Alex Cole-Hamilton
Scottish Liberal Democrats · Scotland
“I am sure that all members will join me in expressing solidarity with Scotland’s Muslim community after the brutal and unprovoked attacks on the streets of Edinburgh last weekend. That community’s response to those attacks has not been one of violence or revenge; it has been to make a plea for tolerance and understanding.”
“All told, more than 1,400 inmates have been let out of prison since the early release scheme began, and that is because our prisons are bursting at the seams. However, that is not a strategy and it will not protect the public.”
“Let that sink in, because the language of displacement and othering is the antithesis of the cohesion that Lord Offord speaks about so regularly. Liberals believe in reform—of course we do. The Whig Government in 1832— Amanda Bland: Will the member take an intervention? Alex Cole-Hamilton: I will give way to Amanda Bland.”
“This was an opportunity for Reform to prove everybody wrong and to pepper the chamber this afternoon with speeches that were measured in tone and full of bright ideas to fix the things that are wrong in Scotland. We have heard none of that today.”
“I welcome the minister’s remarks about the Edinburgh attacks. Does he recognise, as do members on these benches, that as well as expressing solidarity with the Muslim community of Scotland, we owe them a debt of gratitude that there was no call for activism and action on the streets of Scotland by the Muslim community?”
“That is why the Government is prioritising an economy with a strength that is felt by people, businesses and communities across Scotland. Scotland is a great place and, collectively, we are making it even greater.”
The complete record
Every one of 814 lines we hold for Alex Cole-Hamilton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 17.
“We cannot be in a situation in which our consciences driving us to take steps that are outside the law would lead to a recall or, as Sue Webber’s amendments would have provided for, an immediate expulsion. There was another flaw in Sue Webber’s amendments. She pointed out that breaking the law and receiving a custodial sentence would likely result in someone losing any other job. That may well be the case, but it would not be the court that would terminate that employment but the employer, who would do so after assessing the facts as they had them. It would have been inappropriate to include that provision in the bill, because it would have given the final say to the Parliament rather than the people who send us here.”
“I have had time to consider this aspect further. We should not just have criminality as a trigger for expulsion, because, in the future, we might live in less enlightened times. I have a lot of sympathy with Lorna Slater’s remarks about peaceful protests. Sometimes, peaceful protests that cross the line of the law are a democratic necessity and imperative. We need only look across the Atlantic at the activities in Minneapolis, where some democratically elected members have tried to obstruct the inhumane activities of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in the conduct of their duties. In a black-and-white analysis, those members breached the law, but they were not able to do otherwise because their consciences would not have allowed them to.”
“I congratulate the member in charge of the bill—and his staff—on getting us to this point. It has been more than 10 years since commensurate legislation was passed in Westminster. Despite the rhetoric, it is shameful that we are doing this only now—we should have done it at around the same time. Ultimately, the people who send us to Parliament—our constituents, who give us our instructions—are our employer and our boss. Unless we pass this bill, they will not have the means of terminating our employment beyond the normal rhythm of elections. They are our boss. They decide whether we get to stay here and they cannot do so on a whim. The bill rightly builds in safeguards around the thresholds that would trigger an action to remove one of us. In the time available to me, I will address the criminality aspect of Sue Webber’s amendments.”
“Once convicted, we have to face up to the consequences of our law breaking. For a senior parliamentarian to argue the contrary is very baffling to me. Alex Cole-Hamilton: It should not be baffling to Mr Kerr. Justice is blind, but, as a famous politician once said, sometimes, the law is an ass. In the future, parliamentarians might decide to test it and submit themselves to the judgment of their peers and their constituents. It is wrong that we should, by amendment, as Sue Webber proposes, bring in the blanket removal of such parliamentarians.”
