Graeme Dey
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“As the First Minister set out in the chamber on 19 March, the Scottish Government has, since the start of 2024, answered more than 13,000 freedom of information requests, of which 95 per cent have been responded to on time. The Scottish Information Commissioner has raised compliance concerns about two of those cases.”
“Any other Government would be utterly ashamed, but this lot are brazen and think that they can get away with it. Does the minister understand that the Government’s behaviour on that case and so many others has led the public out there to tell me that they think that Scottish National Party ministers and the SNP Government are a bunch of c…”
“[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the minister. Graeme Dey: The Government has an excellent track record in responding to FOI requests.”
“The order responds to a European convention on human rights compliance issue that was identified in relation to voting rights for Scottish Parliament elections and which requires to be remedied ahead of the 2026 election.”
“That bill remains the only bill of this Parliament to have required a two-thirds supermajority in order to be passed and to have obtained that.”
“In moving the business motion on behalf of the bureau, I want briefly to provide members with context and a clear understanding of what adhering to it and avoiding the need for exceptional sittings of the kind that we have had today will require.”
The complete record
Every one of 236 lines we hold for Graeme Dey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“I hope that a committee, whether it is the next Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee or a committee that is specifically established by Parliament for this very purpose, will introduce legislation following the May election that can be supported by all in Parliament. I am happy to commit the Government and my party to supporting such a considered and more rounded approach in the next session, leaning on the process that we have undergone to get to this point and the foundations that it has laid. 17:40”
“Out of fairness to the MSPs who will be judged by such a committee, the MSPs who may sit on it and do the judging and those who elect us, who expect the highest standards from their representatives, it is therefore vital that all parts of the system of deliberation are fair, balanced and effective. Can we believe that that would be the case under the bill? For my part, standing here, I do not believe that we have before us the complete, fair, balanced and effective system that we should all want. I reiterate that that is not a criticism of the efforts of the member in charge of the bill. The Parliament can take action early in its next iteration and introduce a sanctions regime and a recall system that will command the confidence of both the public and those who will be subject to them.”
“The system of sanctions, and the recall process that rests and relies on it, are matters that need to be considered together, and in the right order, so that they complement each other. The two processes, taken together, will mean a weighty and consequential task for the MSPs on any committee that is empowered by the bill. By recommending sanctions above or below a certain level, they could, in effect, end a fellow parliamentarian’s political career. That could be the beginning of a process that might change the balance of power in a Parliament that, by design, produces more balanced chambers under a proportional voting system.”
“That is not a criticism of the member in charge, but I could not in all good conscience leave this Parliament, as I will do shortly, with a law—I remind people that this is a law—that is based so much on an unknown process. Our new intake of MSPs deserves better. The Parliament only recently received Rosemary Agnew’s report and referred it to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. There is much in the report for the committee and Parliament to consider and to make decisions about, never mind implementing it in any way. My colleague Kevin Stewart lodged stage 2 amendments seeking to future proof the bill against developments in the system of sanctions. However, they were rejected. The shape of the complaints and sanctions process that the bill relies on is, therefore, far from clear.”
“The amendments that have been agreed to improve the bill, and they demonstrate that this Parliament has the ability to work together to make the right improvements to our system of democratic governance. However, that work needs to be done in a considered, clear and holistic way, so that there can be confidence in a recall system that is based, rightly, on criminal misconduct, but also—vitally—on a sanctions system that has the confidence of the Parliament’s own members. Some good work has been done by this Parliament, and absolutely by the member in charge. Although the Scottish Government and my party support the introduction of recall, I regret to say that we cannot support this recall bill. Far too much remains unknown about the complaints and sanctions process that so much of the bill depends on.”
“It is precisely because recall is a process that goes right to the heart of our system of democracy that it is vital that the way in which it is designed reflects that commitment to democracy. I hope that the member in charge of the bill would agree—I think that he has done so—that the Government has fulfilled its commitment, which I gave, to engage with him on the technical and practical matters that are required to produce a workable bill, should Parliament choose to support it. We have engaged with Mr Simpson on the legislation and provided support where we could, including by working with him on his amendments at stage 2 and by lodging Government amendments. I commend his collaborative approach.”
