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 21 of 39.
“Although I recognise concerns around the current rent adjudication process, where it is possible for the rent to be raised above the proposed rent increase, the changes that are proposed in amendments 75 to 77 are unnecessary. Sections 22 and 23 already make the very change that Maggie Chapman seeks to institute and they will prevent the rent from being set above what is proposed in the rent increase notice. There is no ambiguity in the provisions in the bill, so I cannot support amendments 75 to 77. Amendment 177 would require the rent officer or the First-tier Tribunal, when making a determination of an open market rent as part of a rent adjudication, to have regard to information that has been collected by local authorities under section 15. Similar amendments were lodged at stage 2 and the equivalent to amendment 177 was disagreed to.”
“I call the cabinet secretary. Màiri McAllan: Amendment 4 seeks to introduce further restrictions outwith rent controls to the extent that, where there has been a rent increase in the 12 months prior to the start of the tenancy, the landlord would not be able to increase the rent and the initial rent would require to be no more than the final rent under the previous tenancy. That proposal was contained in an amendment that was lodged at stage 2, and it was voted against. Although I support restricting rent increases in areas where rent controls have been deemed necessary, I cannot support placing restrictions on rent increases in areas outwith rent controls—that is, where they have not been considered necessary or proportionate.”
“I suspect that that was not Ms Gallacher’s intention. However, it means that I cannot support the amendment. Amendment 143, in my name, is a minor amendment correcting a cross-reference in section 15.”
“However, as I said, we lodged an amendment at stage 2, which was agreed, that will allow for the publication of statistics and other information that is not personal data. Amendment 393, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, seeks to amend section 83(1) of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 to provide that an application for landlord registration must specify the name and address of the owner and the name and address of the relevant person. I think that the amendment is attempting to require sub-landlords to apply for registration in the landlord register. However, I am afraid that the drafting is slightly defective and, taken literally, would require the application to include the address of each house in the local authority area that is subject to a lease or occupancy agreement whether or not the applicant owns it.”
“An annual requirement to provide that data could provide that predictability. I am nearly there, Presiding Officer. Amendments 151 and 263, in the name of Graham Simpson, would require the Scottish ministers to make provision requiring “each local authority to publish information on the amount of rent payable under relevant tenancies, broken down by each postcode sector for each period of 12 months.” Although I understand the principle of making data available, there has not been any consideration of how that would be delivered, and I would want us to understand the relevant issues, including the potential administrative burden that that would place on local authorities, before I could support such an amendment. Therefore, I cannot support those amendments.”
“Amendments 149 and 262, in Emma Roddick’s name, would add a new section to the bill empowering Scottish ministers, via regulations, to prescribe a process whereby a landlord can be required to provide relevant information about their property or tenancy to “the Scottish Ministers, or ... the local authority (but not both).” I thank Emma Roddick for her engagement on that following stage 2. Although the measures that are set out in the bill allow for the collection of the data that is needed to support implementation of rent control, having the flexibility to mandate automatic provision of that data is appropriate. That goes back to my earlier point to Meghan Gallacher when I said that, if we were landlords and we were to have rent control imposed on us, we would want that to be part of a predictable system.”
“I think that Maggie Chapman and I simply disagree on whether there ought to be a fixed sum or a sliding scale with the First-tier Tribunal able to apply discretion. I have to look across the piece at other penalties in the system and ensure that we retain proportionality, and that is why I cannot accept the amendment. Similarly, amendments 32, 33 and 40 would make the same changes to section 17A, which currently enables the tribunal to impose a maximum penalty of £1,000 where a landlord provides false information. I believe that a penalty on a sliding scale up to £1,000 represents a proportionate response.”
“Maggie Chapman: I thank the cabinet secretary for taking my intervention, and I hear what she says about consistency across the board. Is it not slightly odd, however, that while landlords can benefit from increasing rents regularly—above the consumer prices index, if the Government’s position stands—in a rent control area, the penalty that they face for not providing correct information, or providing incorrect information, is flat, which surely makes it increasingly beneficial for the landlord to break the rules? Màiri McAllan: I certainly agree that nobody ought to flout or break the rules in respect of law or public policy. That is exactly why we have provision for a penalty to be in place, so I do not dispute that principle whatsoever.”
