Unpaid carers, disabled people and people with lived experience of social care will have a say on local services after Scottish Parliament regulations come into force.
Social Care Minister Tom Arthur tabled an order giving service users and third sector organisations a vote during integration joint board decision making. This ensures their perspectives carry equal weight in shaping decisions about services, such as care in the community to enable people with disabilities or long term conditions to remain at home.
The 31 boards bring together the NHS and local councils with key community and service representatives to oversee planning and delivery of social care and community health services. Until now only members appointed by the NHS health board and local councils can vote.
The draft regulations will come into force in September after the Scottish Parliament’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s scrutiny of the legislation concluded yesterday.
Mr Arthur said: “I am determined to ensure those who access and support community health and social care services have an equal say in making decisions that affect their communities.
“These regulations extend voting rights to unpaid carers, service users and third sector representatives, collectively representing the voice of lived experience. It is only fair that these voices carry equal weight alongside other members – to help ensure local services are funded properly to meet the needs of people.
“People with lived experience provide valuable insight into challenges and opportunities which should be considered during planning. This change will bring decision making closer to the people we all serve. We expect to see more inclusive, collaborative and improved choices as a result.”
Councillors in Edinburgh were not allowed to debate a Green motion at Thursday’s full council meeting due to concerns over the latest UK Government guidance around proscribed organisations.
Instead, Green Councillors withdrew the motion following pressure from other political parties who demanded that there should be no discussion – citing fear of arrest under anti-terror legislation.
The motion, prompted by people undertaking hunger strikes to protest their treatment in prison, stated that the Council “opposes the curtailing of human rights, intimidation, discrimination and victimisation of those currently imprisoned as a result of opposing genocide”, and “expresses concern for the health, wellbeing and human rights of prisoners who have undertaken hunger strikes”.
Due to concerns that being seen to provide moral support for a proscribed organisation – now classed as a terrorist offence – could open the entire Council to a criminal offence charge, the Lord Provost took the unusual step of changing the Council meeting process to remove the opportunity for debate.
However, both the Labour and Conservative groups proposed that the motion should instead be withdrawn, citing fear of risk of arrest from individual councillors.
Cllr Alys Mumford, who was due to move the motion, said: “If we needed any further proof that Labour’s obsession with cracking down on protest has gone too far, it is this.
“We’ve already seen countless protestors criminalised and arrested for peacefully holding pieces of paper, and now elected members of Scotland’s capital city are prevented from even discussing a motion highlighting important issues of human rights.”
Cllr Mumford continued: “Just yesterday we saw pro-Palestinian activists in Bristol being cleared of aggravated burglary, with lawyers instead comparing them to Suffragettes for their actions to protest UK involvement in the ongoing genocide in Palestine.
“This should highlight the ludicrous nature of anti-terror legislation being used in this way by the UK Government. For Councillors to be unable to discuss whether or not we agree with the UK Government is antithetical to everything we are supposed to uphold as a nation of free speech and democracy.”
In withdrawing the motion, co-convener of the Green Group Chas Booth said: ““Lord Provost, thank you, reluctantly our group has made the decision to withdraw the motion at 8.1 on the agenda.
“We understand from advice that the motion is competent as re-drafted and we have been advised the risk of considering the motion is very low. However, we appreciate that there are individual councillors in other parties who are uncomfortable with the situation, and we feel a duty of care towards our colleagues.
“We regret that the council is facing this situation, and we remain concerned about the impact on democracy and freedom of speech message.”
Speaking about the withdrawal, Cllr Mumford said: “This motion was simply meant to be a way to express our support for human rights, and for the ongoing plight of people being mistreated in UK prisons.Instead, it has descended into a surreal conversation about what we can and cannot say within the City Chambers.
“We hope that – despite being unable to say what we want to during the meeting – this situation will serve to highlight the fight of the hunger strikers for humane treatment, and make people think twice about the ramifications of restricting the rights to protest in the UK.”
In its Stage 1 report on the Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill, the Committee has found that while there is a clear need to update FOI law, elements of the Bill have not been sufficiently considered or laid out.
