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 2 of 39.
“She said: “John Swinney is completely wrong to state there is a robust process.” She says that there is a huge number of fraudulent claims, and she identifies “a large group of people who believe they have genuine claims but, in reality, are capable of work.” She concludes by telling me that she was an SNP voter—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear Mr Findlay. Russell Findlay: —but that she “will not be voting for the party at the forthcoming election for a number of reasons, not least their inability to control the escalating number of benefits claims.” Why can John Swinney not see what everyone else can see? His light-touch benefits system is completely out of control. The First Minister: There is absolutely nothing selective about the statistics that I have put on the record, so I will put a few more on the record.”
“That is before we start talking about free prescription charges, under-22s bus travel, tuition fees and the other elements of the social contract that are delivered in Scotland by this progressive SNP Government. Russell Findlay: John Swinney can parrot selective statistics all day long—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear Mr Findlay. Russell Findlay: However, he is completely out of step with the people of Scotland. Two thirds of people in Scotland believe that spending on benefits is too high. It is now at £7 billion, and it is heading towards £10 billion. This is what I heard from a general practitioner in Perthshire with decades of experience in helping patients who are in genuine need of benefits.”
“He asked whether it is really worth being honest, hard-working people in this country. Can John Swinney explain to them why they are out striving, to pay for others not to work? The First Minister: Let us explore some of the details of the tax position of people in Scotland compared with people in England. A band 2 hospital porter at the bottom of the scale will earn £25,694 and take home £913 more after tax compared with someone in the same band in England. A band 3 clinical support worker at the bottom of the scale will earn £28,011 and take home £2,236 more after tax compared with someone in the same band in England. A qualified teacher at the bottom of the band will earn £41,916 and take home £6,365 more after tax than the equivalent in England.”
“Let us hear. The First Minister: That is the SNP delivering for all the people of Scotland. Russell Findlay: I do not think that John Swinney is listening. People are saving 77p per week. John Swinney will not admit that he is forcing taxpayers to fund the SNP’s sky-high and soaring benefits bill. The IFS found that the average Scottish household is more than £500 worse off than those elsewhere in the UK as a direct result of his tax and benefits policies. It describes elements of the benefits system as “unfair” and says that some benefits act “as a strong disincentive for some households to increase their earnings”. It is not just the IFS—ordinary Scots can see that injustice, too. A retail manager contacted me to say that he and his wife, a nurse, are angry at the unfairness.”
“Good morning. The first item of business is general question time. As it is the shortest question session of the week, concise questions and responses will be appreciated. Autism Spectrum Disorder Assessments (NHS Tayside) 1.”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees that the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill be passed. The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that motion S6M-21126, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument, be agreed to. Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees that the Prisoners (Early Release) (Miscellaneous Amendment and Transitional Provisions) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved. The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that motion S6M-21127, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on approval of an SSI, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (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) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) 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) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Abstentions Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on motion S6M-20921, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, is: For 70, Against 27, Abstentions 19.”
“There are four questions to be put as a result of today’s business. The first question is, that motion S6M-20921, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, be agreed to. As this is a motion to pass the bill, the question must be decided by a division. There will be a very brief suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system. 21:08 Meeting suspended. 21:09 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: We move to the division on motion S6M-20921, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. Members should cast their votes now.”