“That fixed penalty can be set at no less than £2,000 and must be “adjusted annually with reference to average rent levels”. Ms Chapman lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, fixing a higher penalty of £10,000. Although amendments 30, 31 and 39 would impose a lower penalty, which I welcome, it would still be a fixed sum, rather than, as is currently the case, a sliding scale with a maximum sum of £1,000. The current maximum sum is aligned with financial penalties for similar non-compliance in other regimes, and I remain convinced that it represents a proportionate maximum penalty. I am not prepared to abandon uniformity across the penalty system, and I seek proportionality in this respect. Maggie Chapman: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Màiri McAllan: I will take an intervention, and then I want to make some progress.”
“I hope that Meghan Gallacher would agree that that is the best way to proceed. Amendments 144, 145, 146, 147 and 148, which are also in Meghan Gallacher’s name, would change the references to “relevant person” in section 16A of the bill to “relevant applicant”. My position is similar to what I outlined in my previous discussion with Meghan Gallacher in respect of the implications for agricultural holdings. I am afraid, once again, that the amendments are confusing and would make section 16A unworkable, so I cannot support them. Amendments 30, 31 and 39, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would replace the maximum £1,000 penalty where a landlord fails to provide information in response to a request under section 15 with a fixed penalty to be defined in regulations.”
“18:00 Màiri McAllan: I agree with that, and that is why I consider that the landlord register might be a suitable repository for the information. I went into the decision-making process on the issue with the thought in mind that, if I were a landlord and rent controls were imposed in the area where I was letting, I would want to know that that was based on the most accurate and up-to- date data. At the same time, however, I should not want that to give rise to an unduly onerous process. At stage 2, the Government lodged an amendment, which was agreed to, to allow for the publication of statistics and other information in relation to the information that ministers will obtain. That will allow us to publicise information about rent levels that will not involve the publication of a landlord’s personal information.”
“Meghan Gallacher: I lodged the amendment at stage 3 as a result of discussions with the Chartered Institute of Housing, which said: “If the Scottish Government decides that a rent cap system should be introduced, it must ensure that the rent system is viable and adequately resourced. This includes provision for robust data collection.” That is perhaps what the cabinet secretary alludes to with regard to the work that she is going to undertake as part of creating a good data system in which information can be collected. Does the cabinet secretary agree, however, that the system needs to be streamlined; the information has to be contained within a single data system; and it has to be easy for landlords to feed into that without—as Edward Mountain said— there being extravagant costs attached when they are simply doing their job?”
“Amendment 277, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would require Scottish ministers to provide for the information that is gathered by local authorities “to be published in a single data system.” Although I agree with the principle of making data available, we have not been able to consider how that would be delivered and, more importantly, whether there are any data protection concerns around sharing such information. I want us to understand the relevant issues—as I am sure Meghan Gallacher does—not least in respect of the general data protection regulations and landlord privacy. At this stage, therefore, I cannot support an amendment that is about publicising that data.”
“The principle of charging for making entries in the landlord register is there, but I am concerned that if you are going to design a whole new system to bolt on to that, there will be charges. Can you not just agree that no one should be charged for providing information to allow you to do your job? The Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair, please. Màiri McAllan: The principle of charging will vary from issue to issue. I am not going to say definitively how I think that local authorities ought to handle what will ultimately be their job in respect of data collection. However, I want to be clear to Mr Mountain that, although his amendment responds to the 2004 act, it does not apply here and it will not be possible to charge a fee, so we cannot accept the amendment, which would reverse that.”
“I cannot therefore support Edward Mountain’s amendment 141 but I reassure him of my intentions in relation to data handling, namely that I agree that, with upgrades, the landlord register appears to be the appropriate repository for information. Amendment 142, in the name of Edward Mountain, would add that a person must not be charged any fees, as he has explained. Given that the terms of the 2004 act do not apply to this information, it is not clear how a local authority would be able to charge a fee and, as a result, amendment 142 is unnecessary and I cannot support it. Edward Mountain: My concern is that, if you are suggesting in one breath that local authorities can make entries in the landlord register, every time an entry is made, the council applies another charge, and it seems to go up exponentially.”
