Jeremy Balfour
Independent · Scotland
“Does the cabinet secretary agree that ADP helps people to get into and stay in employment? If ADP is cut, more people in Scotland will have to claim other benefits because they are not able to work. I remind members that I am in receipt of higher-rate ADP.”
“I, too, thank Fulton MacGregor not only for only bringing the debate to the chamber but for all the work that he has done as the convener of the cross-party group on social work. I have had the pleasure of being part of that group, which has been very much driven by him. I am grateful for his contribution.”
“As my friend Roz McCall said, there is still a lot to do and this is not the end of the journey. In my short contribution, I will make three simple points from personal experience and from picking up on what the report says.”
“I made my maiden speech in a members’ debate like this one, so it seems fitting for me to conclude in this debate. As I said in the debate last week on the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill, my wife and I have had personal experience of breakdown of adoption.”
“Given the size of our nation, there must be some way in which we can pull together good practice from across Scotland to do this. Secondly, again, as Martin Whitfield said, there is the financial cost, which is often ignored. It is looked at well in fostering but less so in adoption.”
“She has grown in her role as a leader, and she has taken the bill through in a way that many others could learn lessons from. With both the minister and the former First Minister leaving, and with who knows who being elected in May, my worry is this: who will pick up the challenge after the election?”
The complete record
Every one of 390 lines we hold for Jeremy Balfour, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“Once again, he makes a very important point in the chamber, and I thank him for doing so. Older People’s Housing 3.”
“Does the cabinet secretary agree that ADP helps people to get into and stay in employment? If ADP is cut, more people in Scotland will have to claim other benefits because they are not able to work. I remind members that I am in receipt of higher-rate ADP. Shirley-Anne Somerville: This will probably be the last time that I will have the opportunity—at least in the chamber—to thank Jeremy Balfour for the work that we have undertaken together over the years. We have disagreed on many things, but we have also agreed on a lot, particularly on social security. I am pleased to end on a note of consensus with Mr Balfour. It is important that we recognise that ADP is there to support disabled people who are both in and out of work, to help them with the increased costs of a disability. That encourages people to work and keeps them in work.”
“I thank Fulton MacGregor, and I look forward to hearing the minister’s response. I hope that we all—whether we are in the Parliament or outside— commit to real changes in the next parliamentary session. 19:27”
“Given the size of our nation, there must be some way in which we can pull together good practice from across Scotland to do this. Secondly, again, as Martin Whitfield said, there is the financial cost, which is often ignored. It is looked at well in fostering but less so in adoption. If we are to fully support people who take on children, they should have some financial help throughout that journey. Finally, there is an issue around the process of how the transfer takes place when the child comes into the family. Again, that is often left to a postcode lottery and it often does not happen well. Support is not there, and too many people encounter difficulties and fall at the first hurdle, whereas, if there was just a bit more support at that point, it could be a different story.”
“As my friend Roz McCall said, there is still a lot to do and this is not the end of the journey. In my short contribution, I will make three simple points from personal experience and from picking up on what the report says. First, as Martin Whitfield said, support needs to come at key moments, which will vary for people, depending on their adoption journey. For some, it will mean early intervention and help. For others, it will come when the child hits their teenage years or when they transfer between secondary and further education or job opportunities. It might come at other times in people’s lives. We all know that social workers are under pressure, and there is often a lack of flexibility. There is too much of a postcode lottery, as other members have said—not only a postcode lottery but a council lottery.”
“I made my maiden speech in a members’ debate like this one, so it seems fitting for me to conclude in this debate. As I said in the debate last week on the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill, my wife and I have had personal experience of breakdown of adoption. It is not appropriate to go into the details of that, but, from that experience, and having spoken to many other people, particularly here in Edinburgh and Lothian, about their stories, I think that the report shines a light on many of the difficulties that people face, not only once they have adopted but in getting to the point of adoption. I hope that whoever is returned to the Parliament after the election and whoever forms the next Government will build on what we did last week and continue on the journey.”
