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 2 of 8.
“That is human nature. However, in the context of the bill, we must prevent situations where an individual who has been refused an assisted death by one doctor simply goes on until they find someone else. Given the point of the bill and its seriousness, I do not believe that such a situation could provide the robust safeguards that the Parliament has been told the bill will contain. Amendment 184 would therefore introduce a clear provision whereby, when a practitioner records that they are not satisfied that the legal criteria have been met, no further assessment under the bill may take place for a period of 12 months.”
“That means that we could end up with a situation in which a person goes to see their GP, the GP carries out the assessment and says, “No, you don’t meet the criteria,” and the person simply goes to a private company, whether it is in another part of Scotland or in the same part that they live in, which could start the process and might come to a different conclusion. That raises the possibility of what we have heard described as doctor shopping, when someone continues to seek further assessments until they eventually find a practitioner who is willing to reach a different conclusion. I worry that people with certain conditions might do that. I am sure that we all have a preferred doctor. I have a favourite GP at my practice. When I have previously had to go for surgery, I have perhaps hoped to see one consultant over another.”
“In other words, the amendment would mean that, where a doctor determined that the legal tests in the bill had not been met, the decision was clearly documented and properly communicated. Amendment 184 goes further than that, because it also addresses an important practical concern. Without the safeguard that the amendment proposes, there is a risk that the individual who has been assessed and found not to meet the criteria could simply seek another practitioner and begin the process again immediately. I accept that, as Clare Haughey said in her intervention a few moments ago, under the bill as it stands, most of that process will be done within NHS Scotland. However, my understanding is—I am happy to be corrected on this—that there is provision within the bill for those in private business to set up such a service.”
“It would mean that, when either the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner or the independent registered medical practitioner carried out the assessment and was not satisfied that the individual met the conditions that are set out in the bill—whether that was because the person was not terminally ill, because the person was not eligible under the legislation or because there were concerns that the declaration might not have been made voluntarily—the practitioner would have to make a formal statement explaining that conclusion. The statement would need to set out the reasons why the practitioner was not satisfied, be signed and dated, and be shared with the individual concerned.”
“If their medical assessments are to play such a critical role, it is essential that the outcomes of those assessments are clear, transparent and properly recorded, particularly when a doctor concludes that the criteria that are set out in the bill have not been met. Amendment 184 would therefore introduce a straightforward but important requirement.”
“I will limit my comments to the amendments in the group that are in my name. Amendment 184 concerns an issue that sits at the very centre of the debate that the Parliament has been having about the bill. It is an issue that we have been hearing about over the past few minutes from different members. Throughout the scrutiny of the bill, Mr McArthur and others have repeatedly given assurances that the legislation will contain robust protections for vulnerable people. Supporters of the bill have pointed to the role of two doctors—the co- ordinating practitioner and the independent practitioner—as one of the key safeguards in the system.”
“I see what Daniel Johnson is seeking to do with the two amendments in this group, but the reality is that many who are terminally ill will also be disabled, and the line between the two can become blurred in practice. Disabled people in Scotland already face serious inequalities and barriers, higher rates of poverty—”
“I thank Daniel Johnson for lodging the two amendments in this group. I rise to speak with serious concern about the bill, in particular with regard to its impact on disabled people. For many disabled people, the debate around assisted dying feels not abstract or theoretical, but deeply personal. At its heart, the bill sends a deeply disturbing message that some lives, especially the lives of disabled people, are more eligible for ending than others. Many disabled people fear that the bill could, implicitly, make them feel that their lives are automatically considered eligible for ending, simply because they live with a disability. That is a message that the Parliament must never, ever send. Supporters of the bill will point out that it is framed around terminal illness, not disability.”
“Other members who have disabilities are also proof that people in Scotland are not against electing members with a disability. The issue is that not enough is being done to encourage disabled candidates to stand. I understand that that is a somewhat cheeky point to make now that I sit as an independent but, having been a member of a party for 40 years, I think that all parties in and outwith the Parliament need to do much more to attract people with disabilities. Encouraging and promoting disabled candidates must start at the grass roots and parties should do everything in their power to make the election process as accessible as possible. However, it goes beyond that. What do we expect of our members?”
