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 2 of 10.
“It suggests that the current approach might not be sufficient and that further, more focused consideration is required. That is the purpose of my amendment 134. It would require the Scottish ministers to undertake a comprehensive and time-bound review of permanence in Scotland. It would ensure that ministers consider the substantial body of Scottish research, examine practice from across the world and assess whether different approaches, such as the use of statutory timescales, might help to reduce delays and improve outcomes. Importantly, the amendment would also ensure that the review was informed by those with lived experience, as well as by practitioners, local authorities and organisations working across adoption, fostering and kinship care.”
“Instability, uncertainty and repeated moves can have profound and long- lasting impacts. We all know that delays affect outcomes. The longer a child remains in the system without permanence, the greater is the risk to their wellbeing, their relationships and their future stability. In the context of adoption, international evidence is clear that factors such as age at placement, early adversity and the number of moves all have a direct bearing on the likelihood of adoption breakdown at a later stage. Despite a range of welcome policy initiatives, guidance and improvement programmes over many years, the issue of delay remains persistent, and it has remained persistent for a long time. That should give us all pause for thought.”
“Whichever route is taken, what matters most is that timely decisions are made so that children are not left in prolonged uncertainty. Research compiled by the NSPCC, which helped me when drafting amendment 134, has consistently shown that children wait far too long for decisions to be made about their permanent home. On average, it can take more than two years for a permanence recommendation to be made. Many children then wait many months and, in some cases, years before they are living in a stable and permanent placement. That level of delay would be unacceptable in any context, but it is particularly harmful for babies and very young children. The first few months and years of life are critical for attachment and development. During that time, children are especially dependent on consistent and secure care-giving relationships.”
“Amendments in group 9 relate to permanence for children who are or have been looked after by a local authority. I note at the outset that amendment 134 is a probing amendment and I do not intend to press it to a vote. Instead, I am inclined to support Martin Whitfield’s amendment 135. I thank the minister and Mr Whitfield for their engagement on the issue. At its core, permanence is about a simple but fundamental principle: every child has the right to grow up in a safe, stable and loving home without unnecessary delay. Permanence cannot be considered as a solely technical or procedural matter; it must be regarded as central to a child’s wellbeing, development and sense of security and belonging. When it is not possible for a child to stay with their birth family, permanence can be achieved through kinship care, foster care or adoption.”
“Amendment 6 disagreed to. 17:00 Section 5—Exempt new residential units Amendment 7 moved—[Meghan Gallacher]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 7 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you. I will make sure that that is recorded. For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (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) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) 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) 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) 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) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) 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) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) 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) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 47, Against 67, Abstentions 0.”
“I think that there is real confusion, and not only in the chamber; more importantly, I suspect that there will be real confusion among small businesses across my region as to what the Government is going to do in the future. For that reason, I will press my amendment 5. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 5 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“I regret that that change cannot be accepted, as it would prejudge the consideration that I raised earlier. I would like to provide assurance that the Government will consider those and other qualifications, as I noted earlier, when setting qualification standards. I urge Ms Regan and Mr Balfour not to move or press their amendments, and I urge members not to support them if they are pressed. Jeremy Balfour: Having just heard the minister, I am now very confused as to the Scottish Government’s position. In one breath, the minister says that the Scottish Government cannot accept the amendments in this group because there must always be a medical practitioner present; in the next sentence, she says that ministers want to talk to businesses about how they can regulate the area going forward.”
“It would provide that there must be pathways for non-healthcare practitioners, although it does not specify what those pathways are intended to achieve. If it is to ensure that such practitioners may undertake procedures, that is permitted under the bill as drafted. Non-healthcare practitioners may provide procedures if they are working from permitted premises. If the member intends that such practitioners should be able to provide procedures without reference to a healthcare professional, I would resist the proposal, for the reasons that I gave in relation to amendment 5. Ms Regan’s amendments 18 and 23 would provide that “Scottish Ministers must have regard to recognised aesthetics qualifications.” Those are level 11 qualifications, which have been discussed already.”
“As I said in relation to group 2, it is fundamental to the bill that a healthcare professional is involved in settings that provide procedures to complement the aesthetics practitioners, such as in the event of complications that require the emergency administration of medicines. The amendment also predetermines training and supervision standards, which are still to be developed and consulted on. The Government also has concerns about the legislative competence of the amendment because of its interaction with the Medicines Act 1968 and the regulation of healthcare professionals, which are reserved subject matter under the Scotland Act 1998. I therefore cannot support amendment 5 and urge Mr Balfour not to press it. Amendment 17, in Ash Regan’s name, appears to have the same aim as Mr Balfour’s amendment 5.”
