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 3 of 24.
“In all cases, following the establishment of grounds by a single-member panel or a full three-member panel, it will be for a three-member panel to consider whether a compulsory supervision order is required. I turn to amendment 45. As I advised Mr Balfour at stage 2 when he lodged a similar amendment, section 177 of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 already gives the Scottish ministers powers to make rules for children’s hearings, including the functions of the chairing member. Rather than in the bill, procedural rules would be the more appropriate place for that level of detail while still providing proportionate parliamentary oversight. I hope that Mr Balfour will agree and will not move amendment 45. If he does, I urge members to vote against it.”
“I will not move amendment 49 and the consequential amendments 50 and 51. Those amendments sought to provide scope for a single chairing member to discharge a referral in certain circumstances. Following additional engagement and feedback on those provisions from operational partners in the SCRA, I have concluded that the focus of decision making by a single-member panel should be on whether grounds are established rather than assessing evidence as to whether compulsory measures may or may not be required. Not moving those amendments will not affect the wider scheme; instead, it will ensure that the scheme remains as effective as possible.”
“Chairs will often get it right, but we are all human and we all make mistakes. Consulting on the functions of the role of the chair will also ensure that existing chairs can feed into the process and not be excluded from moving on to the paid role, which would cause us to lose their valuable experience, talent and service. Any regulations that are laid would be subject to the affirmative procedure in order to allow for proper scrutiny by the Parliament before coming into force. Amendment 45 is a way forward that would protect the chair and make sure that tribunals and hearings across the country are carried out in a similar way. I ask members to consider and vote for the amendment. Natalie Don-Innes: Amendment 46, in my name, is a minor technical amendment that amends the proposed new section 6B, and I encourage members to support it.”
“18:45 Martin Whitfield: Although this point does not, strictly speaking, sit with this group of amendments, does Jeremy Balfour share the concerns that have been expressed about the appealable nature of some of the decisions that have been made by single chairs, and does he feel that it is worth putting those concerns on the record? I accept that that is not what amendment 45 is about, but there are provisions that could be considered in the guidance that he is talking about to ensure that, when hearings are redesigned, they would have a proper structure whereby decisions that are made erroneously—however well meant they might be—can be put right. Jeremy Balfour: I agree with Martin Whitfield—I think that I raised my concern about giving too much power and authority to the chairs at stage 2.”
“Given the importance of the role and the influence that chairs will have, following their remuneration, amendment 45 sets out that the chair’s roles and responsibilities should be clearly worked out and documented through consultation and, subsequently, through the laying of regulations. That would ensure that current best practice from across the country can be shared, so that we do not end up with a postcode lottery, and that future appointed chairs will be fully aware of the position that they are taking on, so that they can work out what their role is. Amendment 45 would provide consistency by making sure that the 32 local authorities do not have different systems.”
“I know from experience that the role of the chair in bringing together the tribunal—or, in this case, the hearing—is important. He or she has far greater influence than other members, whether that is deliberate or just based on having that role. When the bill was introduced, it proposed remuneration for the roles of chairs and panel members. Up until now, those roles have been voluntary and unpaid. In meetings that I held in advance of the stage 2 proceedings, the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration was clear that remuneration for chairs is not about enhancing or expanding the role but about improving the quality of the candidates who are selected to the position. By paying chairs, we will, I hope, be able to recruit people with the necessary skills, experience and qualifications for the important and demanding position.”
“I am sure that she will address this point in her comments, but does she feel that the amendment is too restrictive? I absolutely understand and agree with her intention, but I am slightly concerned that the amendment would tie our hands too much. Amendment 45 seeks to ensure that the role of the chair in children’s hearings panels is clearly defined and set out in secondary legislation to ensure consistency across local authorities and to ensure that the role achieves our aims and objectives. I think that we can all agree that the role of the chair in children’s hearings will be vital in the future, as it is at the moment. For 20-plus years, I had the privilege of being a member of the tribunal that looked first at disability living allowance and then at personal independence payments.”
