Liam McArthur
Scottish Liberal Democrats · Scotland
“I associate myself very much with the comments and requests of Kristopher Leask. This weekend sees the second Water Sound bluegrass festival take place in Burray, in my Orkney constituency. I therefore ask the cabinet secretary to offer congratulations to the organisers, Pete and Gail McAndrew, for getting the festival up and running.”
“I think that he said that it is taking place this weekend, in which case I hope that the weather holds up, as that could add something very special to a bluegrass festival.”
“I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement, which obviously comes on the back of eye-watering rises in business rates earlier this year.”
“I have a constituent who, for the past nine years, has desperately sought treatment for swelling on his legs and groin that has progressively worsened and is now profoundly incapacitating. Having sought treatment in Scotland, it is clear that that is not available.”
“Jenny Gilruth: The Liberal Democrats engaged with us throughout the budget process last year and they were able to extract a number of things from the Government. I hope that other Opposition parties will learn from their good behaviour.”
“There are strengths in the current system but I accept that there are inherent challenges in relation to the issues presented by revaluation, for example, and the wider challenges that businesses are facing.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,163 lines we hold for Liam McArthur, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 24.
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-21120, in the name of Daniel Johnson, on the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak button, and I call Daniel Johnson, the member in charge of the bill, to speak to and move the motion. 15:00”
“In particular, as he knows, we have many opportunities in Orkney to decarbonise and to roll out and commercialise much more of the innovation that is associated with climate action.”
“Gillian Martin: When I talk about cross-party action, I also talk about cross-party action on delivering on the reserved policies and actions that are needed, which will have a fundamental impact on some of the policies set out in the climate change plan. We need swifter action on the funding of Acorn, which has been mentioned, in relation to carbon capture, utilisation and storage, and we need electricity prices to come down. I am always willing to work with people across the Parliament who have ideas on how we can drive forward action in a way that is just, does not put people into fuel poverty and that means that we can capitalise on the investment in renewables in all our areas. I want to work with Liam McArthur and his colleagues in the next session of Parliament to do that.”
“As the co-convener of the cross-party group on Malawi, I welcome the announcement on funding for Malawi, but may I also advise the cabinet secretary that no one who I have spoken to in the energy sector believes that breaking up the UK is the answer to the maiden’s prayer? Nesta has pointed to the significant underestimation of the pace that is needed on heat decarbonisation, while the Climate Change Committee has pointed to the gap between ambition and delivery. The cabinet secretary is right about the need for cross-party agreement on a way forward, but what confidence can people across Scotland have that this plan will not simply result in a further round of missed targets?”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament recognises what it sees as the serious harm caused by animal cruelty, neglect and illegal breeding; notes concerns raised by animal welfare organisations regarding the consistency and proportionality of sentencing in animal welfare cases; understands that many cases involving the welfare of pets and farm animals are dealt with under summary procedure, limiting the penalties available under the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020; notes what it sees as the lack of specific sentencing guidelines covering these offences; further notes the view that clearer guidance and greater awareness of available powers would support more consistent sentencing that reflects the severity of the crimes; acknowledges calls for stronger monitoring and enforcement of disqualification orders, including consideration of a national animal offenders register to improve information sharing between agencies, and notes the importance of continued partnership working between the Scottish Government, justice partners, the Scottish Sentencing Council, Police Scotland and animal welfare organisations to support effective sentencing and protection for animals and the public in Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale and across the country.”
“The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-20603, in the name of Christine Grahame, on animal welfare sentencing and public protection. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I ask members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak button, and I invite Christine Grahame to open the debate.”
“There are six questions to be put as a result of today’s business. The first question is, that motion S6M-21102, in the name of Natalie Don-Innes, on the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, be agreed to. As this is a motion to pass the bill, the question must be decided by division. I invite members to cast their votes now. The vote is closed.”
