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 8 of 17.
“Will the minister give way? Ivan McKee: I have finished with that question, so I will take Martin Whitfield. Martin Whitfield: I seek further clarification of the situation. Will the minister confirm that what he described as a “routine” request was one that was created internally within a local authority—I am content to keep its name private—rather than as a result of an approach that had been made to a local authority by someone who was outwith it, questioning the ability to raise the tax? Ivan McKee: I would need to check back on the detail on that. As far as the Scottish Government is concerned, the request came from a council, and its council officials asked the question of Scottish Government officials about the basis for the process that we are currently discussing.”
“This is a tight and short bill that seeks to rectify a problem, but we must have the transparency that is being asked for around how the error occurred and how we can ensure that it does not go further and is not repeated in any future legislation. Yet another error has occurred and we need to restore the reputation of the Parliament and the Scottish Government in passing competent legal legislation. We will support the motion tonight, because we believe that the bill fits the definition of emergency legislation as required in standing orders, and it needs to be passed swiftly so that we have the clarity that is required inside and outside this place. 16:47”
“If the bill proceeds and we have amendments at stage 2, will the Labour Party support amendments, were I to lodge them, that ask the Government to release all documents and correspondence around the bill? Martin Whitfield: There needs to be absolute transparency and understanding—and not necessarily for any party-political reasons. There needs to be an understandable, honest narrative about how we got here. I am not entirely convinced that that could sit within amendments to a bill, I must say—that matter rests with the Presiding Officer—but I absolutely agree with calling for it. There certainly needs to be an explanation, and I will be calling for co-operation across the Parliament in that regard, given the importance of the issue.”
“We are seeking continuity and the creation of legal certainty. However, the challenge is that this is retrospective legislation, which should always be exceptional. The challenge is in the fundamental principle of legal certainty and the idea that people should know what the law is before acting. Applying new rules to past actions risks unfairness, undermines trust in the Parliament and could invite challenges on the basis of human and other rights. Douglas Ross: Martin Whitfield is rightly speaking about the interpretation of the proposed legislation. Where has that interpretation been between August, when the Government first found out about it, and yesterday, when it introduced the bill? Surely we need absolute clarity and transparency on that.”
“The Parliament is being asked to pass an emergency bill to repair a small error. That is not to make excuses for the error; we should explore why it occurred in the first place. Indeed, we in the Parliament have faced a number of challenges around the competency of legislation, and yet we have heard on a number of occasions an urge to cut debate times so that legislation cannot be explored. Maybe that is something that we all need to look at. Craig Hoy: Does Mr Whitfield have any suggestions about why the Government has chosen to introduce the bill this week of all weeks? Martin Whitfield: I am grateful for the intervention, but that lies outside my knowledge. At the simplest level, we are just trying to restore Parliament’s original intention. We are not introducing any new costs or changing policy.”
“Today, we are being invited to agree to treat the Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill as an emergency bill and to consider it under an accelerated timetable. The bill is necessary because of a legislative error in the Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act 2020, which, inadvertently, according to the Government, removed the legal basis for charging non-domestic rates on unoccupied properties. In the debate so far, we have heard a dispute about what should and should not happen and who should and should not be responsible. Those are genuine arguments, and there need to be answers to those genuine questions. We have been presented with a piece of defective legislation. When it was passed, everyone had one understanding of what it achieved, but the legal understanding of it is different.”
“Instead of amending legislation to make it compatible with the UNCRC, which was suggested by the committee, the bill will create an exemption that will allow incompatibility to persist. There will be no statutory duty for public bodies to report when they rely on the exemption, and there will be no audit of existing legislative conflicts for at least a year. In short, we risk embedding a loophole that will weaken the very protections that the 2024 act was meant to deliver. Stephen Kerr: Would Martin Whitfield agree that, in his description of section 2, he has actually underpinned the point that there is no place in there for the rights and responsibilities of parents? What role does he see being played by the rights and responsibilities of parents in relation to their children in this at all?”
