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 22 contributions
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 October 2026
Tim Eagle
So why do you think that that was not picked up—or can you not say?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 October 2026
Tim Eagle
So there is nothing. Because you are not doing the research, we do not have any of that data.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 1 October 2026
Tim Eagle
I thank the witnesses for their answers.
I want to look specifically at young people. It has been 10 or 11 years since Scotland introduced the right to vote for 16 and 17-year-olds, and the UK bill seeks to introduce the same thing for UK elections. What have been the benefits or drawbacks of its introduction in Scotland?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 24 September 2026
Tim Eagle
May I make a comment?
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 24 September 2026
Tim Eagle
I would like that to be on the record, because I think that matters should be discussed in public as much as they can be.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee [Draft]
Meeting date: 24 September 2026
Tim Eagle
I have been saying this ever since I was a councillor, but I always think that things are best done in public whenever possible. Therefore, I want to double-check with the clerks whether it is normal for a matter such as that on page 10 of our notes to be taken in private and that it is not something that we are doing in an extreme circumstance because, when we get a report like this, it would always be discussed initially in private.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 10 September 2026
Tim Eagle
I agree with what has been said.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 25 June 2026
Tim Eagle
I am very relaxed about that.
I echo Jackie Baillie’s point, which was really well made. I did not see the phrase “exceptional circumstances”, but we do pride ourselves on being family-friendly. We have members who might have family duties at home and might have a change of circumstances at very late notice. I do not mind the sentence that Jackie Baillie referred to being in there, because it is beneficial for members to be in the chamber, but in circumstances in which a member needs to be at home, we need to accept that that can be arranged with their party. It would be good to get clarification on that point.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 25 June 2026
Tim Eagle
I will be careful about what I say, because cross-party groups are very useful. I have been in the Parliament for only two and a half years and I see great benefit in them. However, I also recognise that MSPs can engage with people inside and outside of this Parliament in a broad range of ways, and nothing prevents them from starting up groups that are less structured than a cross-party group.
It comes back to the fundamental point that cross-party groups should genuinely be cross-party. There is a benefit in being able to say that, in the eyes of the Parliament, we are all working as one when we consider the establishment of a CPG. Otherwise, there is a risk of ending up with a large number of groups that are not supported across all parties.
I would argue that it is best to leave the arrangements as they stand rather than make changes. The existing approach forces us to all come together, explain exactly why they we want to establish a CPG and work cross-party to get the necessary approval.
Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee
Meeting date: 25 June 2026
Tim Eagle
I hear what you are saying; you have probably put it slightly more eloquently than me. However, under that approach, a massively broad range of cross-party groups could be set up. I get your point about what the cap would ultimately be, but nothing prohibits an MSP from having a group outside the cross-party group context.
We are talking about trying to ensure, as I think that you were saying when you mentioned a high bar, that, where we have a cross-party group in the parliamentary setting, it is set up—this is not a popular thing to say—not to cause conflict or disagreement between parties, but to genuinely foster cross-party support and work on the key issues that we absolutely need Parliament to focus on.
I recognise that there are some very difficult topics that it would be beneficial to discuss, but that can still be done—there are other options for doing that.
Why four out of the six parties? At present, all six parties are required to sign up. I think that four out of six is too few. I personally think that it should be all parties, because that constitutes a genuinely cross-party group. I could be persuaded by five out of six, if we were not to agree to six, but I think that four is too low, as that would allow for much more division than just accepting that setting up a group requires at least the vast majority to agree.