“I am thinking of peaceful protest and civil disobedience and I would hope that, in a less enlightened time in the future, with a more draconian Administration, there would be members of this Parliament who would rise up against more draconian policies. By having a blanket removal of anyone who breaks the law, irrespective of the grounds on which they came to the decision to do so, which might be rooted deeply in conscience— Stephen Kerr: Will Alex Cole-Hamilton give way? Alex Cole-Hamilton: I will. Stephen Kerr: It is really confusing to hear a parliamentarian—someone who makes the law of the land—argue that the law must be partial. The famous figure of justice is blindfold because we stand equally before the law. In that sense, the law is blind to who we are and why we did what we did. It is a matter for the courts to decide such issues.”
“I pressed my request-to-speak button only because Sue Webber had signalled that she would not take interventions. We recognise that we are not reinventing the wheel by instituting a power of recall for our constituents; such a power has existed in the Westminster Parliament for a number of years. The consensus that has been built over time on recall at Westminster specifies the length of custodial sentence that members would have to receive before there could be a recall. We must recognise that there are laws in our land that we, as parliamentarians, may never vote for and, as such, may never agree with. By force of our conscience or circumstances beyond our control, we might find ourselves on the wrong side of those laws.”
“It has now been six weeks since I asked the First Minister about Margaret MacGill. She has been ready to leave hospital for a year, but the lack of available carers means that she is still stuck there. Her husband, Cathal, says that the First Minister is welcome to visit them any time, because it seems that she is not going anywhere. I turn to the issue of education. Today, the Scottish Liberal Democrats will publish figures showing that a record 400 recent graduates left teaching last year. Why, under the Scottish National Party, are people who are ready and raring to teach, and who have grafted for their qualifications, being forced out of Scottish education altogether?”
“We can and should be critical of the occupant of the White House. We can condemn actions that violate democratic values, but we must not dismantle the structures that keep our continent safe. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 15:22”
“The special relationship between our nations is old and strong enough to withstand the erratic and offensive policy agenda of a four-year Administration and the measured criticisms of politicians on this side of the Atlantic. Our relationship with America is vital for security, intelligence sharing, trade, scientific collaboration and global influence. That relationship must endure. We must hold our nerve and look to the near horizon, when our American cousins can come back to their senses and ensure that President Trump leaves office. Foreign policy is about long-term national interest, not short-term moral theatre. At a time when authoritarianism is rising across the globe, this is not the moment to weaken the alliance that has kept Scotland, the UK and Europe secure for generations.”
“Expelling US troops from Scotland would not strengthen peace; it would fracture an alliance at the precise moment that it needs unity. It would signal to Moscow that western resolve is weakening, and it would hand Donald Trump exactly what he wants—a narrative that Europe is retreating and that NATO is collapsing. I refuse to play into that. I want NATO to succeed because I believe in our collective security. The animus that I hold for the current occupant of the White House is a matter of public record. I speak out against him, detest his agenda and even travelled to America to campaign against him. However, Trump is not America, and America is not Donald Trump. The promise of the United States is far greater than any single presidency.”
“We could hope that Europe alone could shoulder our security burdens tomorrow, but that is just not the case. The reality is that American military support has been and continues to be decisive. The incongruity of the motion before us today is that, although Green MSPs would have us evict American service personnel from our shores, the fighting men and women of Ukraine would give their eye teeth to have US forces stationed there, which would offer the same security guarantees that our partnership with America has offered since the bombing of Pearl Harbor—a guarantee that has underwritten the long peace that we continue to enjoy to this day. If we want Putin’s aggression to fail, we need that alliance to hold—we need NATO to succeed.”
“However, here is the difference between my party and the Greens today: we do not confuse our dislike for one political figure with the long-term security interests of our country. It is just not serious politics to do otherwise. NATO has been the single most successful peacekeeping alliance in modern history. It has underpinned stability in Europe for more than 75 years. It has deterred aggression and protected small nations from being crushed by larger ones. Patrick Harvie: Will the member give way? Alex Cole-Hamilton: I am afraid that I do not have time. Right now, NATO’s existence and collaboration with the US are central to the defence of Ukraine and Europe as a whole. Without the support of the United States, the future of Ukraine is bleak. We can wish that things were otherwise.”
