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 5 of 17.
“We support the proposed change and recommend that the deadline be altered from 4.30 pm to 2.30 pm on any day when an amendment may be lodged, but excluding the final day. We propose that the change should apply to the daily deadline in relation to stage 2, stage 3, reconsideration stage and the budget bill. The change will enable the legislation clerks to prepare the daily list at an earlier point in the day and, consequently, it will lead to the daily list being circulated to members earlier than is the case at present. Any amendment that is lodged after the deadline will appear on the next day’s daily list. I am keen to emphasise that, as the deadline on the final day for lodging amendments will remain at 12 noon, the overall time that is available for members to lodge amendments will not change.”
“Presiding Officer, this is a fine way to finish our formal chamber business after a long day. I thank Ruth Maguire, deputy convener of the SPPA Committee, for supporting the motion. The motion is about the SPPA Committee’s first report this year—I assure Parliament that it will not be the last—which recommends standing order rule changes. The report recommends a temporary rule change on the deadline for lodging stage 2 and stage 3 amendments to public bills. It follows the committee’s consideration of a letter from the Presiding Officer, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, proposing that we consider an earlier deadline on days before the final lodging day for amendments.”
“Janie McManus will be leading that work, and I invite Mr Whitfield to engage with the opportunity to meet her. My expectation is that engagement will be led, for example, through the Scottish Assembly of Parents and Carers, which the Government funds, and, of course, through engagement with children and young people, which was a key part of the Morgan review.”
“Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child gives children and young people the right to have their voices heard in decisions that affect them. The cabinet secretary agrees that ASN data collection is varied. How will teachers, parents and children feed into the report, given that one of its crucial tasks is to look at the experience of delivery in schools? Jenny Gilruth: As I set out, with regard to data, the review will look at existing categories in the recording of ASN. It will also look at the clear and concise national guidance, which we need to look at adapting, and it will explore the feasibility of having a national staged intervention model. I agree with Mr Whitfield that all of that work requires consultation and engagement.”
“We will vote for the principles of the bill, but let me be clear to the Scottish Government: it must stop wasting time. In 2016, Nicola Sturgeon said: “children don’t need a system that just stops things happening to them—they need one that makes things happen for them. A system that ... gives them a sense of family, of belonging and of love. My view is simple—every young person deserves to be loved.” Those were incredibly powerful words then, as they are now. That is the Promise. Today, I call on the Scottish Government to match those words with deeds. We must make rights actionable, advocacy universal, decisions timely and love practical. Childhood is passing for these 11,844 children while this Government delays. If we are to keep the Promise, Scotland needs to do a lot better. 16:49”
“We need to bring provisions within the scope of the 2024 act and mitigate rights risks; ensure that all legislation is in scope and compatible; embed early and independent universal advocacy; guarantee continuity of chair and inquisitorial hearings; introduce statutory timetables of three months for grounds and permanence, aligned to infants’ needs; remove “identifying” from guidance to protect privacy; put family group decision making on a statutory footing; strengthen kinship care; extend continuing care to 26; confirm the requirement of corporate parenting to fulfil the legal duties that already exist under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014; and retain profit limitation with transparency and enforcement.”
“Her reply, which was sent only two days ago, promised to “revert more fully after Stage 1.” I think that we have only a week before stage 2 begins. That is the language of delay. After months of engagement, we have no timetable, no legislative plan and no clarity on bringing provisions within the scope of the 2024 act. Children need action, not acknowledgement—and they need that through the bill. What must happen now? Stage 2 must be bold.”
“The Promise Scotland calls the bill “an essential step” but warns that it cannot be the final step. It demands universal advocacy, continuity of chairs, statutory timetables and a right to return to care. Children First highlights missed opportunities on family group decision making and kinship care, which has been mentioned. NSPCC Scotland warns that, without statutory timescales and specialist decision making, infants’ rights will continue to be breached. Plan 24-30 sets out what must be done, yet milestones slip while rhetoric holds. Scotland’s children cannot live on the promise of things happening “in due course.” Nicola Sturgeon, in her fine contribution, spoke about working together. I wrote to the minister in November last year, having met in October, with constructive proposals.”