“All in this chamber care about democratic accountability—I think that that is a given. For many, the ultimate exercise in democratic accountability awaits in just a few weeks’ time, when re-election is sought. That is accountability in its most profound form. A recall process provides accountability beyond and between regular parliamentary elections. It provides for a process in those—we hope, rare— situations where a member’s conduct falls short of accepted standards so that they can be held accountable to the electorate. Direct democratic accountability should not be a once-in-an-election event, which is why this Government strongly supports the introduction of a recall process in the Scottish Parliament.”
“The process of direct removal for regional MSPs would cut the costs that are associated with the bill, and costs have been an area of concern, given that the recall process is relatively simple. However, costs should surely not cut the corners of democracy or natural justice. It might make for a cleaner, simpler system, but would it be fair or equitable? No. Introducing such a proposal, voting on it and then passing the bill at stage 3 without seriously considering detailed evidence is not the right approach to introducing such a significant change and potentially severe new process. I therefore urge the Parliament to reject all Sue Webber’s amendments in the group.”
“Strong democratic accountability measures would be in place for constituency MSPs, whereas they would not be in place for regional members. I want to return to the principle behind introducing a recall process, which the Scottish Government fully supports. The point of recall is not to design a process that derives from the manner by which the MSP was elected; it should be to enhance democratic accountability of all members of the Parliament by ensuring that, by engaging in the recall process, Scottish voters have a role in determining whether their MSP should or should not be recalled from the Parliament as a result of that MSP’s misconduct. Under Sue Webber’s proposals, a regional MSP who was convicted of an offence on a matter of conscience would be denied the safeguard of the public judging whether their conduct was justified.”
“The Scottish Government cannot support any of Sue Webber’s amendments in the group, because they would change the nature of recall by removing Scottish voters from the process of determining whether their regional MSP should or should not be recalled from the Parliament as a result of that MSP’s misconduct. Instead, they would provide that constituency MSPs would have their misconduct judged by voters, and regional list MSPs would be removed directly by the Presiding Officer. No right of appeal would be built into the regional process. The amendments would abandon the principle of parity of esteem for Scottish Parliament recall processes, and MSPs who had committed the same level of misconduct would be treated differently, depending on the method by which they had been elected to the Parliament.”
“Presiding Officer, the email from the Lord Advocate has barely warmed the Parliament’s inbox and Douglas Ross is on his feet, complaining about being dumped upon and demanding a statement from the Lord Advocate. Last week, the Lord Advocate undertook to provide further information for this Parliament. She does that today, providing extensive information and fulfilling her commitment, and she is pilloried again by Douglas Ross. It is all so predictable. I think that everyone who is watching this knows that—”
“I suspect that we should mark this date on the calendar, given its unusual nature. I move, That, under Rule 11.2.4, Decision Time be brought forward to 4.54 pm. Motion agreed to. Decision Time 16:54”
“That the Parliament agrees that the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 Amendment Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.—[Graeme Dey] The Presiding Officer: The question on the motions will be put at decision time. Decision Time 17:54”
“That the Parliament agrees that the Care Leaver Payment (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021 (Consequential and Supplementary Amendments) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Public Procurement (India Trade Agreement) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Social Security (Residence and Presence Requirements) (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Visitor Levy (Local Authority Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Visitor Levy (Reviews and Appeals) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.”
“I am happy to proceed, Presiding Officer, while respecting Mr Harvie’s principled position. The Presiding Officer: The question on the motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of 10 Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move motions S6M-20828 and S6M-20829, on approval of SIs, and motions S6M-20830 to S6M-20837, on approval of SSIs. Motions moved, That the Parliament agrees that the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2026 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Aggregates Tax (Applicable Rate of Tax) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.”
“5) Bill followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 6.05 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Thursday 26 February 2026 11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions 11.40 am General Questions 12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions followed by Members’ Business 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Climate Action and Energy, and Transport followed by Finance and Public Administration Committee Debate: Cost-effectiveness of Scottish Public Inquiries followed by Criminal Justice Committee Debate: Substance Misuse in Prisons Inquiry followed by Scottish Government Debate: Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2026 followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.30 pm Decision Time Tuesday 3 March 2026 2.00 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Topical Questions followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Contract (Formation and Remedies) (Scotland) Bill followed by Reconsideration Stage Proceedings: European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill followed by Committee Announcements followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Wednesday 4 March 2026 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands; Health and Social Care followed by Scottish Liberal Democrats Business followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.10 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Thursday 5 March 2026 11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions 11.40 am General Questions 12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions followed by Members’ Business 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Social Justice and Housing followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill followed by Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee Debate: Climate Change Plan followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.30 pm Decision Time (b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 23 February 2026, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees— (a) the following programme of business— Tuesday 24 February 2026 2.00 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Topical Questions followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill followed by Committee Announcements followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 6.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Wednesday 25 February 2026 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Motion of Condolence followed by Portfolio Questions: Deputy First Minister Responsibilities, Economy and Gaelic; Finance and Local Government followed by Ministerial Statement: Protecting Children from Harm followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Budget (Scotland) (No.”