“I will start with a personal reflection. I have always struggled with aspects of NATO. As a Quaker, I am still navigating the tension that exists between an alliance that is built on the existence of a weapons system that I find horrifying and the undeniable success that that organisation has achieved in underwriting the peace that we all enjoy. Fundamentally, I have reached the conclusion that I want NATO to succeed. As such, I am deeply troubled by the Trump Administration’s threats towards that organisation and our allies. I have watched in horror as he has undermined the alliances that have helped to prevent war, including a third world war, over the decades, and threatened Greenland and Canada, the homeland of my mother. I am appalled by his rhetoric and policies that harm democracy in his country and abroad.”
“Allowing the continued use of our publicly owned airports in that way risks making us complicit in the current and future actions of a foreign Government that has made it clear that it has no intention of sticking within the bounds of international law. Passenger numbers for Prestwick airport are now at similar levels to those in the late 1990s and are less than half what they were when the airport was nationalised for just £1 in 2013. I would welcome it if the cabinet secretary could provide more information on the current business plan for Prestwick, because it seems clear to me that the financial sustainability of Prestwick is based not on commercial flights but on on-going and routine use by the military.”
“The member mentioned the seizing of oil tankers. Does she recognise that the seizing of vessels in Russia’s shadow fleet is critical to upholding sanctions and supporting the fighting men and women of Ukraine? Gillian Mackay: I absolutely recognise that, but when vessels come into our waters, our laws apply. Those people were taken in contravention of what the Court of Session said should happen, so it is right that we call the US Government out on it. Those are not occasional stopovers. That is the routine and sustained use of Prestwick airport as a de facto military base by the US Air Force for training and live military proceedings.”
“Liberal Democrats will vote for the bill at stage 3 not because it is flawless, but because it represents measured progress and because children’s rights are too important to be left standing still. Let us ensure that Scotland’s approach to children’s rights remains not only ambitious but careful, balanced and worthy of the young people whom it serves. The Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 19:30”
“That is a balanced decision to make, but our judgment is that the bill, taken in the round, strengthens children’s rights. Scotland has rightly been recognised for its ambition in incorporating the UNCRC into Scots law. That architecture must remain strong and we must take it seriously. It must remain enforceable and meaningful in day-to-day practice. The bill does not abandon that ambition; it builds on it— cautiously, yes, but constructively. We, in this Parliament, have a duty not only to speak about children’s rights but to embed them— to consider them in the systems that shape children’s daily lives. The bill that we have debated today moves us forward in that regard.”
“Religious education has been disaggregated from religious observation in the bill, and I believe that the bill is now in a space in which it will not disrupt religious education or threaten the existence of denominational schools. Stage 2 improved the bill. Clarifications have been made and safeguards have been strengthened. Because of that, the balance between recognising children’s voices and respecting the central role of parents has been made clearer. There is always room for improvement in legislation, but part 1 of the bill now represents a proportionate and thoughtful step forward in embedding children’s rights in practice. The test for us at stage 3 is whether the bill as a whole strengthens or weakens children’s rights in Scotland.”
“We all signed up to that principle in the Parliament by unanimously agreeing to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. That principle is not radical; it is foundational. We have heard legitimate concerns about clarity, the distinction between different elements of school provision, how capacity is assessed and how we ensure that family relationships are protected. I recognise that there are tensions. The concerns were raised in serious contributions, and they deserve serious consideration. I and my party support the denominational school sector. I am married to a Roman Catholic primary school teacher and I led the defence of Roman Catholic schools and other denominational schools when they were challenged at my party conference some years ago.”