“The accountability mechanism shifts from the courts to the legislature, but with no guarantee that incompatibilities will be identified or addressed. I go back to comments that were made by the then Deputy First Minister in 2019. John Swinney said: “The key point to observe is that the purpose of incorporating the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law is to provide the highest level of protection for the rights of children in our society. If that requires Parliament to amend the existing legislation of Scotland to ensure that it is compatible with the UNCRC, that is precisely what Parliament has to do.”—[Official Report, 20 November 2019; c 5.] The bill will do the opposite of that.”
“However, let us be clear that it will introduce a significant risk to the integrity of the incorporation of the UNCRC in Scotland. The 2024 act was designed to create a proactive culture of accountability for children’s rights. Section 6 of the 2024 act imposes a duty on public authorities to act compatibly with those rights. However, section 2 of the bill will carve out an exemption to that duty and allow public authorities to act incompatibly with the UNCRC when compelled to do so by Scottish legislation. That has been described as a pragmatic solution, but, in practice, it will create blind spots. It will mean that when a child’s rights are breached because of a statutory requirement, that breach cannot be challenged under the 2024 act.”
“The bill also conflates religious observance with religious and moral education, despite their fundamentally different purposes—one is reflective and one is educational. That conflation is a historical anomaly that this legislation should have corrected. I move to part 2 of the bill. In the policy memorandum, the Scottish Government gave an assurance that it is “committed to upholding the rule of law by ensuring that laws are clear, accessible and effective. It is also committed to fully realising the human rights of all people in Scotland, including complying with international human rights obligations.” I start with that assurance because part 2 of the bill is presented as a technical fix to provide legal clarity.”
“RME is not a confessional period; it is an academically rigorous subject that helps young people to understand not just world religions or their own religion, but ethical issues and philosophical perspectives—skills that are essential for life in a diverse Scotland. Yet, by maintaining the statutory right to withdraw from RME, the bill will perpetuate an outdated approach that denies children access to a full curriculum. Almost everybody who gave evidence to the committee, including Scottish Teachers Association of RME, faith representatives and humanist organisations, recommended removing the right to withdraw from RME from the bill, and a majority of members on the committee agreed. Continuing that right will contradict the spirit of the UNCRC and undermine the entitlement to a broad education.”
“However, the detail in the bill and the evidence that was presented to the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee reveal serious challenges that will make it impossible for Labour to support the general principles of the bill. I thank the members and convener of the committee for their excellent work on the bill, as well as those who gave evidence. Part 1 of the bill addresses withdrawal from RO and RME. The intention of giving children a voice when parents seek to withdraw them is welcome in principle, but the challenge is that the bill fails to resolve a deeper problem, which is the continued right to withdraw from RME in non-denominational schools.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. It is a pleasure to speak in the stage 1 debate of the impressively titled Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill. The bill seeks to do two things. First, it will involve pupils in decisions about withdrawal from religious observance and religious and moral education. Secondly, it will amend the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 to clarify the circumstances in which “incompatible” actions by public authorities are not unlawful—in other words, it considers where a public authority is breaching a child’s human rights. On the face of it, those aims may sound reasonable.”
“The Deputy First Minister has defended Cabinet responsibility during Covid and has gone as far as to say that she disagrees with the conclusions of the report. The report says that the decision to close schools in Scotland was taken by John Swinney and the First Minister alone, and that the Cabinet should not have been “sidelined”. Does she agree? Kate Forbes: I can reassure the member, happily, that the only person I disagreed with was Stephen Kerr. Parliamentary Bureau Motion 17:01”
“I would suggest that the Government’s amendment is complacent. It celebrates a pay deal, which, of course, is welcome, but ignores the fact that, even with that pay deal, 80 per cent of teachers are considering leaving the profession because of violence and aggression. We must confront that reality. I am conscious that time is short. In restoring confidence in an education system that should be the pride of Scotland, not a source of fear and frustration, let us send a clear message today that this Parliament does not accept unsafe schools, will not accept broken support systems and will not accept excuses. Let us send the message that we will act to make our schools safe, that we will act to support them and that we will act to make them fit for the future.”
“If I look at the Government’s amendment, I see that it paints a picture of progress, of glory and of almost the perfect environment. It cites the pay deal and vague commitments to workload reduction. However, let us be honest: none of that addresses the core issue, which is that teachers do not feel safe, pupils do not feel safe and families are losing confidence in our schools. The amendment ignores the reality that the scaffolding of support around young people has collapsed. Additional support needs provision is stretched to breaking point, CAMHS waiting lists are unmanageable and support staff numbers are falling dramatically. Those failures feed a vicious cycle: unmet needs lead to the dysregulated behaviour that we have heard about, which drives teachers out of the profession, leaving classrooms even more unsupported.”