“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 the motion. Motion moved, That, under Rule 11.2.4, Decision Time be brought forward to 9.08 pm.—[Graeme Dey] Motion agreed to. Decision Time 21:08”
“The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-21127, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument. I ask Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion. Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees that the Representation of the People Act 1983 Remedial (Scotland) Order 2025 (SSI 2025/353) be approved.—[Graeme Dey] 21:01”
“Thank you, Mr Whittle. As members will have heard on several occasions, the content of members’ contributions is not a matter for the chair. At this point in the session, members will also be very well aware of the mechanism that exists for corrections that are required. Parliamentary Bureau Motions 21:01”
“The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-21126, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument. Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees that the Prisoners (Early Release) (Miscellaneous Amendment and Transitional Provisions) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.—[Graeme Dey] 20:50”
“The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-21125, 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) Thursday 19 March 2026 delete followed by Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Motion: Amendments to the Scottish Parliament Salaries Scheme and insert followed by Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Motion: Reimbursement of Members’ Expenses Scheme Resolution followed by Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Motion: Party Leaders’ Expenses Scheme Resolution (b) Tuesday 24 March 2026 after followed by Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee Debate: Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 10th Report, 2026 (Session 6) insert followed by Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee Motion on the Lobbying (Scotland) Act 2016 (Modifications) Resolution 2026 delete 6.00 pm Decision Time and insert 6.05 pm Decision Time (c) Wednesday 25 March 2026 delete 11.40 am General Questions and insert 11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions 11.40 am General Questions.—[Graeme Dey] Motion agreed to.”
“Members will be aware that I am required, under standing orders, to decide whether, in my view, any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In my view, no provision of the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. Business Motion 20:49”
“I turn to the other amendments in the group: amendment 181, in the name of Bill Kidd, and amendment 182, in the name of Roz McCall. I look forward to hearing from those members on their amendments, because we are all dealing with the same challenging problem. One of the most pernicious challenges is where delay happens in a young person’s life, and when it happens in the life of a baby or an infant—we will get on to that—the damage can be, and only too frequently is, catastrophic. I look forward to hearing from the minister on the Government’s position with regard to timescales. I know that we batted that between us during stage 2, and it will be interesting to see where that has got to. For the purposes of debate, therefore, I will move the amendment in my name. I move amendment 171.”
“The three-month timeframe that is proposed in amendment 171, which was argued for by Hearings for Children, is based on evidence, because after that point, instability in the lives of young people becomes increasingly harmful. The evidence from England and Wales, where there is a 26-week time limit for care proceedings, tells us that a blanket ideological opposition to time limits is not based in reality. We know that the measures that exist south of the border are working, that children in Scotland are forced to wait longer and that change must happen. Amendment 171 would provide scope to extend the time limit in exceptional circumstances, but it would help to embed a culture that does not tolerate drift or delay, and it seeks to achieve that.”
“In the light of the minister’s comments and the assurances that she has given, and the wider debate, I will not press amendment 169, and I give notice that I do not intend to move the other amendments in my name in the group. Amendment 169, by agreement, withdrawn. Amendments 170 and 55 not moved. The Presiding Officer: Group 18 is on children’s hearings: timescales. Amendment 171, in the name of Martin Whitfield, is grouped with amendments 181 and 182. Martin Whitfield: As has already been outlined extensively in relation to the amendments on permanence, drift and delay in decision making in the children’s hearing system can be extremely harmful to the development of young children in particular.”
“I also concede the point—which was made by Willie Rennie and Ross Greer, and by the minister—that, if the take-up rates under an opt-in approach are sufficiently high, it may be possible to persuade me and others that that is the right approach and an opt-out alternative is not necessary. That remains to be seen, however, and monitoring of that will be extremely important. I also accept that my amendments, in seeking in good faith a compromise, might actually raise more issues than they would solve. I say to the minister that a reference to the Kilbrandon report will always be highly influential with me, so that was well targeted.”
“If they are moved, regretfully, I ask members to vote against them. However, I support Ross Greer’s amendment 200 and Martin Whitfield’s amendment 197, and I encourage members to vote for them. The Presiding Officer: I call Nicola Sturgeon to wind up and say whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 169. Nicola Sturgeon: This has been a really helpful debate. I certainly recognise the points that the minister has made, and I readily accept that there are technical issues with my amendments; she set those out very well. I am, in principle, in favour of an opt-out approach, but I recognise that we are not, in general, in a position to move to that today.”