“The Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland is clear that significant parts of the bill fall outside the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024, which is contrary to the assurance of this SNP Government that such opportunities would not be missed. Children are being left unable to challenge decisions under UNCRC requirements. There are risks to hearings under article 6 of the European convention on human rights and under article 40 of the UNCRC, particularly where offence grounds or deprivation of liberty are in play. Removing the duty to attend might reduce participation, especially for disabled children. Those are not drafting quirks; they are rights interferences. Stakeholders have been clear.”
“These are not abstractions; these are children and young people who should have an equal right to develop their talents, ability and motivation and to be able to make something of themselves. They are the lived measure of whether Scotland is keeping its Promise. The minister calls the bill, as shorthand, the Promise bill. It should be, but it is not. Words matter. The words of the Promise demanded a system that was rooted in love, respect and rights—and all by 2030. Yet, midway to that date, the Government has introduced a bill that tinkers but does not transform; that reorganises but does not repair; and that states that it will improve the experience of cared-for children but does not do so. The bill, which is presented as rights based, fails fundamental tests of children’s rights.”
“It is right that we should begin with children. As John F Kennedy said: “Not every child has an equal talent or an equal ability or equal motivation, but they should have the equal right to develop their talent and their ability and their motivation, to make something of themselves”. The children we are talking about are those with care experience. According to last year’s data, 11,844 children are looked after by the state in Scotland. More than half—54 per cent—come from the 20 per cent most deprived areas. When young people leave care, only 48 per cent of those eligible receive aftercare, despite the law’s intent that support should follow them into adulthood.”
“The Scottish Government committed to exploring the issue in the Promise implementation plan, and I thank The Promise Scotland and its legal consultant, Melanie Barbour KC, for the work that they have undertaken to set out how we might streamline the legislative framework. Yesterday, I announced that Professor Kenneth Norrie will lead an independent review of the legislative landscape in order to simplify and improve it for the benefit of children, their families and the professionals who support them. Professor Norrie will work in partnership with CELCIS, and I expect them to consider points that were made at stage 1, and for the review to report in 12 months’ time, in order to give the next Parliament and Government time to legislate further in this area, if that is required.”
“The minister spoke of the importance of lived experience and children sharing their stories. Will she share with us what she has heard from young people that concerns her most about the bill and its intended direction? Natalie Don-Innes: That is exactly what I intend to do. On almost every visit and in almost every interaction that I have had with a child, young adult or family, I have heard how challenging it can be to access the right support at the right time and how difficult it is to interpret the law around the care journey. Stakeholders and partners have concerns about the legislative landscape being cluttered and difficult for people to navigate and about it being difficult for people to know what their rights and entitlements are and what the duties and obligations on public agencies are.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I advise the chamber that, if I am to get in later supplementary questions, the questions will need to be brief, as will the responses. Creative Scotland Review 5.”
“The United Kingdom Government has said that the UK and EU did not agree at the summit, nor as part of the deal, to home fee status for EU students. That would have been detrimental to students at Scottish universities. Students who participate in Erasmus+ placements are exempt from tuition and registration fees at their host institutions, but they may still be required to pay fees at their home institutions. It is important to understand that. However, it should be clear to everybody that there is no substitute for the Erasmus+ scheme. That has now been acknowledged by Martin Whitfield’s colleagues in the UK Government, and we can agree on the point that Erasmus+ is the best way forward for students in Scotland and for European students who want to come to institutions here.”
“Gavin Donoghue, the chief executive of Colleges Scotland, said in a statement that “It’s very welcome that the Erasmus student exchange programme will be returning in 2027.” That point was echoed today by the cabinet secretary. However, is he personally disappointed that the Scottish National Party Scottish Government could not fill the gap as it had promised to do, unlike what was done in Wales? Angus Robertson: We looked closely at the Welsh scheme and came to the conclusion that there was no substitute for Erasmus. That is why we pushed so hard for the Erasmus+ scheme to be reintroduced. It might be of interest to Martin Whitfield and other members if I share a bit of information that I think is relevant.”
“The committee considered that any objective reading of the letter, covering emails and social media post would be that there was, at the very least, an intention to make a complaint about the conduct of Maggie Chapman. For those reasons, the committee agreed with the commissioner’s conclusion that Ash Regan’s conduct in posting her letter to the Presiding Officer on social media constitutes a breach of section 9.1 of the code of conduct. The purpose of the provision at section 9.1 of the code is to protect the integrity of the system for investigation and consideration of complaints about MSP conduct, which is a matter to which the effective conduct of the commissioner’s investigations and the position of all those involved in the complaints process are relevant.”
