Fulton MacGregor
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Deputy Presiding Officer, you will know that I am interested in that, as you are. We were both members of the Criminal Justice Committee in the previous session of Parliament. Evidence shows that community-based sentences are effective in reducing reoffending.”
“Scotland’s prison population continues to rise despite our having the lowest number of recorded crimes, and the average custodial sentence length increased by 37 per cent between 2014-15 and 2023-24. That is all having an impact on capacity in our prisons.”
“Scotland’s prison population is at a critical point. As the motion demonstrates, the Scottish Government recognises the importance of the issue and is taking action through sustained investment, careful planning and a clear focus on public safety. The 2026-27 budget includes investment of £1 billion in Scotland’s prisons.”
“It builds on the investment of £25 million over the previous two years. I also welcome the cabinet secretary’s remarks on reviewing community justice. However, the evidence is already clear. Statistics show that people who are released from custody experience higher rates of reconviction than those who receive non-custodial sentences.”
“Given that it is unaffordable, there would be an almighty battle to deliver it, if that could happen at all. The issue is about having a credible plan, with the timescales that we have to date, to deliver for the benefit of the people of Lanarkshire and people elsewhere in Scotland, with that shift in the balance of care.”
“At what point did the Scottish Government deem that the cost outlined in the business case was too high? What discussions did it have with NHS Lanarkshire to try to resolve issues earlier?”
The complete record
Every one of 477 lines we hold for Fulton MacGregor, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
“However, it would not be responsible to ignore the risks of not delivering as a result of that business case. We need to make a decision now—as I have done— because, otherwise, we would end up proceeding by default and not delivering for either Lanarkshire or the people of Scotland, and neither scenario would be acceptable to me.”
“Given that it is unaffordable, there would be an almighty battle to deliver it, if that could happen at all. The issue is about having a credible plan, with the timescales that we have to date, to deliver for the benefit of the people of Lanarkshire and people elsewhere in Scotland, with that shift in the balance of care. I have made the decision very early in my tenure as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Care, because I think that it is important to do so. I do not want people hanging on—I have never been in the business of leading people up the garden path. The Government received the full business case some months ago, at the turn of the year. I expect my officials to scrutinise any full business case. Clearly, some decisions cannot be made until such scrutiny has been completed.”
“At what point did the Scottish Government deem that the cost outlined in the business case was too high? What discussions did it have with NHS Lanarkshire to try to resolve issues earlier? In addition, although I acknowledge and welcome the fact that the Government remains committed to a new hospital, how will it work with NHS Lanarkshire to deliver that hospital speedily and ensure that there is in no way a downgrading of services? Angela Constance: First and foremost, I want to reassure Fulton MacGregor, who has been an unashamed and powerful advocate for his constituents and for that project, because he has expressed disappointment. I want to be in the business of delivery; I am not in the business of aspirations. A single project costing in excess of £2 billion is unaffordable.”
“As one of the two Monklands MSPs, I cannot stand here and say that I am happy with today’s announcement. As the health secretary will be aware, Monklands hospital urgently needs to be replaced. Various concerns have been raised about the ageing infrastructure, water contamination and asbestos. The people of Monklands and wider Lanarkshire have been promised a new hospital for some time, and the road that has led us to where we are today has long been documented. Therefore, I do not fully understand how we have arrived at this point. NHS Lanarkshire has been developing its plans for a long time. It has kept MSPs and all stakeholders—including, I presume, the Scottish Government—up to date. Its plans have been public and have included visits from MSPs and MPs.”
“It will take strength, determination and a lot of work to achieve it, but the rewards will be great: a happier, more just society in which the cycle of offending is effectively interrupted and our jails and prisons are kept for the most violent, dangerous and serious offenders.”
“Surely to goodness Fulton MacGregor is not expecting us to continue with the Victorian-style facilities that we have in our prisons. They are not conducive to the rehabilitation that we would all like to see prisoners experience before returning to society. Fulton MacGregor: I thank Stephen Kerr for that intervention, but he knows fine well that that is not what I said. I welcome the investment in our prison estates. I meant that, of the money that is in the criminal justice system, the balance should be weighted more towards community justice. That is the view that I hold, and neither Stephen Kerr nor anyone else on the Tory benches will change my mind on it. There is a better way.”