“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) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) 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) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) 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) 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) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) 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) 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) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) 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) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) 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) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (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) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East 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) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on motion S6M-20826, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme, is: For 92, Against 31, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment disagreed to. The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that motion S6M-20826, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) 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) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East 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) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) 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) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) 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) 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) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (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 on amendment S6M-20826.1, in the name of Douglas Ross, is: For 51, Against 71, Abstentions 0.”
“The Presiding Officer: The first question is, that amendment S6M-20826.1, in the name of Douglas Ross, which seeks to amend motion S6M-20826, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme, 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. 17:46 Meeting suspended. 17:48 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: We move to the division on amendment S6M-20826.1, in the name of Douglas Ross. Members should cast their votes now.”
“Graeme Dey:—and committed to provide further information in writing. Therefore, MSPs have had an opportunity to provide scrutiny of the Lord Advocate in this area. Given that— Douglas Ross: We got no answers. The Presiding Officer: Mr Ross, please resist the temptation to contribute from your seat. Graeme Dey: Thank you, Presiding Officer. Members will have the opportunity to explore the issue further at First Minister’s question time tomorrow, if they so wish. Given all of that, I do not consider that the amendment requiring a statement tomorrow should be supported, so I ask members to reject it.”
“Douglas Ross’s amendment to the business motion seeks a statement from the Lord Advocate tomorrow on communications in relation to Mr Murrell’s case. However, as members know from the past half hour, the Lord Advocate has come to the Parliament today to answer the urgent question that Michael Marra lodged on that very subject. The urgent question process allowed that to happen, and 14 members with an interest in the subject had the opportunity to ask the Lord Advocate questions. Douglas Ross: But we did not get answers. Graeme Dey: If Mr Ross would show a bit of courtesy and listen, that would be useful. The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the minister. Graeme Dey: We have had more than enough performative nonsense from Mr Ross. The Lord Advocate answered those questions— Douglas Ross: She did not.”
“Perhaps Mr Mountain shares my concerns about the impact of such actions, which make it all the more difficult to facilitate optimum scrutiny of critical items of parliamentary business. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes portfolio questions on constitution, external affairs and culture, and parliamentary business. There will be a short pause before we move to the next item of business to allow front-bench teams to change positions. Justice and Home Affairs Automatic Early Release (Parole Services and Victim Support Services) 1.”
“Furthermore, it is our intention to go beyond what the legislation requires and lay a final statement on the plan and, subject to bureau agreement, to have the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy make a statement to the Parliament so that she can be questioned by members. Facilitating that level of scrutiny has been no easy task, given pressure on parliamentary time. That pressure has been caused in part by the extended nature of some stage 3 proceedings, which is a result of very large numbers of amendments being lodged and pressed to the vote—[Interruption.] Edward Mountain: That is nonsense. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members. Graeme Dey: —and, it should be said, those amendments often emanated from the same, single source.”
“The debate that will be held on 5 March will be on the draft plan, while the real plan—the completed plan—must be laid before Parliament by the end of March. Will the Parliament get a chance to debate that plan or will we just be fobbed off with the draft plan? Graeme Dey: As I hope that Mr Mountain would acknowledge, the Scottish Government has bent over backwards to facilitate scrutiny of the plan. As the minister responsible for parliamentary business, I agreed, in conjunction with the bureau, to set aside the time that the Net Zero, Energy and Transport committee sought to debate the plan. I then rescheduled business to accommodate the debate on a date that allowed the committee to take evidence from the CCC in advance.”
