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 7 of 17.
“They remain an afterthought. The committee rightly expressed deep disappointment that the recommendations from the previous review on disabled student support have been ignored. The Government’s answer is another consultation—no timeline for action and no concrete improvement, just more delay. The lived experience of our people backs up what I have set out. In relation to their school, one young person said to the committee: “I felt that they were pushing me towards college, and were negative about my desire to go to university ... They didn’t give me information about ... open days. I didn’t get the support that I needed.” Another young person said that the system for disabled students was “exhausting” and “fragmented”, with poor co-ordination between their school and colleges and universities.”
“The interim target of 18 per cent by 2026 is now at serious risk of being missed. Ministers admit that, and I am grateful for that, but they offer little more than consultation and warm words. Where is the urgency? Where is the leadership? Let us consider students. Getting them through the door is only part of the job; keeping them there is essential. They need to be supported to succeed. That is crucial. However, the retention rate for SIMD20 students has fallen to 83.1 per cent, which is the lowest figure since 2014-15. The trend is the same for care-experienced students. Access without success is failure. However, the Government’s response is to engage with the Scottish Funding Council and to point to mental health plans that have been in place for years while the retention rate has fallen. Let us consider disabled students.”
“Like other members, I thank the Education, Children and Young People Committee, those who support it and those who contributed to this important report. The SNP Government loves to talk about fairness and opportunity—we heard that again in this debate—but, when it comes to widening access to higher education, I am afraid that such rhetoric rings hollow. Its response to the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s report on widening access shows that the Government is failing to deliver. Let us discuss facts. I will pick a different period of time to show where we are today. The trajectory on access has flattened. The proportion of students from the 20 per cent most deprived areas who go to university sits at 16.3 per cent, down from 16.7 per cent in 2020-21.”
“I look forward to hearing from committee colleagues and other members during the debate, and to hearing from the minister about the measures that the Scottish Government can take to ensure that access to education and institutions is widened. I commend our report. I move, That the Parliament notes the findings and recommendations in the Education, Children and Young People Committee’s 5th Report, 2025 (Session 6), Widening access to higher education inquiry (SP Paper 782). The Deputy Presiding Officer: We have a little bit of time in hand, so members will certainly get back the time for any interventions. I call Ben Macpherson. Minister, you have around eight minutes, please. 15:10”
“The committee is frustrated at the lack of change, or the urgency to make change, for the sector, and we share the concerns about the issues that colleges up and down the country are facing and about the serious and significant risk to the financial future of some of our colleges. Given the importance of the widening access agenda, the loss of colleges would not only affect the communities that they serve but undermine the drive to widen access to opportunities, including degree-level study nationally. I am grateful for the time in the chamber today for our committee report to be fully debated and discussed.”
“It is important to recognise the crucial role that colleges play in widening access to university, via articulation, for students from SIMD 20 backgrounds, disabled students, care-experienced students, black and minority ethnic students and adult learners. However, the committee also recognises the importance of college education in its own right. During this parliamentary session, the committee has conducted an inquiry on colleges and, in recent years, has focused much of its pre- budget scrutiny on the sector. For a number of years, our committee has expressed concern about the financial sustainability of Scotland’s colleges and has made numerous recommendations to the Scottish Government on how those financial challenges should be addressed.”
“Although we appreciate that there are potential barriers in relation to data sharing more widely, we urged the Scottish Government to look into the challenges and to confirm whether legislation was required to address them. The committee subsequently urged the Scottish Government to find a vehicle to allow for the necessary statutory measures, so we welcome the minister’s amendment at stage 2 of the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill, which seeks to address those barriers. We raised the issue in our report and, very quickly, the Government and the minister found a solution. There are a number of other issues that I am sure that committee members and others will address. I want to finish on the subject of colleges.”
“We therefore recommended that the Scottish Government should work with stakeholders and the commissioner to introduce a basket of measures to identify person-centred characteristics for widening access measures. I want to discuss free school meals data. The committee heard about the on-going work in relation to a pilot scheme in the north-east on the use of free school meals data, in addition to the SIMD, as a means of identifying students who are eligible for widening access measures. In its submission to the committee, Robert Gordon University said that the lack of legislation had made implementing data-sharing arrangements difficult.”