“However, it is our intention that the landlord register has a key role to play in facilitating the long-term collection of data on rent levels, while acknowledging, as I do, that it gives us the capacity to build on an existing platform that is already familiar to landlords. That would involve using the landlord register’s digital platform as a vehicle to collate the data. It is important to stress that the Government does not intend to change the landlord registration requirements but rather to use the information technology infrastructure that supports registration. Although I believe that that is the optimum approach, it will require significant upgrade of the IT infrastructure to build the necessary functionality.”
“Amendment 141, in the name of Edward Mountain, would require information requested on a private rented property be added to the local authority landlord register. I should say from the outset that the amendment has a slight drafting defect and I presume that it means the information that is received following a request by a local authority or the Scottish ministers. The amendment does not specifically apply the terms of part 8 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 to that information. For that reason, it is unclear what status it would have on the landlord register and what the local authority’s duties in relation to it would be.”
“I commit to continuing to discuss the matter with Meghan Gallacher, Scottish Land & Estates and others, perhaps including the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, who, I am sure, will have an interest in it. On amendment 140 and related amendment 275, in the name of Maggie Chapman, I have concerns about using the powers to collect information that are designed to assist in the implementation of rent control for a separate purpose, as is proposed. There has been no consultation with landlords, tenants, local authorities or rent officers about the proposal, and there has been no opportunity to consider the rationale, impacts and unintended consequences of such a change, so I cannot support the amendments.”
“Meghan Gallacher: Does the cabinet secretary recognise that there is an issue with the legislation as it stands, given that some small dwellings holders are being put out because of the way in which the legislation is being enforced? Does she have any intention to further consider such issues and rectify them through the bill or secondary legislation? Màiri McAllan: As I said, I had a conversation with Scottish Land & Estates about the issue, particularly the implications for agricultural holdings, so I understand its concerns. Taking a broad-brush approach by changing a definition is not the way to address the need for a nuanced position for agricultural holdings, but I am not undermining the importance of the issue.”
“I listened carefully to what Meghan Gallacher said, and the intention behind the amendment appears to be that information should be requested only from a person who is registered in the landlord register. I had discussions about that with Scottish Land & Estates, but that would not be the effect of amendment 276. The effect would be that information could be requested from anyone who was not from a local authority, a registered social landlord or from Scottish Homes. I am afraid that that would be an unnecessary change—perhaps the amendment has the wrong framing—and it would serve only to confuse section 15, so I cannot support it.”
“Màiri McAllan: Amendment 139, in the name of Maggie Chapman, would amend section 15 of the bill to oblige a local authority to request the information that is included in section 15(2). That would remove a local authority’s discretion to ask for the information in the manner and at the times that it considers to be necessary. For that reason, I cannot support amendment 139. Amendments 271 to 274, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, would amend section 15 to change references to “persons from whom information may be sought” to the “relevant person”. In addition, amendment 276 would add a definition of “relevant person” to section 15. It states that the term “relevant person” “is to be construed in accordance with section 83(8) of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004”.”
“Those are two very different things. Technically speaking, the open market rent for a property is as I have described it. Maggie Chapman’s amendments 30 to 33, which would increase from £1,000 to £2,000 the fine for landlords for not providing data, are absolutely unnecessary. Would that mean that £2,000 would be added every time that a landlord failed to provide any information? Where would it stop? The amendments are not clear about that. I look forward to hearing Emma Roddick’s explanation for amendments 149 and 262. My gut tells me that we should support those amendments, but I would just like to ensure that there is nothing more to them than what is set out in them. I also look forward to hearing Graham Simpson’s explanation for amendment 151. I am probably more comfortable with his amendment 263.”
“If we are asking landlords to provide information to local authorities, providing that information should not come at any cost to them. If we are going to fine them for not providing information, it seems odd to charge them for providing it in the first place. I have no problems with Maggie Chapman’s amendment 139 and Meghan Gallacher’s amendments. I have a slight concern about Maggie Chapman’s amendments 275 and 140, given the way in which she spoke about them. I am not convinced that she understands the definition of “open market rent”. It is clearly laid out that an open market rent is the price that is achieved with a willing landlord and a willing tenant, without there being any obligations on either. That is my definition of “open market rent”. It is not, as Maggie Chapman suggests, the highest rent that the landlord can achieve.”