“At this point, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 11.2.4 of standing orders, that decision time be brought forward to now. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to move such a motion. Motion moved, That, under Rule 11.2.4, Decision Time be brought forward to 7.14 pm.—[Graeme Dey] Motion agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We will have a very short suspension to allow members to get back on to the digital voting system. 19:13 Meeting suspended. 19:14 On resuming— Decision Time”
“The next item of business is consideration of motion S6M-21049, in the name of Martin Whitfield, on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s eighth report of 2026. [Interruption.] I invite members who wish to participate not to do so from a sedentary position but to press their request-to speak-button. 19:04”
“The next item of business is consideration of motion S6M-21052, also in the name of Martin Whitfield, on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s fourth report of 2026. 19:00”
“The next item of business is consideration of motion S6M-21053, in the name of Martin Whitfield, on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s third report of 2026. 18:55”
“Motion moved, That the Parliament, recognising that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (the SPCB) carried out a review of the Party Leaders’ Allowances Scheme approved by Resolution of the Parliament of 21 March 2002— (a) in exercise of the powers conferred by section 81(2), (5)(b) and 85(5) of the Scotland Act 1998— (i) confers functions on the SPCB to reimburse party leaders in respect of expenses and cost incurred in each financial year in accordance with the Party Leaders’ Expenses Scheme (the Scheme) annexed as Annex 1 to this Resolution and confers other functions on the SPCB as specified in the Scheme; (ii) determines that the various limits on expenses or costs under the Scheme are as set out in the Scheme annexed to this Resolution and that such limits are applicable until the SPCB exercises its power under the Scheme to uprate or vary them; (iii) confers other functions on the SPCB as specified in the Scheme; and (iv) approves the Scheme; (b) determines that the Scheme shall come into effect on 8 May 2026(c) rescinds, with effect from 8 May 2026, any previous resolution of the Parliament in relation to party leader expenses.—[Jackson Carlaw] Standing Order Rule Changes (Strengthening Committees’ Effectiveness)”
“Changes to the scheme to widen it have the support of all party leaders at Holyrood, and I hope that the corporate body can also count on the support of members in the chamber to support the motion. I move, That the Parliament, recognising that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (the SPCB) carried out a review of the Reimbursement of Members’ Expenses Scheme approved by Resolution of the Parliament of 2 March 2021— (a) in exercise of the powers conferred by section 81(2), (5)(b) and 85(5) of the Scotland Act 1998— (i) confers functions on the SPCB to reimburse members in respect of expenses and cost incurred in each financial year in accordance with the Reimbursement of Members’ Expenses Scheme (the Scheme) annexed as Annex 1 to this Resolution and confers other functions on the SPCB as specified in the Scheme; (ii) determines that the various limits on expenses or costs under the Scheme are as set out in the Schedule of Rates annexed as Annex 2 to this Resolution and that such limits are applicable until the SPCB exercises its power under the Scheme to uprate or vary them; (iii) confers other functions on the SPCB as specified in the Scheme; and (iv) approves the Scheme; (b) determines that the Scheme shall come into effect on 8 May 2026; (c) rescinds, with effect from 8 May 2026, the Resolution of the Parliament of 2 March 2021 (and as last amended).”
“We have also looked at how better to support members who travel extensively in their constituency or region because of its geography. We will be providing additional funding to those who incur mileage over 11,000 miles, although, under His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs rules, that additional funding will be taxable. We have also reviewed the party leaders’ allowance, which now becomes the party leaders’ expenses scheme. We have widened access to the scheme by reducing the eligibility criteria from parties with 15 or more members to those with five or more members. Funding should now be provided based on a fixed amount per party of £20,000, plus an amount per member returned for the party of £1,500.”
“A new provision to provide additional care costs when business sittings go beyond our normal hours will be available on application to support members with caring responsibilities, for a child or children under the age of 16 or an adult dependant, up to a maximum of £1,050 per month, based on £350 per dependant, up to a maximum of three dependants. We also assessed Edinburgh rents during the review. Although we are content that those who are entitled to flats can still afford them under the latest uplift, we have also recognised that there will be an on-going need for support with the additional council tax premium being applied to the accommodation. Therefore, rather than that support being a temporary measure, it has become part of the scheme as standard.”
“More flexibility will also be available to members in relation to the amount that can be transferred between the office costs and engagement provision, enabling more choice in how members communicate with their constituents or in the office that they may choose to have. In responding to the gender-sensitive board findings, the provision for additional temporary resources where a member is absent long term, which was introduced last session, will be moved from an exceptional provision to a standard provision that members can apply for. New minimum office standards will be introduced, and more guidance will be provided to members to help them in finding suitable offices, including when they need to engage a property expert or to seek independent legal advice to protect members’ rights.”