“I go back to the point that I started with: the clear message from children and young people is that they benefit when they see the same faces, hear the same voices and do not have to keep telling their story at each and every hearing. I move amendment 160. Jeremy Balfour: I thank Martin Whitfield for lodging his amendments and for going through the various amendments in the group. We have a choice tonight, and it is important that we agree to at least one of the amendments so that such provision, ultimately, appears in the act. I will speak to my amendment 45 in a moment, but I am interested in Roz McCall’s amendment 47. I am concerned that, in some circumstances, it simply might not be possible to find somebody who lives in the local authority area.”
“The criteria draw directly from the “Hearings for Children” report. Ensuring that chairing members meet those criteria should be a vital component of introducing remuneration for chairs. If we are to have paid chairs, they must possess the necessary competence to fulfil the expanded role that is envisaged in the “Hearings for Children” report. Amendment 166 would make the regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. I am interested in hearing the position of colleagues and of the Government on Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 45, which seeks to introduce similar regulations but perhaps in a less prescriptive way. I have lodged a range of amendments in this group, so there are options that are open to members.”
“It would resolve the geographic problem, which has been the case due to questions of legislative competence, and because amendment 168 would attach the process to a specific building and hearing area, by the very nature of the young people who go through that system, the vast majority would come before the same faces and voices who understand the environment in which they live. Amendment 165 relates to concerns that I raised at stage 2 about the role of the chair. It would require the Scottish ministers to produce regulations on the criteria that the national convener must consider when deciding whether to appoint someone as chair. I am satisfied that utilising regulations, rather than putting the requirements in the bill, is a more appropriate way to address the valid concerns that were raised about the stage 2 amendment.”
“Amendment 168 would tie the chairing members to hearings in a certain local authority area. I welcomed Roz McCall’s amendments at stage 2, which addressed the geographic nature of the challenge that has arisen—that the people who are required to make decisions about young people, to be honest, have no idea what their day‑to‑day life is like because they come from one environment and make decisions about young people who come from another. A way around that would be to tie the chairing members to specific local authorities.”
“I absolutely understand that the Government, the national convener and those who deal with this issue have the desire to respond to what children and young people tell us—that they want to see the same faces and hear the same voices. The question is the extent to which having regard to the desirability of that fulfils that aim. My amendment 167 would address that by introducing a test of reasonable practicability. We have a choice—I reassure the minister that a choice will be made thanks to the amendments that I have proffered—because I am cognisant of the concerns that the minister raised at committee that the test of reasonable practicability can prove problematic. Shall we try “logistical matters”? When there are logistical challenges, there could be changes, but otherwise it should stay the same. There is an alternative approach.”
“My amendments 160 to 164 have, alongside the Government’s amendments, given the group an interesting dynamic—I apologise to members for that. There are certain areas in which I would like to cautiously push the Government to go further. In doing so, I will explore the other amendments in my name and in others’ names in this group. To understand how the issue has arisen, we have to look at the test that is placed on the national convener, which is to “have regard to the desirability” of continuity. Earlier, we discussed the meaning of words and the challenges that we have had with their interpretation, not only in this bill but in others. There remains a challenge around how effective that approach will be.”
“They think that it is enormously beneficial to be able to see the same faces, hear the same voices and, probably most importantly, not to have to tell their stories at each and every hearing. I am pleased that the minister and other colleagues share my desire to enhance the continuity of panel members in children’s hearings. I note that the national convener of Children’s Hearings Scotland is similarly supportive of that approach, which I welcome. I thank the minister for her on-going consideration of these matters and welcome the introduction of new provisions that will ensure that on this issue, which will be a key part of the hearings process, decisions on continuity are taken in the child’s best interests.”
“Amendment 158 disagreed to. Amendment 159 not moved. Section 11—Single member children’s hearings and pre-hearing panels The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 15 is on children’s hearings: composition, functions and location of members. Amendment 160, in the name of Martin Whitfield, is grouped with amendments 161, 45, 46, 162, 47, 163, 164, 49 to 51, 165, 166, 52, 167 and 168. If amendment 161 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 45 due to pre-emption. I call Martin Whitfield to move amendment 160 and to speak to other amendments in the group. Martin Whitfield: I rise with a level of enthusiasm and welcome the opportunity to speak to these amendments. The message from children and young people is very clear.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (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) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) 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) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) 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) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (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) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) 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) 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) 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) 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 41, Against 66, Abstentions 0.”
