”
“We are talking about the world of e-scooters and other potentially challenging products that can put our citizens at risk, and the bill is a way of protecting them. I also thank Richard Lochhead for the articulate way in which he described what I imagine may, behind the scenes, have been slightly more challenging discussions during the process of moving from the earlier legislative consent memorandums to the one that we have today. I welcome the amendment at UK level that has given the Scottish Government confidence to back the request for legislative consent. I will leave it there except to say that this may be another part of the footpath that will lead this Parliament and others to look again at legislative consent at the right time. 15:43”
“Those concerns have been expressed in this chamber and the chambers of other devolved Parliaments and, of course, at Westminster. There is also always the challenge of the interestingly named Henry VIII powers that can follow on from such framework bills. As we go forward, there is a question for Parliament about how to deal with that matter. I turn to the legislative consent motion in front of us today. I omitted to do this in the previous debate, so I will put the record straight by thanking the committees that have provided information to members about the LCMs that are before us today. We have here a bill that seeks to protect people. I thank Richard Lochhead for bringing some reality to a bill that may seem, to the millions watching us from the outside, to be strangely worded.”
“This has been a fascinating debate on the legislative consent motion because, in quite amicable terms, it has highlighted one of the challenges that this Parliament and the Scottish Government have faced regarding legislative consent motions. By common custom, the matter is one for Governments to discuss between themselves, but, following discussions earlier in this session about legislative consent motions, Parliament is now taking the opportunity to look at the issue and to see whether we might do what I could call “assisting” a more generous and even discussion between Governments about how legislative consent should be dealt with. To pick up on Murdo Fraser’s comments, there are concerns about framework bills.”
“It is right to repeal that legislation. I am more than content to discuss the matter with the member—perhaps it would be more beneficial to do so outside the chamber—as we have done in the past. I had understood that we had reached a conclusion, but perhaps times have changed. I welcome the bill, but I also welcome the minister’s approach in moving the motion. This matter requires all those who represent constituents across the United Kingdom to work together. There is an interesting discrepancy between the language used about those who are fleeing appalling circumstances in their home country and their legitimate right to travel through safe countries to seek refuge elsewhere, as identified by the United Nations, and those—”
“It is always a pleasure to follow Stephen Kerr, even when his oration—we might call it a salad of linguistic excitement—on the bill that is ploughing its way through the Westminster houses might lead to both entertainment and concern. However, members across the chamber, and politicians across the whole of the United Kingdom, often talk about taking care in the use of language when something, on the surface, offends, and I think that care should also be taken with language used when one can see an opportunity—rightly or wrongly—to stir people up or incite ideas that others might then use as false information. It is correct to say that the bill on which we are being invited to agree to the legislative consent motion contains repeal provisions relating to the Rwanda plan that Stephen Kerr talked about and to the Illegal Migration Act 2023.”
“Further to the answers that the cabinet secretary has already given, which I am grateful for, would not national guidance on the definition of “appropriate” in section 27 of the 1995 act resolve some of the challenges, because, in essence, there is a postcode lottery as to what “appropriate” means? Jenny Gilruth: I will not give Mr Whitfield a definitive answer on that today, because the existing legislation very much speaks to the statutory responsibilities of local authorities, as I have set out to Mr Macpherson. I am happy to take further advice from officials in relation to the potential for national guidance to strengthen the position, recognising the concerns that have quite rightly been raised by members today. People with Hearing and Sight Difficulties (Awareness in Schools) 7.”
“The convener wrote to the Scottish Government today posing two questions on how decisions would be made regarding which authority will exercise power and how the Scottish Government intends to facilitate scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament on the policy position in the relevant regulations. I compliment the Government and, in particular, the Minister for Parliamentary Business and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government for being able to respond today to those two outstanding matters and confirming the Scottish Government’s position on them, which in no way alters the SPPA Committee’s view that consent should be given to the LCM. 21:34”
“I give my apologies to those who are in the chamber and those who are watching, who I will detain for slightly longer before decision time because of the Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill. If they are up to date, members will have the report from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee regarding this private member’s bill, which is passing through the House of Commons and into the House of Lords and is guided by Tracy Gilbert MP, in which we recommend agreement to this LCM. However, I will ensure that everything is above board and as transparent as we want and seek it to be here in Scotland. Although the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee did not produce a report, it did have some questions on this matter.”
“Let us send a clear message that those who are entitled to benefits are entitled to them, and that those who through fraud and, on occasions, error, receive funds should seek to return those funds. However, I note that, because of the difference in approach that we have here in Scotland, those benefits under Social Security Scotland are specifically excluded by the bill. 21:09”
“In respect of today’s LCM, I thank both the committees in this Parliament that have worked on it, and the Scottish Government for the work that it has put into discussing with the UK Government the outstanding matters. In many ways, they can be simplified, but that does not detract from the importance of the fact that those benefits that are awarded in Scotland through devolved powers will be exempt from the recovery described in the bill. The UK Government has confirmed and amended the bill, and it has also given undertakings to ensure that those are not covered. To the embarrassment, I hope, of Alexander Stewart, I will echo his final words on the matter.”
