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 4 of 5.
“Pauline McNeill: [Made a request to intervene.] The Presiding Officer: Minister, can I confirm that you were about to take the intervention from Ms McNeill? Graeme Dey: Sorry, I was not aware of the intervention. I am happy to take it. Pauline McNeill: I want to draw the minister’s attention to the question that I have now asked twice. It is a serious question. An apology has been made because Professor Jay was quoted in a debate in which we made a decision on whether we would have an inquiry. I have asked whether the Government has since spoken to the expert on child abuse, Professor Jay, and I cannot seem to get an answer. It might be that that all happened at the meeting of the working group on 25 November. Can the minister give me some clarity now? Is Professor Jay now satisfied that the minster has taken her expert advice?”
“Based on the advice that will flow from the strategic group to ministers for consideration, we will be able to establish the most effective next steps. The most effective way to inform Parliament about the work of the strategic group and the response to on-going calls for an inquiry into grooming gangs in Scotland will be through a comprehensive statement to the Parliament, which will be undertaken as soon as possible, and before recess. For the benefit of members, I say that that is an undertaking that I gave two weeks ago through the usual bureau process, in which the Conservatives participate. Therefore, I am a little surprised that the Tories are calling for something that they have been told is coming.”
“Graeme Dey: I want to make some progress, because I think that I will answer the member’s question. The answer on 19 November clarified the position regarding Professor Jay’s valued membership of the group, alongside other expert partners, in our continued collective efforts to tackle this horrendous form of child abuse. An oral portfolio question was answered on Wednesday 12 November, which covered the steps that are being taken to prevent group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation in Scotland. It covered the prevention-focused approach of the strategic group to collectively improve how harms are identified, reported and responded to by statutory agencies and other partners. The strategic group met on 25 November. The minutes are being finalised and actions ratified.”
“I will respond from the perspective of responding to a call for a statement, as I believe was intended, which was covered in the latter part of Meghan Gallacher’s contribution. There has been on-going engagement with the Parliament on this topic and related child sexual abuse and exploitation issues. An urgent question was answered yesterday on the understanding of the scale and nature of child sexual abuse and exploitation in Scotland, which included responses on the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group and its programme of work across workforce data and the consideration of mandatory reporting. An urgent question from Liam Kerr was also answered on 19 November on Alexis Jay being misrepresented. Meghan Gallacher: Will the minister take an intervention?”
“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”
“At col 62, para 10, line 1— Original text— As I said, in August of this year, a query was raised with the Scottish Government. That was investigated and, in mid-September, it was identified that there was indeed an issue. Corrected text— As I said, in August of this year, an error was identified following a query raised with the Scottish Government. That was investigated and, in mid- September, it was identified that there was indeed an issue. This is the final edition of the Official Report for this meeting. It is part of the Scottish Parliament Official Report archive and has been sent for legal deposit.”
“The Presiding Officer: The question is, that motion S6M-19916, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on the timetable and procedures for consideration of the Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“Graeme Dey: On the point about the opportunity to interrogate the bill, what is proposed in the motion, and what was approved unanimously by the Parliamentary Bureau earlier today— Members: Oh! Graeme Dey: Indeed—oh! The motion proposes a full parliamentary process, with stage 1 taking place tomorrow evening and then a stage 2 and a stage 3. There will be every opportunity for the Parliament to interrogate what is proposed. However, I say again that, given the circumstances that we are in, it is perfectly justified to pursue an emergency timetable. I am grateful for the support of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens in doing so.”
“The Government will give consideration to the point about releasing the information that Mr Ross asked for, but I resent the suggestion that— Douglas Ross: Will the minister give way? Graeme Dey: No, I will not give way, Mr Ross— we have heard more than enough from you. On the point about disrespecting the— [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ross. Graeme Dey: On the point about allegedly disrespecting the chamber, I took four interventions in my opening speech and I answered each and every one of them, including the point about the timetable that has been followed from August until now. If Mr Ross does not understand the process that was followed, I am afraid that I cannot fix that for him. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another.”
“In 2020, the Scottish Parliament voted to devolve empty property relief to local authorities to provide greater local fiscal empowerment to councils. That came into force on 1 April 2023. However, it was recently identified that the Government amendment to the Non- Domestic Rates (Scotland) Bill in December 2019, which repealed legislation from 1966 to give effect to that, contained an error.”