“Although it is valuable and helpful at a national level, the SIMD is an area-based measure that does not capture individual circumstances. For example, it will not capture the circumstances of someone who is living in poverty in an otherwise affluent area. Although the commissioner for fair access highlighted the continued need for a central measure of progress, he and many other witnesses advocated using a basket of indicators, including free school meals data, to help to identify individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. The committee noted the usefulness of the SIMD as a widening access measure, but we recognised its limitations, particularly in relation to rural areas.”
“We know what the challenges are. We just want a solution. It is only the Scottish Government that is preventing the adoption of a unique learner number. That is why I was encouraged by the fact that back-bench members of the Government party supported the recommendation, and I hope that the new minister and the Government listen not only to Opposition politicians but to the parties represented on our committee, whose unanimous view was that a unique learner number is needed. There are a number of other issues that I want to focus on. We looked at the measures relating to the eligibility for, and the progress on, widening access initiatives. Currently, we use the Scottish index of multiple deprivation but, during the inquiry, the committee heard about the limitations on its ability to identify all the students who might need support.”
“I felt that it was disrespectful to the committee for a minister not to have come prepared to answer on an issue that it was clear would come up. Our report was agreed to unanimously by every party in the Parliament. I stress that there was no dissent on the report as a whole or on our recommendation on a unique learner number. We recommended that the Scottish Government should commit to the introduction of a unique learner number and outline how that would be achieved. Sadly, in its response, the Scottish Government said: “Whilst we recognise the potential long-term benefits of a Unique Learner Number ... it is a wide-ranging issue requiring careful consideration” because it is “complex ... inherently cross-cutting in nature, and potentially involves sharing the personal, sensitive data of millions of individuals.” We all know that.”
“The committee was extremely disappointed in the apparent lack of progress and that the Scottish Government has said that a unique learner number will not be introduced in the short term or even in the medium term, despite that being recommended by the commission almost a decade ago. The committee was also disappointed that the Scottish Government was unable to provide any indicative costs for the introduction of a unique learner number, or even to confirm whether legislation would be required. When the current minister’s predecessor appeared before the committee, he told us that he had viewed all the other evidence, in which a unique learner number had come up time and time again, but when questions were put to him about whether legislation was needed and how much it would cost, he had no idea.”
“I have heard the unique learner number described as a “bureaucratic nicety”. Does Douglas Ross agree that it is far from that and that it would be a fundamental cornerstone in data retention and understanding what is happening in our schools? Douglas Ross: I agree with Martin Whitfield on that point, as does almost everyone who gave evidence to our committee. There was almost unanimous support, not just in the few weeks in which we took evidence, nor just in the written submissions, but going back year after year to the report from the original commission in 2016. Why, at the end of 2025, are we still calling for the introduction of a unique learner number?”
“Will the review that the minister is talking about capture an explanation as to why working parents are finding the funded hours inflexible? Natalie Don-Innes: As I said in response to James Dornan, the interim evaluation that we published in 2024 showed promising signs that the expansion was delivering improvements in flexibility. However, as I have said, the overall evaluation will be published in the new year. Of course, we will need to consider our next steps to ensure that our offer is working for all families, if it flags important issues such the one that Mr Whitfield has raised.”
“We do it for teachers, so why can we not do it in health? Ben Macpherson: In relation to the way in which training is provided, regardless of the profession, there is engagement between training providers and the industries or services that take on and develop those people. As I said, workforce planning is part of the wider skills planning that the Government is undertaking, executing and implementing. I look forward to giving Martin Whitfield and other members of the Parliament updates in due course. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question 3 has been withdrawn. Education (Kindergarten Phase) 4.”
“Putting our head in the sand to avoid facing those failings is not acceptable. I must address the remarks made by the cabinet secretary, Angela Constance, when she told us in the chamber that Professor Jay was against the review and then, sadly, ducked the scrutiny when that turned out to be false.”
“That must be noted, but it is not an excuse for failing those who have suffered abuse and manipulation at the hands of strangers or for not addressing the lifelong challenges that have been caused by the abuse that young people have faced. Nor does that mean that we should, in any way, move our eyes away from supporting young people and mothers who face such abuse within families. Here we are during the 16 days of action, and we had a very powerful debate about that yesterday. Those people absolutely deserve and require the support of the Parliament and the Scottish Government. I return to the subject matter of today’s motion and to the facts that have led to it being lodged. There are heart-wrenching examples of abuse of children who were meant to be protected by a system but were let down and then cast aside by it.”
