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 3 of 39.
“That is a legitimate concern. Amendments 114 and 115 would amend the stage 2 definition of independence in section 4(2)(a) by adding that exclusion criterion. However, we already intend to insert a comprehensive revised definition of independence through amendment 29. Amendment 29A would simply add the same exclusion criterion to that definition, and supporting it would therefore achieve more comprehensively what amendments 114 and 115 seek to achieve. I have reflected very carefully on amendment 29A. On balance, I consider that it reflects a principled approach that would protect against conflicts of interest.”
“That will mean that Barnardo’s and similar providers could continue to provide independent advocacy where they deliver other support services under contractual arrangements with local authorities; however, importantly, it will prevent any overlap between individuals who provide advocacy services and those who provide or make decisions about the care services to which a care- experienced person’s use of the advocacy services relates. That is an important boundary to put in place. Amendments 21 to 23, 26, 27 and 86 are consequential to amendment 29. I recognise that Nicola Sturgeon, through amendments 114 and 29A, and Martin Whitfield, through amendment 115, seek to protect against conflicts of interest by ensuring that care providers in a local authority area do not also act as independent advocates in that area.”
“Amendment 29 will insert a new section to set out that local authorities and health boards cannot be regarded as providing independent care experience advocacy services and that members of those bodies are not independent advocates in relation to care services that are provided by the body of which they are a member. It will also set out that those who operate under contractual or other arrangements with a local authority or health board are not to be automatically treated as a service of the local authority or health board.”
“That is why we put into the bill a lifelong right for people to access advocacy services. At stage 2, the Education, Children and Young People Committee agreed to a definition of independent advocacy, introduced by Ross Greer, that was directly taken from the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. I raised concerns about directly lifting a definition from other legislation that was designed for a specific purpose within a mental health context and that had the potential to exclude some advocacy providers from being considered independent. I have, therefore, lodged a package of amendments that directly addresses those concerns and seeks to provide a definition that is both workable and desirable in meeting the needs of children and adults with care experience.”
“Section 3A—Duty of corporate parents in relation to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Amendment 20 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]— and agreed to. Section 4—Advocacy services for care- experienced persons The Presiding Officer: Group 6 is on advocacy services for care-experienced persons. Amendment 21, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 22, 111, 23, 112 to 116, 24, 117, 25 to 27, 29, 29A and 86. If amendment 23 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 112 to 115, due to pre-emption. Natalie Don-Innes: The Promise tells us of the importance of independent advocacy services and the role that those can play in supporting and upholding the rights of children who are currently in care and people who have experience of care.”
“In my earlier comments, I referred to ensuring that we provide the right route for children and young people, and employability is just one part of that. We need to look at the wider picture and ensure that all access routes and pathways for children and young people are progressing in the way that we intended. I reassure Mr Whitfield that I absolutely feel that further work must be delivered, but I do not necessarily believe that amendment 110 is the way forward. Amendment 16 agreed to. Amendment 17 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]— and agreed to. Amendment 109 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to. Amendment 18 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]— and agreed to. After section 3 Amendment 19 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]. Amendments 19A and 19B moved—[Martin Whitfield]—and agreed to. Amendment 19, as amended, agreed to. Amendment 110 not moved.”
“However, I urge the Government to continue to build on that, and I seek confirmation from the minister that that will be the case, so that: we can identify successes; challenges can be easily and quickly picked up; and, through the corporate parenting responsibilities under the UNCRC, work on those challenges can be supported. On the basis of the minister’s response, I will consider whether to move amendment 110. The Presiding Officer: I call the minister to wind up. Natalie Don-Innes: I will respond directly to Mr Whitfield’s comments. That aspect will absolutely have to be followed up. I have been clear that the provision exists and that children and young people are benefiting from it. However, we must absolutely ensure that we are making a tangible difference as a result of where we are making efforts and putting funding.”
“We should be bold in our ambition to support those young people and in arguing that representatives from our care-experienced communities, some of whom are in the public gallery today, are worthy of that support. They are worthy of the very same opportunities that everybody else has. I recognise the concerns that we have heard recently from organisations such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Social Work Scotland. We are not in an environment in which policies such as those proposed in amendment 110 are feasible, and there is an overlap with existing work. I am very grateful that the minister was able to provide the current quarter figures, which show the success of that work.”