“Unfortunately, although such events are vital in making the voices of disabled people heard, they do not come along enough. We have to examine what outcomes came from the disability summit and what real differences it will make to the lives of people with disabilities. As I said, progress has been made in representation across protected characteristics, even during my 10 years in the Parliament. However, we must recognise that we still have a significant way to go. Only 5 per cent of MSPs have declared a disability but, in Scotland, 25 per cent of people have a recognised disability. That difference is unacceptable and something needs to be done about it. Let me be clear: I do not blame the electorate. I am here thanks to the people of Lothian region.”
“I have to say that I think the Parliament missed an opportunity when it decided not to appoint a disability commissioner. I understand the arguments that were brought by some against doing so, but I think that the disability community is still struggling to come to terms with that decision. To be more positive for a moment, a couple of Saturdays ago, the minister, Pam Duncan-Glancy, Emma Roddick, Carol Mochan and I held the disability summit here in the Parliament. Such events help to inform policy and decisions. It was a great success. Almost every desk was filled by people with lived experience of disability. I am pleased that the summit has been held for a second time and hope that, whoever comes back after the election, it will become a biannual event.”
“This morning, I received an email that said: “Glasgow IJB ended its funding for Scottish Huntington’s Association to provide specialist services on 1 January—a decision condemned by cross-party MSPs and further called into question by Glasgow City Internal Audit. One thing is beyond dispute: Huntington’s families were not consulted. A decision was made about that community without its knowledge or input. That should not be so.” There are still people with certain disabilities, such as learning disabilities and hidden disabilities, who are not getting the coverage, help and support that they deserve and require. There are also issues around employability. Too many people—again, particularly those with learning disabilities—are not getting the employment that they want and are capable of carrying out.”
“The core of this afternoon’s motion is laid out in its first line: “That the Parliament recognises the value of lived experience in informing effective scrutiny and legislation and ensuring that those views are embedded across legislation passed at the Scottish Parliament”. If we hold that to be true, we owe it to the people of Scotland, whom we serve, to make a conscious effort to ensure that Parliament looks as similar to the people whom it serves as possible. In the time that I have been in Parliament, we have made progress. We have seen changes in legislation that give greater protection to people with disabilities. We have seen the Scottish Government pick up the challenge around changing places toilets. We have seen more money go to disability charities. However, we still face some major issues.”
“I am grateful to colleagues across the chamber for their support for the motion. I am sad that it has not gained the support of all parties in the Parliament. I hope that that is not a comment about their support for disabled representation, which is an issue that I am sure all reasonable members can agree is worthy of parliamentary time. I say gently to my former colleagues in the Scottish Conservatives that the fact that none of them has supported the motion reflects on the party that I no longer recognise in regard to disability issues. For two other parties to feel that disability is not an important enough topic for them to even attend the debate speaks of where we are and where we still have to go.”
“In this case, I was vindicated in the practice of notifying the Government, because information came into the public domain before the case was called in court. Therefore, the practice demonstrates an understanding of the risks that are involved in the stages at which different parts of the criminal process come into effect. The risk involves the public knowledge of the document, and the information becoming readily available. There is a need to protect ministers in relation to their knowledge of the document and the risk of talking about a case where there are important safeguards to protect the integrity of criminal proceedings.”
“However, at the point at which an indictment is served, there is no limitation on the information that is contained in either document being made public. Indeed, when a petition warrant is shared, there is no limitation on the information that is contained in it being made public. It was important, in advising the First Minister, to recognise the possibility of disclosure of those documents once they had been released from the control of the prosecutor. The position that an indictment is not public knowledge until it is heard in open court is entirely correct. The formal public status arises through the court process, but that is very different from the situation that applies once the petition warrant or the indictment is in the hands of the accused or his advisers.”
