Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

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

Filter your results 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 29 January 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2552 contributions

|

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 7 October 2021

Bob Doris

That is fine—as long as the committee agrees by correspondence.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 7 October 2021

Bob Doris

If the committee is taking a view on the additional information that it wants from the minister and the reasons behind it, I would be keen to have a look at the report before it is issued.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 7 October 2021

Bob Doris

Will that be a formal written report or will it just note the division in the committee? There might be some slight variance in nuance around the reassurances that the committee might or might not wish to seek from the minister. I am keen for that to be clarified.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 7 October 2021

Bob Doris

No, I am content, convener.

09:45  

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 7 October 2021

Bob Doris

So it will return to the committee and we can consider what we are reporting to the Parliament before we report. Is that correct?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 7 October 2021

Bob Doris

You might have mopped up what I was hoping to clarify, convener, but I just want to check with the minister that this is not a general obligation to declare one’s dwelling house. One’s interest has to be significant and relevant to and bear on the operation of the public body in question. Will you put on the record that it is not a general obligation?

I suppose that the wider issue that was raised by Edward Mountain is that the requirement mirrors the obligations on councillors, not MSPs. Perhaps, then, the question that we should be asking—perhaps not today, but some other time—is about the difference between the obligations on councillors and the obligations on MSPs, rather than those on members of these boards. I would welcome your thoughts on that, minister. I also seek clarity on the point that there is no general obligation to register one’s dwelling house.

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 7 October 2021

Bob Doris

I thank Edward Mountain because he indicated various issues that had not been picked up on but might require a little bit more scrutiny. That is helpful.

Minister, did individuals and groups who responded to your consultation broadly support the £25,000 figure? I suppose that there has to be a figure and you will seek views on it. Were people generally content with it?

The code is a model code so, if a body thought that that value should be lower or higher, could it seek ministers’ approval to vary it?

Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 7 October 2021

Bob Doris

The model code was consulted on. I assume that the figure of £25,000 was in the consultation draft of the code. Were there any objections to that value being placed in it? If not, I presume that individuals felt relatively content with it. I was asking for information on that.

Secondly, this is a model code. The minister referred to the fact that it can be adapted by the various bodies, which then seek the Government’s approval. Technically, could the figure vary between different codes or is £25,000 baked into a code that all bodies apply?

Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]

Session 6 Priorities

Meeting date: 6 October 2021

Bob Doris

I do not want to explore the universal credit issue any further, as the point has been well made, but can you tell me whether, under the attainment challenge, PEF is here to stay? I know that it has made a real difference to the schools in my constituency. Moreover—this will be my final question, convener—will the additional teachers be for local authorities to deploy as they see fit, or is there a real motivation to direct them to schools in more deprived, low-income areas to assist with the attainment challenge?

Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]

Session 6 Priorities

Meeting date: 6 October 2021

Bob Doris

I certainly hope that we bake teachers’ professional judgment into whatever replaces the current exam system so that we get a better balance between exit exams and what teachers see in the classroom day to day and week in, week out. Has that been recognised by the SQA, which has said that, if exams do not go ahead next year, there will be no dual assessment? I hope that I am interpreting this correctly, convener, but I think that, by saying that there will be no dual assessment, the SQA is effectively saying that it trusts the professional judgments that teachers are making this academic year if it becomes necessary yet again to have alternative certification. A comment on that would be helpful. Should that sort of thing be baked in?