“We should continue to engage with the Government to ensure that we get data collection in the bill right. If we do not get it right, it will have negative consequences for rent controls and our housing stock in general. Edward Mountain: I will speak to my amendments first. Amendment 141 would require the information requested by a local authority and supplied by the landlord to be entered on to the landlord register. It is vital that we do not continue to ask for the same information time after time. That is an easy and slovenly way to keep a register and would be a failure. I want to see local authorities entering such information on the roll and for landlords to have the ability to update it as and when they see it as appropriate to do so.”
“The Scottish Conservatives will support amendment 149, in the name of Emma Roddick, because it gives the Government the ability to look at legislation that would give councils and the Government the power to require landlords to provide information. I believe that there will be further consultation on the details, which will need to be set out via regulation. However, the proposal seems reasonable and should be explored. In response to amendment 151, in the name of Graham Simpson, I agree that data collection is a vital part of the bill. However, there was an opportunity to attend a round-table discussion with the cabinet secretary. I was pleased to receive correspondence from the cabinet secretary about the measures that the Government will take on data.”
“Amendments 144 to 148, which are consequential amendments to amendments 271 and 277, would remove potential confusion from the bill about such matters. I understand what Maggie Chapman is trying to achieve with amendments 275 and 140, but there are unanswered questions on their potential consequences. For example, amendment 275 sets out that the council may ask for data on a landlord’s property to allow an order maker to determine the open market rent. However, the big question is what happens if the landlord does not respond to the request, because the bill will say only that the council “may” request the data. That point is still very open to interpretation, so the amendments do not clearly set out her intent.”
“It gives local authorities accurate landlord registration and enforcement, and it ensures that the correct person is held responsible without penalising owners for actions that are beyond their control. It provides tenant farmers with clarity on their responsibilities and rights without compromising the entitlement to compensation that is payable to them by the owner for any improvements that are made to enable subletting. For residential tenants, the amendment provides clearer information about who is responsible for compliance and a straightforward route to consider any required remedies. For owners, it will increase confidence in allowing subletting, because they will know that the compliance status is protected.”
“The workarounds that are set out in Government guidance are flawed because tenant farmers are currently advised to register as agents on the landlord register. However, that is inappropriate, because the agents are meant to act on behalf of the owner, whereas tenant farmers are not required to do so under agricultural holdings law. That ambiguity creates uncertainty about who is responsible for compliance with data collection, rent control, energy efficiency and housing standards. 17:45 Although the bill has been amended to address some areas that relate to data collection—I believe that we will have further discussions on that—it does not resolve issues of compliance with or enforcement of other regulations. My amendment has benefits for all sectors involved.”
“The aim is to ensure clarity over responsibilities for compliance, particularly where residential tenancies exist in agricultural holdings or other arm’s-length ownership arrangements. The proposal addresses an issue that Scottish Land & Estates has raised repeatedly since the introduction of the landlord registration regulations. The bill is a vital opportunity to fix a long-standing problem to the benefit of all parties. Current housing law, such as the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, does not recognise landlord-tenant relationships that are created under agricultural holdings legislation. That causes confusion, especially when tenant farmers sublet housing under private residential tenancy—PRT—arrangements.”
“It is clear that rents continue to rise and that, therefore, the penalties that landlords face for providing incorrect information or not providing information should also rise. I support the principle of Edward Mountain’s amendments 141 and 142 and Graham Simpson’s amendment 151, which would require the publication of the information that is gathered and would help to improve transparency. However, I note the concerns about the implication for resourcing that at local government level, so I ask those members to provide assurances on that in their contributions. I move amendment 139. Meghan Gallacher: Amendments 271 to 277 and 393 would introduce a clear and consistent definition of a “relevant” landlord across all housing-related legislation, including the bill.”