“Jenni Minto: I am clear that we will engage with practitioners and training providers before taking decisions, and I hope that standards can be set at the same level in England and Scotland to benefit all practitioners. Amendment 5, in Jeremy Balfour’s name, seeks to allow non-healthcare practitioners with a level 11 qualification to carry out non-surgical procedures without supervision. I was grateful to Mr Balfour for the discussion that we had about his similar stage 2 amendment to give ministers the power to establish a regulatory scheme that enables certain practitioners to supervise the provision of a non-surgical procedure. Amendment 5 appears to seek to allow practitioners who are not healthcare professionals to provide procedures without healthcare professional involvement.”
“My reluctance should not be seen as a judgment against those well-recognised qualifications. Ash Regan: Will the minister take an intervention? Jenni Minto: I will just finish my point. The Scottish Government will engage with practitioners and training providers before taking decisions, and I hope that standards can be set at the same level in England and Scotland for the benefit of practitioners. Ash Regan: There is a frustration among many of these women, who have spent a lot of time, energy and money building up their businesses and are fearful about what will happen to their businesses, which I think people can understand. The minister seems to be suggesting that it is the Government’s intention to provide a pathway for non-medical providers. Can the minister confirm that that is what she is saying?”
“I ask the minister to say in summing up how the Government will work with small businesses and individuals to ensure that they are not negatively impacted by the bill. I felt that this was the best place to come in and make that request. Jenni Minto: Before addressing the amendments, I recognise that many highly skilled practitioners are not healthcare professionals. As was referred to earlier, many practitioners hold a qualification at level 7 of the Ofqual framework or level 11 of the Scottish credit and qualifications framework, and the amendments seek to recognise that training. However, I do not intend to support any amendments that would prejudge a decision on the appropriate training or qualification requirements. That would be a matter for future regulation under section 5(1).”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will be very brief. Like others, I want to put on the record some issues with the bill that constituents have brought to me. I have been contacted by a number of people who have businesses in my constituency. They tend to be working-class women who have built up those businesses over a long period of time and have built up a skill base. They are concerned about some of the potential impacts of the bill. I welcomed the minister’s engagement with me during and after stage 2. As she mentioned, an amendment of mine was agreed to at stage 2. I welcome Colin Beattie’s amendments that were agreed to in the previous group. Although I have some sympathy with the amendments in this group, I do not think that I can vote for them, because I think that they will have unintended consequences.”
“It has good and credible support from many organisations representing the people who would be working in such a system.”
“However, on the issue of cost, I would say to Jeremy Balfour that I do not see such a system being set up separately from what health boards have just now. My amendment would also allow assisted dying services to sit as a delegated responsibility within Scotland’s integration authorities and our health and social care partnerships, strengthening links with palliative care, social services and community support. That approach would not only improve co- ordination but also ensure that multidisciplinary expertise is built into the system from the outset. Members may wish to note that my amendment 250 is supported by the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Nursing, the Scottish Association of Social Work and Social Work Scotland.”
“That makes it extremely difficult to build the experience and confidence that are needed to navigate such a complex process. In this chamber, we regularly hear about the importance of enabling healthcare professionals to gain experience in relation to specialist work rather than distributing that work thinly across the system. The same principle should apply here. To answer Jeremy Balfour’s point, it is true that a specialist service might require greater investment. I do not know what those figures might be, but I believe that, when we are legislating for something that would have such profound implications for individuals and families, cost alone cannot be the deciding factor. Safety, expertise and dignity must come first.”
“The emotional weight and time commitment associated with assisted dying must not be underestimated. A dedicated service would allow for protected time and the provision of mandatory training and appropriate psychological support for the professionals involved. That is far more difficult to guarantee if the responsibility is dispersed across thousands of GP practices. I think that such a set-up would go a long way towards addressing many of the concerns that members have shared over the past couple of days. I will not go over all of them again, but some of them could be addressed by a single service. There is also the question of expertise. Based on current estimates—I think that this has been highlighted already—most GPs would only rarely encounter an assisted dying request.”