“Part 1 of the bill will strengthen the requirement for schools to involve children where decisions are taken about their participation in aspects of school life that affect their values. It will require that children be informed and given the space to express their views, and, where disagreement arises, it will require there to be engagement and ensure that children’s views are considered in line with their “age and maturity”. Make no mistake: we are talking about a vanishingly small number of cases in which such a disagreement will take place. However, that provision reflects article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is the right of the child to express a view on matters that affect them and for that view to be “given due weight” according to their “age and maturity”.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I am married to a Roman Catholic primary school teacher, and I was formerly the convener of Together (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights). I am pleased to speak for the Scottish Liberal Democrats at stage 3 of this important bill. Before entering politics, I was a youth worker. Fighting for the rights and wellbeing of children is in my DNA; it is why I am in politics. That is why legislation such as this bill matters to me, and it also matters to my party. At stage 1, I said that the bill asked a fundamental question: do we believe that children have rights, and should those rights be taken seriously in the day-to-day decisions that shape their world view? In my party’s view, the answer remains yes.”
“Paul O’Kane: I will speak briefly about the amendments in this group, particularly amendment 19 in the name of Elena Whitham. Given the significant changes that the bill would bring and the new position in which it would put schools, of effectively needing to arbitrate between parents and children on issues of faith or conscience—things that are often deeply personal and private—it is important that schools are given clear guidance on how the processes envisaged in the bill would operate, and that must be done in a timely manner. Therefore, the detail underlying the amendment and the commitment to the production of guidance in short order are key points; it is worth putting that on the record. The whole Parliament would welcome seeing a final version of the guidance.”
“Those areas reflect many of the issues that were raised during stage 2, including: “(a) the process for considering a request for withdrawal from religious observance, (b) support available to pupils and parents about the process, (c) assessing whether a pupil is capable of forming a view about a request, (d) handling of discussion between pupils and parents about a request.” The amendment would also establish a list of mandatory consultees with whom ministers must engage when preparing the guidance. Amendment 19 sets out a clear timescale within which the Scottish ministers would have to issue the guidance, stipulating that it must be published within a year of the commencement of the relevant provisions. That is intended to prevent delays in providing much-needed clarity for schools, pupils and parents.”
“Elena Whitham: Amendment 19 addresses calls from several stakeholders for clear guidance on the implementation of the changes that are proposed in part 1 of the bill. The amendment would change the existing ministerial power to issue statutory guidance to a duty to do so. It would also introduce further requirements relating to the content of the guidance, the consultation process that must underpin its development and the arrangements for its publication. Amendment 19 sets out the core areas that the statutory guidance would have to cover.”
“Before granting ministers further influence over how this delicate process is conducted, the Parliament should be confident that such guidance will reinforce restraint, not extend intervention. My amendments are principled and carefully framed. They would respect children’s voices while preserving parental responsibility, provide schools with clearer statutory guidance and reduce the risk of an inconsistent application of practice across Scotland. If we are to legislate in this sensitive space of conscience, family life and education, we must do so with seriousness and balance. My amendments would help us to do exactly that, and I commend them to the Parliament. I move amendment 1.”
“Against that background, I have serious reservations about amendment 19. A statutory duty to issue guidance on the withdrawal process may appear sensible, but we are being asked to endorse guidance that we have not seen, in an area that already places teachers in a sensitive and potentially invidious position. Guidance can provide clarification, expand expectations and reshape practice. If the bill will already formalise a process that many people believe goes further than is necessary, layering additional statutory guidance without clear parameters risks compounding that shift. Teachers are educators; they should not be routinely drawn into adjudicating family disagreement on matters of conscience.”
“My amendments restore balance without denying the child’s voice. Amendment 5 is equally fundamental. It requires that operators “act impartially” and do not “seek to influence” the pupil’s views. If the school is required to inform the pupil of the request and of the right to object, that communication must be neutral. It must not be framed in a way that steers the pupil towards objection, nor should it minimise the seriousness of the parental decision. Schools are trusted institutions. Parents must have confidence that they are not entering a process in which their child will be subtly encouraged to contradict them. Without explicit statutory impartiality, we risk creating a dynamic in which the school becomes an active participant in a dispute rather than an honest broker. That would be unfair to families and to teachers.”