“Until we stand up to the rhetoric of the political right in this chamber, we will always be spending billions on prisons and trying to outdo each other as to who is tougher on crime. That money could be spent on hospitals and other things for our communities. Stephen Kerr: Will the member take an intervention? Mark Simpson: Will the member take an intervention? Fulton MacGregor: I will take an intervention from Stephen Kerr. Stephen Kerr: I am really confused by Fulton MacGregor’s objection to the idea that we should invest in the prison estate. The reason why we are having this debate is that the prison estate has not kept up with demand. I intervened on the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to point out that ministers have failed to plan and to make decisions.”
“For those who should and must serve a custodial prison sentence, that sentence should provide an important opportunity to address offending and health inequalities and improve health outcomes. We must put the resources in to try to stop the cycle of the same people coming in and out of prison. When I was first elected to this place, 10 years ago, I had been working as a criminal justice social worker. I came here thinking that Scotland was very much on a path towards a rehabilitative community justice model, like many of our European neighbours who have been mentioned in the debate. Sadly, however, we are not making quick enough progress in shifting that balance. I have to be blunt here.”
“It builds on the investment of £25 million over the previous two years. I also welcome the cabinet secretary’s remarks on reviewing community justice. However, the evidence is already clear. Statistics show that people who are released from custody experience higher rates of reconviction than those who receive non-custodial sentences. In the 2022-23 cohort, 42.5 per cent of those who were released from custody were reconvicted within a year. For those who were given a community payback order, the figure was 28.6 per cent. Those figures demonstrate the value of effective community interventions. Community justice is not soft touch. It is fair, proportionate and trauma informed and it benefits all of society, not just the offender. The approach is balanced, evidence led and focused on long- term outcomes.”
“Deputy Presiding Officer, you will know that I am interested in that, as you are. We were both members of the Criminal Justice Committee in the previous session of Parliament. Evidence shows that community-based sentences are effective in reducing reoffending. They support accountability while helping people to address the causes of offending behaviour, and they contribute to having safer communities and fewer victims. That is why the Scottish Government is investing around £169 million in community justice services in 2026-27. Is that enough? Personally, I do not think that it is. It is a minuscule amount in the justice budget, which is very, very heavily weighted towards punishment. The additional £10 million to support diversion from prosecution, alternatives to remand, community sentencing and throughcare services is welcome.”
“Scotland’s prison population continues to rise despite our having the lowest number of recorded crimes, and the average custodial sentence length increased by 37 per cent between 2014-15 and 2023-24. That is all having an impact on capacity in our prisons. The Scottish Government is taking action to strengthen the justice system and support public confidence, and it is clear that public safety remains the highest priority. For example, changes to the early release scheme do not apply to those who serve long-term custodial sentences of more than four years or those who serve sentences for domestic abuse or offences of a sexual nature. The protection of victims clearly remains central to decision making. In the remainder of my remarks, I will focus on the role of community justice as a sustainable response to the situation.”
“Scotland’s prison population is at a critical point. As the motion demonstrates, the Scottish Government recognises the importance of the issue and is taking action through sustained investment, careful planning and a clear focus on public safety. The 2026-27 budget includes investment of £1 billion in Scotland’s prisons. That is a significant commitment to our justice system and it is an investment in capacity, safety, rehabilitation and the long-term effectiveness of our prison estate. We all recognise that prison remains an essential part of our justice system. It is the appropriate place for those who have committed serious crimes against people and society and for those who present a risk to the public. The protection of victims and the safety of communities are central to the Scottish Government’s approach.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on NHS Lanarkshire’s plans for the new University hospital Monklands. (S7O-00085)”
“In recent days, many members of the tartan army have reported that they have suddenly had their electronic system for travel authorization—ESTA—revoked by the United States Government, forcing them to jump through new hoops or even travel for emergency appointments at the US embassy in London. With thousands of Scots, including many in Coatbridge and Chryston, due to leave for the US to attend the world cup in the coming weeks, what is the First Minister doing to ensure that Scots are not unfairly blocked from entering the United States?”
“The hospital will be in his constituency, and we have both visited the site fairly recently. I wonder whether, in summing up, the minister will be able to say whether there has been any indication as to when the sign-off might take place, because my constituents are keen to know. I conclude by welcoming the new health team to their roles. There is an exciting period ahead and I am positive that the recent progress in improvements to the NHS will continue under their leadership.”