“Like my amendment in group 1, it speaks to the importance of the UNCRC in these matters. I also welcome the support for amendment 109, in the name of Willie Rennie, with regard to the fundamental role that corporate parenting will play in this situation and the understanding that is needed. In particular, it is in the actions of the corporate parent that we will most successfully see the fulfilling of the Promise. Amendment 110 builds on discussions at stage 2, when very powerful testimony was heard from Duncan Dunlop about the golden opportunity that the bill provides to create proper pathways to employment and training for our care-experienced young people, because, for a variety of reasons, those young people cannot or do not access the networks and support that families would normally provide.”
“Martin Whitfield: Amendment 19A seeks to require specific consideration to be given to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the guidance on corporate parenting that is to be produced under amendment 19. I thank the minister for her positive approach to this amendment; unaccompanied asylum seeker children have been overlooked on too many occasions, so it is right that a clear corporate parent owes a duty of care to those individuals and that they fall under the looked-after category. 16:15 Amendment 19B would require that the guidance for corporate parents refers them to the guidance issued under section 13(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 about the UNCRC requirements. This is an important protection, and I welcome the Government’s co- operation on this amendment.”
“To reiterate, the amendment will require corporate parenting plans to include information on how corporate parenting responsibilities will be exercised in a way that delivers on the recommendations of the Promise. That is intended to increase accountability. Who Cares? Scotland has set out the need for stronger accountability in primary legislation for keeping the Promise, and that has been backed up by the Audit Scotland report of 2025, which evidenced confusion five years on from the Promise being made and the difficulty in distributing accountability. Together with my amendment 204 in a later grouping, amendment 109 will help to ensure policy coherence across corporate parenting, children’s services, planning and the Promise.”
“That figure has increased since the same amendment was lodged at stage 2, with 381 new care-experienced individuals accessing employability services in the past quarter. Amendment 110 would therefore result in unhelpful duplication of funding and provision that I believe are already working well. I hope that that reassures Martin Whitfield and that he will not move his amendment. In summary, I encourage members to support my amendments 16 to 20 and amendments 19A, 19B and 109. I ask members to vote against amendment 110, if it is moved. I move amendment 16. Willie Rennie: I am grateful for the minister’s support of my amendment 109, which was developed at the suggestion of Who Cares? Scotland.”
“The Government’s no one left behind approach has established an employability system that is delivered through local employability partnerships and is supported by nationally consistent priorities and expectations. That approach already funds key workers to provide employability support that is tailored to the circumstances and needs of participants and includes consideration of work, education or training. That is important, because amendment 110 assumes that work is the best option for care- experienced young people, when further or higher education, an apprenticeship or other training might be more in their interests. Care-experienced people are a priority group for employability support. Since April 2019, almost 7,500 care- experienced people have accessed support through no one left behind.”
“Their role goes far beyond just adhering to statutory duties. They shape opportunities, nurture aspirations and help to create the foundations for children and young people to grow up loved, safe and respected. Requiring corporate parents to be explicit in corporate parenting plans about how they propose to exercise their responsibilities in a way that delivers on the Promise recommendations will make it easier to track progress, identify gaps and ensure that the needs of all looked-after children and young people can be met. I am therefore happy to support amendment 109. I recognise the intent behind Martin Whitfield’s amendment 110, but it is neither necessary nor desirable.”
“There has been some confusion on that, so, to be clear, all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are looked after and should receive the support that they need as looked-after children. Although the issues of age and identity are complex, I am firmly of the view that they would be better addressed for that particularly vulnerable group through strengthened responsibilities and a wider regard being given to corporate parenting responsibilities in respect of the UNCRC. I hope that members will agree with that view. That is also why I support Martin Whitfield’s amendments 19A and 19B, which cover similar ground. I thank Willie Rennie for lodging amendment 109. Corporate parents are key to keeping the Promise and ensuring that looked-after children and young people get the best possible chances in life.”
“The guidance may include advice and information on when and how it might be desirable for corporate parents, in so far as they are acting within their powers, to continue their corporate responsibilities towards people aged 26 and over who were formerly looked after. Amendments 18 and 19 will remove and reinsert amendments that were agreed to at stage 2, with minor technical and consequential fixes. Amendments 17 and 20 will remove provisions that were inserted at stage 2, which would most commonly affect unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people. Those provisions related to corporate parenting responsibilities in relation to age and identity.”