“Amendment 4 would establish a presumption that a pupil under the age of 16 is not to be treated as having the maturity to form such a view “unless the contrary is shown”. That is not a blanket exclusion—it preserves flexibility. Where a younger child demonstrably possesses unusual maturity, the presumption can be rebutted, but the amendment would prevent the default position from becoming automatic opposition to their parent’s request. That is the whole point of the bill. Throughout our scrutiny of the bill, I have emphasised that the UNCRC speaks of “evolving capacities”. It does not erase parental responsibility. Article 5 recognises “the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents … to provide … appropriate direction and guidance”. If the bill is to claim UNCRC alignment, it must respect that dual principle.”
“Martin Whitfield: With a move from “capable of forming” to “have the maturity”, is Mr Kerr not shifting from an objective assessment to a subjective assessment? He is seeking to shift the judge—to shift who decides that. Stephen Kerr: Any decision on the maturity and emotional development of a child is an on-going subjective decision that is reviewed continually in the light of their development, which is highly individual, as I know and Martin Whitfield knows only too well. It is important that we have clarity around the articulation of what Parliament means. I repeat this point, because it is important. The bill would mean that a child’s view would override a parent’s statutory right. That is why we require careful scrutiny of amendment 3 at this stage in the bill’s progress.”
“It is an age at which young people acquire, as I said a moment ago, significant rights and responsibilities under law. That is not the same as the issue that Maggie Chapman raised in her question. Aligning the bill with existing legal architecture is not restrictive—it is coherent. I turn to amendment 3, which would replace the phrase “be capable of forming” with “have the maturity to form”. That shift is deliberate. Capability suggests a minimum cognitive ability. Maturity recognises emotional development, contextual understanding and the capacity to appreciate consequences. It is not semantic refinement. It is a more accurate articulation of what Parliament must mean if the child’s view is to override their parents’ statutory right.”
“The UNCRC—which his party has agreed to incorporate in Scots law—is quite clear that children and young people should be assumed to have capacity unless it is proven otherwise. The bill as it stands is consistent with that. His amendments would put the bill at odds with that principle. 16:30 Stephen Kerr: Maggie Chapman is asking me whether I believe that children under the age of 16 can make their own decisions. As the father of four children, I assure members that children do have the capacity, in many instances, to make decisions for themselves. This issue happens to fall under an area that is covered by the 1980 act and deserves our careful scrutiny. In Scots law, the age of 16 is a recognised legal threshold for capacity.”
“Stephen Kerr: Alex Cole-Hamilton is asking me to explain the inconsistencies of legislation for which the Parliament is responsible. I would like there to be less inconsistency in these areas; unfortunately, we live with these inconsistencies, and that is why I have lodged amendment 2 to set 16 as the age. I recognise what Alex Cole- Hamilton says, and I sympathise with his point of view about the confusion that exists around these matters. I wish that there was some clarity. Maggie Chapman: I wonder whether Stephen Kerr is able to tell members whether he thinks that children under the age of 16 can make any decisions for themselves and therefore would be considered to have capacity in this regard.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Maggie Chapman: Will the member give way? Stephen Kerr: It is the age at which young people acquire significant rights and responsibilities. I give way to Alex Cole-Hamilton. Alex Cole-Hamilton: I am grateful to Stephen Kerr for giving way; I have pressed my button to speak in this group on this particular issue. We have a range of ages of majority, as laid out by this Parliament. At the age of 12, a person’s medical consent is sought and they are deemed to have capacity in medical decisions made about their body. The age of criminal responsibility is much lower than 16—in fact, the Scottish Conservatives have resisted an increase in that regard. I therefore ask him to explain those inconsistencies to the Parliament and say why he is bringing this one forward.”
