Pam Duncan-Glancy
Independent · Scotland
“I know that because I have been all the people I have described. They live in fear every single day, worrying about what new limit someone else will put on their life and what little power they will have to change it. They live every single day without choice at all.”
“It is the lack of support, and the lack of options, that makes me feel like I cannot go on. Disabled people do not have real choices in life. There will be countless disabled people in our constituencies tonight who have not had the choice to have a shower in weeks.”
“During the pandemic, my husband and I were so scared of other people’s power over our lives— lives that we could see others devaluing daily— that we wrote letters to each other making it clear that we wanted to be resuscitated.”
“From fighting to go to the same nursery as my sister to delaying university for two years because I could not get a care package, and from fighting to be allowed to travel on the same bus as my husband to fighting to get a bathroom adapted so that I could have a shower, absolutely everything that I have has been a fight.”
“The bill will not only put sick and disabled people at a risk that cannot be mitigated in one bill or by one policy, including the risk from coercion, but will serve to reinforce the internalised ableism that we live with every day of our lives, and legitimise the view that a life such as ours—a life of dependence and, often, pain—is not…”
“I, too, thank Liam McArthur for the way in which he has engaged on the bill and with me. Last week, we considered the specifics of what the bill would mean in real life. For 25 hours, we heard personal reflections and experiences as well as some of the difficulties in the detail.”
The complete record
Every one of 665 lines we hold for Pam Duncan-Glancy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 14.
“However, I know that life can be good when we create a society where we have the support to live it, and live it well. Please, colleagues, vote against the bill, and choose to make it easier to live than to die, not the other way round. 19:38”
“I know that because I have been all the people I have described. They live in fear every single day, worrying about what new limit someone else will put on their life and what little power they will have to change it. They live every single day without choice at all. It is inconceivable to suggest that the introduction of assisted dying is about choice when disabled people do not have choices in life. In a world where so many have little or no choice, we cannot risk making death the only choice that they ever have. If the bill passes, in a world of inequality it will be easier to access help to die than help to live. That is why I am asking colleagues to vote against the bill tonight. I do not have much to lose when it comes to my body or my functions, and I, too, am scared of losing what I have, as others are—of course I am.”
“It is the lack of support, and the lack of options, that makes me feel like I cannot go on. Disabled people do not have real choices in life. There will be countless disabled people in our constituencies tonight who have not had the choice to have a shower in weeks. There will be people who cannot choose when they go to bed and some who will already be in bed. There will be people who cannot choose what to eat and people who cannot choose to go out of the house because it is not accessible. There are people who cannot choose their care or the healthcare that they need, including at the end, because it is simply not available for them. Crucially, there will be disabled people whose struggle is so hard that they have given up hope and given up fighting, and will be considering taking their own lives.”
“During the pandemic, my husband and I were so scared of other people’s power over our lives— lives that we could see others devaluing daily— that we wrote letters to each other making it clear that we wanted to be resuscitated. I am one of the most empowered people in this country, and I have been broken by how hard it is to get the help that I need to live like the rest of you. When I have the support that I need and when I am not fighting I, and people like me, can live well: we can thrive. That is what the Parliament is for: we are here to legislate to empower everyone in this wonderful country to live well, including at the end. However, even when my pain is intolerable, it is the everyday ableism and discrimination that make me feel like I cannot go on.”
“From fighting to go to the same nursery as my sister to delaying university for two years because I could not get a care package, and from fighting to be allowed to travel on the same bus as my husband to fighting to get a bathroom adapted so that I could have a shower, absolutely everything that I have has been a fight. I even had to fight to keep overnight care so that I could go to the toilet, because the council said that it would be cheaper for me to lie in incontinence pads. That was the fight that nearly broke me. I was ill and crying every day, and the pain from my advanced-stage arthritis got worse because I was worn down fighting.”
“The bill will not only put sick and disabled people at a risk that cannot be mitigated in one bill or by one policy, including the risk from coercion, but will serve to reinforce the internalised ableism that we live with every day of our lives, and legitimise the view that a life such as ours—a life of dependence and, often, pain—is not for living. I cannot support that. No matter how hard or intolerable life can be for disabled people, there must always be the hope that we will have the right to practical assistance and support to live. If the bill passes, there is a risk that it will be easier to access help to die than help to live.”