“Section 2D—Extension of continuing care to age 25 Amendment 106 moved—[Martin Whitfield]— and agreed to. Amendment 107 not moved. After section 2D Amendment 108 moved—[Martin Whitfield]— and agreed to. Section 3—Corporate parenting duties in relation to persons looked after before age 16 The Presiding Officer: Group 5 is entitled “Corporate parenting: duties and guidance”. Amendment 16, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 17, 109, 18, 19, 19A, 19B, 110 and 20. Natalie Don-Innes: I will first speak to my amendments 16 to 20. Amendment 16 will reinstate the position that corporate parenting duties and responsibilities apply up to the age of 26. The amendment relates to amendment 19, which will place a duty on the Scottish ministers to issue guidance about corporate parenting.”
“Amendment 11 disagreed to. Amendment 12 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to. Section 1A—Aftercare Amendments 96 to 98 not moved. Amendment 13 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]— and agreed to. Section 1B—Financial assistance towards expenses of education or training and removal of power to guarantee indentures etc Amendment 14 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]— and agreed to. Section 2—Aftercare for persons looked after in Northern Ireland Amendment 15 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]— and agreed to. Section 2A—Duty to provide accommodation for children in need Amendment 103 not moved. Section 2B—Provision of accommodation for care-experienced people Amendment 104 not moved. Section 2C—Extension of continuing care to children returning to care Amendment 105 not moved.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (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) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) 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) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) 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) 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) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) 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 43, Against 70, Abstentions 0.”
“I call Jeremy Balfour to wind up the debate and press or withdraw amendment 11. Jeremy Balfour: I have nothing to add. I press amendment 11. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“The next item of business is decision time. There are three questions to be put as a result of today’s business. The first question is, that motion S6M-21100, in the name of Jenni Minto, on the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, be agreed to. As this is a motion to pass the bill, the question must be decided by division, so there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system. 22:01 Meeting suspended. 22:04 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: We come to the vote on motion S6M-21100, in the name of Jenni Minto, on the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-21005, in the name of Liam McArthur, on the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. I would be grateful if members who wish to take part in the debate were to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Liam McArthur, the member in charge of the bill, to speak to and move the motion. 18:24”
“Section 7—Assessment under section 6: further provision The Presiding Officer: The amendments are all minor and technical. Amendment 1, in the name of Liam McArthur, is grouped with amendments 2 to 5.”
“The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 3—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 46B—the second marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for about five minutes for the first division of stage 3. 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 any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat as soon as possible after the group is called. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.”
“Topical Question Time 14:03 Access to Dental Care (Adults) 1.”
“It is easy to feel helpless and powerless—to think, “How can I possibly make the world a better place?” The problems that we face feel too big, too complicated and too deeply entrenched, so is there even any point in trying? It is easy to think that our actions are superfluous, but they are not. Your job is to do what you can to make Scotland a better place. You hear the stories of your constituents and are tasked with making them happier stories. Will each of you change the world? I believe so. The work of being a good person is not grand and will rarely make headlines, but we all have the power to make the lives of the people we encounter just a wee bit better, so that, at the end of our lives, people who tell our story will say, “She was a good woman,” and those words will be true.”
“It is the jammies left on the radiator for somebody coming home from a night shift. It is going to the supermarket a bit further away because it sells their favourite biscuits. “Love” is a verb, because it is a doing word. Can you tell that I have a primary school-aged child? I am privileged to see and to celebrate the myriad ways in which love is shown. I told a man’s story at his funeral recently. I said something that might sound like nothing at all but that is, I think, everything. I said, “He was a good man,” and he was. His name will not be recorded in the history books. He did not change the world, but he changed the world of those who loved him. That is something that all of us have the power to do—the power and, perhaps, the responsibility. The world is a scary place, and it feels like it is getting scarier.”
“Good afternoon. Our first item of business is time for reflection, and our time for reflection leader today is Ronit Quayle, a celebrant from the Humanist Society Scotland. Ronit Quayle (Humanist Society Scotland): Presiding Officer, thank you for inviting me to address the Parliament. As a celebrant with the charity Humanist Society Scotland, my job is to tell stories—everyday stories of everyday folk. I celebrate the banalities and mundanities of people and their lives. It is those seemingly unimportant things that make up a life, and they are always worth celebrating. When I tell love stories at weddings, my couples rarely tell me about the big romantic gestures. It is the wee things. It is hanging up the laundry because they left it in the machine—again.”