“The bill addresses real gaps in regulation and responds to legitimate public concerns, which the Scottish Liberal Democrats absolutely share. We will support the bill at stage 1, because regulation is needed, but it is also clear that the bill must be refined at stage 2 to ensure that it protects patients, prevents people from going underground to perform procedures and ensures that we do not punish responsible practitioners. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 16:17”
“The fundamental point is that, if we get the balance wrong, there is a risk that skilled and experienced practitioners could be regulated out of the profession altogether. That would not improve safety; it would remove livelihoods and tempt people to operate underground and remove themselves from the regulatory framework altogether. That is a risk that both Sandesh Gulhane and I would be concerned about. There is also a lack of clarity about how new and innovative procedures would be categorised in future. We are living in a time of new developments in the sector. The industry evolves very quickly, so those who are currently working in it should be involved in shaping how new treatments are assessed and regulated.”
“A constituent of mine who falls into that category recently got in touch and visited me to explain that the bill as drafted risks putting her out of business due to its requirement for her to have a medical professional on site every time that she is working, whether that is in her home or someone else’s. The sector is largely female led and is dominated by self- employed practitioners. Sandesh Gulhane: I wonder about the appropriateness of somebody performing procedures in their own home or in an environment that is not clinical and potentially not clean. Should we be encouraging that? Alex Cole-Hamilton: I am absolutely certain that regulation needs to be tightened, but that is not my salient point.”
“We agree with the committee’s call for clear national standards and a better definition of the competencies that are linked to levels of risk. That clarity matters, not just for future entrants to the profession but for those who are already practising, many of whom have invested heavily in training under the current system. The Federation of Small Businesses has also raised important concerns. Its members support regulation as a means of flushing out bad actors and improving public safety, but it has warned that the bill as drafted risks harming trained practitioners who are currently operating safely. Scottish Liberal Democrats agree.”
“Although the prohibition on carrying out such procedures on under-18s is long overdue, the inspection and enforcement powers that are to be given to Healthcare Improvement Scotland will be essential if the system is to work in practice. However, we must pay attention to the potential unintended consequences. I raised that in my intervention on the minister, as did Maurice Golden, because we have heard consistent evidence that, unless implementation is handled carefully, or an amendment is not made to the bill, there is a risk of harm to the well-trained and responsible practitioners who currently provide those services safely and professionally. The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee highlighted inconsistencies with training and qualifications across the sector.”
“There is no single framework for setting out where those procedures may take place, who is qualified to perform them or what minimum standards they must meet. That lack of clarity benefits no one—neither patients nor responsible practitioners. For those reasons, the Scottish Liberal Democrats agree that regulation is needed, and we will offer our cautious support for the bill at stage 1. I say “cautious”, because we attach caveats to that support, which I will lay out. The bill’s attempt to introduce a risk-based proportionate framework, including the proposed two-tier system that distinguishes between higher and lower-risk procedures, is sensible. Restricting higher-risk procedures to permitted premises with appropriate medical oversight is sensible in principle.”
“The debate has been interesting, and I am learning a lot. The bill brings together two distinct sets of reforms that aim to protect the public while strengthening confidence in the regulatory systems around such procedures. Part 1 addresses the regulation of higher-risk non-surgical cosmetic procedures, which are procedures that pierce or penetrate the skin, and products such as dermal fillers, botulinum toxin, thread lifts and deep chemical peels. Those products are often marketed as routine or low risk yet, when they are carried out incorrectly or by those without adequate training, as we have heard several times today, the harm can be very serious, permanent and deeply distressing. At present, regulation in the area is fragmented and unclear.”
“However, I know that the proposals will be a challenge for some businesses. There is scope for guidance and support for businesses that are looking to transition to the new regulatory regime, and some businesses may be able to offer licensable procedures instead. I have committed to giving businesses time to make the changes that they need to make.”
“Although there is compelling support for the action we are proposing, I recognise that, as with all public health actions, there is a need to minimise the impact on legitimate and well- intentioned practitioners. We have listened carefully to all those who have offered views on the bill. I reflect on the concerns of people in parts of the sector that are currently non-regulated and not clinically led. I have been impressed by the skill and expertise of many practitioners and business owners, the vast majority of whom are women. Many are clearly committed to being well trained in their work and operate with careful regard to safety. I have no interest in putting unnecessary burdens on those businesses. I do so only if I think that it is necessary to achieve the wider public safety aims that I seek to achieve.”