“The reality is that any assisted dying provision would be a deeply human process that would affect patients, loved ones and professionals alike. Families may require support before the process, during it and afterwards, through bereavement. Patients need time to explore their choices, fears and circumstances. That level of care requires co- ordination, continuity and expertise, and a specialised service allows for exactly that. It would enable dedicated teams to support patients through the entirety of their journey, ensuring consistency, trust and a continuity of care. At the same time, a patient’s own GP could continue to provide all other aspects of care, ensuring that their existing relationship with primary care remains intact. Such a model would also protect the workforce.”
“Concentrating the experience in that way ensures that patients are supported by professionals who are confident, well prepared and equipped to manage the clinical and ethical complexity involved. It is important to emphasise that a specialised service does not mean creating something outside the NHS, nor does it necessarily require new buildings or separate facilities. Such services could—and, in my opinion, should—be community based and delivered either in or close to the patient’s own home. What distinguishes a service is not the building that it sits in but the dedicated teams that provide it. Those teams could bring together a multidisciplinary group of professionals who are capable of supporting the whole person— their physical needs or emotional and psychological wellbeing, their social circumstances and the needs of their family.”
“Essentially, the specialist service could amount to a health board maintaining a list of GPs in its area for people to be referred to. However, Mr MacGregor seems to be suggesting that the amendment would mean that GPs could not provide the service and that it could be provided only by something separate and specialist. I am not sure that that is the effect of the amendment. Could he clarify that? Fulton MacGregor: That is not what I am saying, and perhaps I will be able to clarify that a bit more as I go on. By creating a specialised opt-in service, we allow clinicians who feel able and willing to participate to develop the expertise, training and professional resilience required for that sensitive work. That answers Ross Greer’s question—they can opt in.”
“Ross Greer: I am sympathetic to amendment 250 because it would ensure a level of equity of access throughout the country but the rationale that Fulton MacGregor outlined for it does not tally with its effect. His rationale seems to be that it would mean that assisted dying would not be provided by GPs but be an entirely separate service. My reading of the amendment is that Scottish ministers could set out regulations that say that each health board must provide an assisted dying service, but that specialist service could be a system to which GPs opt in, particularly in the rural areas that Mr MacGregor mentioned, where the GP might be the only healthcare provider in that area. In such cases, that GP would be the appropriate person to opt in.”
“Jeremy Balfour: I am sympathetic to what Mr MacGregor says but I wonder what the service that he proposes would cost. Perhaps I will ask the same question to other members with amendments in the group. Does Mr MacGregor have any idea of a costing for it and has he had any discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care or the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to work out whether we can afford it in Scotland? Fulton MacGregor: I will come back to the costing issues. I will not be able to answer all of the questions that Jeremy Balfour asked me but I will come back to the matter and perhaps be able to answer some of what he asks.”
“More importantly, a briefing from the Royal College of General Practitioners suggests that many GPs would not feel able to participate in assisted dying. Engagement with the profession indicates that a significant proportion of GPs would choose not to take part whether for ethical, professional or personal reasons. That is entirely understandable but it also means that expecting assisted dying to operate through patients’ own GPs would be neither practical nor equitable. It is entirely possible that, in some communities—perhaps particularly in rural or less populated areas—many local GPs could opt out, which could result in a postcode lottery whereby access to a lawful service depended on where a person happened to live. Amendment 250 introduces a dedicated service that would avoid that risk.”
“I ask colleagues from across the chamber to support my amendment 250 and the consequential amendment 309, which would ensure that any assisted dying provision in Scotland was delivered through a dedicated specialised service rather than through general practice. I hear Jackie Baillie’s point on that. The proposal is similar to other amendments. Amendment 250 is necessary to ensure that any system that we create is safe, informed and as compassionate as possible. It seeks to answer the question: if such a service is introduced, how should it be delivered? We must recognise the reality that faces general practice. As we know, GPs across the country are already operating under pressure. Asking general practice to absorb an entirely new, complex and emotionally demanding clinical responsibility risks placing further strain on the system.”
“Scotland already has a strong, carefully constructed legal framework that is designed to protect adults who might be vulnerable due to incapacity, mental ill health, abuse or coercion. The Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 and the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 are all key pieces of legislation that form the backbone of Scotland’s safeguarding system. 16:45”
“I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests—I am registered with the Scottish Social Services Council. I will focus my remarks on my amendments 171 and 306, not least to stay on the good side of the business manager. I place on record my thanks to the Scottish Association of Social Work, which has been pivotal in bringing the amendments to fruition. Supporting amendment 171 would ensure that social work services are encoded as a statutory safeguard within the assessment process for assisted dying. Whatever view members across the chamber hold on assisted dying, we all share a duty to ensure that the safeguards in the bill meet the essential minimum required to protect those who might be vulnerable. Where a decision is irreversible, our safeguards must be beyond question.”
