Alison Johnstone
No Party Affiliation · Scotland
“We will use the same voting procedure as before. Members voted by secret ballot. The Presiding Officer: Voting in this round of the Presiding Officer election is closed. I invite the scrutineers to proceed to the back of the chamber for the counting of votes. Again, candidates may also observe the count.”
“I now invite any scrutineers appointed by the candidates to go to the back of the chamber to observe the counting of ballot papers. Candidates may also observe the count.”
“The first meeting of the seventh session of the Parliament is resumed. I have received four valid nominations for the position of Presiding Officer. I shall now announce the nominations and ask all candidates, as their names are announced, to make themselves known to the chamber.”
“Ballot papers should be marked with an X before being folded and then placed in one of the ballot boxes provided at the rear of the chamber. At the end of each voting period, I shall invite any scrutineers that have been nominated by each candidate to monitor the counting of votes at the back of the chamber, which is where clerks will emp…”
“Members should remain in their seats until I invite them to collect their ballot paper from clerks at the back of the chamber. Members with surnames beginning with the letters A to F should collect their ballot papers from the desk on my left at the back of the chamber—the clerks there have their hands up.”
“15:29 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: This voting period is now open, using the same voting procedure as before. Members voted by secret ballot. The Presiding Officer: Voting in the third round of the election of the Presiding Officer is closed.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,933 lines we hold for Alison Johnstone, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 16 of 39.
“The Scottish Government has shown clear leadership in the heat in buildings sector, demonstrated not least by our grant and loan schemes, the legislative requirement for new homes to install clean heat and our continued drive to promote investment and growth in heat networks. Faced with a concerning rise in anti- climate rhetoric, the draft climate change plan maintains that leadership. It confirms our target to decarbonise the heat in Scotland’s buildings by 2045 in a manner that is consistent with our commitment to reduce fuel poverty, and to do so by maintaining our vital support for those who need it most. It was my intention to build on that work by introducing a heat in buildings bill in this parliamentary session. The Scottish Government has worked at pace to produce a bill ready for introduction.”
“The next item of business is a statement by Màiri McAllan on the Buildings (Heating and Energy Performance) and Heat Networks (Scotland) Bill. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. 14:24 The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): I begin by emphasising that the Scottish Government is committed to decarbonising heat in buildings by 2045. That commitment was restated fulsomely in “Scotland’s Draft Climate Change Plan 2026-2040”, which was published by my colleague Gillian Martin on 6 November.”
“The Presiding Officer: The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M- 19808, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on committee meeting times. Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees that, under Rule 12.3.3B of Standing Orders, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee can meet, if necessary, at the same time as a meeting of the Parliament during Members’ Business on Tuesday 18 November 2025.—[Graeme Dey] Motion agreed to. Topical Question Time 14:05 Fuel Poverty 1.”
“The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-19807, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to business. Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for— (a) Tuesday 18 November 2025— after followed by Topical Questions insert followed by Ministerial Statement: Buildings (Heating and Energy Performance) and Heat Networks (Scotland) Bill followed by Ministerial Statement: Alexander Dennis Ltd after followed by Scottish Government Debate: Supporting Scotland’s Fishing Industry insert followed by Ministerial Statement: Fife Ethylene Plant, Mossmorran delete 5.00 pm Decision Time and insert 5.40 pm Decision Time (b) Thursday 20 November 2025— delete 2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motion (if required) 2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Climate Action and Energy, and Transport and insert 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motion (if required) 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Climate Action and Energy, and Transport followed by Ministerial Statement: Offshore Wind— [Graeme Dey] Motion agreed to.”
“I have also worked in criminal justice for 40 years and I have never met a person who was truly liberated by someone else’s suffering. What I have experienced is suffering people freed by connection and belonging and by repaired and reciprocated trust. Safety and justice happen when we build bridges, not bars, between people. When Jesus was asked to condemn a sinner to suffer being stoned to death, he said: “Let the one without sin cast the first stone.” No one dared. Maybe the recognition that we are all sinners should also be the beginning of our investment in bridge building rather than imprisonment. Business Motions 14:04”
“As a criminologist, I know that it cannot be because prison works because, holding other things equal, the evidence shows that imprisonment is more likely to generate reoffending than rehabilitation. In the long term, the bars and the walls do not make those of us on the outside safer and they do not improve the lives or characters of those on the inside. I think that we persist with imprisonment for two other reasons. First, we have bought into the mythology of the prison as a magic box in which to dump and disappear social problems. Secondly, and more fundamentally, if we are honest, we are just not sure that community payback will satisfy our thirst for punishment. But here is the rub. Like most of us in this chamber, and most people in Scottish prisons, I have been a victim, I have been a witness and, yes, I have been an offender.”