“The Lord Advocate: I think that I have explained that I had not, in the two hours that I had available to me before answering the urgent question, seen the March 2025 document. I had not seen the document since it was sent in March 2025. When I came into the chamber, I was not aware of the terms of the document. That is all that I can say. I had not been given advice on the impact on proceedings if information in relation to that document were released. However, I undertook to look at the matter and to understand what had been done previously, and, in an open and transparent way, I provided the minute to Parliament. There is a distinction to be made between a petition and an indictment—that is quite correct.”
“I have absolute confidence in the Lord Advocate, as I think that the overwhelming majority of members do, and I have had the pleasure of knowing her for many years. However, I am still confused about the March 2025 document. The Lord Advocate said that she was not aware of it, but was she aware of it before she came to the chamber last week? In hindsight, does she think that she should have mentioned that document in her statement last week, or was she completely unaware of the document that she sent in March 2025, having forgotten about it? I think that we need some clarification of what her memory was of that document. In hindsight, does she think that she should have mentioned that document in her statement last week?”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether regulations rectifying the oversight whereby children in receipt of the Scottish child disability payment were not receiving an exemption under the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 will be introduced before the end of the current parliamentary session. (S6O- 05560)”
“That was also her approach when she devised and took the Social Security (Scotland) Bill through the Parliament. Social Security Scotland is one of the things that she worked on that will continue to be in place. She designed it, drove it and, perhaps most important, worked with the disabled community and with members across the chamber to make it the best that she could. I, too, pass on my respect and thanks for Jeane. I say to Susan and Jeane’s family how sorry we are for their loss. We have lost somebody who really made a difference to individual lives in Scotland. That is surely a legacy worth having. 14:25”
“That is a mark of the person that we remember this afternoon. The thing that struck me most was the way that she could work with other politicians from other Parliaments. At the time, a number of negotiations were on-going with the United Kingdom Government. It is fair to say that the politics of the then minister in London were probably as far away from Jeane’s as they could be. However, I had the privilege of sitting in on a couple of those meetings and watching her not score cheap political points but consider what was best for the people of Scotland, which was a lesson that I learned and that we all need to learn when we do our politics. We can make cheap political points, but what effect does that have on the people of Scotland?”
“I associate myself with all the remarks that have been made so far. I only got to know Jeane when I arrived in the Parliament in 2016. A year later, I ended up on the Social Security Committee as we took the Social Security (Scotland) Bill through the parliamentary process, and I got to know her very well over that year and a half. She often phoned me up and helped me to draft my amendments. What was striking every time was that, if she said that she would do something, it happened. We could trust her word completely. She also had a very personal touch. I remember that, on a Friday morning, I was walking through Astley Ainslie hospital on my way to a meeting. She had heard that something was going on in my family, and she phoned not to talk about social security but to ask me how I was doing.”
“The amendments reflect the fact that regional and constituency MSPs are elected in different ways. We might be equal when we enter the chamber, but we should have different recall processes to reflect that difference. I move amendment 38.”
“The member and I were not elected as Sue Webber MSP or Jeremy Balfour MSP. We were both elected as Scottish Conservative MSPs. If my amendments in group 2 are agreed to, the reference to the criminal offence ground will be superfluous. That is why amendments 42A, 42B and 42C would change the original wording to remove reference to that ground. They are all linked in that way. If members indicate that they will not support my amendments in group 2, I might be content not to move amendments 42A, 42B and 42C, but I will certainly listen to the debate this afternoon. The other amendments in the group would remove reference to regional polls to reflect the substantive change that would be made by amendment 42. The amendments are pragmatic and common sense and are designed to bring down the costs of the bill.”
“Will the member give way? Sue Webber: Yes, I will give way to Jeremy Balfour. Jeremy Balfour: My concern is that the amendments would take away the responsibility and power from the electorate and would allow the Parliament to make a decision that the people might not want to happen. An MSP might fall out with the majority of members of the Parliament. I am sure that that would not happen in this session of Parliament, but it could happen in a future one. Does the member recognise that such an MSP could be removed, even if they had done nothing wrong? Sue Webber: Indeed. Such vexatious complaints and what might or might not happen in a future session of Parliament are of grave concern to me. We must be mindful that the individuals in the Parliament who are elected under the regional list are not elected as individuals.”