“It was almost disappointing that he had to refer to a previous question that he asked in the chamber about the fact that young people are filming violence in schools and uploading it to the internet, where it will live for ever. There is dissatisfaction that there has still not been a realistic solution to that problem. Time is short, so I turn to the cabinet secretary’s amendment, as well as the speeches by the cabinet secretary, Lorna Slater and Bill Kidd regarding the amendment. I refer—begrudgingly, I suppose—to the standing orders and the Parliament’s guidance on the purpose of motions. The purpose of motions is not to provide solutions; motions are the core procedural tool to manage parliamentary business and allow us to have a democratic debate, which is what has happened this afternoon.”
“It is because, like so many previous reviews and reports, the review sits on a shelf gathering dust. Paul Sweeney picked up on the spatial planning problem, which is a particular regional problem that speaks to a breakdown in the understanding between local authorities, the Scottish Government and families who have lived experiences. Paul Sweeney: It was unfortunate that the cabinet secretary ran out of time to refer to my speech. Will Martin Whitfield invite her to respond to my letter of 4 September? Jenny Gilruth: It was responded to. Martin Whitfield: I think that Paul Sweeney has an answer, if that makes it on to the record. I welcome my colleague Paul O’Kane back to the chamber—he has been missed.”
“Figures from the Scottish household survey that were published this week show that among adults in Scotland—we are mostly not talking about people who interact with schools on a daily basis—69 per cent were satisfied with their local schools. That figure is down from 81 per cent in 2011, which shows the perception that our communities have of the schools that sit at the heart of our communities. I will talk about some of the speeches that we have heard. One of the many statistics that Miles Briggs talked about was that 30 per cent of our pupils are missing more than 10 per cent of their teaching. That is an unacceptable figure. We discussed that situation at the SLS conference on Friday. Willie Rennie made another comment about the Hayward review; I have forgotten the number of times that he has raised it. Why has he done that?”
“That is not to talk down our staff and certainly not to talk down our young people, their parents or the communities that stand around them—it is a reality. There has been an unacceptable deterioration in classroom behaviour. There has—factually— been a shocking rise in the number of violent incidents. The EIS reports that 80 per cent of its branches experience weekly “violence and aggression”. In Aberdeen alone, incidents have surged by more than 300 per cent since 2019. There is both subjective evidence and objective mathematical evidence of an increase. Teachers are being pushed, they are being hit by objects and they are being assaulted. Police Scotland has said that there were 63 cases of weapons being brought into schools in just three months of this year. Those are not isolated events; they are symptoms of a crisis.”
“I draw to members’ notice my entry in the register of members’ interests. It is a pleasure to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. It is a debate that speaks to the heart of what education should be. To pick up on the memories of Liz Smith—and, no doubt, of the cabinet secretary—of teacher training, teachers are often told, “You are the weather in the classroom.” That relates to Liz Smith’s intervention about the importance of culture. The weather in the classroom is about the culture that is developed. What should that culture be? What should that weather be? There should be a safe, supportive environment where every child can learn and every teacher can teach without fear. However, that is not the reality that many children and teachers experience in Scotland’s schools today.”
“I move amendment S6M-19754.1, to insert at end: “; notes with deep concern the decline in standards and increasing pupil violence, which are intensifying pressures on teachers and support staff; believes that these trends reflect years of underinvestment and a failure to provide the support and resources needed to maintain safe and effective learning environments, and calls on the Scottish Government to deliver urgent action to raise attainment, improve discipline in classrooms and support teachers to deliver the high-quality education that every young person in Scotland deserves.” 16:27”
“It is clear that the fact that violence is out of control in many of our classrooms needs to be addressed. The Scottish Government must ensure that teachers have 100 per cent support in tackling the issue. Scottish Conservatives would work to bring back common sense in dealing effectively with disruptive pupils by empowering our teachers and rolling out the mobile phone ban that is making such a positive difference in some of our classrooms.”