“In reaching its decision, the committee considered the terms of Ash Regan’s letter to the Presiding Officer, Ash Regan’s subsequent social media post, the commissioner’s report and representations made to both the commissioner and the committee by Ash Regan. The committee was not persuaded by the proposition set forth by Ash Regan that she did not intend to make a complaint. The letter to the Presiding Officer includes statements such as “formally raising concerns” and “respectfully request that this matter be considered by the relevant parliamentary authorities”. The committee further noted that email correspondence to the Presiding Officer and to the clerks of the committee referenced a “formal complaint”.”
“The complaint was that Ash Regan had breached section 9.1 of the code by disclosing details of her complaint or intention to complain about Maggie Chapman MSP prior to lodging a complaint with the commissioner. That was on the basis of a social media post in respect of a letter that Ash Regan sent to you, Presiding Officer, on 22 April 2025. The committee considered carefully the commissioner’s report, representations by and on behalf of Ash Regan and the terms of the code of conduct. Full details of our consideration are set out in our report to the Parliament, which is referenced in the motion. The committee was unanimous in its decisions and conclusions.”
“As convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, I have the responsibility of lodging and speaking to motions seeking the Parliament’s agreement to the committee’s recommendation of a sanction when the committee has concluded that a breach of the code of conduct has occurred and that a sanction for that breach would be appropriate. The code of conduct sets out the rules that the Parliament has agreed should apply to all MSPs in carrying out their parliamentary duties. It also sets out the processes for enforcing the code in the event that a complaint is made about our compliance with the rules. Over three meetings in December 2025, the committee considered a report submitted to it by the Commissioner for Ethical Standards in Public Life in Scotland following an investigation of a complaint about Ash Regan MSP.”
“We can bandy statistics and numbers around, but the reality is that there are individuals in our communities who cannot get justice because they cannot afford it and they cannot get civil legal aid. They are looking at society and asking what the point is for them. That is where this fundamental question will become a crisis because, if people continue to lose confidence in the justice system, they will lose confidence in civil society. The step to prevent that is to do what this Government should have done over the past two decades: improve access to justice. The way to do that is through civil legal aid. The Presiding Officer: I call Siobhian Brown. Siobhian Brown: Presiding Officer, this debate has shown— The Presiding Officer: My apologies, minister. I call Sharon Dowey. 15:25”
“On public interest litigation—which, again, was raised by my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy—at the end of the day, regulation 15 can be reformed. The Government agrees in principle, but defers it to “longer-term ... reform”. Meanwhile, systematic injustices remain unchallenged. Liam McArthur: I thank Martin Whitfield for taking an intervention, and I agree whole-heartedly with the points that he is making. Does he accept that the longer that the patterns of delivery remain in place and the further that reform is pushed down the road, the more difficult it will be to turn the situation around, whether in terms of geographic deserts or among particular groups such as women’s aid, which are finding such problems at the moment? Martin Whitfield: I am very grateful for the intervention, because that is absolutely right—it is at the heart of this.”
“The Government’s response is a fee review mechanism group, yet there is no commitment to increasing the fees, despite the fact that every day of delay deepens that access gap. The committee has urged the reform of eligibility thresholds, which have been unchanged since 2011. The Government admits that those thresholds are outdated but offers only “future” consideration. Survivors of domestic abuse cannot wait for another session, and homeless families cannot wait for another consultation, because justice delayed is justice denied. The minister has talked about the rising expenditure on legal aid, and I welcome that, but here is another reality: in 2014-15, there were 1,067 civil legal aid solicitors; in 2023-24, there were just 791. More money spent does not mean better access when the system is broken in the way that it is.”
“After years during which the SNP Government has been in power, legal aid has constantly been pushed further and further down the line, and we are now, as we have heard, at the point of absolute crisis, given that an expert group such as Grampian Women’s Aid is required to make 50 or 60 phone calls to find a legal aid solicitor. It is not randomly choosing people out of the old “Yellow Pages”. It knows the law firms that deal in legal aid and is going specifically to those, in ever wider areas, to try to find support for—as others have, rightly, pointed out—some of the most vulnerable individuals in society. Solicitors are leaving legal aid work because the fees remain unsustainable.”