“Fulton MacGregor: I welcome the minister’s remarks. I am convinced by her stance that most of my amendments in this group do not need to come under statutory requirements. I also note her strong commitment regarding a future Government, and I really appreciate that. Despite Jeremy Balfour’s best attempts to tempt me to move amendment 158, I will not do that, but I am pressing amendment 154. Amendment 154 agreed to. Amendments 155 to 157 not moved. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call amendment 158, in the name of Fulton MacGregor, already debated with amendment 154. Fulton MacGregor: Not moved. Amendment 158 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 158 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“I am aware that this issue is particularly important to MrMacGregor, and I wish to reassure him that the guidance and regulations to be published will include a broad and inclusive universal definition of “care experience” that explicitly encompasses adopted children and young people. The guidance will also set out best practice for public authorities on how to engage with and support people with care experience, including by facilitating access to public services. It will be co‑produced and supported by a programme of engagement, which will include the adoption community. I hope that those commitments reassure MrMacGregor that the needs and interests of people who have been adopted, and of adoptive families, will be addressed. I encourage him not to move amendments 155 to 159, while I encourage members to support amendment 154.”
“Secondly, I will make clear to the incoming Government and minister the need to review, early in the next session, the adoption support sections of the 2011 adoption and looked-after children guidance, and to consider issuing new statutory guidance on adoption support services under existing powers in the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007. Although I would like to try to bind my successors to such a commitment, I of course cannot, but I will make clear my strong view that this work should be prioritised—and I have absolutely no doubt that Mr MacGregor and others will press a new minister on that. Amendment 157 seeks to ensure that adopted people are recognised as care experienced when they are accessing services.”
“However, I want to clearly restate two commitments that I have made to Fulton MacGregor. First, I will make clear to an incoming Government and minister that they should take forward work early in the next parliamentary session to develop a shared definition of “adoption breakdown” and to consider improvements to the collection and sharing of data. There will be a need to work with local authorities, the Care Inspectorate, adoptive families and the third sector in taking that forward, and there will be a clear benefit from doing so.”
“I share Fulton MacGregor’s desire to strengthen adoption support. Peer support is highly valued by adoptive families, and amendment 154 provides a proportionate way of strengthening expectations around promotion. I invite members to support it. Amendments 155 to 159 address matters relating to specialist post‑adoption social work support, sustainable funding arrangements, recognition of adopted people’s experiences, improving national consistency in understanding and responding to adoption breakdown, and access to therapeutic support. 18:30 As I stated at stage 2, although those matters are extremely important, placing new statutory duties in the bill at this point would risk creating expectations that are not yet fully scoped or deliverable across Scotland.”
“However, if we dig down deep enough, we see that there are two or three core reasons why adoptions do not work out, whether that is to do with placement or lack of support. It would be really helpful—not only for the Scottish Government but for the agencies that are involved and for parents—to learn the lessons and to understand whether there are national trends or whether issues arise more in some areas than in others. I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say on amendment 158, but I encourage Mr MacGregor to move it, even if the Government is not in favour of it. Natalie Don-Innes: I place on record my thanks to Fulton MacGregor for his continued focus on this very important policy area and for bringing it to our attention through his amendments to the bill.”
“Although I said that most of the amendments would be probing amendments, I consider amendment 154 to be a positive and practical step, and I encourage members to support it. I move amendment 154. Jeremy Balfour: I thank Fulton MacGregor for lodging these amendments. I will be interested to hear what the Scottish Government has to say about them, particularly on amendment 158, which concerns the collection of data on adoption breakdown. As I have said previously in the chamber, my wife and I sought to adopt a number of years ago, but, sadly, the adoption broke down for different reasons. Having spoken to many other individuals and parents who have been in a similar situation, I know that there are multiple reasons why that can happen.”
“Through the work of the cross-party group, we found that accessing CAMHS for adopted children is a particular difficulty and very different from the experience of other care-experienced children. I know that CAMHS and the health service officers do not fall under the minister’s portfolio, but I appreciate her acknowledgement of the work in that area. Amendment 158 would introduce a definition of “adoption breakdown” and improve data collection, enabling better understanding, prevention and learning. Amendment 159 calls for a report on funding for therapeutic support, including the potential for a national fund to improve consistency and access across Scotland. The amendments are grounded in lived experience and professional expertise, with a clear message: adoption support must be sustained, specialist and preventative.”