“Did Miles Briggs take away from that conference the message that I took away from it—he has hinted that he did—which is that, without 100 per cent support from the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, school leaders will not be able to enforce such a ban? Miles Briggs: I did. That is why I wanted to touch on the issue, on which our school leaders are asking for support. We must ensure that the Parliament and the Government hear that message, because if they do not, the issue will be the subject of the next crisis that we debate. I was shocked by some of the conversations that I had about the bullying that young people are experiencing. I hope that the Government will realise that there is a need for more debate on the issue. I am running out of time, so I will conclude.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that the University of Edinburgh plans to reduce jobs by up to 1,800 as part of £140 million in budget reductions by 2026-27, including what action it will take to protect staff and students from the impact of any such redundancies. (S6T-02757)”
“I turn to the provisions in part 2 of the bill for the removal of members for not physically attending the Parliament for 180 days without reasonable explanation. We understand that the public and members may hold expectations that MSPs should physically attend the Parliament. However, the committee must have regard to our standing orders, which enable members to take part in proceedings remotely on an equal basis and thereby represent our constituents fully without physically attending. The committee has concerns about the proposed process for deciding whether a member has a reasonable explanation for—”
“If they were unsuccessful in the poll, the seat would be filled in the way that regional vacancies are usually filled. Stakeholders had significant concerns about the idea of a regional poll, and I welcome the proposals that have been made to seek to amend that. I listened very carefully to Kevin Stewart’s contribution regarding his amendment to the motion, but I am afraid that I remain unclear about what he envisages in relation to section 2, so I cannot support the amendment. If the issue had been raised with the committee at stage 1, we could have explored and reported on it and allowed the Parliament to take an informed view on Mr Stewart’s amendment. If the general principles are agreed to today, there will be an opportunity to explore the range of ideas that Mr Stewart raised, and I would welcome engagement in that process.”
“In addition, we think that there may be merit in closing a petition early if that threshold has been reached. In relation to the proposed dual threshold for petitions to recall regional MSPs, the committee asks Mr Simpson to consider whether that could present a higher bar for recall of regional MSPs than for recall of their constituency counterparts. In relation to successful petitions, the bill provides us with different processes for filling vacant constituency and regional seats. Although a constituency seat is to be filled through a normal by-election, in which the recalled member could stand, a regional seat could be filled through a regional poll, which would offer the recalled member an opportunity to retain their seat.”
“We think that providing for a maximum number of 10 petition-signing places is a useful guide for the petition officers. Since those places are likely to be different from our normal election polling stations, their locations and opening times must be communicated clearly. The cut-off point for determining eligibility to sign a petition must also be made clear, and provision should be made for signing by post or by proxy, so that all with the right to sign a petition can do so. On the 10 per cent threshold for determining a successful petition, some witnesses suggested that that might be relatively low, and we heard no clear views on an alternative figure. However, we recognise that the purpose of the threshold is to indicate whether there is public interest in moving to the next phase of a recall process.”
“Our witnesses were broadly in favour of keeping the grounds limited to those areas. The Electoral Reform Society noted that the parliamentary sanctions process can appear rather “opaque to the public”; we recognise that clarity would be essential when communicating the reasons as to why any recall-triggering sanction had been recommended. During our evidence gathering, the question arose of whether a member who changes or leaves their political party should be subject to recall. Of course, members will have their own views on the matter. The committee notes simply that “such an approach would be unique within the ... UK”. We make a number of recommendations on the arrangements for recall petitions, with a view to ensuring that the process is as accessible as possible.”
“To quote Diadorus the Sicilian, “The Athenians, it appears, pass such a law not for the purpose of punishing wrongdoing, but in order to lower through exile the presumption of men who had risen too high.” Therefore, it is an ancient problem. I digress. Mr Simpson has not gone that far. Instead, his proposal is inspired by the established process at Westminster for the recall of MPs. Although the committee agrees that that is a sensible approach, we stressed that any recall system must work with our electoral system of constituency and regional MSPs. The bill proposes that a member may be subject to recall on the grounds either of receiving a parliamentary sanction of at least 10 sitting days or of being convicted of an offence and receiving a custodial sentence of less than six months.”