“Paul O’Kane: The point that am making, which I think that I made to Maggie Chapman during stage 2 proceedings, is that, if we are going to have a wider discussion about an independent opt-out, due regard must be given to the parental rights that are set out in article 14 of the UNCRC and to the law in Scotland as it stands on the rights of parents to direct their children. If we are trying to do that at this point in our scrutiny of the bill, it strikes me—as I also said at stage 2—that this is a rather rushed process that does not allow us to give that due regard to the role of parents, either in the bill or in the proposed guidance.”
“The amendments that seek to introduce an independent opt-out on the part of the child, whether in the bill or by secondary legislation, do not appear to contain any reference to the rights of parents to be involved in that process. Maggie Chapman: Does Paul O’Kane accept that, although we are talking about balancing rights, nothing in any of the amendments restricts parents in seeking to educate their children or take them to religious observance practices that do not happen in the educational setting? This is about what happens in schools. Surely the child in that environment should have the right to exercise the rights that they are given under the UNCRC.”
“I understand why the arguments made from a child’s rights perspective are being advanced, but they perhaps address only one particular paragraph of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and one interpretation of what the convention says, in article 14 and in its broader totality. Article 14(2), on the rights of the child to freedom of belief and religion, states: “States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.” The UNCRC maintains a place for parents to direct their children. That language perhaps sounds harsh, but it is reflected in legislation in Scotland—in the 1980 act and in the rights that parents have.”
“I think that the amendments in this group go beyond the scope—they go too far. For that reason, I do not think that there is a contradiction. It is absolutely possible to support the legislation that we passed previously while recognising that the amendments before us erode parental responsibility too far. For that reason, I ask the Parliament to reject them. Paul O’Kane: My comments on the amendments in this group are in a similar vein to what I said at stage 2. For the benefit of members who did not participate in the stage 2 proceedings, I will reiterate some of the arguments that I brought up at that point.”
“Ross Greer: This is an entirely legitimate debate on the balance of rights between parents and children, but I will come to a different conclusion from the member. What I am confused about is that, like me, he and every other member in the previous parliamentary session voted for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill. The specifics in the bill that we are debating will simply put into practice the principles that we have all already voted for. Will Mr Balfour explain to me why he voted for putting the UNCRC into Scots law but now disagrees with the logical conclusion of putting it into practice? Jeremy Balfour: We implemented that piece of law, but, as we did so, we recognised that there is a balance between children’s rights and parental rights.”
“Responsibility without authority is not a balance— it is a contradiction. Amendment 7 would compound the problem by giving ministers the power to introduce an independent pupil right of withdrawal through regulations. That would allow a fundamental change to the parent-child relationship to be made by secondary legislation rather than after proper scrutiny by the Parliament. It would place schools in the difficult position of having to mediate family disputes where a parent’s lawful decision could be overridden by a headteacher. What is at stake is more than a procedural detail; it is a principle that parents who carry responsibility for their children must also retain the authority to make decisions about their moral and religious formation. The amendments would erode that principle and risk creating unnecessary conflict within families.”
“It would create a direct enforceable right for any pupil to request withdrawal and oblige schools to give effect to that request. Although it mentions parental direction, the ultimate and final decision would rest with the pupil, with capacity presumed, unless shown otherwise. That is more than consultation. It is a transfer of authority from the parent, who carries legal responsibility for the child, to the pupil and, by extension, to the school to enforce it. No one here disputes that children’s views matter. We all want children to be heard, particularly as they grow and mature, but there is a difference between listening to a child and giving them a parallel independent right to override the decisions of the people who are legally responsible for their welfare and upbringing.”