“I, too, thank Fulton MacGregor not only for only bringing the debate to the chamber but for all the work that he has done as the convener of the cross-party group on social work. I have had the pleasure of being part of that group, which has been very much driven by him. I am grateful for his contribution. Lest I forget, I add the same comments that others have made about the minister as she leaves this place. I am sure that her future is bright and rosy. As this might well be my last speech in this session—who knows what the electorate will do in a few weeks’ time?—I put on record my thanks to the people of Lothian for allowing me to represent them for the past 10 years. I also thank all the people in the Parliament who look after us and help us. I want to put on the record that their support for me has been outstanding.”
“I am sure that we will all get behind whoever leads it, so that it will be delivered and, most importantly, so that some of the most vulnerable children in our society get a better chance than they have today. 18:29”
“She has grown in her role as a leader, and she has taken the bill through in a way that many others could learn lessons from. With both the minister and the former First Minister leaving, and with who knows who being elected in May, my worry is this: who will pick up the challenge after the election? I hope that, in the same way as the present First Minister, Mr Rennie and Mr Greer have done, the two leaders from the Labour Party and the Conservative Party will give a commitment that, whoever forms the next Government, we will see the Promise delivered by 2030. The bill will not be worth the paper that it is written on unless we—not just this Parliament but civic society as a whole—do that. I hope that the bill will be delivered. It is the first step, and I look forward to seeing what bill is introduced in the next session of Parliament.”
“They have said that the bill will not work unless we fund local services better. This Parliament and this Government cannot do that; it will be a challenge for the next Government and Parliament. If we are truly going to have children’s hearings that work, if we are truly going to have the right interventions at the right time, and if we are truly going to support grandparents, uncles, aunties and others to provide kinship care, it all needs to be funded, and I hope that that will happen. Finally, what comes next? I join colleagues in thanking the minister for her work at stages 2 and 3. If I am honest, the reason why she is such a good minister is that we gave her a hard time as convener of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee when she first arrived in the Parliament.”
“We have had warnings from the Law Society of Scotland and a number of charities questioning compliance, even given the amendments that we agreed to yesterday. I fear that there will be a legal challenge to the bill from somebody. Clearly, it will take better legal minds than mine to decide on that, but I hope that, whatever challenge comes, we can build on the bill and that, whatever challenges the court brings back to the next Parliament, they can be dealt with quickly. My second question is on whether the bill can be delivered in practice. I welcomed the comments about that from the minister in her opening speech and from other members. We have to listen carefully to those who have given us briefing papers and warnings on the issue, whether that is social workers, COSLA or others.”
“I also thank the charities and groups that have contacted me, spoken to me and helped me with the amendments that I moved last night. I think that we are still in a good place with cross- party support. I hope that, no matter who forms the next Government and which parties are represented in the next Parliament, that will continue and hold together. There are some really good things in the bill. I am particularly pleased about the movement on kinship care, and I thank the minister for the work that she has done on that. In the speaking time that I have left, I will ask three simple questions about where we are and about the bill. The first is on the issue of UNCRC compliance, on which I agree absolutely with Ross Greer— again, that does not happen often. I hope that the bill is compliant.”
“I thank the former First Minister for her words. I am not sure that there are lots of things that we agree on politically, but I think that her advice to her younger self is excellent. I had the privilege of being a lobbyist in this Parliament 26 years ago, and I can see the difference since then. Some of the changes have been very positive, but I absolutely agree with Nicola Sturgeon that the way that we conduct ourselves in this chamber is not the way that the Scottish people would want us to. I also want to acknowledge that we have this bill before us today only because of the work that Nicola Sturgeon has done, and, on behalf of the many young people whom I have engaged with on the bill, I thank her for getting us here.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of whether the current levels of pupil support assistant staffing in schools to support pupils with additional support for learning are adequate, including steps required where shortages exist. (S6O-05668)”
“If he does, I urge members to vote against it, but to vote for his amendment 12.”
“I hope that Jeremy Balfour is assured by that and that he will not press amendment 11. Amendment 12 would introduce a statutory requirement for an assessment or review to be completed within three months of a request being made. I recognise the importance of ensuring that kinship carers receive timely consideration of their support needs and, on that basis, I am content to support amendment 12, because it would create a window within which assessments should be conducted. Local authorities will continue to prioritise assessments according to risk and need, and the statutory guidance that is referred to in the bill’s provisions will support authorities to implement the requirements in a way that reflects local circumstances and the needs of children and families. I therefore encourage Jeremy Balfour not to press amendment 11.”