“Those who are watching the Parliament from outside still have many questions that need to be answered, so it is disappointing that it has taken an Opposition debate to get the Government to move its position. I find it very challenging, as was said earlier, to think why it has taken so long to reach what most mums, dads, brothers and sisters would have thought would be the most obvious answer. There has been a failing that needs to be looked into. I thank the cabinet secretary for drawing on global statistics regarding the sexual abuse that young people face. Sadly, the majority of such abuse is faced within the family.”
“Indeed, as my Scottish Labour colleague Joani Reid MP noted, “Scottish government ministers were willing to quote” Professor Jay “as the final word in the argument when they mistakenly thought she was opposed to an independent investigation, and so they would be nothing more than hypocrites if they failed to act now.” To be fair, based on the cabinet secretary’s opening speech, the Government is starting to act now. However, unfortunately, it appears that we will need to wait until some point before Christmas before we get a statement that will allow us to dig into the challenges relating to data and who will take control. I welcome the appointment of Professor Jay as the independent chair of the strategic group. That represents a very sensible move forward.”
“It is a pleasure—unfortunately—to take part in the debate and to see how far the Scottish Government has moved. I thank the previous speaker for articulating the abhorrent history of the issue and the abhorrent nature of the experiences that our young people have had to face. That has led us to discussing the subject today, and I note the hard work that has been done by people outside the Parliament to provide support when that has been necessary. In their most recent comments, Professor Alexis Jay and the NSPCC are unequivocal about the need for an independent review of child exploitation.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking in response to reports that private residential childcare providers are making an estimated £10 million a year in profit from publicly funded contracts. (S6T-02777)”
“A bit like Mr Ross, I am seeking a guarantee from the minister—if he can give it. I do not think that the provision needs to be in the bill. However, local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities need to know from the Parliament—and, in particular, from the Government—that they will not be in financial difficulty due to any administration costs as a result of the decision that is made tonight. I move amendment 1.”
“Before I start, I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and to members for my lateness in arriving for an earlier matter. Does the member agree that it is interesting that this provision did not appear in the initial draft of the bill, which might be unusual, and that neither was there a clear and categorical assurance from the Scottish Government in the bill paperwork that we received that it would accept responsibility for councils’ financial indebtedness? Jeremy Balfour: I absolutely agree with the member; that is a helpful intervention. What I am looking for tonight—which the minister did not give yesterday, when I raised the issue when he was answering questions—is some assurance that the Government will meet the reasonable costs of a local authority if it incurs extra costs as a result of the bill becoming legislation.”
“If the Government has nothing to hide and there is nothing more to reveal about the process of the flawed legislation being identified, the matter coming to the Government, then coming to the chamber and then being rectified, there is no reason not to support the amendments. The ministers, who are both on the front bench right now, have, over the past two days, promised openness and transparency. They can deliver that by supporting these amendments. If ministers want the issue to go away, it will go away by their being open and transparent and providing that information. I hope that they will support the amendments in my name.”
“That is why we are here today—to resolve the issue. Douglas Ross: We are here today to solve a problem caused by the Government with its legislation—and officials. I am sure that some officials will be holding up their hands and saying, “We didn’t do the right thing here.” That is why we have to get to the bottom of the advice that the Government is getting. I am now more troubled, during the debate on my amendments, about the advice that the Government is getting, because it turns out that pretty crucial advice came in on the same day as the stage 1 debate. I hope that that reinforces the need for these amendments and for full transparency.”
“Government members on the back benches might now pause to think, “Is it right that it comes to the stage 1 debate before our ministers know the true timeframe of the issue?” I find that— Ivan McKee: Will the member give way? Douglas Ross: I was about to finish, but I will happily give way. Ivan McKee: I do not know why Douglas Ross keeps digging this hole, because the reality is that, as I have explained clearly, the implications of the issue were realised only in August, and that is when ministers were informed. There was a dialogue with a council earlier about an issue that it was querying. The query came to the Scottish Government and it was treated as a routine query, because the implications of it were not realised. It was only when Government officials realised the implications of the issue that ministers were informed.”