“One of the big things just now, which I am sure that the cabinet secretary will touch on, and which he has spoken about over a number of weeks, is bringing down waiting list times. That is crucial, because the more people are being seen for the treatment that they need, the less likely they are to present at A and E, so that will have an impact. In addition, the Government is investing in general practitioners—Jackie Baillie mentioned GPs—and in the new walk-in clinics, which I am really hopeful will have an impact with regard to who needs to present at accident and emergency departments. I hear regularly from constituents who are unable to access their GP and are then referred to A and”
“However, that is probably where my agreement with Jackie Baillie on the issue ends, because I feel that the rest of her speech was about targeting the Government, as if the issue with A and E departments has simple solutions and is unique to Scotland. It is not unique to Scotland: we all watch the national news and see that, across the United Kingdom, there are issues with A and E just now. They were there before the Covid-19 pandemic— we all know that; let us face it—but they were exacerbated by Covid and they have not really recovered since. We in this Parliament need to look at how we, as politicians, work together to try to alleviate some of the difficulties that A and E departments are facing. I will highlight some of the stuff that the Scottish Government is doing.”
“I thank Jackie Baillie for bringing the debate to the chamber. I will start on a point on which I can agree with her: there are, of course, huge pressures in our A and E departments—I would be telling an untruth if I was to stand here and say that I did not know that. Like, I am sure, every other member in the chamber, I have a significant volume of queries from constituents who have had to experience long waits, often being left in corridors and so on. Everybody will be aware of those general queries that we get from constituents; most of my constituents use the A and E at Monklands hospital. That is the starting point on which I agree with Jackie Baillie, and I think that we need to make changes in that area. I know that the cabinet secretary will refer to that situation in summing up, because he is obviously aware of it.”
“Local government in Scotland has every right to demand enshrined fiscal sustainability and a genuine respect for local decision making. This reconsideration should not have taken six years. It should not even have been necessary in the first place and could and should have been avoided with more competent drafting and more timely action. However, we will not extend that delay any further today. We will finally approve a competent bill, avoid any further referral to the Supreme Court and deliver the legal clarity that local government was promised. We must ensure that the principles of local self- government are not just in legislation but, from now on, are reflected in how our Scottish Government works with, respects and funds Scottish local authorities. 16:44”
“The Supreme Court did not reject the purpose of the bill; it identified flaws in the drafting that meant that the bill strayed into reserved matters. That was constitutional theatre and it was entirely avoidable. Instead, an entire parliamentary session passed before reconsideration was initiated. Meanwhile, councils’ autonomy and financial certainty have been steadily eroded by this Government. Partnership has to mean more than just words on a paper agreement. Over the past decade, councils have absorbed increasing demands while navigating shrinking budgets. Decisions have been made about them, not with them, by an SNP Government that is obsessed with keeping power as close as possible to itself. Embedding rights in law is a basic premise of government. As we know, this Government systematically fails to get the basics right.”
“With it, we take a confident step towards aligning Scotland with the best traditions of local democracy across Europe. I urge members to support the bill at decision time. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. 16:41 Mark Griffin: I thank members for their contributions to this reconsideration debate, because local democracy is not just an abstract principle but the foundation of how essential public services are delivered in every community in Scotland. Scottish Labour will support the bill, as we did when it was first passed. We support incorporating the European Charter of Local Self- Government into Scots law. The principle has always commanded consensus across the chamber, but we cannot ignore how we arrived here.”
“By the end of this parliamentary session—which is fast approaching, as we all know—we will have taken significant steps to advance fiscal empowerment and flexibility for local government, including baselining over £2 billion of the general revenue grant, jointly publishing a fiscal framework with COSLA, and progressing work towards a power of general competence. These actions demonstrate that commitment to local self- government is practical as well as principled. Incorporating the European Charter of Local Self-Government into Scots law affirms that local self-government is an essential part of Scotland’s constitutional landscape. It provides greater certainty for councils and strengthens democratic accountability at every level.”