“Amendment 11 would change the provision that requires local authorities to offer an assessment to one that requires them to guarantee that an assessment will take place in all circumstances. However, the bill’s current wording allows local authorities to respond proportionately in cases in which needs have already been assessed or in cases in which a further assessment might not be necessary, which reflects the wider principle of proportionate and minimum intervention that underpins Scotland’s approach to children’s services. Changing the provision would mean resources being tied up in conducting assessments whether they are needed or not, which does not feel appropriate. Through section A1, we already have the ability to provide more detail on the assessment process, through secondary legislation, if it is necessary to do so.”
“My amendments 11 and 12 would go some way to ensuring that kinship carers are recognised, listened to and given the appropriate assessment of support to ensure that they can care for children to the best of their ability. I move amendment 11. Natalie Don-Innes: I understand the intention behind Mr Balfour’s amendments in this group, which seek to strengthen access to assessments for kinship carers. Like others, I have been very keen to improve and strengthen support for kinship carers throughout the bill process. Section A1 provides kinship carers with the right to request an assessment or review of their support needs. It also creates enabling powers for the Scottish ministers to make provision about when or how a local authority must assess, or review an assessment of, a person’s kinship care needs.”
“Kinship carers should not have to ask for an assessment or wait for a council to offer one; an assessment should be given without hesitation or demand. Amendment 12 follows on from that and would ensure that the kinship assessment is carried out within three months of the application being received. That would ensure that the assessment is timely and that families are not left waiting and struggling. It would ensure that appropriate support—whether financial, practical or professional, such as social work support—is put in place at the earliest opportunity, and it might prevent the kinship care arrangement from breaking down. For so long, kinship care has been misunderstood, mismanaged and undersupported.”
“16:00 In its submission to the Scottish Government’s consultation on the draft vision for kinship care, Children First stated that “asking carers to apply for an assessment may become a hurdle, especially for those who are unaware of the option or find it difficult to ask for help.” Kinship carers are the backbone of our care community: grandparents and other relatives who, at a time in their lives when they should be enjoying retirement and relaxation, are instead stepping up to support and raise grandchildren, keeping families together during difficult times. Those people deserve the full backing and support of our local councils to ensure that a full, trauma‑informed assessment of a person’s care needs is performed and that pathways to assist and support them are identified.”
“There are many issues that still need to be addressed, and the support that they require still needs to be provided by the Government and local authorities. Amendment 11 would reframe the wording in section A1 of the bill regarding kinship care assessment needs to ensure that we remove any barriers that carers and children in kinship care arrangements might face. The premise of amendment 11 is simple: rather than the local authority having to offer to assess a person’s kinship care assistance needs, there would instead be a guarantee that an assessment will take place. That would take the potential postcode lottery out of the process and ensure that the needs of the carer and the child are assessed appropriately and without question.”
“I, too, thank the minister for her proactive engagement. Although we will not agree on everything this afternoon and evening, I appreciate the way in which she and her officials have reached out. I also thank all the charities and organisations that have helped to shape my thinking and decision making on the bill. With regard to my amendment 11, which is on kinship care, I especially thank Children First, Scotland’s national children’s charity, for its guidance on the amendment to ensure that it is child centred and appropriately measured. It has become clear to me during this session of Parliament that kinship care is a wee bit of a Cinderella service in Scotland. Those of us who sit on the Social Justice and Social Security Committee had a number of sessions with people who are involved with kinship care.”
“Colleagues—friends—I am begging you to consider what the consequences of passing the bill would be for the most vulnerable in our communities. Do not let the final act of this session of Parliament be a disappointment to them and to future generations. 19:23”
“In passing the bill, we would be opening a Pandora’s box and the effects on the most vulnerable people in our society would be devastating. Despite what we have heard from those on the other side of the debate, there can be no meaningful protection against coercion and we cannot legislate against the feeling of being a burden. We cannot legislate for the throwaway comments that make me and others feel that our lives are worth less. I am very fortunate. I have had a loving family. I have a superb wife and loving children who would never let me go through that, even if I was at a low point, but many in our country are not so fortunate. The protections in the bill are not good enough and can never be good enough.”