“It refers to the desire to vindicate the victim, freeing them from hurt, releasing them from vengefulness and settling scores. Paying back is also supposed to liberate the offender from indebtedness. Seventeen years ago, the Scottish Prisons Commission recommended that the default form of payback in Scotland should be community payback. Rather than relying on the pain of imprisonment to exact retribution, the commission urged us towards more constructive forms of reparation through compensation, service to communities and the hard work of rehabilitation. Yet, despite stable or falling crime rates, the prison population has grown again to record levels and we find ourselves awaiting the recommendations of a new commission. Why, then, is the prison still our preferred apparatus of punishment?”
“Good afternoon. The first item of business is time for reflection. Our time for reflection leader today is Professor Fergus McNeill, professor of criminology and social work at the University of Glasgow. Professor Fergus McNeill (Professor of Criminology and Social Work, University of Glasgow): Thank you, Presiding Officer. I should perhaps explain that it is prisoners week in Scotland, which is why you have a reflection from a criminologist. Many of us in this chamber have been victims of crime. A few will have sought remedy through the criminal justice system. In those circumstances, we cry out both for justice and for safety. Though nowadays we prefer that term “justice”, the Latin root of the word “revenge” is interesting.”
“I close this meeting of Parliament. Meeting closed at 17:09. This is the final edition of the Official Report for this meeting. It is part of the Scottish Parliament Official Report archive and has been sent for legal deposit. Published in Edinburgh by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP All documents are available on the Scottish Parliament website at: www.parliament.scot Information on non-endorsed print suppliers is available here: www.parliament.scot/documents For information on the Scottish Parliament contact Public Information on: Telephone: 0131 348 5000 Textphone: 0800 092 7100 Email: sp.info@parliament.scot”
“It is vital that we, as members of the Parliament, provide accurate information to the public. Anas Sarwar’s attempt to mislead and talk down our national health service is unfair to the hard- working doctors, nurses and NHS staff who have made that progress possible. Can the Presiding Officer therefore outline how Anas Sarwar can correct the record and ensure that he does not mislead Parliament in future? The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr MacDonald. As members will be aware, the content of a member’s contributions is generally a matter for the member. If a member believes that there has been a factual inaccuracy, there are a number of mechanisms in place for the record to be amended. I would also say that, in general, members in the chamber should avoid suggesting that others have been deliberately misleading and untruthful.”
“I think that you were just on the cusp, Mr MacDonald, so I will accept your point of order at this time. Gordon MacDonald: Thank you, Presiding Officer. At First Minister’s question time today, Anas Sarwar made a series of comments about cancelled operations, suggesting that figures are worse this year than last year. However, it appears that he has misled Parliament by comparing figures across four months this year with those across only two months last year. That is deliberately misleading. He also failed to make Parliament aware that the number of operations that were cancelled due to capacity issues had decreased and that the number of operations that were performed overall was more than 10,300 higher by September this year than in the year to September 2024.”
“There are two questions to be put as a result of today’s business. The first question is, that amendment S6M-19565.1, in the name of Kevin Stewart, which seeks to amend motion S6M- 19565, in the name of Graham Simpson, on the Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill at stage 1, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting platform. 17:01 Meeting suspended. 17:04 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: We will now proceed with the division on amendment S6M-19565.1, in the name of Kevin Stewart. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed.”
“In closing, when Jamie Hepburn appeared before the committee, I asked him whether he agreed with me that we can have the best system of recall in the UK, which he did. Let us rise to the challenge, support the general principles of the bill, and work together to get it into a shape that all members of the Parliament can agree on. Decision Time 17:01”
“I will work with anyone who has sensible ideas and who wants a recall system in Scotland. I have always worked that way, and I hope that members will be constructive. I do not wish to embarrass the minister, but I have enjoyed a friendship with him for a number of years. It is an enduring friendship, and I hope that he can work with me on that basis. I have also worked with Kevin Stewart and will work with him at stage 2. His amendment is cheeky and he has given the Scottish Conservatives a reason to abstain, which is regrettable. Perhaps he will reconsider, because I would rather members did not have a reason to abstain. The public will expect us to work together on the bill, which is what we should do. We cannot be left as the only part of the United Kingdom without a recall process.”