“Real rent comparison would ensure that rental data that is collected can be used for determining the open market rent, which would slow the ever-upward creep of the open market rent that happens when that real value is not used. Amendments 30 to 33 would increase the £1,000 fines for non-provision of information and provision of false information to a minimum of £2,000 and would allow them to be increased with rising rents. The amendments underline the importance of getting the necessary and correct information, which was the issue that made rent pressure zones unworkable. At the moment, the bill’s £1,000 fine, which may not even be one month’s rent, is not a sufficient disincentive, and the incentive will become weaker over time if the fines are not updated.”
“Group 4 is on information gathering and reporting in relation to rent control areas. Amendment 139, in the name of Maggie Chapman, is grouped with amendments 271 to 275, 140 to 142, 276, 143, 277, 144 to 147, 30, 31, 148, 32, 33, 149, 151, 39, 40, 262, 263 and 393. Maggie Chapman: I have a number of amendments in this group on different issues. Amendments 139, 275 and 140, along with my amendments in other groups, address a technical but important issue. Currently, challenges to rent increases are based on open market rent, as understood largely through advertised rent and not the actual rents being paid. Since the majority of advertised rents are set at the maximum that the market will bear, open market comparison always drags rent upwards.”
“Enabling the termination of all student residential tenancies mid-year could have a substantial impact on the operation of student accommodation, with potential risks of higher costs and a worsening in affordability. We can imagine how the situation could quickly become completely unmanageable. Although amendment 372 and its consequential amendment 388 also provide for students to end their tenancy, they do not provide for specific circumstances; rather, they would allow ministers to specify the category of tenant.”
“Amendment 372, in the name of Ross Greer, also seeks to provide for tenants to be able to quit their student residential tenancy, but with the category of tenant to be specified by regulations. I agree that there will be very good reasons for students to seek to give notice to leave their tenancies, but I am also aware that allowing that in all circumstances could have a significant impact on the management of, investment in and supply of student accommodation in Scotland. Specifying the circumstances in which a student may end their tenancy, as we would under amendment 105, would ensure that that could occur only where it was appropriate for them to do so. Vacancies in purpose-built student accommodation can be filled only by students, and that is difficult in the middle of the academic year.”
“Section 1—Periodic assessment of rent conditions The Presiding Officer: Group 1 is on student tenancies and accommodation. Amendment 123, in the name of the Cabinet Secretary for Housing, is grouped with amendments 124, 137, 150, 179 to 191, 220 to 222, 105, 239, 370 to 374, 258, 116 and 388 to 390. The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): I am pleased to begin our stage 3 consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill with group 1. Amendment 105, in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy, seeks to provide for tenants in student residential tenancies to be able to give notice to quit their tenancy in specified circumstances to be laid out in regulation.”
“The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 45A—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. The period of voting 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 the debate on a group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons or enter “RTS” in the chat as soon as possible after the group has been called. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.”
“Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Housing (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: 2 hours Groups 4 to 6: 3 hours 30 minutes Groups 7 to 9: 5 hours Groups 10 to 11: 6 hours 30 minutes Groups 12 to 14: 7 hours 50 minutes Groups 15 to 17: 8 hours 45 minutes Groups 18 to 20: 10 hours 35 minutes Groups 21 to 24: 12 hours Groups 25 to 27: 13 hours 45 minutes.— [Graeme Dey] Motion agreed to. Housing (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 14:47”
“The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-19014, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. I ask any member who wishes to speak to the motion to press their request-to-speak button.”
“Others have consulted and are still to take a decision. Others are still consulting through open consultations. No councils can take a final decision on what they will do if they do not know when they are going to be given the powers—if they are going to be given them at all. Does the minister agree that we now need a moratorium on any councils introducing a visitor levy until this shambles is sorted out? Ivan McKee: I know that Murdo Fraser and Conservative members are getting very excited about this, but the reality is that, if we talk to the sector or to local authorities—”
“It is also important to recognise that, although Murdo Fraser and the Conservatives are making a lot of noise about this matter, when the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill went through, none of them produced any amendments that would have allowed local authorities that flexibility. They complain about it now, but they did not take that option, and they should reflect on that. Murdo Fraser: The minister says that there was an error. It took him three days to notice that error and correct it. In the meantime, there was press coverage at the weekend saying that the Scottish Government had changed its mind, and there was no correction from the Government at the time. Councils across Scotland are actively considering the introduction of a visitor levy. Some have gone quite far down that track, including the City of Edinburgh Council.”