“I wish to speak against amendments 16, 17 and 7, because, taken as a whole, they represent a serious shift in the balance of authority between parent, child and the state. At the heart of that is the question of responsibility—who decides when it comes to a child’s religious upbringing and who carries the authority to see that decision through? Amendment 16 might look technical, but it is far from minor. By inserting reference to the proposed new section 9AA of the 1980 act, it lays the groundwork for a stand-alone statutory right for pupils to withdraw from religious observance. That is not a small drafting change—it is a structural shift that separates the pupil’s position from the long-established parental right. Amendment 17 would then give the new structure real force.”
“That is fine, and it is clear that it will pass this evening. It might also lay the ground for Deputy First Ministers Greer and Cole- Hamilton in the next Government. However, this is not a Government for growth or for reforming our public services. The budget will not address the challenges that our country faces, so we will not vote for it at decision time. 16:32”
“The budget does nothing to take into account the growth in population and the negative impact that that is having on our public services. He should know as well as any of us who represent this great city do that a growing number of children are living in temporary accommodation and that the majority of that is linked to the crisis with our funding, which the Government is doing nothing to address. Members across the chamber who represent Lothian need to understand that. The next Parliament needs to look towards— Shona Robison: Will Miles Briggs take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: No, he will not. Miles Briggs: I am not able to, sadly—if only we had more time, this would have been a much more enlightening debate. This is a budget that will get the Government through an election.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Miles Briggs: If I get some time back. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back if the intervention is brief. Jeremy Balfour: I am wondering what engagement Miles Briggs has had with the cabinet secretary to get more money for Lothian. I appreciate that I did not get as much as I wanted, but at least I got some money for Lothian. What engagement did he have? Miles Briggs: Jeremy Balfour knows that I have been lobbying the Government on the issue for the past decade. Sadly, the Government has not implemented the structural changes that we need. If the budget had taken into account population adjustment, I would have welcomed it, but we have not seen anything like that. Jeremy Balfour highlighted some scraps from the table that he managed to achieve.”
“Graeme Dey: My understanding is that the discussions with the UK Government on what will be contained in that order are on-going, with a view to ensuring that the Parliament has as much sight on the issues as possible, which the member is seeking.”
“Will the minister take an intervention? Graeme Dey: I will, if I can just finish my point. With that in mind, the Government opted to focus its attention on the section 30 order in the first instance, given that it also needs to be laid in the Parliament. Therefore, it is time bound by the dissolution of the Parliament for the Scottish election later this year. Jeremy Balfour: The minister may have covered it, but I would like to clarify the point. Before the Parliament votes on stage 3, will we have clarity on what will be in the section 104 order, so that we know what Westminster will do if the bill passes?”
“Annex A of the letter that I sent today details those whom we are required to consult by legislation and the other delivery partners, some of whom he has mentioned, whom we will also consult. We will look at those views with all seriousness and consideration. I note the point that Mr Balfour raises about support and delivery partners, particularly around housing. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the urgent question in the name of Liam Kerr. We now move to the urgent question in the name of Finlay Carson. Maternity Services (Wigtownshire)”
“I am slightly confused about the point of the consultation. However, if we are consulting, will the cabinet secretary tell me whether she is consulting local authorities and homelessness charities on where those individuals who are coming out of prison will be housed? We know that there is a housing crisis, particularly in Lothian, and that there is no accommodation for people. Where will those individuals sleep when they are released? The Presiding Officer: Please answer with regard to the substantive question, cabinet secretary. Angela Constance: Mr Balfour raises an important point. I will make sure that he gets a copy of the correspondence that I sent to the Criminal Justice Committee yesterday and today.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how much has been allocated in its draft budget 2026-27 to replace the investing in communities fund when the current funding ends in March 2026. (S6O-05465)”
“Rachael Hamilton: The minister said that he did not have time to take an intervention, but, if he had given me the time and afforded me that respect, I would have asked him the following question. Does the minister know how many deer forests and shootings will fall into the eligibility review and what the impact of that will be? I do not think that the Government should bring forward a budget position without that information. Jamie Halcro Johnston: I agree. I do not have that information, either, but I am happy to take another intervention from the minister if he would like to clarify that. He is wafting himself or something like that; I am not quite sure—I cannot see. Jim Fairlie: I am telling the member to move on. Jamie Halcro Johnston: Oh—I see. My apologies.”