“The reforms mean that advocacy and rights and voice support, especially for older children, should be broadened and strengthened. As I indicated, we will meet that need as it emerges. Advocacy is not a replacement for legal representation. Both need to be available and complement each other where required and appropriate. That is why legal representation is already available for many of the cases that are addressed by the amendments. We are also strengthening the legal offer to children who are involved with offence referrals elsewhere in the bill. I welcome the opportunity to debate the best way to take forward support for the children who will be served by the redesigned hearings system. However, for the reasons that I have set out, I cannot support amendments 78, 185, 187, 190, 193, 196, 199, 169, 170, 186, 188, 191, 194 and 198.”
“Essentially, we would end up with a two-tier system. It would not be right to split children into different entitlement groups based only on the legal ground of referral. I acknowledge that the upcoming Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024 reforms will bring more older children into the hearings system. Taking more children’s offences out of our courts will be challenging. The modernised hearings system needs to be able to respond credibly and effectively to older children’s deeds, some of which will be serious. I expect the new remunerated chairing panel member to bring more profile to those issues. I am aware that the consistent application of children’s advocacy entitlement needs to be better. I look to all agencies and system leaders to ensure that that happens and to assist us when we look again at opt-out questions.”
“Natalie Don-Innes: Mr Greer makes an excellent point. For that small minority of young people who are not taking up the advocacy offer, we absolutely need to understand why. I recognise the intention behind amendments 186, 188, 191, 194 and 198, but the founding Kilbrandon principles of our children’s hearings system recognise that there is often a blend of issues in a child’s life, across justice and welfare grounds. The entire ethos of the system is founded on the recognition that an integrated approach remains the right one. Scotland deals with deeds by addressing needs. The amendments assume a clear distinction between the advocacy needs of children being referred on justice grounds and the needs of those who are dealt with on welfare grounds, but that distinction often does not exist. Ms Sturgeon highlighted that point.”
“Absolutely, the issue needs to be monitored and considered again in a future session of Parliament to understand whether the service is working appropriately for our children and young people. I would look to come back to that. Ross Greer: To follow up on Willie Rennie’s points about monitoring uptake, I emphasise to the minister—I hope that she agrees—that it is not just about overall uptake rates. We know that, when advocacy is offered to young people, 98 per cent of them take it up, but we should be focusing on the 2 per cent who do not take it up and the reasons for that. In some cases, that might be a perfectly legitimate choice that they have made. In other cases, it is the most marginalised young people in the system, and those are the cases in which we need to consider whether an opt-out model is necessary.”
“It means that children can ask for advocacy support at any point in their engagement with the children’s hearings system. Unfortunately, amendments 169 and 170 would create a fixed point at which children would have to receive advocacy. Willie Rennie: I have been persuaded by the minister of the benefits of an opt-in system, but surely the test is what the minister has referred to, which is the take-up in the longer term. We need to measure that at every stage. If we are not sharing the information and encouraging young people to take up the service, we will need to come back and look at the issue again. For now, however, I am a supporter of the opt-in service, for the reasons that the minister has set out. Natalie Don-Innes: I thank Mr Rennie for setting that out. I was just getting to my summary.”
“The existing national practice model was co- designed with advocacy providers and children’s organisations. It empowers children to make informed choices. Repeated offers of advocacy are already made, and children can change their mind at any time. In all local authority areas, children are offered a choice of two fully funded advocacy organisations, the aim of which is to manage conflict of interest and promote choice and continuity in pre-existing relationships. 19:30 Making an automatic referral to one state- selected provider would remove some of that choice and control from children, which are two issues that continue to matter to them. As I reported at stage 2, children have told researchers that they want to be the boss, and opt-out takes that empowerment away from them. Choice is key.”
“We have already expanded provision to meet the growing demand, and we should continue to do so. Other changes in the bill will help us to increase awareness and take-up by ensuring earlier and broader signposting by statutory bodies, engaging with children and making referrals to the children’s reporter. I know that members want an assurance that those measures are proving effective in boosting uptake and in connecting more children with advocacy opportunities. The post-implementation review and reporting arrangements should track and monitor whether opt-out needs to be revisited. That should happen in good time to allow any further or required changes to be implemented within the Promise-keeping timeline. We can do that work with justified confidence.”