“Subject to parliamentary approval later today, a debate on the draft climate change plan will be held on Thursday 5 March. As such, there are no challenges in relation to scheduling the debate. That demonstrates the importance that the Government, the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy and I place on giving committees and the Parliament their place in the finalisation of the plan. Edward Mountain: When they prepared that response, the minister’s bevy of civil servants added a word that I did not put in the question. I am not talking about the draft climate change plan; I am talking about the climate change plan that had a public consultation that closed at the end of January, and which the Climate Change Committee and the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee will respond to at the end of next week.”
“We are consulting on the extension of the legislation and will lay a revised version of the statutory guidance for public authorities in the Parliament before the end of the current parliamentary session. Again, I thank the committee and commend Katy Clark, who has restarted the debate on how we ensure that FOI legislation works well in Scotland. 14:48”
“However, for my part, I can say that we would set out a programme of work for considering extension to private and third sector organisations that deliver public services, drawing on the issues that were raised in discussions on the bill and working with stakeholders, including the commissioner. There is, of course, no question but that FOI obligations place demands on resources, so we must take a well-considered and proportionate approach and ensure that any extension does not duplicate work but will add meaningfully to people’s ability to access information without placing unreasonable burdens on organisations, particularly smaller organisations. The Government is committed to strong FOI rights.”
“We are the only part of the UK to have done that. I acknowledge, as I did when Katy Clark raised the point at committee, that, much as a process is needed, it can be clunky at times. There are areas of the process that could be improved. We are consulting on designating independent care homes and care-at-home providers, which would be the most significant extension to date and could mean that around 2,000 services that are delivered by around 1,000 different organisations would become subject to FOI law. The committee recommended that today’s debate should be used to set out plans to prioritise designations beyond the current consultation. That will be for a new Government and a new Parliament.”
“Last year, more than 109,000 information requests were handled across the public sector, with 87.5 per cent resulting in the release of information. That shows that the legislation is delivering on its main purpose of providing information and developing a more open and transparent culture. There are, of course, areas that can be improved on. FOI law has important strengths, but it is right that we consider areas for improvement. The extension of FOISA has been pursued far more actively in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. In 2013, coverage was extended to local authority culture and leisure trusts. In 2016, it was extended to grant-aided and independent special schools and private prisons. In 2019, it was extended to cover registered social landlords, bringing around 200 new bodies under FOISA.”
“It is being asked to decide whether it agrees with the general principles of the bill, and that is all. Graeme Dey: I am sure that Mr Simpson has been listening. If he listened to the points made by Sue Webber and the convener about the many issues with the bill, he would know that it would be impossible in the five weeks remaining in this session to undertake the tasks that have been laid out by the committee. That is the reality, and I am afraid that we have to deal in reality. Scotland has had strong and internationally well-regarded laws on freedom of information for more than 21 years, and I pay tribute to Jim Wallace for his part in that. He transformed access to information about government and public services.”
“I accept that recommendation, just as I accept Sue Webber’s amendment, which makes the same point. As Minister for Parliamentary Business, I can testify to how busy the Parliament will be with finalising legislation in the five weeks that we have left. I want to be clear, however, that the Scottish Government believes that the bill and the committee’s report provide solid foundations that will allow the Parliament to consider in the forthcoming session how it builds on freedom of information legislation. Scotland has had strong— Graham Simpson: Will the minister take an intervention? Graeme Dey: Very briefly—if I get my time back, Presiding Officer. Graham Simpson: Does the minister agree that the Parliament is not being asked to decide whether there is enough time to get the bill through?”
“In the extremely limited time that I have at my disposal, I will begin by acknowledging the significant contribution that Katy Clark has made to the debate on FOI rights and responsibilities. She is to be commended for ensuring that the Parliament has an opportunity to reflect on the successes of current FOI legislation and to debate areas in which improvements could be made. I thank the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for producing such a considered report. Although it found areas to support in the bill, it noted that there is not sufficient time in the current parliamentary session to carry out the substantial further work that would be required on it, as Sue Webber’s amendment acknowledges. That is why the committee recommended that the Parliament does not agree to the general principles of the bill.”