“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”
“As there are no questions to be put as a result of today’s business, I close the meeting. Meeting closed at 15:58. This is a draft Official Report and is subject to correction between publication and archiving, which will take place no later than 35 working days after the date of the meeting. The most up-to-date version is available here: https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report Members and other meeting participants who wish to suggest corrections to their contributions should contact the Official Report. Official Report Email: official.report@parliament.scot Room T2.20 Telephone: 0131 348 5447 Scottish Parliament Edinburgh EH99 1SP The deadline for corrections to this edition is 20 working days after the date of publication.”
“Our next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-21096, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to business. Any member who wishes to speak to the motion should press their request-to-speak button now. I invite the minister to move the motion. 15:56”
“Section 21A—Offence of advertising assisted dying The Presiding Officer: Group 16 is on the offence of advertising and the dissemination of information. Amendment 247, in the name of Murdo Fraser, is grouped with amendments 248, 52 and 71.”
“Our next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 46A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of the stage 3 today. 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 any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat as soon as possible after the group is called. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.”
“Officials will support any person who wishes to formally report concerns. There can and must be zero tolerance of inappropriate behaviour. This is an important piece of work. Now that we have the findings, we must begin work on the recommendations quickly. Yesterday, the parliamentary corporate body gave its full support to implementing the comprehensive package of recommendations. I want to see the highest standards of behaviour across the Parliament, and I thank the corporate body members and party leaders for their support. I know that we are all united in our ambition to ensure that everyone experiences Parliament as a safe, respectful and welcoming workplace. 09:33”
“The corporate body welcomes the evidence of widespread positive practice across the Parliament, but we will all be shocked and deeply concerned to learn of some reported serious allegations. The review and publication of the report have brought issues to light that were previously unknown, and we are grateful to everyone who took part in the review. Speaking out is never easy, and our foremost concern is for anyone who is affected by inappropriate conduct. Senior Parliament officials made the Parliament police unit aware of the limited information that we have, and they have sought advice regarding reporting duties and signposting. The Parliament has taken the steps that it can to support individuals who report concerns, and I encourage anyone who has experienced inappropriate conduct to report it.”
“Good morning, colleagues. In June last year, we commissioned a review of our dignity at work policies and systems to help to ensure that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and members of the Scottish Parliament, as employers, were prepared for the forthcoming changes in employment law arising from the Employment Rights Act 2025. As part of the review, in January, we asked all staff who work for the parliamentary corporate body and for MSPs to take part in a dignity at work survey. The corporate body considered a report on that work yesterday, and it has now been published. The report contains a summary of experiences that were submitted in confidence and anonymously.”
“As there are no questions to be put as a result of today’s business, I close this meeting. Meeting closed at 21:58. This is the final edition of the Official Report of 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”
“Members will note that we will shortly reach the next time limit, but we still have two more groups of amendments to debate. As a consequence, I am minded to accept, under rule 9.8.5A, a motion without notice to propose that the time limit be extended by 30 minutes. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to move the motion. Motion moved, That, under rule 9.8.5A, the time limit be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Graeme Dey] Motion agreed to. Section 19—Criminal liability for providing assistance The Presiding Officer: We move to group 13. Amendment 108, in the name of Sue Webber, is grouped with amendments 236, 109 and 237.”
“I emphasise to members that they are largely either technical in nature or, in the case of amendment 200, are intended to ensure that advocacy is available to everyone who wants it. I press amendment 198. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 198 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed.”
“I will read out that paragraph for inclusion in the Official Report: “advocacy services are independent if they are provided by a person who is not previously known to the individual or their immediate family and is not otherwise involved in provision of care or support to the individual including the provision of services under this Act.” That is how we define “independent”. It is consistent with other definitions of independent advocacy that exist in legislation and that, indeed, we will be discussing next week when we debate the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill—the Promise bill. I think that that is an adequate explanation of what my amendments in the group intend to do.”
“Members will appreciate that I have no shortage of revenue-raising proposals to put to Parliament every year at budget time, so I can always come up with a way to fund this service that would not come at the expense of other services. I am sure that the cabinet secretary would be grateful to hear my thoughts on a public health levy on supermarkets, for example, but that is for another time. Audrey Nicoll’s point about the definition of independent advocacy is very important. I draw members’ attention to section 14A(4)(b)—the final part of section 14A—which is where we have defined “independent”.”