“I, too, thank Liam McArthur for the way in which he has engaged on the bill and with me. Last week, we considered the specifics of what the bill would mean in real life. For 25 hours, we heard personal reflections and experiences as well as some of the difficulties in the detail. However, the question that got to me was, “When is it okay to bring up assisted dying with someone?” It got to me because it gets right to the heart of what we are debating. What sort of life leaves someone with no hope? What would we rather die than live with? That question, and the bill, are hugely consequential.”
“The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“I recognise that there are plenty of parts of Scots law that oblige the Scottish ministers to provide the public with various rights and services that we know are lacking. However, to go back to what I said earlier, it will be the responsibility of the next Parliament to make a decision about that and, as someone who believes in the rights of Parliament, I must place my trust in the next session because they are the people who will be elected by the public of this country to make those decisions. If I am one of those people, I will carefully consider those very issues before I make my decision on the commencement regulations. Having said that, I press amendment 259. Amendment 259 agreed to. Amendment 54 moved—[Bob Doris]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 54 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.”
“Given the current situation, and the report that I quoted, I have grave doubts about that happening. Does he share that doubt and concern and does he understand my point about the lack of any solid foundation for the advocacy that I think we both agree must be in place? Ross Greer: As I have said throughout our proceedings, I still have a degree of doubt about the bill full stop and I have not yet decided how I will vote on Tuesday. On Mr Kerr’s specific point, and although it is not a foolproof solution, I point again to what is already in subsection (2) of section 14A which states that “It is the duty of the Scottish Ministers to ensure that independent advocacy services are available” to every individual who wishes to have them.”
“None of us can say what the balance of opinion in that Parliament will be, but, given that the commencement regulations are already in the bill and that the next Parliament will have to decide on them regardless, I am entirely comfortable with adding further to the duties that the next Parliament will have in scrutinising how the system would operate. I will take one more intervention from Mr Kerr before I round off. Stephen Kerr: I hear what Mr Greer says in response to my intervention and respect his integrity and his intentions to act in a certain way. However, the problem is that although he can give that guarantee for himself and I can give it for myself, we need something far firmer than that if we are going to talk about offering advocacy to people who are entitled to it.”
“If I have the privilege of being elected to the next session of Parliament, I certainly would not vote for the bill’s commencement regulations if I was not confident that all the other arrangements and safeguards that we have included, particularly the advocacy services, were in place, and in such a way as to be available to anyone who needs them. That takes me to Jamie Greene’s fair point about something that Daniel Johnson also touched on, which is that, fundamentally, no Parliament can bind its successors. In response to those concerns, I point to the fact that the commencement regulations for the bill, if it is passed, will have to be approved by the next session of Parliament anyway.”
“However, given that in 2022 the Scottish mental health law review found that only 5 per cent of people who had a right in Scots law to independent advocacy actually got that advocacy—because they could not access it—how confident can Ross Greer be that there will be an underpinning guarantee to the delivery of advocacy in situations such as the ones that we are considering in the bill? Ross Greer: Mr Kerr makes an important point that was touched on yesterday in an exchange between Pam Duncan-Glancy and me, and he does so by posing a question about my confidence in the measure.”
“My concern with amendment 266 is that paragraph (c) relates to matters which—we have broad agreement—take us beyond devolved competencies. I am concerned that if we pass amendment 266, it would undermine a lot of what we have achieved to ensure that the bill stays legislatively competent and that we can have a straight vote on Tuesday. Stephen Kerr: I appreciate the comments that Ross Greer made. I am not sure that amendment 266 does stray into questions of competence, but that I respect that that is his point of view. My question is about amendment 259. I should have risen to speak when he first spoke to amendment 259—I appreciate that.”
“When guidance is produced by Government, clearly, the Government must always act within the law. I will rest at that point. For the remaining amendments in the group, the Scottish Government has no further comment. Ross Greer: I am grateful to colleagues who have indicated support for amendments 259 and 270. In this group, there has been broad agreement about the need for on-going parliamentary oversight and accountability. Stephen Kerr: Will the member take an intervention? Ross Greer: I will speak directly to Stephen Kerr’s amendments 266 and then I will happily take his intervention. I hope that there is a majority for on-going Parliamentary oversight of the guidance. I suggest that we can do that through Liz Smith’s amendments, which would possibly work alongside Stephen Kerr’s amendment 271.”