“It took a lot of teasing out from the minister, but we now have confirmation that, just yesterday, the Government found out that months of research had been done by its officials, dating back to 23 June. That is troubling for me as a legislator who is being asked by the Government to trust it and to support its legislation, because even in the development of a piece of emergency legislation, the Government did not have all the details. Not just in the three-week period that it needed to notify the convener, in her role as Presiding Officer, and not just in the period when it was speaking about the issue with other parties, but right up to the point of the stage 1 debate, the Government did not know about it.”
“Someone has said to the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, “Mr Dey, you responded to the intervention from Mr Ross by saying August, but August is not the correct date.” Is the Government now confirming that yesterday was the first time that it was made aware of the inquiry that was made of the Scottish Government on 23 June? Ivan McKee: Yes, that is correct. As I made very clear to Mr Ross, when that inquiry was received, it was a query about a situation that a council wanted clarification on. Government officials worked through that and, when they realised the implications of it, which were not realised in June, they informed ministers of the situation. Douglas Ross: We got there.”
“The implications of that, which led to our having to take the bill through, were not realised by Government officials until much later, when they processed that query and understood the implications. That took them quite some time. There was an understanding of what we are talking about today, and its implications became apparent, only later, when ministers were informed in August. 15:00 Douglas Ross: I know all of that. What I do not know is when ministers became aware that their opinion, which they expressed to other political parties, that the issue was highlighted to the Government in August was, in fact, incorrect.”
“So, on 23 June, the Government received an issue; on 21 August, ministers knew about it. Then, in November, when preparing for the bill, ministers told Opposition parties and, potentially, the Presiding Officer that August was when they first became aware of the issue. However, during the course of the debate on my amendments, the minister has said that ministers became aware only very recently. What is the date on which ministers—very recently— became aware of the 23 June inquiry of the Scottish Government? That is what I am asking, minister. Ivan McKee: As I said, it is in the timeline. Douglas Ross: It is not in here. Ivan McKee: The timeline is very clear about what happened and when. Ministers were informed of the issue on 21 August. The inquiry that was lodged in June was a query about a situation at a council.”
“Can he tell us the date on which he found out that the Government had received an inquiry in June rather than, as was originally thought, in August? Ivan McKee: It has all been laid out for Mr Ross, so I do not know why he keeps asking about it. I know that he enjoys digging around it, but the position about what happened and when it happened is all clearly laid out for him to read and understand. Douglas Ross: It is not. The one thing that is not in the letter is when the Government became aware that the August date that it was told of by its officials was not the start of the process. We have now accepted, because the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans has corrected the record, that the Scottish Government was first made aware on 23 June and ministers were told on 21 August.”
“Douglas Ross: I do not need it to be explained to me; I have it printed in front of me, because the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans had to write to me because of the answer that he gave in the chamber. The bit that I am finding more puzzling and more troubling is the minister’s most recent admission that Government ministers only recently became aware of the 23 June inquiry. Months later, that inquiry has led to the Parliament having to sit as a Committee of the Whole Parliament to rush through emergency legislation to fix a problem that could potentially cost the taxpayer £350 million. This is why I believe that my amendments are important: in debating them, we have got a little bit more transparency. The minister is shaking his head, so I will give way to him again.”
“They processed it through the normal processes over that period, and, in the middle of August—I think 13 August— they realised the potential implications of it and then informed ministers. There was then a period in which confirmation was required of legal sources, because we will not just jump into something without having a legal understanding of the implications. We had clarity on that in September, and we made a decision that the solution was to proceed with the bill. That is the timeline, which I explained yesterday. It has been laid out and has been published by SPICe, and I am happy to continue to explain it to Douglas Ross.”
“Work by Scottish Government civil servants was going on for two months to find a solution to a problem that was potentially going to cost the Government £350 million and ministers did not know about it. Is that true? Ivan McKee: I would like to make the member and the chamber aware that we have laid out the timeline of what happened and when with the Scottish Parliament information centre. All the information is available and has been published. The timeline is clear and is as we have articulated. A council made an inquiry of Scottish Government officials about a query that it had. Government officials saw it as routine and did not realise the implications of it.”
“When did the minister find out that the date was actually 23 June? Ivan McKee: Very recently. Douglas Ross: Wow. That is worse. We now know that Government ministers were told on 21 August. We are now in November, and they are finding out that their officials knew about the issue months beforehand. Basically, Ivan McKee’s admission, right now— Ivan McKee: Will the member take an intervention? Douglas Ross: I will, because this is important and I am keen to get the minister’s response. The admission from Ivan McKee right now is that, when Government ministers found out about a flaw in the legislation that could cost the Government £350 million, not a single minister asked when officials had found out about it.”