“I do not know whether he intends to lodge an amendment to that effect at stage 2, but the issue should certainly be considered. I was just recalling that, when I was a councillor, I had to have those checks done, but we do not have to have them as MSPs. That seems to be an oversight that should certainly be addressed. Martin Whitfield, the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, gave, as he always does, a very good speech, and he referenced the ancient Greeks. I cannot remember what he said about the ancient Greeks, but there it was. It was a bit of a history lesson, as was Richard Leonard’s contribution. I am just pleased that we have got this far. There will be big changes to the bill, and there should be, which is part of the process.”
“I am not going to be precious about that, but it would be a very bad look indeed if the bill does not pass in some form and we end up not having a recall system in Scotland. Alex Cole-Hamilton: I hope to engage in the process that Graham Simpson describes as we seek to scrutinise and make better the pages of the bill. Will he offer his views on my suggestion that we should include an element of PVG checks for parliamentarians as a trigger for barring from parliamentary service those who are seen to be ineligible to work with children or vulnerable adults? That is a big part of what we do. If our constituents knew that we were members of the PVG scheme, they would be reassured when seeking our help. Graham Simpson: I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for making that interesting point again.”
“We could do as I suggest and base the constituency element on the Westminster system and simplify my proposal for the regional element, because we have to have a regional element—there is no getting around that. One of the difficulties that I had was wrestling with our electoral system. I do not like our electoral system, and I think that it should change, but we are stuck with it. If we are going to have a recall system, we have to come up with a system to deal with regional members. Graeme Dey and I are both former newspaper journalists, so we both know about the process by which pieces of work are honed, shaped and checked. That is the process that we are now going through with the bill.”
“My reflection on the debate is that members want a recall system that works—perhaps not the system that I originally proposed but one along the lines that I now propose, which is a much simpler and less expensive system for the regional element of the poll. I get the clear message from members that they do not like the non-attendance element of the bill at all, so perhaps we should just be pragmatic about that and get rid of it. Members do not seem to like the suggestion that we reduce the jail term, if I can call it that, from more than 12 months to six months. If that is members’ position, why do we not get rid of that? Why do we not make this a recall bill and get it right? [Interruption.] I hope that the minister is okay—I see that he is coughing. If we concentrate on recall, the job becomes much simpler.”
“It is wonderful that she is back, and she gave a very reasoned speech, which I thought was excellent. I fully understand that she was not on the committee for most of the evidence, and we know why. The provision in the bill, as it stands, on non-attendance was certainly not aimed at people such as Ruth Maguire—definitely not. I have enjoyed the debate, and have not intervened on members, because I have been listening. There have been excellent contributions that show how the process could work effectively. I know that I have not presented a perfect bill, and there are serious questions to be answered about it. The committee has done a great job in raising concerns about it.”
“Although the Scottish Government will support the bill today, I make it clear that our support at stage 3 will depend on whether we believe that, at that stage, the Parliament has feasible, workable proposals before it that can ultimately be implemented by the institution. Like Kevin Stewart, Ruth Maguire and Richard Leonard, I have no skin in the game. As someone noted earlier, I will not be here in the next session of Parliament. However, I believe that it is incumbent on all of us who have the privilege to sit here to help to furnish future iterations of the Parliament with a workable recall system. I hope that colleagues will join me in committing today to do all that we can in the coming weeks and months to ensure that that is the case. 16:54 Graham Simpson: I start by welcoming Ruth Maguire back.”
“As I said earlier, and as the debate has indicated, there is much to do—much of it complex—and relatively little time in which to do it. We will need clarity of thought and a clear eye on the principles that underpin the bill to ensure that it meets its intended purpose, which is “to improve the democratic accountability of MSPs during the course of a parliamentary session.” If Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill today, we will work with colleagues across the chamber to do what we can to help to reshape some of the bill at stage 2 to reflect the committee’s and members’ clearly expressed concerns. I strongly encourage Mr Simpson to do the same in conjunction with the non-Government bills unit.”
“Its report states: “Unless these matters are addressed, we consider that there is potential for the purpose of recall to be undermined to the detriment of the accountability and transparency that must form part of any democratic event.” We should explore including in the bill additional provisions to cover campaign finance and campaigning rules. The proposed changes that I and others have outlined today are numerous and complex. They would need to be supported by a range of technical amendments to ensure that the bill would fit with the existing electoral legislation in Scotland, including the relevant administrative process, the roles and responsibilities of electoral bodies, and offences arising from all aspects of the recall process.”