“It will also make it an offence to provide such procedures to a person who is under 18. An order has been introduced separately that establishes a local authority licensing scheme for lower-risk procedures. Although we should protect the right of adults to access non-surgical procedures safely, I am confident that I speak for a large majority when I say that those procedures are not suitable for people under 18. It was reassuring to see the provisions on that being backed strongly by the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. The provisions also address the gap between Scotland and England, where Botox and fillers are already banned for under-18s. The bill goes further, covering a wider range of procedures, to enhance that protection. I will cover the point that Mr Cole-Hamilton raised.”
“As well as having meetings with members, I have heard directly from a wide range of interested groups and have met practitioners from the clinical and non-clinical parts of the sector. Events were hosted during the consultation period for non- healthcare practitioners and businesses, and we met groups representing doctors, nurses and other professionals. We received more than 2,000 responses to our consultation and almost 600 responses to a survey that was directed at businesses. We also met regulators and professional bodies. The bill will make procedures safer for everyone. It will ensure that procedures take place in appropriate, hygienic settings, where healthcare professionals are involved in the provision or management of services and can assist if there are complications.”
“Will Jenni Minto give way? Jenni Minto: I will just finish my paragraph. I am committed to maintaining consensus and would like members with proposals for improving the bill to raise them with me. Alex Cole-Hamilton: I, too, read the committee’s report with interest. The minister is right that those who avail themselves of such services are largely female; the sector is also largely female led and dominated by self- employed practitioners. Does the minister recognise the concerns raised in the committee’s report that there is a risk that, if we get the balance wrong, skilled and experienced practitioners could be regulated out of their profession altogether? Jenni Minto: I will touch on that later in my contribution.”
“I urge members to back the motion for reconsideration of the Euro charter bill. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the motion on reconsideration of the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill. Urgent Questions 17:33”
“It is disappointing that it has taken so long to get clarity on that point from the UK Government but, on balance, it is a lot better to have a bill moved to royal assent than for it to be struck down again and to have an uncertain future, dragging into session 7 of the Parliament. I will end with the words of Andy Wightman, who said in the stage 3 debate five years ago: “We are strengthening our democracy; in particular, we are strengthening the institution of our system of government that lies closest to the people … so that it might serve them better and more effectively and be more responsive to the wishes of local communities, rather than the political imperatives in Edinburgh.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2021; c 80.] I agreed with those words then and I agree with them now.”
“I would ask Mark Griffin to reflect on the fact that there has been a conversation between two Governments— a Labour Government and an SNP Government— and I would have preferred those amendments on section 2 not to have been drafted. However, we are where we are. The amendments will reduce the reach and effect of the bill, because much legislation in devolved areas, such as in education, is still contained within the UK legislation. My priority, as the designated member, is to see the bill pass the reconsideration stage, avoiding any further referral to the UK Supreme Court. COSLA is content with that approach.”
“Sections 4 and 5, on interpretation and declarations of incompatibility, will be amended to restrict their application to acts of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish statutory instruments. As the cabinet secretary has outlined, the Government amendments will go further than the two sections of the bill as considered by the UK Supreme Court. They will include amendments, under section 2, to the duty on Scottish ministers to act compatibly with the charter. We have heard that that is being done on the basis that the Scottish Government, through engagement with the UK Government, has not been able to rule out the possibility of a further referral if section 2 is not amended during the reconsideration stage. That is regrettable.”
“I do not view it as an end point; it is a start, and it has helped to reset the relationship. I agree with Alex Cole-Hamilton and Alexander Stewart that there is a long way to go. The bill gives us an opportunity to embed the principles further into the work of both the Scottish Government and the Parliament in the next session. I note that the Verity house agreement committed the Government to embed the European charter into law. That is what local government wants, and it is normal across Europe. If we can get the amendments through and get the bill over the line, that is exactly what it will do. I will make some brief comments about the amendments that the Government will be proposing.”