“Three of the four areas that are dealt with in the draft regulations relate to children and the children’s hearings system, which is undergoing massive change; we are unsure what it will look like in the end. Other issues that could have been dealt with include having easier access to legal aid for homeless people and women who face domestic violence. The rates could also have been dealt with. However, the Government has chosen not to do so, describing that issue as needing primary legislation, when, with the greatest respect, it does not.”
“The shocking picture of the legal aid deserts has been mentioned by Marie McNair and by my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy with regard to those with a disability facing a lack of access to justice because of the lack of legal aid, and there were powerful contributions from Ariane Burgess and Liam McArthur about the situation in rural and island communities. Those challenges are important. The report calls for immediate action on the uplifting of fees, a reduction in bureaucracy and the widening of the eligibility thresholds. What has the Government delivered but promises, consultations and deferrals? Regulations were laid in December 2025 to simplify the judicare model, but that simplification will not solve the crisis of capacity.”
“Presiding Officer, I extend, as others have, the wishes of the new year to you and to other members in the chamber. This has been a fascinating debate, and could perhaps have merited more time. We have heard unanimity of support for the excellent report from the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee and the call for change. It cannot be acceptable that people’s capacity to exercise their legal right to realise their human rights is so severely compromised. The committee’s report is unequivocal.”
“We will continue to work with the committee, SLAB and stakeholders to deliver a system that is fair, sustainable and fit for the future, upholds equality, protects human rights and ensures access to justice. 14:44”
“The Scottish Legal Aid Board is a key partner in legal aid reform, and it has provided a response to the committee’s report that outlines some of the work that it is taking forward, independently of the Scottish Government and in collaboration with the Law Society of Scotland, to make improvements. In the longer term, we want SLAB’s grant funding powers to be used to support more developmental areas of work. That includes new ways of managing demand for assistance; better connecting people from marginalised communities to legal aid support; embedding digital approaches in advice delivery and support for advisers; and using grants to build capacity. Reform is not a single act but an on-going process.”
“That reform will enable third sector organisations to deliver reserved legal services, such as court representation, without needing to rely on external legal firms. That provision is anticipated to be included in the commencement order that is to be laid before the Scottish Parliament next month. In addition, we have introduced non-means- tested legal aid for families who are involved in fatal accident inquiries following deaths in custody. Legal aid must be accessible to those who need it most, and I am pleased to inform the chamber that, between April and December last year, 22 families have received civil legal aid due to that new measure. We continue to support survivors of domestic abuse through targeted funding and pilot projects. Those measures reflect our commitment to trauma-informed service delivery and inclusive access.”
“However, I recognise that challenges remain, so we are considering actions to address those specifically. We are developing a new legal aid traineeship fund to attract new entrants and to increase capacity. The fund will run for another two years from 2026, and I have committed to fund up to 20 traineeships initially. We are taking on board the lessons learned from the first fund to develop the new scheme, including potential targeting of specific geographic areas and legal aid types. We are also supporting initiatives under the Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2025, which will allow charities and law centres to directly employ solicitors, expanding access to justice for vulnerable people and communities.”
“The changes will reduce complexity, support early resolution and guarantee timely representation for those who are most in need. In addition, and importantly, we committed to and have established the independent fee review mechanism group to examine what changes are needed to create a legal assistance system for the 21st century. The group will play a crucial role in shaping a fair and sustainable fee structure that supports access to justice and the viability of legal aid work. The committee’s report highlighted concerns about geographic and subject matter gaps. Although the number of civil legal aid solicitors has declined over the past decade, the average number of grants per solicitor has increased, showing a concentrated and more active cohort.”
“I welcome the draft Scottish statutory instrument that was laid towards the end of December. Does the minister feel that that goes as far as is recommended in this excellent committee report, particularly in relation to women who are facing domestic violence and people who are facing homelessness? It is in those areas that people want change to be speeded up. Siobhian Brown: More than 18 months ago, I committed to considering what non-primary legislation we could introduce. That work is being done in consultation with the Scottish Legal Aid Board and the Law Society of Scotland. In the meantime, we have taken forward what we can. However, I take the member’s point, and I will be referring to the issue later in my speech.”