Introduced by Katy Clark MSP, the Bill aims to update the original 2002 Act by introducing a presumption in favour of disclosure and establishing a new duty for public authorities to publish information proactively.
Other proposals include creating a new mechanism to bring more bodies under FOI rules and removing the First Minister’s power to ‘veto’ certain decision of the Scottish Information Commissioner.
The Committee is not persuaded that the Bill in its current form would deliver the intended change. It has particular concerns about how workable the proposals are and the financial and resource implications for public bodies.
Instead, the Committee concludes that the Scottish Government should be taking a lead in bringing forward its own proposals for freedom of information reform.
Speaking as the report was published, Committee Convener Martin Whitfield MSP said: “Freedom of information is a fundamental part of how our public services in Scotland are delivered. The work done by Katy Clark MSP establishes a clear need to update the law that underpins it.
“However, our Committee is not convinced that this Bill is the right approach in its current form.
“The Scottish Government should be taking action to develop an updated and forward-looking FOI regime for Scotland. If not, a committee bill may be the most appropriate legislative means to deliver this complex and important reform.”
Elements of the Bill highlighted in the Committee’s report include:
Presumption in favour of disclosure: The report makes it clear that the Committee doesn’t think it necessary to legislate for making openness the default in releasing public information. It suggested that efforts to improve culture and practice within organisations is a preferable approach.
Proactive publication duty: the Committee is not persuaded that proposals to replace the current scheme with a rule that requires public bodies to publish information more broadly and pro-actively would work in practice.
Designation of public bodies: The Committee is unconvinced that the proposal for the Parliament to make bodies subject to FOI rules is workable.
There remains significant uncertainty about the financial and resource implications for public bodies.
The Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers (ASSC) has launched its 2026 Manifesto for the upcoming Holyrood Elections, setting out a clear call to all political parties to champion fair regulation, evidence-based policymaking and sustainable growth across Scotland’s £1bn self-catering sector.
The manifesto, Championing Scotland’s Self-Catering: Fair Regulation, Strong Partnerships, Sustainable Growth, highlights the vital role self-catering plays within Scotland’s tourism economy, one which supports more than 29,000 jobs, driving local employment and spending in rural, island and urban areas alike.
The ASSC also calls for a reset in the relationship between government and tourism businesses, with a move away from piecemeal regulation towards proportionate, coherent and market aware policy that supports sustainable growth while addressing genuine community concern.
The six key priorities set out in the ASSC’s manifesto include:
· Fair, lawful and proportionate reform of short-term let regulation: secured through a clearer separation of planning and licensing, as well as protection for compliant operators from disproportionate enforcement.
· Ending the scapegoating of self-catering in housing policy: self-catering accounts for just 0.8% of Scotland’s housing stock while boosting the economy by £1bn, so it is time to change the narrative.
· A new partnership model between government and industry: the creation of a new statutory Tourism & Hospitality Partnership Forum with earlier, structured engagement on policy design.
· Future-fit regulation reflecting market conditions and cumulative regulatory impact: using impact assessments before introducing yet more regulation or taxation affecting tourism.
· A fair fiscal framework for tourism: with much-needed reform of Non-Domestic Rates and recognition of the sector as a key growth industry in Scotland’s economic strategy.
· A simple and deliverable visitor levy: use of a simple flat rate for those councils who wish to proceed, and shifting liability from operators to guests supported by QR-code or online payment systems.
The ASSC argues that tourism remains one of Scotland’s most resilient and dynamic industries, and that self-catering underpins its success, particularly in sustaining local economies and communities.
The manifesto therefore recommends the next Scottish Government to champion tourism through a dedicated Minister for Tourism.
Commenting on the launch,Fiona Campbell MBE, CEO of the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers, said: “Scotland’s £1bn self-catering industry is at the heart of this country’s tourism success, supporting jobs, local communities and economies in every corner of the land.
“As we look ahead to this important election, our message is clear: fair regulation, strong partnership and evidence-led policy are essential if tourism is to continue delivering for Scotland.
“This manifesto sets out a positive, practical route forward, one which reflects the real-world experience of thousands of small businesses. The ASSC wants to usher in a new era of collaboration between government and industry, and we are calling on all parties to work with us to reset the relationship with business, rebuild trust, and create the conditions for sustainable growth which benefits us all.”