“On behalf of the corporate body, the Presiding Officer wrote in November to all members following both reviews undertaken during session 6, explaining the detail of the changes that are proposed. A strong Parliament depends on having members who are equipped to fulfil their role, and we believe that the recommended changes will continue to help to ensure that MSPs will be properly supported to represent their constituents and hold the Government of the day to account. If the scheme is agreed to, therefore, from the start of session 7, more support will be provided to enable members and their staff to work hybridly between home, Parliament and their local office.”
“The next item of business is consideration of motion S6M-21143, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, on the reimbursement of members’ expenses scheme, and motion S6M-21143, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, on behalf of the SPCB, on the party leaders’ expenses scheme. I call Jackson Carlaw to speak to and move the motions. 18:50 Jackson Carlaw (Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): As concisely as I can, I will speak to and move two motions on behalf of the corporate body. The corporate body lodged two motions to replace the current reimbursement of members’ expenses and party leaders’ expenses schemes. We are making the change now, in order that the new scheme can be fully effective from the start of session 7, to enable new and returning members to set up offices and employ their staff.”
“As local authorities will need to set out in their scheme whether they permit deductions and what the maximum permitted amount for them is, amendments 8 and 9 provide that, if an authority has published and consulted on a scheme outline, or has published, consulted on and decided to proceed with a levy scheme, it does not need to consult again on changes to its scheme that are necessary to reflect the new requirements that the bill will introduce. The other amendments in the group are primarily technical and will make consequential changes, including in relation to commencement. I move amendment 4.”
“It also provides that the maximum level of deductions should be set as either a fixed amount or a percentage of the levy. The amendment will also allow ministers to make further provision by regulations about deductions by liable persons if such provision is needed in the future. Amendment 23 provides for a new part 1A to be added to the schedule to the bill. It includes required changes to other provisions of the bill in order to accommodate the ability of local authorities to permit deductions. The changes will ensure that, when deduction is permitted, it is reflected in accommodation providers’ duties to account for and pay the levy, minus the amount that they are permitted to retain. No deduction will be permitted when an authority has, under the legislation, imposed any penalty on the provider in respect of the same return period.”
“No other members have asked to speak. Is there anything else that you would like to add, minister? Ivan McKee: I have nothing to add. Amendment 1 agreed to. Amendments 2 and 3 moved—[Ivan McKee]— and agreed to. After section 1 The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 2 is on visitor levy schemes. Amendment 4, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 8 to 11, 14 to 16 and 23. Ivan McKee: Group 2 contains nine amendments that provide for an explicit power to allow local authorities, if they choose to do so, to permit the accommodation provider to retain a proportion of the visitor levy payable to help to mitigate possible additional administrative costs. Amendment 4 sets out the main power for local authorities to permit such deductions if they choose to do so.”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament recognises that 24 February 2026 marks the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine following the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and proxy war in Donetsk and Luhansk; believes that Russian forces continue to indiscriminately bombard Ukrainian cities and control around one fifth of Ukraine’s territory, including Luhansk, Crimea and most of Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia; considers that fighting and air strikes have resulted in over 53,000 civilian casualties and that President Putin’s veiled threats throughout the war to use nuclear weapons have raised fears of escalation; notes that around 3.7 million people are internally displaced in Ukraine and roughly 6.9 million refugees are recorded globally, including over 29,000 Ukrainians who arrived in Scotland, including in Cunninghame North, with a sponsor in Scotland through the Homes for Ukraine scheme; acknowledges the immense military casualties suffered by both sides, particularly Russia, given what it sees as its profligate use of manpower; notes the view that any ceasefire or settlement that cedes territory or lacks binding security guarantees could allow Russia to regroup and renew attacks, and that this would create the risk of a Carthaginian peace intended to permanently weaken and then annexe Ukraine; further notes the view that robust international support, including military, economic and humanitarian assistance, is essential to enable the survival of Ukraine, deter further aggression and secure a just and lasting peace, and expresses solidarity with the people and armed forces of Ukraine.”
“The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-20434, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on approaching the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.”
“Section 13—Child’s attendance at children’s hearings and hearings before sheriff Amendment 53 moved—[Roz McCall].”