“Imagine that you had been told by many people, including a number of politicians, that you were a burden on society and that the benefits that you rely on to survive could be better spent elsewhere. I want you to imagine that, on numerous occasions, you have heard the words, “I’d rather die than live like you.” How do you think you would feel, watching this debate? I think you would, rightly, feel terrified. I know that those on the other side will say that the bill will affect only those with terminal illness, but, as we have seen time and again in other jurisdictions, the bill would mark the beginning of the story but not the end. Take Jersey, for instance. Its bill was passed not even a month ago and there have already been attempts to broaden the criteria by which someone there becomes eligible for an assisted death.”
“It has been said many times during this stage 3 debate that we are dealing with the most important decision that we, as parliamentarians, have taken, and I want to thank Liam McArthur and all his team for the way in which we have taken the bill through Parliament. The decision that we make this evening will profoundly change the very fabric of our society and we should all consider that carefully when it comes to decision time. Disabled people are frightened, and I ask my colleagues to put themselves in their shoes and my shoes. Imagine that you relied on your family and friends to make daily sacrifices to help you to get up, dress and be ready for the day.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“I hope that the Government understands, and can see, that those from a lower socioeconomic background will not be able to afford the treatment prices, which will inevitably be driven up if all or many of the non- medical providers in the market are forced to close. It will then inevitably push those consumers into an underground and unregulated sector, which may then lead to an increase in adverse treatment effects. The bill may, through unintended consequences, force out responsible and highly trained women-led businesses and lead, unfortunately, to more women consumers getting treatment from unregulated and unsafe providers. I ask members to support my amendments, and I ask the Government to think carefully about the issue, the predicament of women such as my constituent and the unintended consequences.”
“In practice, that means that a qualified practitioner could spend years building a compliant clinic, only to find that their ability to continue operating depends entirely on securing and retaining a prescriber, who may also be a competitor in the same market. That market— the treatments and the demand for them, in particular from young women—is growing, and in my opinion it will only continue to grow as a result of changing beauty standards that are heavily promoted on social media. I think that there is a lack of understanding by the Government of those drivers, in particular for the consumers in the industry.”
“The bill will create a situation whereby practitioners who spend more than a year completing advanced aesthetics training will not be able to operate independently. That will mean that women such as my constituent and many others, as non- healthcare practitioners, would need to rely on a prescribing medic in order to operate and supervise a clinic. That is even if a provider could be found, which remains to be seen, and the costs may well be prohibitive. The bill creates a model in which experienced practitioners will become dependent on prescribers who have no financial stake in their business while potentially offering the same treatments themselves.”
“With regard to Alex Cole-Hamilton’s support for the amendments, I had hoped to meet him in the lead-up to stage 3. Unfortunately, he was not able to meet me because of his diary commitments. I also point out that I expect that, in implementing the bill, the Scottish Government will work with businesses in the unregulated part of the sector to ensure that they have access to support and guidance. I understand Ms Regan’s motivations, but I urge her not to press amendment 11 or to move her other amendments, and, if she does, I urge members to vote against them. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I invite Ash Regan to wind up and say whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 11. Ash Regan: I will press amendment 11.”
“Amendment 13 includes “a non-healthcare aesthetics professional” as one of the persons who may provide or manage services from the premises of a Healthcare Improvement Scotland- registered independent clinic in order for it to be “permitted premises” under section 4(1)(a) of the bill. Amendment 14, as discussed already, defines “non-healthcare aesthetics professional”. I cannot support these amendments, for the public safety reasons that I have given previously. I also note that section 4(1)(a) interacts with the definition of an “independent clinic” in section 10F(2) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. Such a clinic would still need services to be provided by one of the healthcare professionals listed in that section to register with HIS.”
“Unfortunately, that training does not qualify a practitioner to prescribe medications, nor is it clear that these settings would be able to routinely hold stocks of relevant emergency medications without the involvement of a healthcare professional. These settings do not provide the safety protections required. Amendments 12, 15 and 30 would provide for a licensing scheme to be established by regulations. Such a scheme is already set to take effect from 6 September 2027 under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Non-surgical Procedures Order) 2026. That licensing scheme is appropriate for lower-risk procedures, but I do not believe that the risks of procedures covered by the bill can be adequately mitigated without the involvement of a healthcare professional.”