“Let us hear one another. Ivan McKee: It was not consistent with the letter that had been sent to industry and other stakeholders at the same time. Our position is that we absolutely recognise that there is a request for more flexibility from the sector and, indeed, from some local authorities. We have long recognised that. We are minded to bring forward changes to enable that, but, of course, we need to identify a suitable legislative vehicle. The member will be as well aware as anyone else that the legislative programme in the run-up to March is extremely busy, and finding a slot for making such changes will be very difficult—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the minister. Ivan McKee: We have committed to considering taking this matter forward, should we be in government, early in the next parliamentary session.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-19015, in the name of John Swinney, on the appointment of a junior Scottish minister. I remind members that, under rule 11.3.1 of standing orders, the question on the motion will be put immediately after the debate. 14:19”
“Topical Question Time 14:04 Charities (Closures) 1.”
“The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-19021, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to the business programme. Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for— (a) Tuesday 23 September 2025— after followed by Topical Questions (if selected) insert followed by Appointment of Junior Scottish Minister delete 10.00 pm Decision Time and insert 9.00 pm Decision Time (b) Wednesday 24 September 2025— after 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Deputy First Minister Responsibilities, Economy and Gaelic; Finance and Local Government insert followed by Ministerial Statement: Improving Provision and Access to Residential Outdoor Education for Children and Young People in Scotland delete followed by Scottish Government Debate: Improving Literacy in Scotland’s Schools delete 5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business and insert 8.00 pm Decision Time (c) Thursday 25 September 2025— after followed by Financial Resolution: Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill insert followed by Appointment of Commissioners to the Scottish Fiscal Commission.—[Graeme Dey] Motion agreed to.”
“Thank you, Mr Hepburn. I note your remarks. Members know the responsibilities that are placed on all of us, and I expect all members to take those obligations under the code of conduct seriously, both within and outwith the chamber. Business Motion 14:04”
“However, in among that wrestling with calendars and syncing up schedules, I find that I need to start off my day in a quiet contemplative way, spending some time to study things of my faith that are of the most importance to me. That helps to centre me. It does not always guarantee that my day does not get crazy after that, but it starts me off in the right way. I am aware that many of you will have busy lives. You will have meetings and commitments that take up large chunks of your time. If I may give you an invitation, it would be to consider how you use your time and determine what are the good, better and best uses of it. Whatever your belief, give yourself regular time to quietly contemplate, serve others and spend quality time with the people you love. Thank you. Point of Order 14:02”
“One of the prominent leaders of the church, Dallin H Oaks, said: “The number of good things we can do far exceeds the time available to accomplish them. Some things are better than good, and these are the things that should command priority attention in our lives. As we consider various choices, we should remember that it is not enough that something is good. Other choices are better, and still others are best.” So it is with our time. I have a busy life; I am a husband and father, and I have a full-time job and a time-consuming leadership role as a local church leader. There are not many days when there is not a meal to be made, a lift to be given, a student to speak to or a meeting to attend. I am constantly juggling and negotiating that struggle with what are the good, better and best uses of my time.”
“Good afternoon. The first item of business is time for reflection, and our time for reflection leader today is Paul Rand of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Paul Rand (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints): Good afternoon. It is an honour to be invited to give this time for reflection. I have three children and all of them, at various points, can be guilty of doom scrolling, which is the habit of scrolling through videos or other social media on their phones for inordinate amounts of time. I would love to say that I am completely innocent of the habit, but I sometimes find myself getting sucked in and losing time to my screen. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
“There are two questions to be put as a result of today’s business. The first question is, that amendment S6M-18936.1, in the name of Martin Whitfield, which seeks to amend motion S6M- 18936, in the name of Ben Macpherson, on behalf of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body-supported bodies landscape review, 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. 17:22 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: We move to the vote on amendment S6M-18936.1, in the name of Martin Whitfield. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed.”
“That concludes the debate on motion S6M-18936, on behalf of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, on the SPCB- supported bodies landscape review. Decision Time 17:19”