“The bill also sits alongside the Verity house agreement, which already commits ministers to act consistently with many of the charter’s principles, including a presumption in favour of local flexibility. Through that agreement, we have strengthened the relationship between national and local government and set out how we will work together to improve outcomes for the people of Scotland. Incorporation of the charter complements that shared endeavour and provides it with an enhanced legal foundation.”
“Since then, constructive work has taken place to enable the bill to proceed in a way that secures competence and delivers its core objectives, and we have arrived here today. As we have heard already, the Scottish Government said that it would support the bill, subject to the amendments that have now been agreed to, which will ensure that the bill rests securely within the powers of this Parliament. Although we remain of the view that section 2 is within competence, amendments to limit its effect, alongside changes to sections 4 and 5, will help the bill to progress smoothly and are likely to avoid a further reference to the Supreme Court, as has been outlined by the cabinet secretary. Our approach is guided by a clear aim: to deliver the strongest possible legislation with clarity and certainty.”
“That is entirely appropriate. By embedding those duties in statute, we help to ensure that local self-government is respected, advanced and sustained over time. Working collaboratively with local government is, and will continue to be, a priority for this Government. The Government is committed to a vibrant and inclusive democracy. We support local self-determination. The bill reinforces the autonomy of the powers of councils and strengthens their status and standing within Scotland’s system of governance. It provides an opportunity to enshrine in Scots law a culture of partnership and participation that benefits communities across the country. As we have heard, the Supreme Court concluded in 2021 that specific provisions were outside legislative competence.”
“It reinforces our shared belief that decisions are often best taken closest to the communities that they affect, and that councils should have the standing and stability required to serve those communities effectively. The charter sets out core principles that are designed to safeguard the political, administrative and financial independence of local authorities. It affirms the role of councils composed of members who are freely elected by secret ballot on the basis of direct, equal and universal suffrage. Across Europe, those principles have contributed to vibrant local democracies and strong systems of self-government. Through the bill, we bring those principles directly into Scots law. The bill places duties on the Scottish ministers to act compatibly with the charter articles and to promote local self-government.”
“I am pleased to speak in the debate on the European Charter of Local Self- Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill. Like others, I pay tribute to Mark Ruskell for his work in getting it to this stage. As we have heard, the Scottish Government is firmly committed to the bill and to the principles that underpin the European Charter of Local Self- Government. At its core, the legislation is about strengthening local democracy in Scotland and placing our partnership with local government on a clear and durable statutory foundation. It is a significant and forward-looking measure. By incorporating the charter into domestic law, Scotland will become the first nation in the United Kingdom to do so, which is an important step.”
“When the original disclosure regime was developed, a voluntary body covered the cost of voluntary sector organisations of a certain size undertaking PVG checks. I do not think that there is any reason why we could not replicate such a system for those seeking elected office.”
“In the same way as candidates have to declare that they are not a lord or mentally unfit, they would have to declare that they had passed a PVG check. I forget how much such checks cost, but my concern is that we do not want to put in place further obstacles for people who want to stand for election. Surely, in the interests of democracy, the fee for undergoing a PVG check should be waived for candidates, as it was for those involved in the Ukrainian scheme. Alex Cole-Hamilton: Keith Brown makes an excellent point. I do not think that it would be legal for us to create a financial impediment to running for election, other than the deposit scheme that we have for all candidacies. I absolutely agree with Keith Brown’s point. We do not need to reinvent the wheel.”
“Alex Cole-Hamilton: I am aware that, like the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative Party— Jeremy Balfour is now an independent; forgive me—and, I think, all parties represented in the Parliament already have vetting procedures so that, to the best of their knowledge, they field people of upstanding probity who are seeking elected office with the best of intentions. Ultimately, the natural conclusion of my efforts would be the regime that I have set out being extended to candidates through vetting processes. Keith Brown: I think that I am right in saying that Alex Cole-Hamilton would have needed to have undergone a PVG check in order to host a Ukrainian family—I certainly did. If the proposals were extended, the only rational point for carrying out the check would be at the point of nomination.”
“We cannot just assume that candidates are good people and that they are coming here with the best of intentions, so I fully agree with Stephen Kerr. I am happy to take an intervention from Jeremy Balfour. Jeremy Balfour: I wonder whether I can develop the point slightly. In an ideal world, would we not carry out checks before the person was nominated to stand in an election? That would provide more clarity and probably prevent problems in the future, but it would also let the electorate know who they were voting for. Does Alex Cole-Hamilton agree that, in an ideal world, there would be some way for checks to be carried out before someone was nominated to be a candidate?”