“It would be the ideal location for a new walk-in centre with fantastic motorway links, and it would be able to service the whole of North Lanarkshire and possibly the east end of Glasgow as well, for which David Linden made a plug earlier. My constituents have asked me to raise the proposal with the cabinet secretary and her team, and I hope that it can be considered—I see that the minister is nodding. That would be much appreciated. My last plea is about the new Monklands hospital. The cabinet secretary and her team will be aware that the business case that NHS Lanarkshire put forward was not signed off before the dissolution of the Parliament. She will also be aware of how much the new hospital is needed by my constituents as well as Neil Gray’s.”
“However, at present, the nearest walk-in GP service that has been announced will be in East Kilbride, which is some 21 miles from Coatbridge and 24 miles from Stepps. I welcome the news that there is to be one in Shotts in North Lanarkshire as well, but that is 24 miles and 26 miles away, respectively, from those towns. I therefore have a suggestion for the cabinet secretary—it is a pity that she is not here to hear it, but she will also get it from me in writing. Gartcosh Development Trust is currently undertaking a community asset transfer of what will soon be the former Gartcosh primary school to turn it into a community facility.”
“I say to the minister that I am sorry if this is a very direct comment in my first speech in the new session, but I fully believe that the situation needs to change. Some of my young constituents’ futures are uncertain and in jeopardy because they are not getting the help that they need at the time when they need it. I have great faith that the minister, who I consider a friend, will be the one to take the issue forward and make more progress. The second issue that I will raise on behalf of my constituents is access to GP services. I am fortunate to have a really good array of GP services across my constituency. However, like MSPs in all other areas, we hear concerns about access to appointments and the 8 am rush. The new GP walk-in clinics will be a big help with that and I very much welcome the initiative.”
“We are at the start of a new session of Parliament and there is a new ministerial team in place. I implore Maree Todd, who I believe will be taking up this role, to use her position and her vast experience in Government to drive progress in the area—to go beyond just the statistics and targets and deliver real change for the families who are experiencing the delays and the lack of service. I know that it will not be easy, and I know that there are staffing issues. In addition, I understand that this is not a Scotland-only issue and that all nations in the UK have been struggling in the area, especially since the pandemic. I also believe that CAMHS is not the answer for everyone, and I urge that access is provided to other services at an earlier stage.”
“Like many other members, I am sure, I have had a lot of constituents come to me with concerns about access to CAMHS for their children. NHS Lanarkshire currently has a waiting list of more than four years. That is four years for which children and young people are waiting to get treatment for what are often serious mental health issues. Children are also being told that they will not get a diagnosis until they are an adult. Families who are able to go private for the assessment then cannot get access to recommended medication because CAMHS does not have the capacity to take on the case. That is very distressing for the families that we work with—indeed, my office staff report that they, too, are distressed at some of the stories that they are hearing and the lack of service. The current situation in NHS Lanarkshire is not good enough.”
“Its working- class and industrial roots have shaped my values and forged my politics. Just like in the previous 10 years, and regardless of who my constituents voted for, I promise to be a voice for them and to raise the issues that they ask me to raise as priorities. On that note, I will use my speech today to focus on just some of those issues. Before I do so, however, I commend the Scottish Government, under the leadership of the First Minister and the previous health secretary, for making the progress that has been made in the NHS. Of course, it is far from job done, but—just as they promised—good progress has been made. I also welcome the new cabinet secretary and her ministers to their roles. I have no doubt that they will push that progress to the next level. The first issue that I will raise today is the situation with CAMHS.”
“Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome you to your role. As this is my first speech since the election, I take the opportunity to thank the people of Coatbridge and Chryston for returning me to represent them for the third time, with a truly humbling share of around 50 per cent of the vote. I can say with all my heart that it is the highest honour to have again been given their trust to represent them in Parliament. The constituency’s previous Labour MP, Tom Clarke, whom I have come to know quite well, once described the people of Coatbridge and Chryston as “the salt of the earth”, and I very much concur with that remark. Like Tom and many others such as the boxer Ricky Burns, the Kane brothers of Hue and Cry and the legendary Fran and Anna, I grew up in the constituency and have called it home.”
“As I said in response to another question, I also hope that the policy is part of a wider public health approach that challenges the real intensification of children and young people’s use of the online world in recent years. Fulton MacGregor’s point on outdoor learning was absolutely right. There is nothing like getting outside, exercising or just spending a bit of time in nature to remind us all that the online world is not the real world. There is a real world out there, and it is to be enjoyed.”