“On the need to remove the provisions on non- attendance as a trigger for disqualification, I agree with much of what I heard from members in the debate. If the bill were to proceed as it is currently drafted, we would need Parliament to introduce new mechanisms for monitoring, recording and reporting on the physical attendance of MSPs on the parliamentary estate. However, it is pretty clear from the contributions to the debate that members do not believe that that would be workable or appropriate. The committee asked for more detail on campaigning rules during the petition signing period.”
“I know that this is not in the minister’s gift, but can we all come together to ensure that the Parliament gets the resource that is required to do all that work, and not just the Government? It is a job for the Parliament. Graeme Dey: Mr Stewart will recognise that I cannot answer that question. I observe that it is unrealistic to expect that we will magically find the resource in the next few weeks or couple of months in order to do that. However, I agree with him about the Parliament coming together and working constructively to try to ensure that, at the end of the process, we have something that is capable of being implemented. I will comment on some of the changes that are proposed in the bill, although I am conscious of time. We have explored the threshold of six months rather than 12 months for sentences.”
“However, let me be clear that, if we are to provide that support and engagement, we will need adequate time to do so. The committee, which has done a sterling job to date, and the Parliament will need a realistic stage 2 deadline to work to. It will also need the constructive and thoughtful participation of the wider membership of the Parliament because, in addition to all the points in the report that have been explored today, we have heard brand new ones, including from Alex Cole-Hamilton and Sue Webber, and those different angles will require to be taken on board as we go through stages 2 and 3. We will need time to consider them and ensure that we can implement the measures, if Parliament decides that we should do that, in an appropriate way. Kevin Stewart: A lot of that work will have to be done by the Parliament.”
“That is clearly necessary if the bill is to be feasible and if the Parliament is to have a way of understanding and agreeing what that complaints and sanctions process would look like before the final implementation of the legislative provisions that would trigger recall on the grounds of parliamentary sanction. Kevin Stewart’s reasoned amendment is a possible solution to that problem, which is why the Government will support it tonight. I do not accept Sue Webber’s assertions about Mr Stewart’s amendment and, in speaking for the Government, reiterate that our motives come from an utter commitment to making the process fair and workable. Other issues have been raised in the debate and I am willing to explore them further with Mr Simpson, the committee and members ahead of stage 2 and to consider whether we can find a way forward.”
“There are a number of steps that the Government could take, in conjunction with members, to address the concerns that have been highlighted by members and by the committee and to bring the bill closer to workability. Some other issues cannot, and should not, be resolved by the Government and should be addressed by the Parliament, but the Parliament is not resourced to do that—hence my offer to deploy Government resources to support colleagues. I hope that that offer is seen to be as genuine as I intend it to be. One clear example of that is the need to future proof the bill, at least to the degree that we can, to accommodate the findings of the independent review of the parliamentary complaints system.”
“Sadly, Scottish Conservatives will abstain, should Mr Stewart’s amendment be agreed to, because things would be much clearer if we were to stick to the bill as it stands, as was proposed by Mr Simpson at stage 1. 16:47 Graeme Dey: The committee’s stage 1 report concluded that “There are some fundamental issues that would need to be addressed at Stage 2 for the Bill to be able to deliver its intended purpose”, and it is clear from today’s debate that members pretty much unanimously agree with that. The question is how we address those issues. I very much welcome Patrick Harvie’s commitment to engage in that process despite his party’s strong reservations about what sits before us presently, because we will need that approach if we are to come to a satisfactory conclusion.”
“I would be happy to give way to Mr Simpson if he wants to comment on that, but it seems that he is not going to intervene or admit to what was probably an error of judgment. We are, basically, not opposed to the general principles of the bill, although we have some areas of concern. If Mr Stewart does not have any ulterior motives, we will find that out further down the line, but I fear that his attempt to widen the bill’s scope could allow it to be hijacked for purposes that might, in the end, undermine the rationale for introducing such a bill in the Parliament. Fundamentally, we must do far more to tease out the arguments around the bill, and we will have the opportunity to do so.”
“Rather than sanctioning himself for not turning up, Mr Simpson took two salaries, setting aside the long-standing convention that double-jobbing elected representatives donate one salary to charity. I am therefore a little confused about Mr Simpson’s position in relation to those who do not fully discharge their duties: is that a matter for sanction or for reward? Mr Simpson might have changed his opinion since then and might wish to confirm that, with hindsight, he made an error of judgment. He might even now, retrospectively, want to donate the £17,000 that he received as a councillor, given that, as the Daily Record confirmed, he did not always turn up for meetings.”