“They address the concerns that I raised at stage 2 about the UNCRC not being sufficiently integrated into the bill. They will require consideration of a child’s UNCRC article 16 right to privacy to be considered alongside their European convention on human rights article 8 rights, when it is being determined whether to remove relevant person status. Amendment 180 provides clarity on what the sheriff appeal court must satisfy itself of in order to quash an appeal on a determination by a sheriff about relevant person status. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the minister to wind up on the group. Natalie Don-Innes: I have nothing further to add, Presiding Officer. Amendment 48 agreed to. Amendments 49 to 51, 165 and 166 not moved. After section 11 Amendments 52, 167 and 168 not moved.”
“I am concerned by the wording “considers appropriate”, which is too vague, open to interpretation and thus confusing. It is possibly overspill. I therefore brought back what is now amendment 54, as I believe that it would provide a safeguard for children, their families and the principal reporter and ensure that pre-hearing meetings are dealt with in the right way. My amendment 55 simply proposes that the new regulations regarding pre-hearing meetings be subject to the affirmative procedure. That would allow Parliament to scrutinise and vote on them, ensuring that, when they come into force, members have had their say. I intend to move both amendment 54 and amendment 55. Martin Whitfield: I thank the minister and the Government for working after stage 2 on what now appear before us as amendments 178 and 180.”
“What if the principal reporter accidentally strays from the brief and starts discussing details of the case or how it might proceed? There is also no clear indication of how such a meeting will be documented, recorded or used in any future hearing. Although I and others see the benefits of such meetings, it is our duty as parliamentarians not to leave it to others but to ensure that there are clear standards and rules about the meetings in order to safeguard children and families and ensure that reporters clearly understand what can—and, more important, what cannot—be discussed outside the grounds hearing. The bill refers to “such other matters in relation to the children’s hearing or, as the case may be, the hearing before the sheriff as the Principal Reporter considers appropriate”.”
“However, I am not sure that the Scottish Government has answered those concerns from those who are at the coalface of the work. Pre-hearing meetings are a good idea. They will allow the principal reporter to meet the child and their family outside the hearing room in a more relaxed and informal setting. The principal reporter will be able to explain the format of the hearing as well as who will be in the room and what support will be available to the child, such as advocacy or legal aid. The reporter will also be able to help to calm nerves and reassure families about what will happen during what can be a stressful time. Although well intentioned, however, the meetings could create unforeseen problems. What if a child or a family member starts asking questions that would be better heard in a grounds hearing?”
“It is about moving away from having a one-size-fits-all approach and ensuring that participation is appropriate, supportive and in the best interests of the child. Importantly, my amendment suggests meaningful participation and it would allow the child to be enabled to engage in a way that they feel is right for them. I urge members to support amendment 53. Jeremy Balfour: My amendments 54 and 55 deal with pre-hearing meetings with the principal reporter. Pre-hearing meetings between the principal reporter, the cared-for child and their family do not currently take place in the children’s hearings system but will be a new procedure as set out in proposed new section 69A of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011. They have caused concern and confusion in the children’s hearings sector, and those concerns were raised at stages 1 and 2.”
“I welcome Martin Whitfield’s amendments 178 to 180 and I am happy to support them. I hope that members will support them, too. In summary, I encourage members to support my amendments in the group, which are largely technical, and Martin Whitfield’s amendments 178 to 180. I ask Roz McCall not to move amendment 53 and Jeremy Balfour not to move amendments 54 and 55. Should they move those amendments, I encourage members to vote against them. I move amendment 48. Roz McCall: My amendment 53 would introduce guidance on a child’s attendance at hearings. Every child is different, and although some may wish to attend and participate, others may find the experience overwhelming and distressing. My amendment would ensure that decisions about attendance take into account the child’s age, maturity and emotional wellbeing.”
“However, it would not be appropriate for ministers to direct children’s hearings, which are independent tribunals. It is for the national convener of Children’s Hearings Scotland to provide guidance on attendance. Moreover, the national convener already provides comprehensive guidance for panel members, which will be updated as part of the implementation of the bill. Similarly, Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 54 and 55 would inappropriately cut across the independence of the principal reporter. It is not for ministers to direct the principal reporter or his staff, particularly as it is essential for them to be able to take an individualised and child-centred approach in each case. However, I assure Mr Balfour that the principal reporter will issue detailed practical guidance for his staff as part of the bill’s implementation.”