“Ross Greer: I am trying to round off, but I do not want to curtail the debate, so I will take one final intervention. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I thank the member for taking the intervention, and I thank members for their continued patience. Does the member have any indication from any conversations that he has had with the Government on where funding for this particular advocacy service could come from? Will other advocacy services that are supporting people through other parts of legislation in Scotland see reductions in their funding as a result, or is the member convinced that there would be additional resource? Ross Greer: My position is certainly that it would be additional resource. Obviously, that would get us into wider debates about budget allocations.”
“Ross Greer: Amendment 204 is paired with amendment 259, which is in group 19, on guidance. That is where we move the detail of what the advocate is to provide from legislation into guidance, to make sure that we can keep it up to date. I have just two brief responses to finish with, Presiding Officer. Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point about availability and funding, which was also discussed by other members, including Murdo Fraser, is critically important. I draw members’ attention to section 14A(2) of the bill, which already places a duty on Scottish ministers “to ensure that independent advocacy services are available to the extent necessary for that right to be exercised by the individuals who have it.” Finally, on Audrey Nicoll’s point— Pam Duncan-Glancy: Will the member take an intervention?”
“If it was palliative care, I cannot say that the advocate would stay with them throughout that journey; we do not know how long that might be or what form it might take. However, one of the critical roles of the advocate is to be there for that transition. It may be that the patient has decided not to go ahead with an assisted death. It may be that they have been rejected at the point of assessment by a medical practitioner, which, as we can all imagine, could be an acutely distressing moment for the patient. Having the advocate there, as somebody who is alongside the patient in that situation and can help them cope with and process such a decision by the practitioner, is, I think, particularly important. Jamie Hepburn: Could the member do us a favour and remind us which amendment we should cross-refer with amendment 204?”
“Conceivably, a patient could request advocacy, but the system in some way might decide that they do not require it. That is the situation that I am trying to avoid by having the provision say “request” rather than “require”. Bob Doris: I am sorry to prolong the debate. If a person requests advocacy and then decides not to proceed with an assisted death, but the advocate is empowering them in other ways—say, in relation to a palliative care pathway—will that advocacy stay in place for as long as that person needs it, or will they receive it only while they are still actively considering assisted death? There is an inequality of arms there in some respects. Ross Greer: I am envisaging that the advocate would be there for their transition to whatever form of care they decide to receive instead.”
“I call Ross Greer to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 198. Ross Greer: I will be brief in summing up. I want to make one general point and give two specific responses. The general point is to emphasise to colleagues that the intention of the amendments is to either clarify or fix drafting issues following stage 2 or, critically, to make sure that advocacy is available to any patient who wants it. That goes back to the debate that we had about the difference between “require” and “request”. If we agree to amendment 200, for a patient who is undergoing this process, even if they do not get to the end of it because they decide that it is not what they want, if they want advocacy, they will get it. The danger with leaving in the word “require” is that there is then the question of who gets to decide whether a patient requires it.”
“Thank you, Ms Duncan-Glancy. Your comments are noted and the bureau will have heard them. We will now have a short suspension to allow those leaving the gallery and chamber to do so. 12:55 Meeting suspended. 12:56 On resuming— Edinburgh Medical School 300”
“Let us hear one another. Clare Haughey: Can the First Minister therefore outline how, under the SNP and his leadership, Scotland has seen the number of doctors, consultants and nurses increase, and what that means for bringing down waits? The First Minister: I set out to Clare Haughey that—as I have just said to Brian Whittle, but I need to say it again so that members hear—under this Government, long wait times are down eight months in a row and long waits for new out- patients have halved since July, just as I promised would be the case. The number of GPs, nurses, midwives and consultants is up, and there are 16 new walk-in GP clinics. Let me reassure Clare Haughey that my Government intends to take no lectures from Tony Blair. Measles Vaccinations 6.”
“Before we move to First Minister’s question time, I invite the First Minister to make some remarks on the 30th anniversary of the Dunblane shootings. 12:00”
“Good morning. The first item of business is general question time. Question 1 has not been lodged. Cost of Living Support (Glasgow Anniesland) 2.”