“If the Parliament agrees to it, we will work with Mr Simpson and colleagues across this chamber on elements of the bill, so that the support for the general principles that the Scottish Government offers today can lead to continued support in the stages ahead. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Martin Whitfield to speak on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. 15:21”
“He gets to the nub of today’s activity: we should be exploring whether the proposals in front of us are as robust as they should be, whether they go too far or whether they need to be expanded on, so that we design a system that is fit for purpose. I am more than happy to commit to working with the member on that. The committee has asked Mr Simpson to consider provisions to address campaigning rules during the recall petition signing period. We can all agree that we need transparency on expenditure and donations in relation to recall provisions, just as we do for electoral events. We have heard that there is much work to be done to get the bill right and relatively little time in which to do it.”
“Alex Cole-Hamilton: This is the intervention that I wanted to make during Graham Simpson’s opening speech; I still intend to make an intervention when he is making his closing remarks. We are talking about figures for recall. One such trigger that I would like to explore— perhaps with the member in charge of the bill and with the Government—is when members of the Scottish Parliament are included on the list of people who are barred from working with children and vulnerable adults. In such cases, they should not be allowed to retain their seats in this Parliament because they can no longer hope to do their job. Would the minister be prepared to work with me on that? Graeme Dey: I would certainly be prepared to explore that with the member.”
“The bill proposes to lower that threshold for disqualification to sentences of six months and to introduce a separate trigger for recall if an MSP receives a custodial sentence of less than six months for a criminal offence. Would it not be simpler and clearer to retain the 12-month threshold for removal and make a custodial sentence of 12 months or less a trigger for recall? Twelve months is the maximum sentence in non-jury trials and is a recognised threshold in our justice system. The Government would be willing to work with members on amendments to that effect. Finally, the committee has asked Mr Simpson to consider— Alex Cole-Hamilton: Will the minister give way? Graeme Dey: Absolutely.”
“Without a clear, objective and fair process for non-attendance issues to be investigated, we risk exposing members with caring responsibilities or health issues to possible disqualification, instead of those people who the bill seeks to capture. The committee has raised concerns about the criminal offence triggers for recall and removal in the bill, and it has asked Mr Simpson “to reflect on whether the bar for the recall and removal of MSPs on the grounds of criminal offence has been set at the right level.” Laws are in place that disqualify an MSP if they receive a custodial sentence of more than 12 months and are imprisoned as a result.”
“It is not for the Government to take the lead in matters that rightly belong to the Scottish Parliament to consider, but the Government has heard what the committee has to say and understands entirely its concerns. The committee has taken issue with the process of managing non-attendance, should those provisions remain in the bill. We recognise those concerns. We should not create a system that requires a committee of the Parliament to seek, hold and make judgments on personal information about MSPs and their family members, including on what sort of excuses should be determined reasonable, with the prospect of the removal of an MSP as an outcome.”
“The committee questions whether the threshold for the recall and removal of MSPs on the ground of criminal offence has been set at the right level. It calls for new provisions on campaigning rules and for a rethink of the provisions on physical non- attendance in the building as a ground for disqualification. I will focus initially on the attendance provisions. I note that the committee is explicit on the issue, stating that it “does not think a Member’s absence should be considered a misconduct issue”, and that “requiring physical attendance” is not the correct basis on which to disqualify someone from membership of the Parliament.”
“That is why the Government is minded to support Kevin Stewart’s reasoned amendment. The Scottish Government’s support for the general principles of the bill is conditional on changes to the bill at stage 2, reflecting the significant concerns that are raised in the committee’s report. To his credit, Mr Simpson has already begun that work, and we have discussed potential changes to the regional recall process in the light of the committee’s concerns. As we have heard, Mr Simpson has written to the committee outlining his thinking on a new single-stage approach. We would be happy to work with him and other members to develop amendments on that and other areas that strike the right balance between complexity and cost, as the committee recommended. The committee’s concerns with the bill go beyond simply the processes for regional recall.”
“It is important that the Parliament understands and agrees what the complaints and sanctions process would look like before it is finally asked to endorse a bill that will, in part, depend on that process and could result in an elected member being subject to the recall procedure. At present, the Parliament’s standing orders note the available sanctions under the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Act 2006. However, the 2006 act discusses sanctions only in relation to a breach of the register of members’ interests. There is no legislative basis for sanctions under the code of conduct, and there is no guidance. We would all want that to be addressed so that members of the Parliament now and in the future can trust and have confidence in the processes and procedures.”
“As the committee has concluded, there is broad support for the principle of recall and for the introduction of recall measures in the Scottish Parliament, and the Scottish Government supports the general principles of the bill. However, the committee has made a clear statement on the challenges that it presents. The committee’s report highlights “some fundamental issues that would need to be addressed at Stage 2 for the Bill to be able to deliver its intended purpose.” It also highlights issues of detail that would need further attention. As we have heard, we await the outcome of the independent review into the parliamentary complaints process.”