“At a basic level, in different ways and at different points, the amendments seek to change the model of advocacy for children in the hearings system from being opt in and demand led to being opt out. I have listened, I understand and I respect the competing perspectives on the issue. I maintain that, at the moment, to legislate for an opt-out model would not be right, due to some of the challenges that have been touched on by members. I will further explore those in my comments. The current approach, which has been operating well for more than five years, is not just opt in but opt in and demand led. We have repeatedly uprated and have now nearly doubled the levels of provision since the scheme’s introduction in 2020. I want more children and young people to benefit from advocacy through the bill and related activity.”
“At this point, I incline very much towards an opt- out system rather than an opt-in system, but I recognise that the Parliament cannot proceed with that at this stage. Natalie Don-Innes: I thank members for explaining the intent of their respective amendments in the group. I welcome Ross Greer’s amendment 200, which would clarify non-instructed advocacy provision for children’s hearings, and I encourage members to vote for it. I also support Martin Whitfield’s amendment 197, which would strengthen the obligation of the chairing panel member to connect children with advocacy services. However, issues with the framing and drafting mean that I cannot support the remaining amendments in the group.”
“My amendment 200, on non- instructed advocacy in relation to hearings, is a very specific safeguard against that, but I still believe that an opt-out system, rather than an opt- in system, is the closest that we can get to ensuring that no child or young person falls through those cracks while preserving their right to make the choice for themselves where they have the capacity to do so. I therefore echo that ask of the minister—that the Government consider the effectiveness of advocacy and that specific question. A further bill on this area will be needed in the next session of the Parliament, and that bill could—I believe that it must—be an opportunity for us to revisit the question once the Government has conducted further work to explore what our options are.”
“Amendment 200 clarifies that the provision of children’s advocacy services in relation to those hearings could include non-instructed advocacy. That would ensure that all children’s rights were upheld in children’s hearings, especially for those who are unable to indicate for themselves that they wish to be provided with advocacy. I will touch briefly on Nicola Sturgeon’s amendments on opt-out referral to advocacy, which I have supported, and on the equivalent amendments from colleagues. As other members have acknowledged, balancing rights in that area, particularly rights on privacy, is tricky, but I am worried about those who fall through the cracks for the reasons that Nicola Sturgeon outlined a moment ago.”
“Ross Greer: Amendment 200 would change section 122 of the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011, which is the section that makes provision for advocacy services to assist a child in relation to their involvement in a children’s hearing. Amendment 200 would amend the definition of “children’s advocacy services” in subsection 122(7) to clarify that those services could still be provided if a child was unable, due to age or capacity, to instruct that such services be provided to them. At stage 2, in agreement with the minister, I did not move my amendment on non-instructed advocacy—as it is known—so that we could work on an agreed solution ahead of stage 3. There has been strong cross-party interest in strengthening children’s independent advocacy provision and representation.”
“We can find common ground where it exists, however it is articulated. Most important, we can ensure that those marginalised and forgotten voices do not suffer any longer than they need to. I look forward with interest to hearing what the minister has to say. Roz McCall: I think that we are of one voice. The intention of my amendment 78 is to move towards an opt-out model for the reasons that have been so eloquently put. I understand the surrounding issues. However, that highlights that all members are aware of the issue and that children must have the voice that they so desperately need. I will not add much more. I am interested in hearing what the minister will come back with. We are all in agreement that more needs to be done in this sphere, so I await with bated breath what the minister will say.”
“Of all the amendments and sections, this is the issue on which the minister is most challenged. As we saw at stage 2, the voting indicated a desire to add provisions to the bill that could subsequently be changed. We do not have that privilege at stage 3. I fully accept what the minister has said and take her at her word. She cannot—rightly—bind future Governments, but a commitment to resolve this is essential. That commitment must be plain and simple, and the work on it should begin as soon as the next session of Parliament starts, in line with the provisions in the bill that allow for the review. We will not solve the issue this afternoon, but I believe that the Government can still show a way forward that allows the matter to be settled and brings together people on both sides of the argument.”