“Taken together, the amendments aim to ensure that adoption support is recognised as a sustained and essential part of the system. Amendment 155 seeks to strengthen support by ensuring access to specialist post-adoption social work. Too often, families describe a cliff edge, where support falls away once an adoption order is granted, despite increasingly complex needs. Amendment 156 highlights the importance of sustainable funding to prevent adoption breakdown, which is both traumatic and costly. Early support is more effective than crisis response. Amendment 157 would ensure that adopted children’s care-experienced status is properly recognised, particularly in accessing mental health services, including child and adolescent mental health services, in line with the Promise.”
“I place on record my thanks to the minister and her team for working with me on the amendment. Like my previous amendment in group 9, my other amendments in this group are intended to be probing amendments. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the amendments, which focus on strengthening adoption support in Scotland and preventing adoption breakdown. I also raised these issues at stage 2, and I am keen to hear from the minister about what commitments the Scottish Government can make in dealing with what I am seeking to achieve through the amendments. Again, I thank the minister and the Scottish Government for their constructive engagement, as well as the cross-party group on social work, whose work with practitioners, adopters and care- experienced people has shaped the proposals. Their voices are at the heart of the amendments.”
“Families tell us that connecting with someone who has lived experience of the adoption journey provides reassurance, practical insight and a sense of community at key moments. Across Scotland, peer support is typically delivered by specialist third sector organisations. Given that provision and practice differ between areas, the amendment will place a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to promote awareness and uptake of peer support services where they exist. Promotion of awareness and update will be targeted to those who are provided with adoption services under the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007. This is a refined amendment, and it continues to reflect my original aim at stage 2 of ensuring that adoptive families can access meaningful, structured peer support throughout their journey.”
“That is what amendment 153 aims to do in a sensitive way that respects the right to privacy of the family who have experienced the death of a care-experienced child or young person. I encourage members to support amendment 153. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Willie Rennie to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 153. Willie Rennie: I have nothing else to say. I press amendment 153. Amendment 153 agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 14 is on support for adoption. Amendment 154, in the name of Fulton MacGregor, is grouped with amendments 155 to 159. Fulton MacGregor: I am pleased to open this group and to speak to amendment 154. Peer support is one of the issues that is most consistently raised with me and others by adoptive parents and prospective adopters.”
“Duncan Dunlop wanted a much more expansive provision for those of all ages, but this is a start, and it is a start that he has welcomed. I ask members to support amendment 153 in my name. I move amendment 153. Natalie Don-Innes: I welcome Willie Rennie’s amendment 153 and his willingness to work with me after stage 2 to find a suitable way to address this very important issue in the bill. There is clearly more to do to reduce the number of premature deaths among care-experienced people of all ages, and I hope that our work to keep the Promise will help to make that happen. Although statutory notification processes are in place, improving transparency of the overall picture will help us to know whether what we are doing is making a difference, and it will also signal what more we might need to do to reduce the risk of premature death.”
“Willie Rennie: I have lodged amendment 153 in partnership with Duncan Dunlop, who gave incredibly forceful and informed evidence to the committee throughout proceedings. Amendment 153 will place new duties on Scottish ministers to lay before the Parliament an annual report on the deaths of looked-after children and those up to the age of 26 who are in receipt of a continuing care service or an aftercare service. As a result of amendment 153, there will be a new, focused and proportionate reporting duty, which will strengthen existing statutory notification processes and improve transparency and learning so that we can reduce the number of preventable deaths in Scotland and better inform policy design and service delivery for our care- experienced community.”
“My amendment 44 is a start to further work on this important issue. Taken together, the two bills will benefit children and those working with them by creating a statutory basis for guidance on the use of restraint and seclusion. They will bring Scotland closer to achieving the ambition that is set out in the Promise of being “a nation that does not restrain its children unless in exceptional circumstances”. I move amendment 44. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, minister. No other members have sought to speak. Is there anything that you wish to add by way of winding up? Natalie Don-Innes: I have nothing further to add. Amendment 44 agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 13 is on reports on deaths of care-experienced persons. Amendment 153, in the name of Willie Rennie, is the only amendment in the group.”