The administrative suspension and effective deselection of Scotland’s first Bangladeshi Muslim MSP—without a concluded investigation or formal complaint exposes troubling inconsistencies in Labour’s internal processes and raises wider concerns about Islamophobia and racial bias within the party.
The treatment of Foysol Chowdhury MSP by the Labour Party raises profound and troubling questions about fairness, due process, and whether institutional racism and Islamophobia continue to operate within the party (writes Cllr HABIB RAHMAN, Independent Councillor, Former Lord Mayor of Newcastle upon Tyne).
Foysol Chowdhury made history in 2021 when he became Scotland’s first Bangladeshi Muslim MSP. Since his election, he has served his constituents diligently, taken on multiple shadow cabinet roles, and built a strong reputation as a hard-working and effective parliamentarian.
Within the British Bangladeshi community across the UK, his political success was widely seen as a breakthrough moment—proof that politics could finally reflect the diversity of modern Britain.
Beyond politics, Foysol is a successful businessman, human rights campaigner, and philanthropist. He is also a devoted family man, married for over 30 years with two adult children.
In August 2025, Foysol underwent the standard reselection process for the 2026 Scottish Parliament election. At a full members’ hustings held on 13 August, he received unanimous support and was democratically selected as Labour’s candidate for Edinburgh Northern.
What followed has been nothing short of a political and personal ordeal.
On 25 September 2025, Foysol was informed by email that he had been placed under “administrative suspension” by the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit (GLU) following an alleged serious conduct complaint. No details were provided. He was not told the nature of the allegation, when it was made, who made it, or even whether a formal complaint existed.
Almost immediately, media speculation erupted, falsely portraying Foysol as a sexual predator and suggesting allegations involving a female staff member.
This speculation was later publicly corrected by the GLU, which confirmed that reports of sexual misconduct were false and that the matter related instead to an allegation of bullying. By that point, however, the damage to Foysol’s reputation had already been done.
More than three months later, Foysol remains suspended. He has not been interviewed, asked for a statement, or given any meaningful opportunity to respond. His solicitors were informed by the GLU in November that the “assessment could not be completed unless the complainant decided to submit a formal complaint”.
This raises an extraordinary question: how can an elected representative be suspended indefinitely on the basis of a complaint that may not even formally exist?
Despite this unresolved situation, Scottish Labour proceeded as though Foysol no longer existed. In December 2025, party officials announced that applications had opened to “fill the vacancy” in Edinburgh Northern, using an all-women shortlist. This is despite the fact that Foysol had already been selected by members and no finding had been made against him.
A shortlist of three candidates was approved, with a hustings scheduled for January 2026. Notably, the shortlist contains no candidates of colour. For a party that routinely speaks about diversity and representation, this is deeply concerning.
I want to be absolutely clear on one point. Foysol Chowdhury is a friend. However, as a lifelong campaigner against bullying and harassment, I would be among the first to condemn him if he were found guilty of bullying or harassment of any kind. No one should be above accountability. But accountability requires evidence, due process, and fairness—not whispers, leaks, and indefinite suspension.
I also speak from personal experience. I left the Labour Party in January 2024 after repeatedly challenging Islamophobia and racism within its structures. I did so in the hope that the party would reflect, reform, and improve. Sadly, I see no evidence that this has happened. If anything, under the current leadership, the situation has worsened.
There is also a clear and troubling precedent that exposes a double standard. I submitted a formal complaint to the Labour Party on 8 March 2022 against a sitting Labour councillor. Despite this, that councillor—who is white—was permitted to remain on the ballot paper as a Labour candidate in the May 2022 local elections.
The GLU delayed imposing any administrative suspension until after the councillor had submitted their nomination papers to Newcastle City Council. Only then was a 12-month suspension imposed. That councillor went on to win the seat as a Labour candidate, served the suspension period, and later returned to the party.
This stands in stark contrast to the treatment of Foysol Choudhury—a Black Muslim MSP—who has been suspended without a concluded investigation, without a formal complaint, and effectively removed from selection.