“We know that advocacy makes a practical difference in young people’s lives. Social Work Scotland and the British Association of Social Workers have raised concerns about the dangers of introducing uncosted measures into an already struggling system, and those concerns are relevant for advocacy provision. However, we must ensure that whatever measures are included in the bill, or introduced subsequently, are properly funded. With all respect, I do not believe that the arguments about the cost of the opt-out model advanced by the Government hold water. The Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance estimates that, for every £1 invested in advocacy services, £12 is saved in other areas. I understand the discussions that have been taking place and the assurances that have been indicated.”
“Martin Whitfield: I am very grateful to the member for moving her amendment so that we can discuss this group. We recognise the challenge of having an opt‑in and opt‑out approach, and it is clear that we have not reached a consensus on that. I agree with the previous speaker that the resulting two‑tier system could end up being the worst of all worlds. My amendments 185, 187, 190, 193 and 196 to 198 seek to introduce an opt‑out system for advocacy. That was a key ask for children’s hearings, and voices across the care sector, including 93 per cent of care‑experienced people, have called for such a system for a long time. Independent advocacy is a vital tool that allows care‑experienced children and young people— who, for far too long, have been left voiceless and marginalised—to have their views heard.”
“On that basis, and taking account of the minister’s comments—while acknowledging that she cannot bind her successor—if she were able to give a commitment today, on behalf of the Government, that it intends to consider the overall effectiveness of advocacy, which would encompass some of the amendments that were passed earlier, and, in particular, to examine the opt‑in versus opt‑out question as part of the wider review of the act, I would be minded not to press this amendment or to move my other amendments in the group. I will listen carefully to the minister’s comments and to the wider debate. Having said all that, I will move amendment 169, because I understand that it is required to allow the debate to proceed. I move amendment 169.”
“They seek to provide for an opt-out approach in cases where a hearing is considering an order or a variation of an order that would place a child in secure accommodation or that would otherwise restrict the liberty of a child, or where the child is suspected of a criminal offence. To me, it seems important that in those circumstances, there should be a presumption that a child has independent advocacy unless, of course, the child himself or herself opts not to have it. However, all that said, I recognise that these issues are extremely complex. I also recognise and accept—I have had this conservation with the minister—that there are concerns about creating a two‑tier approach to advocacy whereby some young people receive it on an opt‑in basis and others on an opt‑out basis.”
“I have always tended to the latter view, not because I think that advocacy should be imposed on young people—the right to opt out, of course, ensures that that is not the case—but because I have a concern that putting the onus on a young person to opt in will inevitably mean that many fall through the cracks, either because they are not aware of, or do not have the confidence to ask for, the advocacy that they are entitled to. However, rather than push a general opt-out approach through amendments to the bill— because I do not think that there is consensus around that—my amendments are an attempt at a principled compromise.”
“Amendment 54 disagreed to. The Presiding Officer: Group 17 is on children’s hearings: advocacy. Amendment 169, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, is grouped with amendments 170, 185 to 188, 190, 191, 193, 194, 196, 197, 78 and 198 to 200. Nicola Sturgeon: I think that it was Jeremy Balfour who said earlier that the basis on which independent advocacy services should be provided has been hotly contested during the passage of the bill. Should a young person have to opt in, or should there be a presumption of advocacy that a young person has to opt out of?”
“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) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) 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) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 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) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) 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) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (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) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) 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) 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) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) 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) 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) 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) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 31, Against 82, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 53 disagreed to. Section 14—Role of Principal Reporter and grounds hearing Amendment 54 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]. 19:15 The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“The question is, that amendment 53 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. 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) 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) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (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) 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) 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) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (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) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) 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) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) 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 Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 41, Against 72, Abstentions 0.”