“Our evidence indicated that there is broad support for allowing for the recall of members of the Scottish Parliament. We heard that recall would give the public greater say in holding members accountable for their conduct and that it could promote public confidence and trust in this institution. Mr Simpson has described recall as “a deterrent”, and we agree that issues of conduct should be the primary focus of any recall system introduced to the Parliament. Of course, recall is not a new idea. In ancient Greece, the Athenians had a system of ostracism, whereby politicians could be exiled for up to 10 years.”
“I thank everyone who contributed to the scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) (Scotland) Bill; the respondents to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s call for views; the stakeholders and academics who gave evidence; the Scottish Government for its input; and, of course, Mr Simpson for introducing the bill. The intention behind the bill is to improve the democratic accountability of MSPs during a parliamentary session. Mr Simpson has proposed a process by which members may be recalled on the grounds of their conduct. He has also sought to broaden the criteria for automatic disqualification of members. I will set out the main conclusions and recommendations that the committee has reached on those issues. First, I will turn to the issue of recall.”
“However, recognising the seriousness of the matter, we continue to engage with COSLA, the Health and Safety Executive, local authorities and other interested parties to explore setting up a working group, to see what further progress can be made. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question 4 was withdrawn. Higher and Further Education and Apprenticeships (Funding) 5.”
“I understand that the Scottish Government feels that the responsibility lies with councils, but what can the minister say about the Government’s responsibility to all the people of Scotland in relation to asbestos, which is an insidious and horrendous product that causes long-lasting painful periods before death? Natalie Don-Innes: I appreciate the seriousness of the issue that Mr Whitfield raises. The Scottish Government recognises the hazard of asbestos. We expect local authorities to provide a safe environment for all school users. As I have already mentioned, the Health and Safety Executive has a United Kingdom-wide responsibility for enforcement of the control of asbestos regulations.”
“As was highlighted in the chamber earlier this year during the debate on the action for mesothelioma day, Scotland has one of the highest rates of mesothelioma in the world. Statistics show that, between 2011 and 2018, 94 female teachers in the UK lost their lives from an asbestos-related condition. The total figure for the general female working population is only 1,800, which means that teachers represent 5 per cent of that number. The issue is critical to them and it will be critical going forward—as has been mentioned by the EIS.”
“I look forward to hearing contributions from across the chamber that show a united resolve to end end-of-life poverty in Scotland once and for all. 17:08”
“I am sure that colleagues from across the chamber will highlight its other important findings during the debate. It is important to stress that we in the chamber have the power to end the scourge of end-of-life poverty. It could happen to a family member or a friend of ours, or it could be us—who knows? We can build a social security system that is once again a truly cradle-to-grave system of protection. If we do not do that, the consequence will be that large numbers of our fellow Scots will continue to suffer the humiliation and indignity of suffering at the end of life. I thank Marie Curie and Loughborough University for releasing the preliminary findings ahead of the publication of the full report, “Dying in Poverty in Scotland 2025”, to enable us to have the debate this evening.”
“That does not have to be the world that we live in. Marie Curie made a number of recommendations in its report that would help us to alleviate poverty and dying and to take the burdens off those in their end-of-life journey. One way would be for the Scottish Government and local authorities to work together to exempt terminally ill people from paying council tax, similar to the Manchester discretionary council tax support scheme. That would lift the financial burden for those close to death and would be a small step in creating a state that cares actively for those who are dying and recognises the struggles that they are going through by minimising the stress of what is an already impossible situation to come to terms with. I realise that I have only touched on the initial findings of this fine report.”
“I am very grateful to Paul Sweeney for his incredibly powerful speech. Does it not speak to the disparity between what we believe to be the social contract among us all here in Scotland and the reality that many constituents face? I compliment Marie Curie on its powerful report, which provides an opportunity to look at the issue and to recommit to a full social contract that reaches out to people, including the woman Paul Sweeney has spoken about so powerfully. Paul Sweeney: I thank my friend for his intervention. I could not agree more. Despite all the immense work that hospices and our national health service do, too many people are simply stripped of dignity at the end of their lives. Too many people are robbed of the ability to die at home, rather than in a horrible clinical setting in a hospital.”