“In the conversation that we had with business managers a few days ago, when we were putting together the timetable for the bill, we were asked when we had been informed. Mr Dey and I were both informed about it in the latter part of August. Douglas Ross: That is very different. As I understand it, the discussion with Opposition parties was about when the Government had been made aware of it, and the Government became aware of it when Government officials were told about it. Therefore, I have concerns that briefings to Opposition parties and, potentially, the Presiding Officer were based on an incorrect date. What else is incorrect? There is also a point about officials being notified. The minister has used interesting language, so I will give way to him again. He said that ministers “subsequently” found out about it.”
“The reason why I cannot let the matter go is that the August date was not mentioned only on one occasion, by Graeme Dey; the August date was given to Opposition parties when there were discussions and briefings about the need for the legislation. I will give way to the minister, because I think that he was involved, as the minister who is now taking the bill through. Is it correct that Opposition parties were told that it was August when the Government was informed? That was clearly not the case, because the Government knew about it when it dropped on 23 June. Ivan McKee: Just for clarification, ministers were informed on 21 August. We have subsequently discovered that the inquiry had been in the system with officials since June, as was highlighted yesterday. However, ministers were informed on 21 August.”
“I am asking for a simple list—for example: “Ivan McKee was told on this date.” Kate Forbes had to be informed, because it was legislation that she was taking through before she became Deputy First Minister. It would be handy to know that, and there is no real problem with that being made public. I had no intention of lodging amendment 12 until yesterday afternoon, when an email pinged into my inbox to say that Graeme Dey had got it wrong in the chamber. His response to me in an intervention, when he said that the Government had first been made aware of the issue in August, was incorrect. The Government was first made aware of it on 23 June.”
“The purpose of subsection (3)(c) in the proposed section in amendment 11 is to make it clear which ministers knew about the issue, and when. I believe that Ben Macpherson, who has returned to Government, was the minister who took the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill through—that is my understanding; I am sorry if that is incorrect—and Kate Forbes was the minister who lodged amendments at stage 2. The First Minister was here—I see that he has left. When did the First Minister know about it? When did the minister who is now taking this bill through know about it? When did the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans know about it?”
“Martin Whitfield: Does Douglas Ross agree that, notwithstanding what happens to the amendment, the requirement for an explanation, transparency and publication of how we arrived at this point will continue? Douglas Ross: It absolutely will. I hope that colleagues know me well enough to know that I will not let this go. Again, the matter will be resolved if the Government provides all the information. Yesterday, the Minister for Public Finance said to Pam Duncan-Glancy that the Government would be transparent and release information. The Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans said the same on Tuesday. I am not asking the Government to do anything more than it has already roughly committed to. The Government says that it will be transparent on the legislation.”
“If the minister, in summing up on this group, gives an assurance to this Parliament and says, “Douglas Ross, you have convinced me”—I find that highly unlikely, but if he does—and if the Government will provide the information, I give an assurance to the minister that I will withdraw all four of my amendments—[Interruption.] I will. I am genuinely making that offer. Martin Whitfield has raised a fair point. It may be that the explanation should not be in legislation, but I was glad that the convener, in her role as Presiding Officer, allowed my amendments today, because they are unusual. However, the bill is unusual, because it is fixing a problem. It is doing so in an expedited way, which is why we have to look at alternative methods. However, there is an alternative method, if the minister takes it.”
“Douglas Ross is absolutely right to pursue a full, proper and transparent explanation of how we have got to this stage. My concern is whether we want to extend the legislation to seek a narrative by way of explanation instead of allowing statutes to do what they do, which is, in effect, to create and impose rules moving forward. If Mr Ross had another vehicle through which to achieve his end of full transparency and an explanation, would he have needed to pursue the amendments? Or would he have taken that alternative route if it was available? Douglas Ross: I would absolutely have taken that alternative route. [Interruption.] My colleague Stephen Kerr does not think that that route is available, but let me tell him that it is.”