“Stephen Kerr: It is worth putting in the Official Report a point that has not been mentioned, which is that parties have a responsibility in relation to the selection and vetting processes that they apply to their candidates. Alex Cole-Hamilton: Stephen Kerr is absolutely right. I hope that, in the fullness of time, regarding all aspects of elected office for which we have competence—obviously, we cannot make provisions relating to members of Parliament at Westminster—and at every level of political activity, we recognise that, in the white heat of an election campaign, the candidate is the central figure around whom people gravitate, because they sometimes have a magnetic personality, and that they, too, have late-night access to volunteers, even though we would perhaps sometimes rather that they did not.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Alex Cole- Hamilton to wind up the debate and to press or withdraw amendment 35. Alex Cole-Hamilton: In this Parliament, we have to govern for people as we find them, not as we would wish them to be. Unfortunately, we have recent cause to know that, in various aspects of public life, predators have sought and exploited positions of power, influence and opportunity. We cannot wait for something bad to happen before we act because of a public clamour to do so. Stephen Kerr: Will Alex Cole-Hamilton take an intervention? Jeremy Balfour: [Made a request to intervene.] Alex Cole-Hamilton: I am happy to take both interventions. I will take Stephen Kerr’s intervention first.”
“I am aware that Alex Cole-Hamilton has tried to progress his proposal in the past and has kept hitting the same barriers. One of the things that might be helpful from the Government is an indication that, if amendment 35 does pass, it might be possible to extend the review slightly wider than what is proposed in the amendment, given what we have heard about people coming into the Parliament when a ban was perhaps already in place. My question to the minister was going to be about whether there is a need to amend the long title, given that the amendment would only require a review and would require primary legislation to bring any consequences of the review into force. Graham Simpson: Martin Whitfield has raised very sensible points, as he always does. I agree with amendment 35.”
“Even if we cannot legislate to require a disclosure scheme check for new MSPs, at the very least the Parliament and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body still have a duty of care to vulnerable adults in our constituencies who seek our help and school students who come to us for work experience. Should that duty not include ensuring that training on working safely—in a supervised capacity wherever possible, with doors open and similar safeguards—is part of the induction for new MSPs? Graham Simpson: I agree with that. All that Alex Cole-Hamilton’s amendment 35 does is commit the Government to a review. Martin Whitfield: The minister finished just too quickly, so I was not able to intervene on him. I agree with Graham Simpson, and we have heard in the interventions today that the issue is massively important and needs to be looked at.”
“Graham Simpson: I saw that Martin Whitfield wanted to intervene on the minister. He can intervene on me if he likes, but I will be very brief. I understand the importance of the issue that Alex Cole-Hamilton has raised. People would think it very odd that we are not subject to PVG checks. A key consideration for me is what requirements there should be of any member at their point of election to the Parliament. If they are barred from regulated roles or working with vulnerable groups for any reason, should such an individual be able to be elected to Parliament at all? Alex Cole-Hamilton: I am grateful to Graham Simpson for working with me on the issue. Does he agree that we need to do more? He mentioned the induction of new MSPs.”
“I contend that the case for our inclusion in the scheme is fast becoming unanswerable. I move amendment 35. Graeme Dey: At stage 2, I was happy to support Mr Cole-Hamilton’s amendment in principle, but I could not support it as it was drafted. As I noted at stage 2, his amendment called for a thorough review of a complex topic that we all agree needs careful consideration to be conducted in 12 months, which was too short a period, particularly given that some of that time would be captured by the election and the formation of a new Government. I am pleased that we have been able to work with Mr Cole-Hamilton on his amendment and have suggested that 18 months is adequate time for the Government to carry out such a review. Martin Whitfield rose— Graeme Dey: As Mr Cole-Hamilton said, amendment 35 signals intent, so I support it.”
“I recognise that the Parliament has not taken evidence on the matter that amendment 35 raises, nor does the bill’s scope lend itself to the not insubstantial level of amendment to attendant acts that such a measure would require. Instead, instructing a review, as my amendment proposes, would signal this Parliament’s intent to get this right and introduce a checking regime in time for the parliamentary session that commences in 2031, so that we can reassure our constituents that every member of that Parliament will be a fit and proper person in respect of information that is held by the police relating to working with children and vulnerable adults. PVG checks are not foolproof, but they are all that we have. Members of the press and the general public are, frankly, astonished to learn that we are not already subjected to them.”