“14:45 There are other benefits to the settings that we have selected and to the rule on the involvement of a healthcare professional—for example, that healthcare professionals are subject to regulation by professional bodies. I turn to the amendments themselves. Amendments 11 and 29 seek to add “premises managed by a non-healthcare aesthetics professional” to the list of permitted premises in section 4(1) of the bill. The Scottish ministers would be able to provide registration requirements for these premises in affirmative regulations. Amendment 14 defines a “non-healthcare aesthetics professional” by reference to particular levels of qualification.”
“In many cases, prescriptions will be needed at the outset of a procedure. In other cases, it will be necessary for certain emergency medications to be available on site. Within the United Kingdom regulatory framework for the sale and supply of medicines, non-regulated settings that deliver non-surgical procedures are not able to routinely hold supplies of prescription-only medicines without the involvement of a suitably qualified healthcare professional. To say that the involvement of a healthcare professional is necessary is not to denigrate the skills, dedication and experience of other practitioners, who should continue to have a role in the sector. These rules can and should be complementary, ensuring that safe, professional and effective procedures are delivered.”
“You have said how many businesses there are. How many individuals will lose their jobs because of the legislation? Have you done an equality impact assessment with regard to how it will affect females more than males? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair, please. Jenni Minto: Yes, of course we have done an equality impact assessment. There are a few points that I wish to make. First, I sympathise with Ms Regan’s intentions. I am sure that she is trying to mitigate what many businesses see as the most challenging part of the bill. Secondly, the requirement for a healthcare professional to be involved is the most important part of the bill. The reasons for healthcare professional involvement being essential to public safety were discussed at stage 2.”
“Again, I hope that colleagues understand my motivation in lodging these amendments and that it is appreciated more widely how important democratic scrutiny and control are. When it comes to legislating on matters of life and death, I do not think that that level of accountability could be described as excessive. Indeed, it is not excessive—it is the least that the Parliament should require. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Liz Smith to speak to amendments 268 and other amendments in the group.”
“The issue that I hope that Ross Greer and I agree on is the importance of democratic scrutiny and control. The example of other jurisdictions has been cited. If we are going to expand the law over time, in the eventuality that that is presented as a proposal, that proposal must be accompanied by the highest level of legislative scrutiny. Frankly, that is how profound the issue is, and that is the level of scrutiny that such a matter deserves. The Parliament should not place itself in the position of not retaining control over such matters, so amendments 266 and 271 seek to ensure that parliamentary oversight remains central to how the law operates, and I hope that colleagues will be sympathetic to that view. The amendments would ensure that safeguards could not be altered unless they had returned to the chamber.”
“They ensure that, if guidance relating to safeguards is to be issued or changed, it must come back here for consideration and approval by the elected representatives of the people of Scotland. Ross Greer: I am inclined to agree with Mr Kerr on the importance of parliamentary accountability and scrutiny—I am just not clear on what the mechanism for those would be. Amendment 266 does not state what the mechanism for parliamentary approval would be. I apologise if I have missed this in another amendment, but is he envisaging something similar to what Liz Smith is proposing—that is, a resolution of Parliament—or some other mechanism? Stephen Kerr: I think that the ideas are similar in that respect, but the fundamental point is that Parliament must express its approval.”
“I understand why members who are in favour of the bill might want to set Canada aside, but I do not think that we should set aside any jurisdiction where such a law has been enacted or its experience of such a law in practice. The example of Jersey is germane to that point. I accept that members will hold different views on any subsequent development of the law, but I suspect that most colleagues will agree on one point, which is that such changes should not happen without full parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability. Safeguards should never be quietly diluted through guidance issued behind closed doors—I hope that we would all agree with that. If this Parliament creates such a law, it must never lose control of how that law evolves. That is the purpose of my amendments.”
“The fact that the Parliament did not reflect the judgment of the court led to a further appeal that was successfully upheld, and the Parliament was required to expand the provisions in its legislation. Therefore, conflating the situation in Canada with what we are dealing with in the bill is slightly disingenuous, and I say that with the utmost respect to Mr Kerr. Stephen Kerr: I am grateful to Liam McArthur for his intervention, and I would simply counter it by saying that, when international comparisons have been cited in relation to other aspects of the bill, there have been clear differences in how members interpret the evidence.”
