The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 3697 contributions
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 February 2026
John Mason
There may be one or two things in that category.
I will ask a question on social security, in relation to the adult disability payment. More people are exiting the scheme than was expected. I did not quite understand why people would be exiting the scheme. Is it because they have got better or they have got a job? They should get the payment whether they get a job or not, should they not?
11:15
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 February 2026
John Mason
It is good that the valuation is more accurate—fair enough.
I note that
“The Deputy First Minister, Economy and Gaelic portfolio will receive £127.4 million of budget cover for other technical adjustments. This includes £80 million for the Scottish National Investment Bank to offset changes in the value of the bank’s existing investments”.
Is that because we are writing things off?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 February 2026
John Mason
So it is a negative block grant adjustment?
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 February 2026
John Mason
Okay. I will leave that one just now. I am not sure that I totally got on top of it, but that is fine.
On landfill tax—if I can find the right page. Again, I am a little bit unsure about this. The block grant adjustment has changed. Is that partly because the UK has been more successful at reducing landfill than we have? It is on page 16 of the guidance—paragraphs 77 and 78, I think.
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 17 February 2026
John Mason
The UK Government is collecting more taxes, so we have been more successful in landfill than it has.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 February 2026
John Mason
Does that put all the onus on the chair? What if the chair makes a decision with which others disagree that a case should be considered by three panel members?
A lot of the debate has previously centred on the view that three should be the norm, and that only relatively minor issues should be considered by a panel of one. In amendment 27, proposed new subsection 6B(2) of the 2011 act states:
“The selected chairing member must”,
and continues thereafter. What happens if the single chairing member makes an error, or whatever?
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 February 2026
John Mason
I hear what the minister is saying, and she is saying it very strongly, but I have also listened to what Ross Greer and other members have said. What about a child who has had bad experiences with lots of adults and assumes that an advocate will be just the same? That would be a challenging position for the advocate, but their aim would be to win the child round and put them in exactly the position that the minister describes, with the child feeling in charge and in control of the situation. If we do not have an opt-out model, the child would not have the opportunity even to try that.
Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 11 February 2026
John Mason
I totally agree with what the minister has just said but, to echo Martin Whitfield, I note that we could maybe put something about that into the bill at stage 3 in order to tighten it up. My fear is that it could be too convenient for a chair to say, “It’ll be easier for me to make a decision rather than having the hassle of getting other people involved.”
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
John Mason
I welcome the minister’s flexible and balanced approach, as I think that he described it. It is interesting to see how different ministers handle amendments at different committees, and I welcome Ivan McKee’s approach to the issues.
That is great in relation to amendments 30 and 31. I tend to agree with Ivan McKee on amendment 32. The word “viability” jumped out at me as being somewhat subjective. It would open up a huge amount of possible loopholes for developers, and also complexity. I therefore agree with the minister and will oppose amendment 32.
I press amendment 30.
Amendment 30 agreed to.
Amendment 53 not moved.
Amendment 31 moved—[John Mason]—and agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
After section 11
Amendment 32 moved—[Craig Hoy].
Finance and Public Administration Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 10 February 2026
John Mason
Should we just say that sustainability of local government should be a priority for it, without going into any more specifics? Do you think that that is the way that we should—