“I am not going to be dragged into a to-ing and fro-ing, particularly under the terms that Mr Ross uses so typically. I want to make it absolutely clear that an independent process is followed in all these things, which is overseen by the Lord President. There have been no discussions of the type that Mr Ross suggests. The Presiding Officer: That concludes topical questions. I will allow a moment or two for front benches to organise themselves. Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1”
“If he has not, he cannot possibly give that categorical response. This comes down to transparency, because it stinks—it absolutely stinks—that an accusation that was first made before the 2021 Scottish Parliament election will now not come to court until after the 2026 Scottish Parliament election. Does the minister not even realise, or does he not simply accept, how bad that looks for his party, which is the party that is in government? Because of the delay and the postponement, the reporting restrictions cannot now be lifted until after the Holyrood election. Will he at least accept that his party benefits from that? Graeme Dey: As a Scottish Government minister, I take very seriously my responsibilities and the need to respect the processes that cover our justice system.”
“Graeme Dey: I utterly refute the allegations in that commentary from Douglas Ross, which is typical of his approach to many subjects. Let me be absolutely clear: this is a live court case, so I strongly suggest that all of us should be cautious about our comments in relation to it. I reiterate that the scheduling of trials is a matter for the independent judiciary and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. It is a matter entirely for the judge to determine the date for preliminary hearings and for trials. I reiterate that there have been no discussions of the nature that Mr Ross implied in his original question. Douglas Ross: The minister is still avoiding saying it. Has he gone round almost 10,000 people in the past couple of days to check whether they had discussions about that or not?”
“There have been no discussions. Scheduling of trials is a matter for the independent judiciary and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. Douglas Ross: My question was worded very specifically because we have almost 20 special advisers, almost 30 Government ministers and more than 9,000 civil servants in the Scottish Government. Given Graeme Dey’s categorical reassurance that none of those almost 10,000 individuals had any involvement or discussions at all, can he update Parliament on how he was able to assemble that information on almost 10,000 individuals in the past couple of days? If he has not done that, has he just come here to try to fob off the Parliament, which is a signal of this corrupt Government from a corrupt party of government?”
“Multinationals such as Serco, G4S and Mitie receive substantial amounts of public money to deliver public services, but they do not need to comply with freedom of information laws. If the same service was provided by the Government, we would have the right to information. Does the minister agree that the public should know how their public services are being delivered and how public money is being spent? Graeme Dey: I am broadly sympathetic to Katy Clark’s general point. The Government will provide its response to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s stage 1 report on her bill imminently. It is a thoughtful and considered report, and I commend Katy Clark for the work that she has done on her bill, which has brought FOI into focus. I look forward to exploring such matters in detail in the stage 1 debate on”
“Scotland has the most robust FOI laws in the United Kingdom, and we will ensure that they continue to work effectively to enable access to information about Government and public services. As the member is aware, the Scottish Government is consulting on a substantial extension of FOI to private care providers. That will be the biggest extension since the legislation came into force. The Scottish Information Commissioner is fully independent of Government and has considerable authority. The commissioner is also funded directly from the Scottish budget via the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Last year, the approved budget was £2.7 million. Katy Clark: Private companies have increasingly become major providers of public services across sectors such as justice and transport.”
“5) Bill followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Thursday 26 February 2026 11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions 11.40 am General Questions 12.00 pm First Minister's Questions followed by Members’ Business 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Climate Action and Energy, and Transport followed by Finance and Public Administration Committee Debate: Cost-effectiveness of Scottish Public Inquiries followed by Criminal Justice Committee Debate: Substance Misuse in Prisons Inquiry followed by Scottish Government Debate: Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2026 followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.30 pm Decision Time (b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 16 February 2026, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees— (a) the following programme of business— Tuesday 17 February 2026 2.00 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Topical Questions followed by Stage 1 Debate: Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill followed by Committee Announcements followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 7.45 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Wednesday 18 February 2026 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, and Parliamentary Business; Justice and Home Affairs followed by Scottish Green Party Business followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.10 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Thursday 19 February 2026 11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions 11.40 am General Questions 12.00 pm First Minister's Questions followed by Members’ Business 2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Education and Skills followed by Stage 1 Debate: Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill followed by Scottish Government Debate: Scottish Income Tax Rate Resolution 2026-27 followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Tuesday 24 February 2026 2.00 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Topical Questions followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill followed by Committee Announcements followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 6.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Wednesday 25 February 2026 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Deputy First Minister Responsibilities, Economy and Gaelic; Finance and Local Government followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Budget (Scotland) (No.”
