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. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 6 April 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 897 contributions

|

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill (Stage 1)

Meeting date: 29 October 2025

Rhoda Grant

Is there an issue with diversification and the fact that people are growing vegetables or whatever in that they are moving away from having animals and are not using their common grazing share?

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 October 2025

Rhoda Grant

Okay, but the bill’s provisions will fall outwith the UNCRC, because the bill is amending legislation from 1980.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 October 2025

Rhoda Grant

Are there examples of the 1998 act exemption having been used?

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 October 2025

Rhoda Grant

Following on from that, I note that some witnesses have told us that part 1 of the bill is not compatible with the UNCRC, because it amends the 1980 act. Is the bill compatible?

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 October 2025

Rhoda Grant

Yes—of course it is about being compatible.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 October 2025

Rhoda Grant

Given what you have said before, cabinet secretary, about the complexity of all this legislation, should you have been considering a consolidation bill to bring the legislation into the scope of the UNCRC, rather than an amending act?

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 October 2025

Rhoda Grant

But such an exemption has never been used.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 October 2025

Rhoda Grant

Following on from the previous question and the cabinet secretary’s quite clear statement that she is not aware of any act of Parliament that would require action that was incompatible, I want to ask, given the concerns about part 2, whether it is necessary. After all, you do not believe that there is any legislation that would require the provisions in part 2, but it still seems to water down children’s rights.

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 October 2025

Rhoda Grant

But you cannot give any examples of where it would come into play.

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee

Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 8 October 2025

Rhoda Grant

We touched earlier on the length of time that it takes for the commission to respond. The bill takes away the time limit of 28 days for the commission to respond to an application for another purpose or use, but the 28-day limit for the crofter to respond to the commission is staying. Is that fair and reasonable? My understanding is that, in practice, nobody gets an answer in 28 days anyway, so are we simply putting into legislation what happens in practice?