“Deputy Presiding Officer, I also welcome you to your role. As doctors have recently warned that social media can be just as harmful to children as smoking, I welcome the Scottish Government’s action to introduce phone-free classrooms and mitigate the impact of phone use on learning. Can the cabinet secretary set out what more can be done in the classroom directly to tackle social media’s harms? For example, does she believe that encouraging more outdoor learning can be a helpful tool to mitigate those harms? Màiri McAllan: I hope that, when the changes come into force, we will find that disruption in the classroom is lessened, that concentration in the classroom is heightened and that teachers find themselves more able to conduct their professional duties without distractions from phones.”
“I, Fulton James MacGregor, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. 11:11 Meeting suspended. 11:31 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: We resume members’ oaths and affirmations.”
“I never pressed the request-to- speak button. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I beg your pardon. That was my fault. Social Housing Waiting Lists (Kirkcaldy) 5.”
“Fulton MacGregor: I again thank the cross- party group on social work for its work in bringing forward the report. I again thank the minister for her continued engagement, particularly on peer support. I put on record what a loss her departure will be to the Parliament. Finally, I again thank all those, including Richard McCombe, Kirsteen McDonald and those who have joined them today, who have contributed their experiences to inform the debate. 19:09”
“The report’s conclusion sets out a clear vision. It describes a system that recognises the complexity of adoption, provides sustained support, responds effectively during periods of difficulty and maintains accountability for outcomes. All members believe that adoption is about providing stability, care and opportunity for children. It is about supporting families to grow and thrive. Therefore, the system that supports adoption must reflect those aims. Families in Coatbridge and Chryston, and across Scotland, must benefit from support that is consistent, accessible and informed by experience. A national framework has the potential to provide that consistency, while allowing flexibility to meet individual needs. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You need to conclude.”
“That is a targeted and practical measure that will support families in accessing community-based support alongside formal services. The report and the motion also highlight the importance of collaboration in developing a national framework for adoption support. That work will require engagement with adoptive families, adopted people, practitioners and local authorities. Collaboration ensures that policy reflects both professional expertise and lived experience. It supports the development of services that are responsive, consistent and effective. It is also important to recognise the role of the state in adoption. When a child is placed for adoption, the state has an on-going responsibility to support that placement. That responsibility continues throughout the child’s development and into adulthood.”
“The difficulty for a lot of adoptive families is that they find that peer support at a time of crisis and difficulty, and they often wish that they had found it earlier. The amendments to the bill will help that to happen. Across Scotland, peer support is often delivered by specialist third sector organisations. Those organisations provide a valuable service, although provision varies between areas. As I said, the amendment that was agreed to recognised the value of that support, and placed a duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to promote that awareness and uptake of peer support services. That duty will also involve those who receive adoption services under the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007.”
“I thank the minister—as everybody did, I think, in the debate last week, but I will add to that gushing tribute—for the constructive engagement that has taken place. In particular, I welcome the work to introduce an amendment on peer support for those who are involved in adoption, which was agreed to and integrated into the recent Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill. I know that my constituents in the chamber today—and, I am sure, others as well— appreciate that, because peer support is a consistent theme in discussions with adoptive parents and prospective adopters. Families often say that being with others who have lived experience of adoption provides reassurance, practical guidance and a sense of connection.”
“The availability of trauma-informed services, respite care and intensive family support is an important part of that approach. Those services support families during challenging periods and help to maintain stability in the home. The report also sets out a number of recommendations that aim to strengthen the current system. Those include the development of a national adoption practice model, the introduction of mandatory data collection, improved training for professionals and the establishment of minimum standards for preparation and support. The report also recommends enhanced crisis intervention services, greater availability of respite care and increased flexibility on adoption allowances. Those measures reflect the understanding that families’ circumstances and children’s needs change over time.”
“However, although that structure is established in legislation, it does not align with the complexity of adoptive family life and what might come further down the road. Specialist knowledge is an important part of effective support. Adoptive families often benefit from professionals who understand trauma, attachment and the long-term effects of early adversity. When support moves into more general services, that level of specialism is not always available. The report also highlights the importance of early and accessible support. Families describe situations in which support becomes available only when needs have reached a high level. Earlier intervention has the potential to provide stability and strengthen family relationships.”