“Therefore, I do not see the justification for a statement in the immediate term. Rachael Hamilton: Will the minister take an intervention? The Presiding Officer: The minister has concluded. The question is, that motion S6M-20749 be agreed to.”
“Fergus Ewing: I accept the argument that Mr Dey has produced—that we wait until February 2026—but I cannot see why, after February 2026, there should not be a ministerial statement. The minister appeared to rule that out, although perhaps I misinterpreted that. Graeme Dey: I am making the point that, if we get into the situation that I have referred to, there will have to be careful consideration of the judgment and any action that is required to address the incompatibility. I very much acknowledge the seriousness of the matter that Mr Ewing has raised, although we disagree on the merits of a statement and when it would be delivered. On the matter that Rachael Hamilton raised, both I and the First Minister have already indicated in the chamber the Government’s intent. I offer further reassurance that the work is being carried out at pace.”
“Given that we are in the period during which an appeal can be considered, I note the need to afford the proper respect to the judiciary and to the litigants, and to be mindful of the later potential application of the Parliament’s sub judice rules. However, I note that, if the terms of the judgment broadly remain, careful consideration will be needed—as with any court judgment—regarding the judgment and what action may be necessary to address the incompatibility. With just six weeks left in the current session of Parliament, as Fergus Ewing acknowledged, that would, therefore, be a decision for the next Government and Parliament to take when the process is complete.”
“I thank Fergus Ewing both for the advance notice of his intention to air the matter that he did and for the accompanying detail that he provided. The Government notes the terms of the court judgment, but we also note—as I hope Mr Ewing recognises—that the period of time in which an appeal can be lodged runs until February 2026 and, accordingly, it would at this stage be premature to comment publicly on the matter. Self- evidently, if an appeal were to be lodged, it would be appropriate and proper to defer any decision on specific action pending the final decision on the case. I acknowledge that it is entirely reasonable for Parliament to ask the Government what it intends to do to remedy an ECHR incompatibility if that is the final position of the court after any appeal proceedings have been concluded or if no appeal is lodged.”
“It gives the Scottish Parliament limited competence to legislate in relation to the identification and regulation of substances and devices for use in assisting terminally ill adults to voluntarily end their lives. That conferral of competence is time limited, in that it extends only to provision contained in an act of the Scottish Parliament that results from a bill passed before 7 May, meaning only the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. It was felt by the Scottish and UK Governments that that was appropriate, given that both Governments are neutral on the issue of assisted dying and do not, therefore, feel that it would be right to pre-empt any future legislation that is brought to the Scottish Parliament on the issue, should Mr McArthur’s bill not pass the stage 3 vote.”
“As members know, following Liam McArthur’s Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill passing the stage 1 vote in May, the Scottish Government committed to engaging with the UK Government to try to resolve the legislative competence issues that were identified with the bill. That was to allow members to make their decisions on whether or not to pass the bill based on their own convictions and those of their constituents, rather than on whether or not the bill is outside the Parliament’s competence. Work has taken place at pace to try to fulfil that commitment and to lay the order ahead of the Scottish Parliament’s stage 3 considerations. The section 30 order modifies schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, which defines reserved matters for the purpose of that act.”
“Although I utterly respect Edward Mountain’s perspective on the matter of assisted dying, I gently remind him that we are seeking tonight not to pass the bill, but to facilitate some of the concerns that exist around it. If he will bear with me, I will go through the matter in a bit of detail, because he raises important issues. I hope that, by the time that I have finished, members will have a better understanding of those issues. Thank you, Presiding Officer, for allowing me the opportunity to speak about the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026. I am also grateful to the Parliament for choosing to consider the order in such a timely fashion.”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for— (a) Tuesday 3 February 2026— delete followed by Stage 1 Debate: Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill followed by Stage 1 Debate: Desecration of War Memorials (Scotland) Bill and insert followed by Ministerial Statement: Scotland’s Prison Population followed by Stage 1 Debate: Desecration of War Memorials (Scotland) Bill followed by Stage 1 Debate: Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill followed by Ministerial Statement: Scottish Hospitals Inquiry delete 5.55 pm Decision Time and insert 6.20 pm Decision Time (b) Thursday 5 February 2026— after followed by Stage 1 Debate: Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill insert followed by Financial Resolution: Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill Topical Question Time 14:48 MV Glen Rosa (Public Funding) 1.”