“However, we would extend the period in which more and greater potential risks could arise to our local authorities, which are the recovery agents. We need to balance the legal risk on one side with the real financial risk of not passing the bill on the other side. I hope that we will pass the bill tomorrow night. Not to pass the bill would be a true dereliction of duty to every taxpayer out there because, at the end of the day, a Government undertaking still involves taxpayers’ money. I am conscious of time. We will support the bill tonight. We will be looking for explanations and assurances from the Government at stage 2, but supporting the bill is the right thing to do. Maybe this is a salient lesson for the Parliament about how we go about scrutinising legislation. 18:01”
“This very short, technical and tightly drafted bill seeks to do everything that it can to bring to legislative fruition what people have understood to be the law for a considerable time. The risk lies in the retrospective element. With regard to on-going action by local authorities to recover funds, I hope that the Government is in a position to give the same assurance about underwriting potential risks. The figure for that will be much smaller than £350 million, but I hope that the Government will give a realistic figure and say where it would be raised from. If we delay the legislation so that we can look at the situation again and come up with a solution, we will, in all probability, still come up with a very short bill that looks not dissimilar to the one that we have.”
“If it so wishes and is so inclined, the court may take into account everything that has been said in the chamber to lead to an indication of the thinking of ministers and of those of us who do not sit on the Government benches—and the court may take a decision on that. Murdo Fraser: I am following Martin Whitfield’s argument with interest, but does he agree that, rather than our spending time in passing the bill in the expectation that the issue will then go to a court to be resolved, we should get this right in the Parliament, because that is our job as legislators? Martin Whitfield: The reality is that, within the legislative procedures that we have in the Parliament, we cannot prevent or stop a challenge, although we can take steps to minimise the risk.”
“It is right that the bill is urgent, and it is right that it is essential. From listening to the speeches and interventions, we know that the reality is that at least £350 million would have to be paid if we did not pass the bill. It is right to note that there is a risk in passing the bill—as with every piece of legislation that the Parliament passes—that it can be taken to court for a question to be raised. That raises the questions that Murdo Fraser wrote to the Presiding Officer about, which we have heard about today. There is a potential human rights challenge, and members have pointed to cases in which the Government has not been successful when such challenges have taken place. A significant number of members are aware of constituents who have suffered as a result. However, such questions are for the court to settle.”
“The sums that are potentially at stake would fall to the Scottish Government to pay and are estimated to amount to more than £100 million per year if local authorities have to repay the rates that have been collected since 1 April 2023. There will be no changes to rates bills as a result of the legislation, and the bill, if passed, will not introduce any new additional costs to businesses or individuals compared with the Scottish Parliament’s original intended policy. For that reason, we have not consulted on the bill, which simply intends to rectify the position, as it had been understood by the Parliament, local authorities and ratepayers since 1 April 2023.”
“However, when we sat down at the end of September to consider the issue, we were absolutely focused on how quickly we could bring the legislation to the Parliament— make no mistake of that. Primary legislation is required to correct the error and provide a clear and certain basis for local authorities to collect rates from the owners of unoccupied properties. Without it, the amounts that have been paid would need to be refunded. The bill is therefore needed to bring the statute book unequivocally into line with the Parliament’s intention—and with its position as understood by local authorities and ratepayers, as applied by local authorities, and as voted on by the Parliament in 2019—to devolve empty property relief to local authorities.”
“When did the Government come to the view that primary legislation would be required? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister, I can give you the time back for the intervention. Ivan McKee: Thank you. As I indicated in my earlier remarks, initial concerns were notified to ministers on 21 August. That is the first date that ministers were aware that there was a potential issue. Then, further investigation was undertaken, and, as you would expect, legal advice was sought in order to understand the situation. The outcome of that was confirmed to ministers on 19 September. Ministers then agreed that the introduction of legislation should be explored. That was the point from which we started to take the process forward. As I indicated, a three-week period is required for the laying of legislation. The October recess also fell in that period.”
“That was considered internally and then taken forward through the mechanism that I have described. Who is next? Pam Duncan-Glancy: Given the dates that are involved and the slight confusion around that, is the minister willing to publish all internal correspondence about the error and the timeline surrounding it? Ivan McKee: In the interests of transparency, we are absolutely willing to co-operate with any requirements in that regard. Is that everyone? Jeremy Balfour: I seek clarification. When did the Scottish Government decide that legislation would have to be brought to the Parliament? On what date was that decision made? Even if it had to wait until August or September, given that the Government waited two further months to bring this legislation, does that make it emergency legislation?”