“Miles Briggs: On amendment 265, I acknowledge that the Scottish Government has pointed out that it is unusual for the Lord Advocate to have a role in developing statutory guidance, but I suggest that the issue merits such an approach. It is important to get the legal input of the head of the prosecution service on guidance into the bill ahead of its implementation. Has there been any conversation with the Lord Advocate about what is currently in the bill? Throughout the passage of the bill and the debate, I have returned to the need for medical staff who will potentially opt in to providing such services to have absolute confidence in the approach, which would be in guidance, rather than in the bill. Neil Gray: Mr Briggs tempts me to breach the ministerial code on discussions that might be had with law officers.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for taking the intervention, and for his patience for such an untimely interruption. The cabinet secretary said that it was unusual for guidance to be laid before Parliament. He also mentioned some of the conscientious objections related to the chief medical officer, which I understand. Would the cabinet secretary not say that, if the guidance was going to fall to the Scottish ministers, it would be relevant for the guidance to come before Parliament? Neil Gray: I make no further comment on whether it should come before Parliament. That is for members to decide. I merely stress that the Government’s position is that it is unusual for guidance to come before Parliament. Normally, it is the responsibility of ministers to come forward with such things.”
“The current language in the bill, which I take responsibility for because it was my stage 2 amendment, says “require” rather than “request”. If we leave it as “require”, it leaves open the question of who gets to decide whether a patient requires it or not, but “request” means that it comes down entirely to the decision of the patient. That is the rationale for amendment 200, but what is already in the bill as a result of stage 2 amendments is what establishes advocacy as a right for the patient. 15:45”
“Does he recognise that advocacy is already hugely underfunded in Scotland and that, without ensuring that it was available, people could request such things but they would never be provided? Does he have any thoughts on that? Is there anything in the member’s amendment that worries him about that? Ross Greer: That is a worry that I have, and not just in relation to this bill. We are well aware in this Parliament that, over our 27-year history, we have legislated to create a whole range of rights for individuals that public services have been unable to deliver in practice. What was amended into the bill at stage 2 is what establishes the right to advocacy. Amendment 200 would make the right to advocacy easier, because it would be entirely down to whether the patient wants it or not.”
“Ross Greer: That is why I think amendment 200 is particularly important, because that is where it comes down to the patient requesting advocacy. The specific language in amendment 199 is based, in part, on suggestions from the Law Society of Scotland about making sure that the language in the bill is entirely legally clear. In response to Mr Doris’s point, that is why I was keen to insert amendment 200, so that it would be down to the request from the patient. I will take Pam Duncan-Glancy’s intervention at this point. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I am listening carefully to the points that Mr Greer is making about some of the technicalities of the issue, and I understand the Law Society of Scotland’s points on it. Does the member also share my concern that requesting something does not necessarily mean that the provision would be there?”
“My reading of amendment 199 is that, if a person goes to their doctor and says, “I am thinking about an assisted death—can you help me in any way in relation to that?”, the doctor would not be able to say, “There are advocacy services available—would you like to avail yourself of them?”, because the person is only considering it. However, if the person went to their doctor and said, “I want an assisted death,” the doctor would be able to say, “Here are some advocacy services.” That does not seem to be the right way forward. I would have thought that advocacy services would help a person reach their decision in an informed way and advocate for them on that basis, without any predetermined outcome, but amendment 199 would seem to reverse that in some way.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Ross Greer: Changing from “require” to “request” would leave it entirely up to the patient. If the patient wished to have an advocate, they would have an advocate, because it would be down to their request. Leaving the provision with “require” would suggest that someone else could decide whether the patient actually requires the advocate. If Bob Doris is still keen to intervene, I will take his intervention, and then I will come to Pam Duncan-Glancy. Bob Doris: Based on a previous intervention, I will go back to amendment 199.”
“I put on record my thanks to the family members, my husband and the personal assistants who have changed their working patterns in the past 12 hours in order to accommodate my participation in an important debate and to ensure that Parliament can do its business. I also put on record a request that, when the Parliamentary Bureau considers such situations in the future, the impact on individual members and their families be deeply considered so that we can all participate in proceedings in the chamber on an equal basis.”
“I understand and appreciate the ability to attend Parliament in hybrid form, which is an important step that Parliament has taken to encourage participation. However, given the nature of the debate, members will understand why I wanted to be here in person. I am not sharing this information so that people feel sorry for me or for the people in my life who have had to make sacrifices and changes at such short notice. I share it merely because I want people to understand that such decisions impact not just members but our families, too. I speak of experiences that every one of us will have and of the impacts that this job has on our lives.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Thank you for taking the point of order and forgive me for not giving you early sight of it. Yesterday evening, we debated in the chamber a motion to consider the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill tomorrow, in an additional meeting of Parliament. I put on the record that, for many of us, tomorrow is absolutely a working day. For the purposes of such decisions, I want to share briefly with the chamber some of the considerations that had to be made in order that I could make a change at such notice. In the 12 hours—or a bit longer—since Parliament met, two personal assistants, a family member and my husband have had to change all their working arrangements for tomorrow in order for me to attend Parliament.”