What we are witnessing in Foysol Choudhury’s case is an effective deselection without investigation, a punishment without a verdict, and a complete abandonment of one of Labour’s most prominent minority representatives. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this case would have been handled very differently had Foysol not been a Bangladeshi Muslim man.
Under Keir Starmer’s leadership, Labour increasingly appears detached from the principles of justice, equality, and solidarity it once claimed to uphold. The handling of this case by Scottish Labour and the GLU risks reinforcing the perception that the party is comfortable sidelining minority voices when they become inconvenient.
The Labour Party must act urgently. Either there is a formal complaint that can be investigated promptly and fairly, or there is not. If there is no formal complaint, Foysol Choudhury should be reinstated immediately, his suspension lifted, and his democratic selection respected.
An unreserved apology is owed—not only to him, but to the communities who saw his election as a symbol of progress. Anything less will confirm the belief that Labour has failed one of its own—and in doing so, failed the values it claims to stand for.
Taken together, the evidence in this case leads to a deeply troubling conclusion: that racism and Islamophobia remain real, unresolved problems within the Labour Party’s internal culture and decision-making processes.
Independent councillor for Sighthill/Gorgie Ross McKenzie has joined the Scottish Green Party and has been welcomed as the newest member of the Green Group on Edinburgh council as a Green-aligned independent member.
The announcement means the Green Group now have eleven councillors, the same number as the ruling Labour administration and one more than the Conservative group.
Elected representatives who join the Scottish Greens are required by Party rules to sit as Green-aligned independents until the next election, but may join Green Councillor groups.
Cllr McKenzie’s application to join the Scottish Greens was unanimously approved by the party’s national council on Saturday 6 December. He has signed a collaboration agreement with the Co-Convenors of the Edinburgh Green Group, which covers how he will work with the Greens. He will represent the Greens on committees, but will not be a spokesperson.
Cllr McKenzie was elected in 2022 as a Labour councillor for Sighthill/Gorgie ward. He left Labour in 2023 after they formed an administration with support from the Tories and Lib Dems. Since then, Ross has sat as an independent, working on an issue-by-issue basis with the Green group of councillors to push for change in the capital.
Cllr Ross McKenzie said: “Since leaving the Labour Party, I have worked closely with my Scottish Green colleagues in Edinburgh to make a fairer, greener city for all.
“In the face of a disastrous Labour administration propped up by the Tories and Lib Dems, we need a strong left-wing alternative in our capital city, putting people and planet before profit.
“I’ve heard time and again from my constituents’ concerns about housing, social care, planning and public spaces, and I’m in no doubt that the most effective way for me to represent those concerns is by working as closely as possible with the Greens.
“Labour have abandoned their core principles of standing up for the working-class across our country, they would rather hold onto power with the backing of Tories than improve our city for people and planet.”
Edinburgh Green group co-convenor Cllr Kayleigh Kinross-O’Neill said: “Green councillors have worked constructively with Ross since he left the Labour party, and have always found him to be highly principled and incredibly hard working.
“We are delighted that his Scottish Greens party membership application has now been approved, which will allow us to deepen our joint working with Ross to the benefit of everyone seeking a fairer, more equal capital city.”
Edinburgh Green Group co-convenor Cllr Chas Booth said: “I’m delighted to welcome Ross as a Green-aligned independent member of the Edinburgh Green Group.
“He is a passionate advocate for his constituents and has a deep sense of justice. More and more people who want to stand up against the far right, rather than pander to them and those who seek a fairer society through redistribution of wealth are finding a home in the Greens.
“As an unapologetically left-wing party, we welcome them and look forward to working with them in the future.”
Edinburgh Green Councillor for Sighthill/Gorgie, Dan Heap said: “Ross has been a dedicated local councillor during his time in Labour and as an independent, and is highly regarded by local people as a fighter for their interests.
“I am delighted to be working alongside him to help make the area we represent greener and fairer.”
SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT MUST HAND OVER STURGEON INFORMATION
Scottish Information Commissioner David Hamilton has issued a decision which requires the Scottish Government to disclose some of the written evidence supplied to James Hamilton as part of his investigation into whether former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon had breached the Ministerial Code.