“I have gone a long way round to avoid answering the member’s question, but I will send him a very large invoice for my services in helping him to understand the point. Amendment 115 seeks to provide a definition, but we have several options before us on that issue and I look forward to hearing members’ contributions. 16:30”
“In essence, we mean independence from corporate parenting. That is a challenge, and it will continue to push against the Promise. When we look around the United Kingdom and at other areas, we see the challenge with independence and have to consider what independence means if there is only a small pool of independent people to choose from. We need to go back to the principle of what the Promise is about and who it is speaking to. It is speaking to our care-experienced young people and their lives. The need for independence in certain circumstances is easy to legislate for but very hard to enforce. One of the challenges that we have had across the chamber, and it arose before stage 2, is defining independence.”
“He will remember from his legal days that the definitions will be looked at by lawyers and courts in due course. Does that mean financial reasonability? Can he give a clearer definition, or does he think that it is clear enough, if the bill is passed? Martin Whitfield: I am grateful for Mr Balfour’s intervention. I will not attempt to stray into a long- forgotten land of lawyers’ definitions of reasonableness and practicability. However, the member was right to bring up one of the challenges with the bill, which is that, when we talk about keeping the Promise—and we talked about corporate parenting earlier—we need to consider the extent to which the definitions in the legislation will achieve what we want them to. Section 4 seeks to define independence and challenges us to define what organisations have to be independent from.”
“My amendment 111 seeks to make allowances for advocacy services that do not meet the strict definition of independence. For example, arrangements where contractors might work with local authorities in the provision of some services or provide other services alongside advocacy should not mean that the invaluable expertise of those organisations is lost to care-experienced children and young people. Amendment 112 is consequential to that amendment. The minister picked up on and highlighted one of the organisations to which that would apply. Notwithstanding that, I believe that we should have a definition. Jeremy Balfour: I thank the member for taking an intervention, and I apologise if he is about to come on to his point, but his amendment uses the words “reasonably practical”. What does that mean?”
“Care-experienced people tell us that that matters hugely to them. I hope that I have reassured Martin Whitfield on those key points, and that he will prefer my amendments to his own. Finally, I welcome Mr Balfour’s amendments 24, 116 and 117, which bring refinements to amendments that he lodged at stage 2. I encourage members to support them. I ask members to support amendments 21 to 23, 26, 27, 29, 29A and 86, and to reject amendments 111 to 115, if moved. I move amendment 21. The Presiding Officer: I call Martin Whitfield to speak to amendment 111 and other amendments in the group. Martin Whitfield: I thank the minister for explaining the reasoning behind amendments 21 and 22. It is right that we needed confirmation of the requirement for separation so that there is independence.”
“It states that giving a person the statutory right of access to care experience advocacy does not prevent them from choosing someone else to support and represent them—for example, a children’s rights officer or a trusted adult—when they are accessing services or making their views known to decision makers. That includes a child choosing a family member, care worker or someone else who is employed in the provision of care services as their advocate, albeit that they would not be an independent advocacy support worker. Amendment 25, therefore, protects against care-experienced people feeling pressured into taking up advocacy support if it is not wanted or if it prevents them from accessing support from a person of their choosing. Without choice, we lose the benefit and strength of relationships from the service.”
“If amendment 29A is agreed to, they will not be able to provide independent advocacy for care-experienced people in residential or secure care in areas in which they provide contracted care services. However, amendment 29A reflects a clear choice to prioritise absolute clarity about the independence of advocacy services from care provision by creating structural separation. By ensuring that organisations do not provide relevant care services and advocacy in the same area, we will remove any possibility of perceived or actual conflicts of interest. On balance, that feels right, and I support amendment 29A. Amendment 25 seeks to protect choice.”
“It would ensure that organisations that provide care services in an area under contract with a local authority are not regarded as providing independent advocacy for care-experienced people who are, or were, placed in residential or secure care in that area. That would create a clear structural boundary, preventing any overlap between those who make decisions about care and those who provide independent advocacy in such circumstances. I thank Nicola Sturgeon for lodging amendment 29A and allowing us to consider these important issues. I also recognise that amendment 29A would affect third sector providers such as Barnardo's and Aberlour, which currently provide both independent advocacy and wider support services under contract with local authorities.”