“Does Mr Kerr agree that we can already see that in our own jurisdiction? For example, last month, Jersey changed the law to allow assisted suicide and, this week, it is already starting to debate whether the law needs to be changed and made easier. Stephen Kerr: Yes—that is a good example. I accept that members will have different views about how the law might develop, and that example is a template. Liam McArthur: I would caution against using the example of Canada to reflect what happens in other jurisdictions with terminal illness mental capacity models. There are no examples of a terminal illness mental capacity model that has expanded the eligibility criteria. Mr Kerr referred to the example of Canada, where a case asserting that the ban on assisted dying was unconstitutional was brought to the Supreme Court.”
“I have seen what the Scottish Government says about risks around employment law, and Mr McArthur has picked that up as well, but I would be interested to hear from the cabinet secretary—in his speech on the group or in an intervention— whether this issue will be part of the negotiations with the United”
“A single forced declaration could fundamentally undermine the system, place a terminally ill adult at risk and erode public confidence in the legislation. Amendment 191 would complement amendment 190 by ensuring that the professional integrity and conscience of solicitors and legal professionals is fully respected. Although the law should require oversight in such a delicate matter, no professional should ever be forced to act as a proxy against their conscience or professional judgment. Amendment 191 would remove any ambiguity about that from the bill by ensuring that legal professionals would not have to do that.”
“That is crucial, because it would prevent a potential loophole whereby a proxy could force a declaration but avoid accountability simply because the process was interrupted by a third party. The amendment is about more than just rules on paper; it is about protecting vulnerable individuals at the moment of profound vulnerability. It would ensure that proxies cannot act without accountability, that the integrity of the declaration process is preserved and that the safeguards that Parliament has sought to put in place can never be bypassed. In a debate such as this, it is right that much attention has been paid to the role of doctors and to assessment and eligibility criteria, but the responsibility of proxies is just as crucial.”
“That is because, as I said a moment ago—again, I would be happy if Liam McArthur could clarify this point when summing up—there seems to be no punishment for someone who falsely signs by proxy. That includes signing a declaration in contravention of the law or making a false statement about their capacity, disqualification status or understanding of the person who is making the decision. We are not talking about technical or minor offences—they involve serious risk to life, so the amendment would put in place appropriate penalties to reflect that gravity. Importantly, the amendment would also clarify that, even if the person who is seeking an assisted death does not proceed to the point of death, such a falsification will have placed the adult at serious risk and should be treated as such.”
“The measure is designed to assist a terminally ill adult who might be physically unable to sign or communicate, while ensuring that the decision reflects their true voluntary intent. However, as with any process that allows a person to act on behalf of another, there is a risk of abuse, coercion or falsification. A declaration that is made falsely or under pressure would completely undermine the safeguards that we all want in the bill, and the amendment seeks to put such safeguards in place. Such a declaration would strike at the very principle that assisted dying is a choice that is made freely and by the person themselves. Amendment 190 would establish clear and enforceable criminal offences for any proxy who knowingly contravenes section 12(4).”
“Amendment 190 relates to section 12 and concerns the responsibilities and potential criminal liability of proxies who are involved in the assisted dying process. My amendment addresses a matter that goes to the integrity and safety of the system that would be established under the bill’s framework. I wonder whether, in winding up, Liam McArthur will tell me what happens if someone falsely signs by proxy. From reading the bill, I see no punishment or anything that would happen if such a situation happened, so I would be interested to know his reflections on that at the end of the debate on this group. The bill allows, in very specific circumstances, for a proxy to act on behalf of an individual who is making a decision.”
“There are a number of us—in fact, I think that there are nine of us now—who are not part of the bureau discussions and who have had no input on the decision. I look to the next parliamentary session and think that people will be looking at the situation and saying, “If this is going to happen, how will I cope, given my caring responsibilities?””
“I rise to challenge the motion and to question whether this is the right way forward for the Parliament. I understand where we are and the issues that we have with timescales. However, as I said on a previous occasion, although the Parliament may genuinely seek to be a Parliament that wants those who have caring responsibilities or who need carers to be involved in proceedings, changing the timetable at this time of the week makes it very difficult for some individuals. I know that there are members who will not be able to be here on Friday because they have caring responsibilities or because they need carers. I ask the bureau why, when it was looking at the timescales, it factored in a Friday morning?”