Previously, the Scottish Government had claimed that it didn’t hold the requested information but, in December 2023, the Court of Session agreed with the Commissioner that the information was in fact held, and that the Scottish Government should therefore issue a response.
The decision comes after the requester appealed the Scottish Government’s subsequent response to the Commissioner, on the basis that much of the information was exempted from disclosure.
In his decision, the Commissioner finds that, while some information was appropriately withheld, other information should be disclosed to the requester.
In particular, the Commissioner finds that the Scottish Government had incorrectly applied the exemption which protects information where disclosure would harm the effective conduct of public affairs to all the withheld information, finding that disclosure would not substantially harm the Scottish Government’s ability to carry out future investigations of this type.
The Commissioner also meticulously reviewed the redactions applied by Scottish Government to information which was withheld to avoid breaching court orders. Following this, he instructed the release of further material.
Similarly, The Commissioner found that, while some information had been appropriately withheld because it related to confidential legal communications, other information where this exemption had been applied should be disclosed.
In some cases, this was because it did not meet the standard required for the exemption to apply while, in others, he found that, while the exemption could be appropriately applied, the public interest nevertheless favoured the disclosure of the information. Under freedom of information (FOI) law, many exemptions must be set aside if the disclosure of the information is in the public interest.
The Commissioner also identified significant procedural concerns in the Scottish Government’s handling of this case.
He found, for example, that the Scottish Government had failed to provide all of the information falling within the scope of an Information Notice served on the authority in March 2024 to enable the Commissioner to investigate the case.
Under FOI law the Commissioner can issue legally enforceable Information Notices to secure the provision of information needed to investigate FOI appeals.
During his investigation, the Commissioner subsequently found that there was additional material falling within the scope of the Information Notice which had not, initially, been supplied to his office.
While the Commissioner’s decision finds that this failure to fully comply with the Information Notice was a matter of significant concern, he also accepts that the omission was a genuine oversight, as opposed to an attempt to deliberately obstruct his investigation. As a result, he took the decision in this case not to refer this failure to the Court of Session.
The Commissioner’s decision also raises concerns with the Scottish Government’s interpretation of the request, the changing of its position during his investigation, and its failure to make a full and appropriate case for the application of exemptions to all of the information it proposed to withhold.
Commenting on this case, Scottish Information Commissioner David Hamilton said: “This was a very complex case, and that complexity was compounded by the way in which elements of this case were handled by the Scottish Government.
“When a public body seeks to withhold information under FOI law, it is the responsibility of that body to appropriately make their case to me. It is not for my staff to identify sensitive information on behalf of an organisation, or to make the case for an exemption on its behalf. Authorities must, therefore, ensure that its case is fully and appropriately stated in its entirety.
“It is also particularly disappointing that, had it not been for the diligence of my staff and their forensic analysis of this case, many of the failures that arose may have gone undetected.
“While there is no evidence of impropriety, this nevertheless reflects poorly on the Scottish Government handling of this case, and I trust it will take urgent action to prevent such occurrences happening again.”
The Commissioner’s decision requires the Scottish Government to disclose some information which had been wrongly withheld, and issue a revised response in relation to a small amount of other information, by12 January 2026.
MPs will examine whether the Government understands the true scale of the challenge of addressing financial exclusion, as well as what steps must be taken to make a meaningful difference to people’s lives.
It will also consider the effectiveness of current measures, such as banking hubs, and explore whether further interventions may be needed to improve financial inclusion in the future.
This follows the Committee’s report on whether organisations should be forced to accept cash, which was published earlier this year.
In its report, the Committee concluded that a lack of action from the Government to tackle declining cash acceptance could lead to a two-tier society with the most vulnerable bearing the cost.
Chair of the Treasury Committee, Dame Meg Hillier, said: “The Government has set out its stall on improving financial inclusion in this country, so now the Committee will have a closer look at whether it’s likely to make a meaningful difference to people’s lives.
“Improving financial inclusion must not be a box-ticking exercise. Words must lead to action.
“The Treasury must have a strategic vision, supported by concrete, integrated plans with clear methods for measuring their impact, and they must work closely with the private sector on this. My Committee will work to ensure that happens.”