“I am also conscious that professional conduct matters and deciding on conduct breaches are within the GMC’s remit, and that each regulatory body will have its own system for such matters, which could raise the prospect of legislative competence issues. As such, what Liz Smith’s amendment 197 seeks to achieve can and will be met, so I do not support it—although her intention is laudable.”
“As regards Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 196, the bill would already require multiple independent assessments, and the process cannot proceed if a person is found ineligible. Clinicians would be required by the bill to refer the person to a specialist if there are any doubts about the person’s illness or capacity. Amendment 196 would risk duplicating those safeguards and adding unnecessary complexity to an already robust process without changing the fact that if any of the clinicians involved have doubts about a person’s illness or capacity, that person is not eligible to proceed with an assisted death. Therefore, I cannot support amendment 196. Finally, although Liz Smith’s amendment 197, on recording of cancelled declarations, is well intentioned, it seems unnecessary due to the existing systems of professional standards.”
“On Alasdair Allan’s amendment 188, although there is value to the second declaration process being done in person, again mandating it in primary legislation reduces the flexibility that some terminally ill people may require. The bill would require the declaration to be witnessed, so that would remove telephone consultation but may include video consultation. Again, robust clinical guidelines are the best way of safeguarding that part of the process, so I do not support amendment 188. I am content to support Jackie Baillie’s amendment 95, which would require any information obtained from inquiries of social care, social work and healthcare professionals to be shared with a person’s GP and included in medical records.”
“That, of course, is in addition to the existing expert knowledge of the assessing doctors themselves. Referral to relevant experts is already a well-established feature of clinical practice. Sue Webber’s amendments 191 and 192 would also add unnecessary barriers, in my opinion, by requiring further assessments after both doctors have undertaken independent assessments and confirmed that they are satisfied that the criteria have been met. Given that the bill provides that, at the point of witnessing the second declaration, the co-ordinating doctor must remain satisfied with the criteria that are set out in section 8(1), I see no purpose for the further requirement, which would simply be an obstacle rather than a meaningful safeguard.”
“I cannot support Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 184 and 307, which would prevent a person who is assessed as ineligible from making another request for 12 months. Apart from anything else, that ignores the fact that a lot can change in an individual’s disease or condition over such a period. I am inclined to support Bob Doris’s amendments 37 to 40, 60 and 67, which would require a co-ordinating medical practitioner to produce a comprehensive report on the assessment, which will in turn facilitate extensive data gathering with Public Health Scotland. However, I do not consider Stephen Kerr’s amendment 186 necessary. The bill already makes sufficient provision for medical practitioners to seek advice or input from other professionals with relevant knowledge and expertise where they consider it appropriate.”
“Liam McArthur: I am grateful to Mr Johnson for raising that as an intervention on me and not a false point of order. Requiring practitioners to record and explain decisions where eligibility criteria are not met will also help patients to understand the outcome of their assessment and the reasons for it, which is in line with patient-centred care, so I support amendment 9 and the consequential amendment 194. I also support Daniel Johnson’s amendments 183 and 183A, with consequential amendments 185 and 195, which add detail and require an additional statement concerning the relationship between the assessing doctors and the patient, as well as the rationale given if a doctor reaches a different conclusion on a patient’s eligibility from a previous doctor.”
“Daniel Johnson’s amendment 9 would require, if the assessing doctor is not satisfied that a person who is seeking an assisted death is eligible or is acting voluntarily, that a statement be made to that effect and provided to the patient. Requiring practitioners— Daniel Johnson: Will the member give way? Liam McArthur: Daniel Johnson might be pre- empting me, but I will give way to him. Daniel Johnson: I am very grateful to Liam McArthur for giving way and to parliamentary staff for knowing our work better than we do. I point out that amendments 194 and 195 would mean that the statements are recorded in line with other statements, so I had actually done a more comprehensive job than I realised. I hope that that reassures members; of course, I would not want to mislead Parliament on such an important matter.”