“The UK Government said that the Barnett formula would be applied to future marine funding, claiming that that better respects the devolution settlement. That is nonsense. It is entirely disingenuous, and the UK Government is fully aware that we did not support the change. In fact, it was implemented without any meaningful engagement or consultation with us at all. We have always been clear that applying a population-based model to fisheries funding fails to recognise Scotland’s greater share of the UK seas and significantly penalises our fishing industry. It also fails to recognise the industry’s significant contribution, through taxation, to the UK”
“Since the UK Government made its announcement, team Scotland, fishing stakeholders and Scottish ministers have been asking UK ministers to get round the table for a meaningful discussion on a different way forward for the fund that treats our fishing industry with the respect that it deserves. I am sincerely disappointed that, to date, UK ministers have stopped short of committing to that. Instead, they have written to us, explaining their flawed funding methodology. In their letter, UK ministers said that the reason for applying the Barnett formula to the fishing and coastal growth fund is a change in His Majesty’s Treasury’s statement of funding policy, which removed the ring-fenced funding from marine funding and baselined the funding allocation from 2024-25.”
“Instead, UK ministers decided, without any discussion or consultation in their methodology, to use a population-based calculation that short-changes fisher folk in Scotland. The UK Government claims to care about devolution, but it completely ignored Scotland in its decision—it did not even give us the opportunity for meaningful discussion—and it is our fishing and coastal communities that will suffer. Stephen Kerr: Will the minister give way? Jim Fairlie: No, I will not. Make no mistake: the decision was made in London, and it treats Scotland as an afterthought.”
“When we were in the EU, Scotland received 46 per cent of the UK fisheries funding and delivery of the funding was devolved, so it is inaccurate to say that, if something is devolved, the Barnett formula must be applied. There has been a purely political decision by the UK Government, which clearly does not understand—or, indeed, care about—our iconic fishing industry. Stephen Kerr: Will the minister give way again? Jim Fairlie: Not at this time. On our engagement with the UK Government ahead of its announcement about the fund, we were clear that we expected the funding approach to continue to be based on the size of our industry and that Scotland would receive the full 46 per cent of the fund.”
“The decision is insulting to our vital fishing industry and coastal communities, and it demonstrates an incredible lack of care by an out- of-touch UK Government. Fighting for a fairer funding allocation for Scotland is absolutely critical. The attempt to blame devolved Governments for the unfair allocation, claiming that asking for delivery of the fund to be devolved has somehow triggered the application of the Barnett formula, is insulting to the intelligence of fisher folk. It fundamentally misunderstands how fishing funding has been treated by precedent, and I am glad that that has been recognised in the chamber by Alasdair Allan.”
“Will the minster give way? Jim Fairlie: I will take the member’s point in a second. I tried to talk to Dame Angela Eagle about this very point in an interministerial group meeting, but it was utterly dismissed and passed over: “Move on, Mr Fairlie. There’s nothing to see here.” Martin Whitfield: I am grateful to the minister for taking this intervention and for his kind compliments on my attending the debate—which is interesting in itself. Is what Rhoda Grant said incorrect? Did you not ask for the funding allocation to be devolved, with the Barnett formula as the calculator? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Jim Fairlie: I say to Mr Whitfield what I said to Mr Kerr: patience.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Contract (Formation and Remedies) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. Sentencing Bill”
“Mr Whitfield wants a clarification of what engagement is happening with stakeholders. My understanding is that it is on-going, but I will write to him with more detail on that. Members will be aware that the bill does not affect consumer protections or the protections that are laid out in reserved law. That is expressly stated in section 23 of the bill. It is clear from the overwhelming majority of stakeholders who submitted evidence at stage 1, and from what has been said in the debate, that reform is needed. The bill will modernise the law and make it more accessible and fit for purpose. There are matters to consider, though, and I look forward to working with the committee on those. I ask Parliament to support the general principles of the bill. Merry Christmas to everyone.”
“I do not feel that guidance from the Scottish Government is needed, which I understood was the majority view that was heard by the committee. The explanatory notes, together with the bill, provide a clear and accessible explanation of what the provisions do. Nevertheless, I have listened to the committee and will write to stakeholders for more information. I will consider the matter further and keep the committee updated. Martin Whitfield: On the point about the inequality of bargaining power, will the Government reach out to stakeholders to seek their views on whether there is a challenge in the fact that contractors can opt out of this, which may cause problems further down the line? Siobhian Brown: Yes, and I was going to confirm to Katy Clark that we will be engaging with all stakeholders ahead of stage 2.”