“One of the key messages of the report is that adoption is a lifelong process. The impact of early trauma, abuse and neglect remains with children as they grow. Their needs develop over time, and those needs are often more pronounced during adolescence and key transitions into adulthood. The report explains that many children are placed for adoption at a young age, yet their vulnerabilities often increase in later years. That pattern requires a system that provides on-going and adaptable support. At present, in the early years, post-adoption support is typically delivered by specialist adoption teams but, often, responsibility transfers to general children and families services after three years. At that time, many families are experiencing no great adversity—or nothing that they cannot handle, for want of a better phrase.”
“Their contributions have provided valuable insight into how the system operates in practice and how it can be improved. The experiences of both Richard and Kirsteen’s families reflect the importance of listening to lived experience. They remind us that policy decisions have a real and lasting impact on individuals and families. I thank Richard and Kirsteen for their openness and continued engagement on the issue. I give Richard McCombe a special mention, because he has led a one-man campaign on the issue not just in Scotland but across the UK. He has found himself appearing on various media outlets, including BBC Scotland, as well as other BBC channels. I thank Richard for the work that he is doing in this area, which has come out of a really difficult situation in his own family.”
“I am grateful to the minister for making it clear last week that the next Government and relevant minister “should take forward work early in the next parliamentary session to develop a shared definition of ‘adoption breakdown’ and to consider improvements to the collection and sharing of data.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2026; c 104.] I note that, this week, the United Kingdom Government made a similar announcement that it is trying to gather data in this area. I recognise the contributions of those who have shared their experiences directly. In particular, I acknowledge my constituents Richard McCombe and Kirsteen McDonald, who are in the public gallery today alongside other parents. Richard and Kirsteen have engaged extensively with my office regarding their separate personal experiences of adoption within their families.”
“Those figures represent a large proportion of families who have taken on the responsibility of providing stable and loving homes for children who have experienced early adversity. The report also highlights that our understanding of adoption breakdown is limited. Although current figures suggest a relatively small number of recorded breakdowns, there is no single definition in use and no consistent requirement for data collection. As a result, the available data gives only a partial picture of family experiences. Data is essential for effective policy. When data is available, it supports better planning, stronger accountability and improved outcomes for families. When it is incomplete, it becomes more difficult to understand the full scale of need and to respond effectively.”
“It shows that the current system is complex, varied across different areas and often limited in its capacity to meet the needs of families. The evidence that was gathered by the group shows that many adoptive families experience support that is fragmented, inconsistent and under pressure. In many parts of the country, including in my community of Coatbridge and Chryston, adoptive families describe a system in which access to support depends on local structures and available resources. That variation creates a different experience for families who might have very similar needs. The Adoption UK adoption barometer 2025 provides important context for this discussion. It shows that 78 per cent of adoptive families in Scotland face significant challenges and that 40 per cent describe those challenges as severe.”
“I thank the colleagues who supported my motion, which provided the opportunity to bring the incredibly important topic of adoption to the chamber. I thank all the members who have stayed on tonight. I know that this is not a great time for a members’ business debate, with various other things going on, so it is worth putting that on the record. I thank the cross-party group on social work for its dedication and leadership in this area. The group has been invaluable in highlighting the realities of adoption support across Scotland. Some of that work came to fruition through the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill, which was passed last week, and we saw the minister’s engagement on that. The CPG’s report presents a clear and detailed picture of adoption support in Scotland today.”
“It will ensure that the Scottish Government is able to obtain a fuller picture of residential service providers’ finances, including from parent—”
“On that basis, I seek the Parliament’s permission to withdraw my amendment 134, and I ask members to support amendment 135, in the name of Martin Whitfield. Amendment 134, by agreement, withdrawn. Amendment 135 moved—[Martin Whitfield]— and agreed to. Section 7—Interpretation Amendments 32 to 34 moved—[Natalie Don- Innes]—and agreed to. Section 8—Children’s residential care services: profit limitation The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 10 is entitled “Children’s residential care services: profit limitation”. Amendment 35, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 36, 136, 137, 37, 138, 139, 38, 140, 39, 40, 2, 141, 3, 142, 41 and 143. Natalie Don-Innes: Amendment 35 will improve the effectiveness of the financial transparency measures in section 8.”