“I believe that Mr Simpson has encountered that issue in the past, so he might have some sympathy with that position. In researching for today’s debate, I came across a May 2016 Daily Record article that I think is material to the debate, because its headline reads: “East Kilbride councillor under fire for keeping council pay on top of MSP salary”. The piece, which is still available online, reads: “Newly elected Tory list MSP Graham Simpson misses council meeting for Holyrood despite saying he would have ‘no difficulty’ in combining two roles.” The piece goes on to explain that Mr Simpson, who took both his MSP salary and his councillor salary “did not attend South Lanarkshire Council’s executive committee meeting because of commitments at Holyrood”.”
“We have very little time. Craig Hoy: I will take a brief intervention. Ruth Maguire: Does the point that Craig Hoy made about the different reasons for people leaving—I will not repeat the one that he gave— show that it is just so difficult to legislate for an MSP who changes party, because of all the different reasons and views that people have on it? Craig Hoy: Absolutely. A person might choose to sit as an independent, but would that therefore prevent them from continuing to sit? The same principle would apply. I will pick up on a couple of issues that Mr Simpson raised. I accept his legitimate point that we currently hold councillors to a higher standard in many respects, but we must recognise that there are many reasons why members of this Parliament might not be in the chamber.”
“Let us hear one another. The First Minister: The reason why I cited the action that I did is that that action is happening today. The national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group is looking at these questions, and Police Scotland is actively reviewing current and historical abuse investigations. That is happening today, in Scotland, under the direction of the Scottish Government, and we will consider the group’s findings. I reiterate the fact that the Government remains open to the question of having an inquiry into grooming gangs. However, I am satisfied that the police and our judicial system will address these issues, and we will reflect on whether any further scrutiny is required in the light of those investigations. National Health Service (Winter Preparedness) 2.”
“Let us hear one another. Shona Robison: —are giving Scotland the highest feasible credit rating that it could achieve, citing our credit strengths as a nation— [Interruption.] Craig Hoy might not want to hear this, but I will say it anyway. The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. Shona Robison: Standard & Poor’s said that “Scotland’s economy is strong, with high GDP per capita in an international comparison”, and the other agency said that “Governance has a positive impact on the rating ... stemming from good budgeting practices, a supportive institutional framework and a good fiscal track record.” I know who the public will believe. It will not be Craig Hoy—it will be the credit rating agencies. That, of course, shows the underlying strength of the Scottish economy and our fiscal management. ScotWind (Investigation) 7.”
“There are nine questions to be put as a result of today’s business. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Richard Lochhead is agreed to, the amendments in the name of Douglas Lumsden and Sarah Boyack will fall. The first question is, that amendment S6M- 19637.4, in the name of Richard Lochhead, which seeks to amend motion S6M-19637, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on Rosebank, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system. 17:20 Meeting suspended. 17:23 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: We move to the division on amendment S6M-19637.4, in the name of Richard Lochhead. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed.”
“That the Parliament agrees that the Finance and Public Administration Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the legislative consent memorandum on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. That the Parliament agrees that Gordon MacDonald be appointed as the Scottish National Party substitute on the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee.—[Graeme Dey] The Presiding Officer: The question on the motions will be put at decision time. Decision Time 17:20”
“That the Parliament agrees that the Equality Act 2010 (Specification of Public Authorities) (Scotland) Order 2025 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland General Regulatory Chamber Police Appeals and Upper Tribunal for Scotland (Composition) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland General Regulatory Chamber (Police Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Transfer of Functions and Members of the Police Appeals Tribunal) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.”
“The next item of business is consideration of 10 Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Graeme Day, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move motions S6M-19650 to S6M-19657, on the approval of Scottish statutory instruments, motion S6M-19658, on the designation of a lead committee, and motion S6M-19659, on a committee substitute. Motions moved, That the Parliament agrees that the Absent Voting at Scottish Parliament and Local Government Elections (Signature Refresh) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2025 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Regulation of Care (Child Contact Services) (Equality) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Regulation of Care (Child Contact Services) (Scotland) Order 2025 [draft] be approved.”
“Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees— (a) the following programme of business— Tuesday 18 November 2025 2.00 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Topical Questions followed by Scottish Government Debate: Supporting Scotland’s Fishing Industry followed by Committee Announcements followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Wednesday 19 November 2025 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Deputy First Minister Responsibilities, Economy and Gaelic; Finance and Local Government followed by Scottish Labour Party Business followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.10 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Thursday 20 November 2025 11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions 11.40 am General Questions 12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions followed by Members’ Business 2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Climate Action and Energy, and Transport followed by Stage 1 Debate: Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill followed by Financial Resolution: Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill followed by Ministerial Statement: Publication of UK Covid-19 Inquiry Module 2ABC Report followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time Tuesday 25 November 2025 2.00 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Topical Questions followed by Stage 1 Debate: Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill followed by Committee Announcements followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Wednesday 26 November 2025 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands; Health and Social Care followed by Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Business followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.10 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Thursday 27 November 2025 11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions 11.40 am General Questions 12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions followed by Members’ Business 2.15 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.15 pm Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Questions followed by Portfolio Questions: Social Justice and Housing followed by Scottish Government Business followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time (b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 17 November 2025, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.—[Graeme Dey] 17:12”
“The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-19649, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak to the motion should press their request-to-speak button now. I ask Graeme Dey to move the motion.”
“The next item of business is a statement by Jim Fairlie on a wildfire summit. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. 14:26”
“Thank you, Mr Ross. It is a matter for the Scottish Government, as a party to the case, to consider the level of detail that it wishes to go into. We turn to supplementaries. Pauline McNeill is joining us remotely.”
“The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-19647, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to business. Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for Tuesday 11 November 2025— after followed by Stage 1 Debate: UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill insert followed by Motion on Legislative Consent: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill – UK Legislation delete 4.15 pm Decision Time and insert 4.30 pm Decision Time—[Graeme Dey] Motion agreed to. Topical Question Time Transgender Prisoners (Legal Action) 1.”
“The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-19646, on the suspension of standing orders. I ask Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion. Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees, for the purposes of consideration of the supplementary legislative consent memorandum on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, Rule 9B.3.5 of Standing Orders is suspended.—[Graeme Dey] Motion agreed to. Point of Order 14:03”
“There, we chanced upon a poster bearing these simple but striking words: “Auschwitz: not long ago; not far away”. If, tonight, you remember anything, remember that. Business Motion 14:03”
“It falls to the people of Scotland, as a peace-loving nation, to live justly and to live with courage as we strive for that which is right against that which is merely expedient. Reminders are vital things, and we cannot afford to ignore our poppies when 12 November rolls around. Although “remembrance” is most definitely a noun, it is our duty to treat that word like the verb that we all need it to be. We do remembrance, and we must keep on doing remembrance for the sake of our humanity and our planet. But what if we choose to forget? What then? Today, I find myself remembering my visit to the city of Berlin in March this year. I went on a casual stroll with my wife through the Brandenburg gate and on to the chic elegance of Unter den Linden.”
“Across our world of stark division, voices are being raised in favour of private domestic self-interest over and against public international law. They are, in effect, suggesting that hubris, aggression and outright cruelty are necessary and acceptable elements of diplomacy in the 21st century. Those voices have got it wrong. That is why, this evening, each one of us should take our poppy and fix it on to our computer screen, our bathroom mirror or any place at all where it cannot be ignored over the year to come. There, let our poppies serve each one of us, together, as year-long and year-round reminders of the violence and suffering that continue across this world of injustice and sorrow.”
“Good afternoon. The first item of business is time for reflection. Our leader today is the Rev Dr Robin Hill, Church of Scotland minister of Gladsmuir, linked with Longniddry. The Rev Dr Robin Hill (Church of Scotland): It is the afternoon of 11 November. This morning’s two-minute silence lies in the past, to remain dormant for another year. We still have our poppies. After all, it would be callous to bin them so soon after the event but, come tonight, bin them we will—-and why ever not? The calendar keeps turning and life moves on, as it always does, with the tartan of St Andrew’s day in the near future and then on to the red ribbon of world AIDS day at the start of the never-less-than-hectic month of December. We have done remembrance, so why not just let it go? Well, here is why not.”
“The Presiding Officer: That concludes decision time. Dying in Poverty at the End of Life in Scotland 2025”
“There is one question to be put as a result of today’s business. The question is, that motion S6M-19436, in the name of Martin Whitfield, on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, on strengthening committees’ effectiveness, be agreed to. Motion agreed to, That the Parliament notes and welcomes the conclusions and recommendations in the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 4th Report, 2025 (Session 6), Strengthening committees’ effectiveness (SP Paper 878); further notes that the Committee wishes to gauge the views of other Members on the introduction of a procedure for the election of committee conveners by the Parliament, and agrees to consider a proposed rule change for the election of committee conveners based on the procedure set out in annexe B to the report.”