“Contracts are used widely, and it would be a significant undertaking to publish and maintain guidance that accommodates the breadth of purposes to which contracts are put. For example, the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland has suggested that guidance be prepared for the construction sector, but any such guidance would be of limited value because the standard form contracts for the industry would take precedence over the default rules in the bill. Katy Clark: Would the minister write to the committee in more detail as the bill progresses, outlining sector-specific areas where it is believed that guidance might be helpful? Siobhian Brown: I was just about to get to that. I am confident that the bill will make the law more accessible and legally certain than it is at present.”
“An automatically generated out-of-office response may make it unreasonable to expect the addressee to be able to obtain access to a notification without delay, and the party sending the notification can forward it to a different email address, if known, pick up the phone or speak to someone. It is, of course, open to parties to make alternative provision during their negotiation, and the bill allows for that. As members have said, this reform is important. In my MSP capacity, I recently visited Royal Mail in Prestwick and heard first hand all the challenges that it faces. Our hard-working postmen all felt demoralised because all they wanted to do was to deliver for the community, yet post was not being delivered and parcels were being prioritised. I will touch on Katy Clark’s comments on the need for guidance.”
“I will touch on a few issues that have been raised today. On electronic communication, section 13 provides a general principle on when a notification, such as an acceptance, reaches another party. The provision is deliberately broad and flexible because it has to work in a wide range of circumstances and be capable of application to future technologies. I am pleased that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee agrees with the approach that is taken in section 13. Section 13(4) gives a non-exhaustive list of examples in which it might be considered that a notification has reached the other party. However, in individual cases, that must be measured against the general rule in section 13(3).”
“I have nothing more to add other than to wish everybody a very merry Christmas and a happy new year when it comes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Siobhian Brown to close on behalf of the Scottish Government. You have four minutes. 13:54 Siobhian Brown: I thank everyone who has contributed to this afternoon’s debate. I repeat my thanks to the Scottish Law Commission for the work that has gone into this project and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for its work in scrutinising the bill. Contract law is important to our everyday economic life, and the bill will modernise important parts of the Scots law of contract while clearing up doubts that have arisen over a few years. It is clear from today’s debate that there is widespread support for the general principles of the bill.”
“You have up to four minutes. 13:53 Roz McCall: I apologise once again for my earlier error on timing, Presiding Officer. I will take even less time in this speech. It was remiss of me not to put on the record my kind thanks to Lady Paton in my opening remarks, so I would like to echo the thanks that other colleagues have expressed. The Conservatives will support the bill at stage 1, and we will give due consideration to the subsequent stages, making sure that the stakeholders are still supportive as we go through the process. It has been said that this might be a bill that many people would not find sexy—I think that that is one way to put it—but it is nevertheless important and concerns something that everybody can get behind. We will see that as we move forward.”
“It leaves areas untouched with regard to interpretation, penalty clauses and what is commonly called the battle of the forms. I hope that the Government will signal that, at stage 2, it will lodge amendments on retention that reflect the case law. I look forward to seeing those. I close by quoting an authority who is germane to the purposes today. When the commission's report was published, Professor Hector MacQueen said: “when implemented this report will do much to remove current uncertainties as well as simplifying and modernising the law.” That is the destination. Our task in Parliament is to not lose sight of the urgent human challenges that also require the Parliament’s attention and to move the bill forward as swiftly as possible. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Roz McCall to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.”
“I say gently to the committee’s convener that, although the bill has not attracted mass interest so far, we can be certain that, if mistakes were made and legislation that had unforeseen consequences was created, people would scream and shout. The committee does incredibly powerful work. It may go unnoticed, but that is perhaps one of the virtues of its success. On the speeches that we have heard today, I thank Bill Kidd, if only for getting “fabbydoo” into the Official Report again—well done. I also thank Oliver Mundell for his speech. I noted his concern that I might speak for 30 minutes, but I would never impinge on the patience of the Presiding Officers by ignoring their indication of the length of time that we have to speak. We recognise that the bill is not a complete codification.”
“He said: “It is quite sensible to … provide clear backstops” and that “anything that is done to codify, simplify or clarify the law and to make it easier for us as laypeople to understand has to be a good thing.”—[Official Report, Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, 25 November 2025; c 7.] I echo that view. Similarly, the Law Society of Scotland noted that, although it may be overstating matters to argue that Scots contract law needs reform, a new statutory regime has the potential to offer benefits by providing rules that are usable without deep recourse to case law and academic sources, which we have heard about today. I thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for its phenomenal work with regard to this and other commission reports.”