“Mr MacGregor will be aware that there is a dedicated workstream for infants and babies in the children’s hearings system working group, so not only do we have the consultation and the work that I have set out today, but there are other on-going workstreams to ensure and improve support for our youngest children. For those reasons, I will oppose amendment 134 and support amendment 135, and I encourage members to do likewise. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Fulton MacGregor to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 134. Fulton MacGregor: I accept the views that the minister just set out, and I strongly welcome her commitment to, and focus of energy on, this area. There is certainly something to take forward in this area for whoever is returned in the next session of Parliament, for which I thank the minister.”
“The statutory review that would be introduced by amendment 205 would give the Parliament a clear update on the implementation of the act within two years of royal assent, and the findings from the review under amendment 135 would help to inform that reporting, ensuring that the Parliament received both the focused analysis on the impact of delay and the broader picture emerging from consultation. I am satisfied that the work that is required by amendment 135 can be factored directly into that wider programme, complementing the co-design approach that stakeholders expect us to take.”
“As I set out at stage 2—I also say this to reassure Mr MacGregor—in the next session of Parliament, it would be this Government’s intention to consult urgently and gather evidence early on, in order to build a whole-system picture of where delay arises and why. Amendment 135 would align directly with that work and would allow us to understand, in particular, the impact that delays on decisions in relation to permanence have on children. The amendment would ensure that future approaches to tackling drift and delay were shaped by the right evidence; informed by learning from other nations, including the rest of the UK; and developed collaboratively with partners.”
“Regarding amendment 135, in the name of Martin Whitfield, I recognise the Parliament’s strong interest in improving understanding of how delays in decision making in relation to permanence affect children, particularly younger children and infants. The amendment would provide a more focused way to support that aim by requiring that a review of the impact of delay be carried out within two years of the section coming into force. Ministers would then be required to publish the findings of that review, strengthening transparency in an area where members and stakeholders have highlighted the need for much clearer evidence.”
“The amendment would place a very detailed and prescriptive statutory duty on ministers and would create a statutory definition of permanence, but there has not been an opportunity for those to be designed and developed in collaboration with partners, stakeholders and, importantly, children and families. Furthermore, the proposed definition does not align with current policy and practice on permanence. That, in itself, would create challenges in terms of implementation. However, as I said, I understand and I am sympathetic to the concerns that Fulton MacGregor has raised. I hope that what I am about to set out will go some way towards reassuring him that permanence is a Government priority and is a priority within the work that is being delivered on the Promise.”
“I note that Fulton MacGregor intends not to press his amendment, which I would have supported, so we have a situation where, as I say, there is a relative choice. I hope that the Government can indicate its position on the matter. My amendment sets out that that most important review should be undertaken no later than two years after the section comes into force. Natalie Don-Innes: I thank Fulton MacGregor and Martin Whitfield for their amendments and for their continued focus on improving permanence outcomes for children. Although I recognise and empathise with the purpose behind Fulton MacGregor’s amendment 134, I do not consider that legislating for it is the right approach at this time.”
“That has been outlined extensively in work such as the research of the permanence and care excellence programme, which has already been commented on, and the beST? services trial. It can be particularly damaging for children in their early stages, as has been articulated. As is set out in Fulton MacGregor’s amendment, it is very important that any review references evidence from the rest of the UK, because any further work on permanence must account for that. Permanent decisions are made with significantly less delay in England and Wales than they are in Scotland, so we need to learn why that is and how we can improve the system. I welcome the minister’s engagement at stage 2 and beyond with regard to that very important matter.”
“Martin Whitfield: In this group, the chamber has a fine choice of amendments, which all flow from the very important work, and challenges, of ensuring permanence. I thank Fulton MacGregor for this report and for the work that we did at stage 2 to find a consensus on that important matter. His contribution so finely articulated the real need to look at permanence to ensure stability, love and the creation of a seated connection as early and as swiftly as possible for children and, in particular, babies who go into care. The drift and delay that children, particularly young children and babies, face in reaching a permanent setting through the children’s hearings system is hugely important. For far too many children in Scotland, the time taken to reach a permanent setting is too long.”
“I welcome the minister’s strong indication at stage 2 and during my discussions with her that a review of permanence is intended to take place early in the next parliamentary session. The purpose of my lodging and speaking to amendment 134 is to seek reassurance that the proposed review will be comprehensive in its scope, that it will be undertaken within a clear and timely framework and that it will lead to meaningful and measurable change for children. I would be grateful if the minister could set out how the Government intends to ensure that babies and very young children, who are often the most affected by delay, will be properly considered in that work and how progress will be monitored and reported to the Parliament. I move amendment 134.”