“Martin Whitfield: I am very grateful to the minister for taking an intervention just before launching into her explanation, but I think that it is right that we note the Government’s welcome movement on this issue, particularly when it comes to this bill and Daniel Johnson’s bill. I thank all the stakeholders, some of whom are in the gallery, for their contribution in moving us to the point that we are at today. Natalie Don-Innes: I am grateful for Martin Whitfield’s intervention, and I absolutely agree with him about those who have been driving the bill forward. The issue came up during the passage of the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024, and also at stage 2 of this bill. I am glad that we could come to a position that I hope is supported by members from across the chamber.”
“Tomorrow, the Parliament will consider stage 3 amendments to Daniel Johnson’s Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill. My amendment is separate from the provisions in that bill but takes it into account, particularly in ensuring that the guidance for schools and care services will cover the same issues. It will be important for members in the next Parliament to ensure that guidance for education and care settings and for mental health settings is as closely aligned and consistent as possible, while taking account of the different considerations that might be relevant in different settings. My amendment 44— Martin Whitfield: Will the minister give way? Natalie Don-Innes: Yes.”
“Group 12 is on guidance on use of restraint and seclusion in relevant care services. Amendment 44 is the only amendment in the group. Natalie Don-Innes: I just need to put my card in. The Deputy Presiding Officer: It has been a long week, minister. Natalie Don-Innes: Thank you for your patience, Presiding Officer. Amendment 44 will require the Scottish ministers to consult on and issue statutory guidance on restraint and seclusion and to keep that guidance under review. Managers of children’s residential care home services, of secure accommodation services and of school care accommodation services that are provided in the same facility as a secure accommodation service will all be required to “have regard” to the guidance.”
“Before section A1 The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 1 is on aftercare. Amendment 91, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 6 to 8, 92, 93, 9, 96, 97, 13 to 15, 33, 209 and 88.”
“The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP bill 74A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The voting period for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in any debate on a group of amendments should press their request- to-speak button or type RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after the group has been called. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.”
“Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 15:19”
“Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress: Groups 1 to 3: 1 hour 30 minutes Groups 4 and 5: 2 hours 20 minutes Groups 6 to 8: 3 hours 30 minutes Groups 9 to 11: 4 hours 30 minutes Groups 12 to 14: 5 hours 15 minutes Groups 15 and 16: 6 hours 20 minutes Groups 17 to 19: 7 hours 40 minutes Groups 20 to 23: 9 hours.—[Graeme Dey]. Motion agreed to.”
“The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-21139, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20921, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill. As members will be aware, the Presiding Officer is required, under standing orders, to decide whether, in her view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter; that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for a Scottish parliamentary election. In the Presiding Officer’s view, no provision of the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter, so the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak button. 15:03”
“The no duty/no detriment protections, as well as training, qualifications and experience requirements, will be taken forward via a section 104 order. I recognise that colleagues, and some in the sector, are anxious. However, the fact remains that the provisions of the bill cannot come into force unless and until the section 104 order is passed. Of course, there are different views on the constitution and how the 1998 act might work in future. We will have ample opportunity to debate those views in the run-up to May’s election. For now, the reality is that we must deal with the 1998 act as it is, not as we would wish it to be.”
“Finally, Ross Greer built in advocacy support for those who need it while also, crucially, supporting my efforts to ensure that fundamental protections and training for medical professionals will have to be in place before the provisions of the bill can be implemented. On the issues of legislative competence, I again acknowledge the work of the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments. They are neutral on the issue of assisted dying. However, once this Parliament voted strongly in favour of the general principles at stage 1 last May, both Governments worked at pace and in good faith. In record time, they reached agreement on a way forward that respects both the will of this Parliament and the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998. That agreement allows issues around medicines and medical devices to be dealt with via a section 30 order.”
“Brian Whittle led the way on advanced care plans and the importance of using the bill to promote much greater discussion and early planning of people’s wishes at the end of life. Paul Sweeney ensured stronger requirements around signposting to social work and mental health services, an area that he has commendably prioritised. Daniel Johnson, whose forensic scrutiny of international legislation I referred to last week, lodged amendments that enabled debate on key issues and put in place further safeguards, including a prognosis period, mandating in-person meetings and toughening up reporting requirements.”