“It is a pleasure to contribute to the short debate on the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill and the accompanying legislative consent motion. I thank the cabinet secretary for the clearly articulated explanation of the position with regard to the LCM, and the fact that a supplementary LCM may well be required when other areas are identified and settled on. To draw on Alexander Stewart’s contribution, it is right to remember that the intention behind the bill is to prevent and deter fraud and error. The aim is also to facilitate the recovery of funds where, through fraud and error, money has been lost from—as Alexander Stewart so rightly put it— the taxpayer. The bill is also about a focus on the DWP. On top of that, the bill will establish the public sector fraud authority, which will deal with such matters going forward.”
“Has there just been a change of steering wheel when what we needed was a navigator who knew where they wanted to go, knew why they wanted to go there and, perhaps most importantly, could take not just the Parliament but the rest of Scotland with them? 20:45”
“I thank her for our discussions before stage 3 regarding the challenge that exists between our local authorities and the independent organisation that judges and monitors teachers, because we need to get that right. I recognise that time is short, but it would be wrong for me to conclude without complimenting my newest colleague on a phenomenal first speech. He painted us something that I will leave as a challenge for everyone in the chamber: the concept of an education bus. Is the bill a simple repaint job when we had the opportunity to rebuild a vehicle that could take our children and young people into the future?”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for a lot of the discussion that there has been, but I humbly offer some advice: there is a difference between cross-party support that results in enough votes to get amendments agreed to and cross- chamber support, which is what Scotland wants and is clamouring for. I raise those two points because the proposed Promise bill will be coming this way. I hope that every member in the chamber learns lessons about how the Parliament can work with the Government in relation to the way in which amendments are dealt with, the way in which assurances are given and the way in which all that can play out, as we have seen over the past two days of stage 3. I take the opportunity to thank the cabinet secretary in relation to the amendments regarding child safety.”
“It could have made a difference to the children who are coming to the end of their first year at school, to the children who are looking at this summer holiday as the step before they start school, to those who are transitioning to high school and to those who are transitioning from the end of their broad general education and moving into whatever assessment formula we decide to throw at them in a few years. However, there are also many children who are finishing education tomorrow or on Friday. What will they look back on? When they have their own children, will they look back at the difference that the bill made to their lives? This is where I have a challenge with the procedures that we have undertaken during the bill’s passage.”
“The debate allows me the opportunity to mention a report by the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland called “This is our lives, it matters a lot.” A lot of the quotes in it relate specifically to the challenges that examination poses. The commissioner’s concluding assessment states: “The pressure, anxiety, and stress that exams are placing on children and young people is not only reducing their ability to access their right to education ... but also affecting their right to the highest attainable standard of health ... This has been long recognised, including during the National Conversation on Education in 2023.” I raise those points because of where we are. We are discussing the Education (Scotland) Bill, which provided the one opportunity during this parliamentary session to make a difference.”
“I want to go back to human rights. Articles 28 and 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child give our young people the right to an education and indicate what that education should cover. In a sense, I am following on from the previous speech by talking about what our young people are feeling and what they are experiencing. I note, with the greatest respect to the youngest and the oldest members of the Parliament, that the reality is that the school experiences that children and young people are having at the moment are so different from the school experiences that we had. Likening our experience to theirs does them a disservice.”
“On Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 222, I do not think that there is a substantial difference between her approach to the requirement on the chief inspector in relation to appointing members to the advisory council and what is in the bill as drafted. However, in the interests of cross-party consensus on the bill, which has been my approach throughout, I am happy to support Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Ms Duncan-Glancy to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 222. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I have no further comments. I wish to press amendment 222. Amendment 222 agreed to. Amendment 223 moved—[Ross Greer]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 223 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.”
“Ross Greer: Amendment 223 relates to section 35 of the bill and provides a non-exhaustive list of those with an interest in the chief inspector’s functions, and, therefore, the groups that the chief inspector will have to take account of when appointing people to the advisory council. It specifically suggests appointing representatives of students, their parents and carers, teachers and lecturers and the chief inspector’s own staff. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Pauline McNeill. She appears to have managed to press the request-to-speak button without even being in the chamber. [Laughter.] Jenny Gilruth: I was happy to commit at stage 2 to working with Mr Greer on this amendment and to now be in a position to support his amendment 223, which strengthens the provisions in this area.”
“Pam Duncan-Glancy: The strength of the advisory council lies in how accurately it mirrors the people and professions that are touched by the inspection regime, and amendment 222 would therefore tighten the duty on the chief inspector, making it clear that council membership must be genuinely representative of those affected by the inspectorate’s work: learners, parents, teachers, support staff and system leaders alike. I am supportive of amendment 223, in the name of my colleague Ross Greer, up to the sentence that refers to including the chief inspector’s own staff. We think that that goes a step too far. I will leave my comments there in the interests of time. I move amendment 222.”
“Amendment 217 disagreed to. Amendment 218 not moved. Amendment 219 moved—[Pam Duncan- Glancy]—and agreed to. Amendment 220 not moved. After section 34 Amendment 221 not moved. Section 35—Advisory Council The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to group 18, which is on the advisory council. Amendment 222, in the name of Pam Duncan- Glancy, is grouped with amendment 223. I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to speak to and move amendment 222 and speak to the other amendment in the group.”
“For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 48, Against 68, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 216 disagreed to. Amendment 217 moved—[Pam Duncan- Glancy]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 217 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 55, Against 61, Abstentions 0.”