“We believe that that change will help to address the concerns that larger committees are exacerbating the issues of members serving on more than one committee and the high churn of membership on committees. We consider that our proposals still leave flexibility to ensure that smaller parties can be represented on committees, and that committee places can still be allocated broadly in line with the balance of political parties in the”
“There is also a need to ensure that external expertise is utilised, whether through the use of committee advisers, holders of SPICe fellowships or academic and sector experts. We have also recommended that informal fact- finding sessions and away days be seen as important components of that approach, as they ensure that members get to know each other beyond the political realm, which will foster a sense of collective working. Turning to whether size matters in relation to the number of members on a committee, we believe that it does. We have recommended a reduction in the maximum number of members for subject and mandatory committees from 15 to 10, and that committees should normally have a maximum of seven members.”
“I ask all members of committees to recognise the magnitude of our responsibilities in that regard. How we behave and how we approach our role is fundamental not only to what committees do and how they do it but, potentially, to how it is viewed by the public and what it can achieve. Our recommendations aim to bring a sense of cohesion and collective endeavour to a committee. They include a recommendation that committees set objectives for individual pieces of scrutiny and inquiry work and seek to assess their effectiveness in their annual reports. We recognise the importance of having an induction programme and on-going training for members, which need to be aligned with support from clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre, which is well resourced.”
“I also specifically extend my thanks to Dr Danielle Beswick, who was appointed as an adviser to assist the committee with its inquiry into effectiveness—a role that she undertook with passion, intellect and an expectation that the committee would rise to be its very best. In our report, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee brings to the Parliament a package of comprehensive, practical and deliverable recommendations to reform and renew the work of committees. In opening this debate, I wish to set out the main conclusions and recommendations that we reached. Turning first to the issue of culture, we heard that, if a committee has a strong culture, it works effectively. Committee members play a pivotal role in setting that culture.”
“The unrealistic expectation involves thinking that members can leave their party roles at the committee room door, because, although there is merit in that idea, it is not always appropriate, desirable or even realistic for members to put their party roles entirely to one side. I thank all those who have engaged with our inquiry and acknowledge the collective will that has been shown by all to improve the effectiveness with which committees operate. I thank our witnesses, colleagues across the chamber and beyond, and the institutions that lodged submissions and made contributions.”
“It is nice to stand in this Parliament with a little time to debate. I am sure that we will have lost that by the end of the afternoon. The late Donald Dewar, in response to criticism of the Scottish Parliament, once said, “Cynicism, together with unrealistic expectation, are the two great bugbears of politics.” We have tackled those two great bugbears head on in our report on our inquiry into strengthening committees’ effectiveness. The cynicism involves thinking that there is nothing that can be done to address the perception that committees are not fulfilling their potential.”
“I look forward to seeing everyone’s manifestos to see how they can ramp up climate action so that, when we come to the next session, those of us who believe that climate change is a real threat can work together against the voices that are out there that might be coming in here and denying that climate action is a necessity.”
“I strongly believe that in this portfolio we must have as much consensus as possible. I hope that those in all the parties who lead on this policy area agree that I genuinely have an open-door approach. Ahead of the plan being put forward today, I made sure that my colleagues in the groups that are associated with the policy decisions on carbon budgets have been sent invitations. Those who have worked with me on bills will know that I have worked with them to bring their opinions and suggestions into the work that I do. This is Scotland’s climate change plan. It is not the Government’s climate change plan—it is our shared climate change plan. At the end of this session of Parliament, we will all be thinking about what we want to put in our new manifestos.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement and for publishing the plan, which will now sit for 120 days, during which consultations can take place. With regard to the rhetoric, it is interesting to see the disparity between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. In particular, in her statement, the cabinet secretary sought to point the finger at Parliament, saying that it can no longer “sit on its hands” and that the plan needs to be a priority not just for the Government but for the Parliament in this and future sessions. How will she facilitate discussions within Parliament to ensure that we can undertake the role that she seeks for us? Gillian Martin: I thank Martin Whitfield for that question, because it allows me to reiterate the approach that I always take to the legislation and the policies that I take through.”
“I am also confident—not least because we will engage with GPs and organisations such as the BMA—that, although models elsewhere in the United Kingdom have failed, we can make the system work here. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question 6 was not lodged. Walk-in Primary Care Clinics (Impact on Health Inequalities) 7.”