“We all want a Parliament in which the highest standards are upheld and in which the public can have confidence that those who represent them will be held to account when they do not meet those standards. We need to have in place robust, fair, transparent and efficient systems so that voters can hold their representatives to account. However, we need those systems to be workable for this Parliament and for the people who elect its members. The Parliament in Westminster has in place a system for voters to recall MPs, as we have heard, and the Welsh Government has just introduced a bill to introduce recall provisions in the Senedd. Surely, we should be no different in our ambition, although I reiterate that we need a system that works for Scotland.”
“I thank Graham Simpson for his open and constructive engagement on the bill, and the non-Government bills unit for its work on it. I, too, thank the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its stage 1 report. The committee has carefully considered the strengths and weaknesses of the bill, and I note the committee’s conclusions and recommendations with interest. I welcome what I believe to be the intent of Kevin Stewart’s reasoned amendment to the motion, which would enable us to address one of the key challenges that the bill presents: its interaction with the on-going review of this Parliament’s complaints and sanctions regime. However, I recognise that there might be other views, and I look forward to the debate.”
“However, the proper way to take the matter forward is for the Conservative Party’s member on the bureau to raise it with the Government, and it will then be discussed and considered at the bureau.”
“Stephen Kerr: I am aware of the processes and have followed them, both by going through the party business management route and by directly soliciting a statement from the relevant minister and from the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans. We like to think that the Parliament is run by the parties, but I hope that the minister agrees that individual members of the Parliament still have a very important role in seeking the opportunity to have issues that matter to their constituents raised by way of a statement or any other appropriate method or approach. Graeme Dey: If Mr Kerr wants to circumvent the process, or the position of his business manager, that is a matter for him.”
“There is a process in place in this institution to request statements, which is via the business managers of the relevant parties. I will check later tonight, but I am not aware of any current request on those topics having been received from the Conservative Party through the formal processes. That is the proper process—not raising the matter in the chamber in this way. This Government has shown itself to be willing—this was particularly the case with Jamie Hepburn, my predecessor—to consider and often accede to appropriate statement requests. If Mr Kerr or any other member wishes to request statements on any topic, there are proper processes to be followed, as I said. If requests come via those channels, the Government will, of course, give them appropriate consideration.”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 30 January 2025, and subsequently amended, relating to clause 53(6) on the breach of interim Serious Crime Prevention Orders (iSCPO), so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, should be considered by the UK Parliament. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes decision time. We will move on shortly to the first of this evening’s two members’ business debates. Offshore Energy Workforce (Energy Transition Institute Reports)”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect, either. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Dey. Your vote will be recorded. 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) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) 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) (Lab) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) 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) 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) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) 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) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] 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) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Maggie Chapman] Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] 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) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Abstentions Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South 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) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division on motion S6M-19614, in the name of Angela Constance, on a legislative consent motion on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation, is: For 84, Against 1, Abstentions 23.”
“In the end, all told, we reduced the size of three committees. However, owing to the unwillingness—it was understandable unwillingness, to be fair—of smaller parties that did not wish to surrender their single representation on some committees, that is as far as we got. I heard the convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee indicate that it might have a cunning plan for cracking that. I wish the committee well, because reducing the maximum size of committees was a good idea back in the day, and it remains a good idea. On behalf of the Scottish Government, I welcome the committee’s consideration—”
“The Government contends that committees, like the Parliament itself, should reflect the democratic choices of the Scottish people, so there should be no move away from the d’Hondt system for committee formation. However, there is no doubt that, for conveners, large committees can be unwieldy, and they are not conducive to optimising committee outputs. In my time as Minister for Parliamentary Business, I have been there and bought the T-shirt when it comes to seeking to make committees less unwieldy. I recognise that, at the time, there was a real willingness to at least consider that, and I had an ally in Maurice Golden, the then Conservative business manager. Between us, and with the support of our parties, we were able to address the matter to an extent, at least on a one- for-one basis between the SNP and the Conservatives.”
“The Scottish Government notes the committee’s recommendation on better use of time-limited committees. Such committees are already possible within the Parliament’s current structures, although they are rarely used. Although the Government is supportive of such committees being used more often, clear timescales and remits and expected outputs are key to ensuring that they are fit for purpose. Although I am speaking primarily on behalf of the Scottish Government, my 15 years as an MSP will shortly come to an end and I want to share some of my thoughts on committee effectiveness while I still have the opportunity to do so. In that vein, I will first reflect on the proposal to reduce committee sizes. I bear the scars from attempting to do that previously.”