“Jamie Halcro Johnston: In the minister’s summing up, I heard acceptance that there are unintended consequences that will cause problems, and I heard that the Government will work on that and speak to stakeholders. However, I did not hear a commitment to work with me and Conservative colleagues to try to find a better way forward. If the minister is prepared to do that, I will consider whether to press amendment 176. I am happy to take an intervention from him if he is happy to meet us. Jim Fairlie: I am happy to work with anyone who will help us to find solutions to make Scotland a better place to live in. Jamie Halcro Johnston: I am not sure that that is— Rachael Hamilton: Will Jamie Halcro Johnston take an intervention? Jamie Halcro Johnston: Yes—of course I will.”
“Mr McKee and I have agreed that we will work together to better understand the concerns about the unintended consequences for small landowners, crofters and farmers, whose activities are contributing positively to our environmental objectives. For the reasons that I have set out, I urge members not to support amendments 176 and 190 to 194. I assure members that the Scottish Government will engage directly with stakeholders to understand their concerns and to minimise any unintended consequences before the regulations are laid in advance of 1 April. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Jamie Halcro Johnston to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 176.”
“However, there are drafting issues with those amendments, as most appear to require shootings and deer forests to be eligible for all forms of non- domestic rates relief—even seemingly irrelevant reliefs such as nursery relief. Even if we put such drafting issues aside, the bill is simply not the right place to legislate on matters of taxation, especially when the regulations that will bring into force the change to non-domestic rates relief are still under active development and have not yet been laid. Therefore, any amendments are premature. 21:00 On Monday, I had a constructive meeting with the Minister for Public Finance in which I set out the issues that stakeholders have raised with me.”
“The Scottish Government recognises the vital role that rural land managers play in delivering on key outcomes, including reducing deer numbers, which we are all agreed on. I recently met the BASC and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to hear more about the concerns that they have raised about the budget proposals. Rachael Hamilton: Will the minister take an intervention? Jim Fairlie: No, I will not take an intervention. We do not have enough time as it is. I understand that those are the concerns that have led to members lodging the amendments in the group, which aim to ensure that shootings and deer forests, in some cases with conditions, or butcheries and sales outlets for venison, for example, are eligible for non-domestic rates relief.”
“Unfortunately, that amendment was not supported, but I will still press amendment 194 because, in the 2026-27 budget, the Scottish Government is withdrawing from shoots and deer forests eligibility for the small business bonus scheme. Unless any business that shoots deer acts solely for specific purposes such as deer management, it will be excluded from eligibility for the relief. I was very surprised that Mairi Gougeon and Jim Fairlie supported discouraging venison production even for non-commercial purposes. The minister’s amendment 20 showed the Government’s support for increasing the use of venison, but the budget changes could have a negative impact on that. I therefore urge members to support my amendment 194. Jim Fairlie: I am aware of the concerns that the rural sector has raised about the potential impacts of the budget proposal.”
“On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I seek clarification of whether the bureau has decided that the decision to move the debate to tomorrow will be voted on. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Proceedings are under way to ensure that that decision can be brought back to the chamber as soon as possible, but I thought that it was worth advising the chamber of the outcome of the discussion that the bureau had. Rachael Hamilton: Amendment 194 would allow for non-commercial venison producers to be eligible for non-domestic rates relief following the Scottish Government’s announcement of the budget for 2026-27. The amendment would have added to my earlier amendment 135, which was in group 7 and encouraged the recovery and donation of surplus venison meat.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was not able to connect to the voting system. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Balfour. Your vote will be recorded.”
“The First Minister will be aware of the disgraceful vandalism of the Edinburgh central mosque last week. What is the Scottish Government doing to address the intolerance that was displayed by that action? What assurances can he give to all religious communities in Scotland that do not feel safe following such attacks?”