“I share Sheriff Mackie’s desire to have an inquisitorial approach at the heart of the system so that the way in which it operates reflects the best interests of children at its core and in its key processes. Although it would be positive, a single statutory provision is not necessary for us to fulfil our objectives and create meaningful change in the system. Even without a statutory provision, I assure Sheriff Mackie and members that inquisitorialism will be a cornerstone of the modernised system. The substance of the changes that will be made in this area will be done through regulations and guidance that supports the enhanced chair and through the vital work of the redesign board. I understand the intent behind Roz McCall’s amendment 53.”
“We are already making significant strides in embedding inquisitorial principles by changing the culture of all the key actors in and around children’s hearings, and we intend to continue to work closely with Sheriff Mackie in that regard. I am grateful for his input, honesty and detailed contributions. I am aware that he has some reservations about amendment 76, so I will not move it. I am incredibly sorry that, despite efforts and good intentions, we have not been able to find a way to give effect in the bill to one of the key aims of his work with the “Hearings for Children” report. If we are going to put something into law, it needs to be right and to have the support of all who believe in our hearings system.”
“That could, for example, take account of urgent referrals to a grounds hearing, such as where a child may be the subject of a child protection order or be in a place of safety, or where a relevant person in relation to the child is not likely to be in attendance at the grounds hearing. Such rules would be subject to Parliament’s approval under the affirmative procedure. I thank Sheriff David Mackie for all his work in support of the Promise, not least in leading the work on the “Hearings for Children” report and his subsequent engagement with me and Government officials on key issues. I know that getting the right culture in the hearings system matters hugely to Sheriff Mackie and indeed to us all, because that means that it will operate with the best interests of children at its heart throughout its approach.”
“Amendments 175, 176 and 177 will make minor changes to the bill to ensure the correct operation of the provisions that apply where the child is not in attendance and a grounds hearing is not satisfied as to the child’s acceptance of a ground. Amendment 72 will make a minor drafting correction. Amendments 73 and 73A will enable the Scottish ministers to make rules under section 177 of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 specifying the circumstances in which the procedures that are set out in sections 69B to 69E of the act may appropriately be disapplied, or applied in a modified form, in relation to a referral by the principal reporter to a grounds hearing.”
“That will ensure that, in the rare cases where that is needed, it can be done at an early stage to appropriately safeguard a child’s rights. Amendments 58, 59 and 61 will make essential technical changes to clarify how a grounds hearing considers a child’s understanding of the grounds and ensure that the hearing can proceed appropriately and proportionately. Amendments 48, 57, 62 and 71 are consequential to those amendments. Amendments 60 and 63 to 70 will ensure that a children’s hearing can proceed in the absence of a relevant person who does not attend the hearing, where that is appropriate. That will help to minimise drift and delay and ensure that children are not subject to unnecessary additional hearings or court proceedings.”
“Amendment 47 disagreed to. Amendments 163 and 164 moved—[Martin Whitfield]—and agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 16 is entitled “children’s hearings: general”. Amendment 48, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 53 to 62, 175 to 177, 63 to 73, 73A, 178 to 180 and 76. Natalie Don-Innes: My amendments in this group are mainly technical in nature. Many of them were developed after close engagement with the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration to identify where refinements might assist in ensuring that the bill will operate as intended. Amendment 56 will add the “undeeming” of relevant persons to the matters that may be considered by a pre-hearing panel where the reporter makes a direct application for proof.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 39, Against 71, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 162 agreed to. 19:00 Amendment 47 moved—[Roz McCall]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 47 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“Amendment 46 agreed to. Amendment 162 moved—[Martin Whitfield]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 162 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 87, Against 24, Abstentions 0.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) The Deputy Presiding Officer : The result of the division is: For 89, Against 23, Abstentions 0.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Martin Whitfield to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 160. Martin Whitfield: Although this has been only a short debate, it highlights some of the complexities of the developing children’s hearings system, including in relation to the role of the national convener and the chairs. Worrying and sadly, it is possibly an issue to which we will need to return. With that, I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 160. Amendment 160 agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Amendment 161, in the name of Martin Whitfield, has already been debated with amendment 160. I remind members that, if amendment 161 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 45, as a result of pre- emption. Amendment 161 moved—[Martin Whitfield]— and agreed to. Amendment 46 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes].”
“As we have heard, attending a hearing can be an anxious and unsettling experience for many children. Children have told us time and again that they want continuity. Too often, they are faced with different panel members, who require them to repeat their story over and over. That is not acceptable. Amendment 52 seeks to promote continuity in the chairing of hearings, so that, wherever possible, the same individual is involved in a child’s journey. The importance of that has been recognised. I note the minister’s points on the matter, and I will reflect on them. However, we need consistency that builds trust, reduces the need for children to relive difficult experiences and allows for a deeper understanding of the circumstances over time.”
