Skip to main content
Loading…

Seòmar agus comataidhean

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Criathragan Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Session 6: 13 May 2021 to 8 April 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2354 contributions

|

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 12 February 2026

Martin Whitfield

The next item on the agenda is a debate on motion S6M-20590. As members are aware, only the minister and members can speak during the debate on the motion. I invite the minister to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee recommends that the Absent Voting (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.—[Graeme Dey]

Motion agreed to.

That the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee recommends that the Absent Voting (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 12 February 2026

Martin Whitfield

I am very grateful for that offer. I do not want to burden our successor committee, but it is important that the draft guidance be shared.

That leads on to the issue of what consideration has been given to the possible additional resource implications for electoral registration officers as a result of the change.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 12 February 2026

Martin Whitfield

You envisage that the mismatches will be identified around the go-live date, rather than their being noticed, say, the next year or two years down the line.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 12 February 2026

Martin Whitfield

Iain? [Laughter.]

Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]

Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 11 February 2026

Martin Whitfield

I will not take up too much of the committee’s time.

I thank the minister for her contribution. Contained in it is the challenge that we face in respect of the amendments. Over the past 20 years, as the minster has pointed out, we still have not found out why there is so much delay. We do not know why things take so much longer. The good practice guides will be published next month, which, unfortunately, is after the passage of the bill.

I do not undermine what the minister has said. Throughout the entire process of the bill, we have heard words of good intention about the children’s hearings system in relation to permanence. It is an incredibly challenging question that has to be answered because it is about fracturing a family and re-establishing a future for a young person. We must be grounded in what is right for the young people, and I am not convinced that placing an arbitrary timeline would put us in a worse position than the one that we are in at the moment. There may be situations in which people have to push the decision about permanence to a different venue, because of a timetable. However, we have a system that is not working.

I am mindful of the proposal that the minister has put. We cannot bind future Parliaments or Governments, but if the minister wishes to intervene to talk about lodging an amendment at stage 3 that would indicate an obligation to review the system, I would be more than happy to take that intervention.

Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]

Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 11 February 2026

Martin Whitfield

I absolutely recognise the narrative that the minister relates about when the issue was raised and whether it has been looked at. At a fundamental level, is the Scottish Government against the concept of having an arm’s-length holder of the register at some time in the future? Can the Scottish Government never envisage having that, even if it came about through consultation and was seen as a way of improving the situation?

Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]

Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 11 February 2026

Martin Whitfield

I am content with that response.

Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]

Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 11 February 2026

Martin Whitfield

My apologies, convener. I did not want to move amendment 177.

Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]

Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 11 February 2026

Martin Whitfield

The challenge that is being expressed is this: there is no misunderstanding of the fact that there will be a limit on such decisions, but the reality is that, if an incorrect decision is taken, that is, in essence, potentially the end of the situation, without the young person, their advocate or anyone else being able to ask for a reconsideration of that view by a whole panel.

Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]

Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 11 February 2026

Martin Whitfield

In relation to the previous discussion that John Mason prompted, does the minister envisage that interim orders will be made by a single-member panel—the chair—when everyone is in agreement with the interim order, as opposed to when the appropriateness of an interim order is challenged? I am just trying to understand when she envisages interim orders that are not controversial being made, because the problem relates to what happens when decisions are controversial. Does the minister believe that interim orders will be made by a single chair when, in essence, everyone in the room, including the child, is in agreement on the interim order? Is that the sort of area that she is thinking of for such decisions being made, rather than in cases in which there is a conflict?