“As our response to the committee’s report noted, the Government is supportive of the proposed earlier deadline for the introduction of members’ bills, which would ensure that there was sufficient time available to consider them in full. The ability to bring forward legislation is the core function of the Parliament, and it is important that members can do that, but that ability is meaningful only if time is available for scrutiny. Bringing forward the deadline for introduction for members’ bills should help to ensure that time will be available. I note that 11 such bills were introduced within six months of the 2 June deadline this year, with five of those being introduced in the final month. That means that 26 per cent of all members’ bills across the whole session were introduced in the final available month.”
“Graeme Dey: I accept that criticism to a degree, but I hope that the convener will accept that Parliament has got into a situation in which a great many amendments that have been debated at stage 2 come back at stage 3, which leads to extended stage 3 proceedings and puts pressure on parliamentary time. I absolutely accept that there is something to look at. I also hope that we can all agree that it is neither efficient nor effective for Parliament to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach. When a subject is significant or controversial, or when it is of particular interest to a committee, that committee should, of course, spend more of its time on that issue, but I hope that it would not be controversial to suggest that committees could take a different approach when something is technical or minor.”
“Instead, the question for Parliament and its committees is how best to balance efficiency and effectiveness in the scrutiny of Government activity, and it is for Parliament to ensure that there is adequate support for members to conduct their duty as legislators. Martin Whitfield: The minister and I have discussed a number of times the fact that there are a few more Government bills than in the previous session and that we still have the pressure of time. Does he recognise that a committee will need substantially more time when more than 500 Government amendments are lodged at stage 2 than it would need if more thinking had been done beforehand, so that bills came to committee with those amendments already built in?”
“I hope that everyone here will agree with the following two principles. First, the Government must have the freedom to bring forward the proposals that it considers necessary to give effect to its democratic mandate. Secondly, Parliament must have the freedom to scrutinise those proposals and to hold the Government effectively to account. It is in that context that we must consider the concerns regarding Parliament’s workload. I assure members that the Government takes parliamentary capacity into account when making its legislative plans. It is no accident that the volume of legislation during this session is comparable to the volumes in previous sessions, and I do not think that it is tenable to suggest that the Government should scale back its ambitions.”
“Given the importance of protecting the constitutional principle that ministers are accountable to Parliament, I hope that members will understand the need for me to avoid giving any impression that the Government is directing how Parliament discharges its responsibilities, because it is always for this Parliament to decide how best it operates. My principal interest today lies in considering how any changes that are being deliberated might impact on the delivery of Government business, and that is reflected in the Scottish Government’s response to the committee’s report, in which we acknowledge that many aspects of that report are not for the Government to offer a view on. However, there are a few areas in which we have shared views and are supportive of the committee’s proposals.”
“Last year, Parliament celebrated its 25th anniversary, which was a significant milestone and prompt for reflection on how the institution has evolved over the years. Our procedures and ways of working have adapted over time as we have learned what works well and what does not. That process of adaptation as we learn from experience should never be considered complete, which is why the committee’s report is so welcome. Ensuring that Parliament operates effectively is essential to ensuring that the people of Scotland are well represented by those they have chosen to act on their behalf.”
“Amendment 307 disagreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I remind members that, if amendment 4 is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendments 78 to 87 or amendment 199, because of pre-emption. Amendment 4 moved—[Tim Eagle]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 4 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Apologies, but my app would not connect. I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Dey. Your vote will be recorded. For Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) 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) (Lab) 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) 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) [Proxy vote cast by Patrick Harvie] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] 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) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Maggie Chapman] Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) 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) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 25, Against 89, Abstentions 0.”
“We must keep in mind the volume of legislation that we have left to consider in this session and we must ensure that we are being as efficient as we can be with the time that we have left and leave chamber time available for other bills that are coming down the line. I ask members to support the timetable motion. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that motion S6M-19429 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system. 15:03 Meeting suspended. 15:10 On resuming— The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the vote on motion S6M-19429. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed.”
“I believe that the proposal that we have agreed and presented to members strikes the right balance. I understand that the member did not feel able to lodge many of his amendments at stage 2, given his role as committee convener. However, we must recognise that the decision not to lodge them at stage 2 was a personal one, as it is possible for conveners to lodge amendments to bills that are before their committee. I believe that a number of the amendments in question were lodged by another member, Tim Eagle, at stage 2, so they have received consideration from the lead committee.”