“Although I understand that that is acceptable when the process involves a three-member panel— because it would mean that only one person on the panel lived outwith the locality—in the case of single-member panels, we do not have that option. It is essential that local knowledge is part of the process. Children’s hearings were designed to reflect the communities that they serve. A panel member from the child’s area is far more likely to understand the local service availability, the environment that the child is growing up in and the practical realities of any decisions made. Amendment 47 would ensure that decisions are better informed and more grounded in the locality. That is why it is essential that we ensure that panel members are from the local area. My amendment 52 focuses on continuity for children in the hearings system.”
“Roz McCall: My amendment 47 seeks to strengthen the role of local knowledge in children’s hearings. At present, the requirement for a panel member to come from the child’s residential locality is qualified by the words “so far as practicable”, which is the point that has been made by basically everybody so far. Local knowledge should not be optional; it is so important when we are looking at single-member panels. As I mentioned at stage 2, the geography and the locality are of utmost importance. After I mentioned that at stage 2, I spoke to a panel member who lived in Glasgow but had had to go to Inverness.”
“Similarly, Martin Whitfield’s amendment 167 would create unworkable tension with his amendments 160 to 164, which I support. Those amendments set appropriate parameters while preserving the necessary limited flexibility. They ensure that the national convener applies the necessary tests in accordance with his role, but they can take into consideration recommendations from the chairing member. I believe that they deliver an appropriate balance, with decision- making power in the right place, and I am grateful to Mr Whitfield for bringing them forward. I ask Roz McCall not to move amendment 52 and Martin Whitfield not to move amendment 167. I ask all members to support Martin Whitfield’s amendments 160 to 164. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Roz McCall to speak to amendment 47 and the other amendments in the group.”
“The key issue is whether the test that is being introduced is the right one. I remain of the view that the practicalities of delivering continuity must be balanced with the best interests of the child. Ms McCall’s amendment would significantly complicate the test for national convener. Martin Whitfield: I am right to say that that is one of the things that will be monitored by the data that is captured down the line. If it becomes apparent that continuity is not matching the expectations of our young people, it will be noted. Natalie Don-Innes: I thank Mr Whitfield for that point, which reaffirms many of the things that have been discussed today. We are four years away from when the Promise is to be delivered, and we will have to ensure that the policy and non- legislative changes that we are making are having the intended effect.”
“I am satisfied that plans are in hand for a robust recruitment programme that is based on the qualities, competences and skills that the national convener deems appropriate for the role of remunerated chair. The detail of that has been shared with members of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. Once finalised, that will form the basis of open recruitment to those roles. I hope that Martin Whitfield will agree that his amendments 165 and 166 are unnecessary and will not move them. I am sympathetic to the intentions behind Roz McCall’s amendment 52 and Martin Whitfield’s amendment 167. We have shared ambitions and are in broad agreement on the issue, recognising that children and young people have repeatedly told us that enhanced continuity would be a significant improvement to the children’s hearings system.”
“To illustrate the issues that could be caused by amendment 47, a panel member could live within a mile of a hearing centre but be ruled out because they reside in a neighbouring local authority. Conversely, a panel member could live in the same local authority as the hearing centre but be over 100 miles away—in particular, that could be the case in large rural areas. For those reasons, amendments 47 and 168 are not desirable. They would limit the flexibility that is needed for panels to operate, which is managed by the national convener as a key part of his independent role. I hope that Roz McCall and Martin Whitfield will be persuaded not to move their respective amendments. If they do, I urge members to vote against them. It is also for the national convener to recruit and train panel members, including chairing members.”
“Amendment 47, in the name of Roz McCall, and amendment 168, in the name of Martin Whitfield, would potentially limit the ability of the national convener to hold hearings in every area of Scotland. We have previously legislated to create a national framework to support children’s hearings and panel members, an approach that operates around panel members’ local living and working connections. Those arrangements work well and every effort is made to ensure that panel members are from the same area as the child at the centre of the hearing. If there are issues with availability, neighbouring local authorities will be the first port of call. It is also not uncommon for conflicts of interest to emerge, thereby creating a need for an urgent replacement from a neighbouring authority.”