“Fulton MacGregor has been tenacious in speaking up for social work, securing changes that reflect the important role that those professionals must play in assessments and wider safeguarding. Ruth Maguire helped Parliament to reinforce protections to address concerns about coercion. Meanwhile, Bob Doris secured so many amendments at stage 3 that my office now refers to the bill as “Bob’s bill”. Together with Miles Briggs, Bob Doris has ensured that the needs of palliative care services have been reflected in the debate around the bill, recognising the inevitable interaction between the two. That has allowed a light to be shone on a sector that is crucial and often misunderstood and undervalued.”
“Quite properly, at the health committee, and again last week, MSPs have had the chance to amend the bill to introduce further guardrails, additional clarity and stronger restrictions and requirements in a wide range of areas. That is as it should be. I may have introduced the bill, but it is very much Parliament’s bill now. It feels invidious to pick out individuals, but I will throw caution to the wind and refer to colleagues who, at stage 1, were either opposed to the bill or whose support was certainly caveated. Jackie Baillie has successfully introduced changes that reflect the priorities of Children’s Hospices Across Scotland, the Royal College of Nursing and hospices.”
“I believe that it is at its very best if it can come together when debating an issue upon which there is profound disagreement, and I commend colleagues for rising to that challenge. For me, that has been exemplified by the amending stages of the bill. Of the 175 amendments agreed to by Parliament last week, half came from members whom I fully expect to oppose the bill at decision time. That speaks to a determination among colleagues across the board to ensure that the bill, if it is passed, is the best that it can be. In drafting the bill, I drew on international experience to ensure that it was tightly drawn and heavily safeguarded, and that it balanced the need for choice with the protections that patients, medics and the public rightly expect.”
“I acknowledge, too, those who responded in record numbers to my original consultation, many with the personal stories of dying Scots that I firmly believe must be at the forefront of our minds as we come to vote this evening, and who are represented in the public gallery. I also acknowledge the stakeholders who have engaged with me while also supporting the scrutiny process through giving evidence to a Health, Social Care and Sport Committee that carried out its responsibilities superbly. I acknowledge colleagues across the chamber who have given their time to have conversations with me over the past five years and who, regardless of their position on the bill, engaged seriously and respectfully. It is often said that Parliament is at its best when it speaks with one voice.”
“This is a significant moment for the Parliament, so let me start by acknowledging some of those who have played their part in getting us to this point: the non- Government bills unit, who, like colleagues in the legislation team, are unsung heroes of this institution; my team, Amanda, Niamh and Ashley, and, before them, George, Peter and Jack, who have had my back throughout; and Dignity in Dying, Friends at the End and the Humanist Society Scotland, who have run the most amazing campaign while also supporting me directly. I remind the chamber of my entry in the register of members’ interests.”
“Amendment 4 will correct an error in amendment 195, which was lodged by Daniel Johnson and which referred to accompanying statements made under section 8(3C)—when, under amendment 183, accompanying statements are made under section 8(3D). Finally, amendment 5 will address an inconsistency in section 28(3)(bc), which was inserted by Jackie Baillie’s amendment 129. Section 28(3)(bc) refers to section 22B; however, paragraphs in section 28(3) should specify which subsection the actual regulation-making power is in. Amendment 5 will amend the reference, to make it specific to section 22B(5)—the subsection that contains the regulation-making power. I ask the Parliament to support those technical amendments. I move amendment 1.”
“However, in the bill as amended, section 7(3) is an unrelated provision and is not the intended provision for referral in subsections (8) and (9). The cross-reference for the bill as amended at stage 3 therefore needs to be corrected. Amendments 2 and 3 will ensure that both subsections (8) and (9) refer, as intended, to subsections (6) and (7)—the policy effect being, as Parliament intended, that, when a terminally ill adult declines to take up a palliative care appointment, they are not prevented from receiving assistance to end their own life; but also that not taking up an appointment can be taken into account by assessing doctors when they are deciding on making a statement under sections 8(1) or 8(2).”