“The Parliamentary Bureau appreciates that the member has a number of amendments at stage 3 and is keen to have an opportunity to discuss them all in the chamber. Equally, we must be realistic about the parliamentary time that is available in any given week and between now and the end of the session. The stage 3 in question is already slated to run into a third day. I and my fellow business managers know that many members have concerns about late sittings. Providing longer speaking slots for members in each group is likely to mean that the number of late sittings between now and the end of the session will increase as we try to ensure that the legislation before us reaches a conclusion before March. Bureau members are very much alert to competing demands.”
“The UK Government’s decision to make those amendments in a devolved area reflects a constructive approach to devolution, and I acknowledge that. I therefore ask Parliament to approve the motion for legislative consent in relation to the aforementioned clauses in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The Presiding Officer: The question on the motion will be put at decision time. Motion without Notice 17:25”
“The Scottish Government intends to consult on proposals for secondary legislation as soon as possible after the bill has received royal assent. That consultation will seek views from a wide range of stakeholders, including communities, public bodies and the industry, so that all voices can be heard in shaping the future of the process in Scotland. In addition, I welcome the productive engagement between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, which has resulted in amendments to clause 46 and clause 112 of the bill. Those clauses will ensure that the commencement of all provisions relating to the new system of harbour revision order fees in Scotland will be a matter for Scottish ministers only.”
“As I have set out, the changes that are proposed in clauses 18 to 24 are intended to reform outdated and inefficient elements of the electricity infrastructure consenting process. The main changes are: strengthening the pre- application requirements and procedures by—for the first time—making them statutory and allowing communities to share their views earlier in the process; creating a new, reporter-led procedure in response to an objection from a local planning authority; reducing the administrative burden of automatically having to have a public inquiry, while retaining that as an option; and moving from a lengthy judicial review process to one of statutory appeals, in alignment with existing processes under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.”
“The Scottish Government has long called for that system to be reformed, for the relevant powers to be given to the Scottish ministers and for the process to be modernised, as it has been across other parts of the United Kingdom. Having finally recognised that the Scottish consenting process needed to be reformed, the previous Conservative UK Government committed to a review in November 2023. Thankfully, those plans were continued by the current UK Labour Government, and UK and Scottish Government officials have worked together in close collaboration on the proposed reforms. Clauses 18 to 24 of the bill relate to electricity infrastructure consenting in Scotland, and clauses 46 and 112 relate to harbour processing fees. As the proposed provisions seek to alter the competence of the Scottish ministers, they require legislative consent.”
“I am not at all sure how any of what we have just heard is in any way relevant to the legislative consent motion before us, which is the matter at hand. I will not dignify what we have just heard by responding to it. Instead, I think that it would be helpful to provide some background to members on why we are seeking Parliament’s approval for the LCM on the UK Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Although land use and planning in Scotland are devolved, the powers to legislate for the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity are reserved. The Scottish ministers determine applications to construct or install electricity infrastructure under the Electricity Act 1989.”
“That the Parliament agrees that the Economy and Fair Work Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.—[Graeme Dey] The Presiding Officer: The question on the motions will be put at decision time. Decision Time 18:44”
“The next item of business is consideration of four Parliamentary Bureau motions. I invite Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move motions S6M-19270 and S6M- 19271, on approval of SSIs, and motions S6M- 19272 and S6M-19273, on designation of lead committees. Motions moved, That the Parliament agrees that the Social Security (Cross-border Provision, Case Transfer and Miscellaneous Amendments) (Scotland) Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Winter Heating Assistance (Pension Age) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved. That the Parliament agrees that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee be designated as the lead committee in consideration of the Contract (Formation and Remedies) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1.”
“However, I offer the Parliament the reassurance that the Scottish ministers and our officials continue to impress on the UK Government the need to account for Scottish Parliament recess periods when timetabling legislation that requires legislative consent. The Presiding Officer: The question on the motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-19269, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument. I ask Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion. Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees that the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (Scottish Carbon Budgets) Amendment Regulations 2025 [draft] be approved.— [Graeme Dey] The Presiding Officer: The question on the motion will be put at decision time.”
“That means suspending standing orders so that the LCM can be debated in the chamber tomorrow, prior to the recess. Prior to reaching that conclusion, my officials sought the views of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. The Social Justice and Social Security Committee indicated that it would prefer to consider the matter in committee but appreciated that the timing might mean that the LCM would need to be taken directly to the chamber. The DPLR Committee has signalled that it would be content for the LCM to go straight to the chamber. I agree that the committees of this Parliament not having a scrutiny role is less than ideal, but the alternative to considering the LCM tomorrow is having no say prior to the bill going through its last amending stage.”