“The bill already requires the undertaking of multiple assessments, which, in practice, clinicians will normally conduct in person. As I said earlier, placing a rigid requirement in primary legislation that assessments must be carried out in person would remove flexibility in circumstances in which remote consultation may be clinically appropriate. Although I would expect the vast majority of assessments to be conducted in person, I am cautious of adding an explicit requirement that could create a potential barrier in a specific future case in which more flexibility may be necessary and felt appropriate. As Alasdair Allan and I both know and accept, given the constituencies that we represent, decisions on when online consultations with patients are and are not appropriate are rightly left to medical judgment.”
“All those things could be factored into the training that is already provided. I believe that the approach that is taken in the bill is a more appropriate approach than the blanket requirement that Fulton MacGregor’s amendment 171 proposes. I am also mindful of the Government’s position, which was that similar amendments at stage 2 presented a deliverability challenge, as legal and operational issues would cut across existing duties, which, in turn, could lead to duplication and potentially disproportionate intervention. With regard to Audrey Nicoll’s amendment 173, I consider that the existing reporting requirements in the bill are comprehensive, and that amendment 173 would duplicate many of those. I cannot support Alasdair Allan’s amendments 176 and 179.”
“How would the member address the fact that many of the professionals he has described—GPs, social workers and others—have said that they would find it difficult to make judgments about capacity and coercion within the existing structures? Liam McArthur: I am not sure that that is what the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee heard in the stage 1 process. As I have said, we can see such a system operating in other jurisdictions. The capacity and coercion assessments that are routinely made in relation to other types of medical treatment would be made in this context. I fully accept that further and on-going training would be required. Yesterday, we touched on some of the issues in relation to coercion. We are developing our understanding in areas such as coercive and controlling behaviour.”
“It is the subjectivity of quality of life, and all that comes with it, that makes the well‑meaning amendments in the group impossible safeguards. I ask members to think carefully and recognise that, although the additions appear to offer extra protections, they are fraught with difficulty and would still leave many people at risk.”
“However, an individual’s subjective view of tolerability and suffering can change at any time, and so too can someone else’s view about that person. It would be a difficult objective test to have in law, which is why the amendments in this group will not give the safeguards that I think that Daniel Johnson is seeking, nor will they provide the safeguards that are required make the bill less of a risk. We know that disabled people’s quality of life— and sometimes that of people at the end of life and people who have lost function, too—is often viewed by others as being lower than they would rate it themselves. We cannot, therefore, rely on those views as an objective measure when considering the bill or, indeed, considering whether assisted dying is safe.”
“Having listened to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s powerful speech, my question to her is this: would she say that the fear of that sort of unintentional reinforcement by others of an assumption about her quality of life challenges the wording that has been chosen for the amendment? When we consider the issue from a human rights basis, or even when we consider the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill, which will come before the Parliament at stage 3 next week, should the choice be to try to give dignity and autonomy without such prejudice? Pam Duncan-Glancy: Martin Whitfield gets to the heart of why I am concerned about these amendments. I fundamentally believe that they have been drafted with good intentions and I can see what Daniel Johnson is trying to do.”
“We must be very cautious about the message that will be sent if help, aids, adaptations, significant care from others and the inability to use the loo or shower by ourselves are circumstances that could be interpreted as indicators that someone’s life has become intolerable. Others often view disabled people’s quality of life as being lower than the disabled people themselves do. When we ask people to rate their quality of life, even in difficult circumstances, disabled people often rate it higher than the professionals in their lives. That is an important fact for us to remember when we are considering the details in this bill. Martin Whitfield: From a personal point of view, these amendments are swings and roundabouts.”
“Someone has to do almost everything for me. Many people find that to be undignified and are not afraid to tell me that. On occasion—for example, if I have no care or the toilet is not accessible—it can be quite undignified. The point that I hope that I am making is that I have learned to live with the good, the bad and the ugly of my life. That does not mean that I am not scared of loss of function, as I imagine that everyone is—of course I am. I want to keep the little function that I have left, and I am worried about what would happen if I do not. However, I have seen people face adversity on a daily basis, overcome it and enjoy life. With the right support, people can lead great lives despite otherwise intolerable pain or suffering. What is intolerable for me has moved over time and might not be tolerable for someone else.”
“I want to take a moment to talk about other peoples’ views on tolerating loss of function and why that is also a complex and subjective concept. People often portray the lives of disabled people or people who have lost function as being intolerable. Paralympian Tanni Grey-Thompson, who members recently had the opportunity to meet, was told by someone that they would rather be dead than incontinent, as she is. They said that to a Paralympian who sits in our House of Lords. People question daily how people live with loss of function—for example, how I cope. They feel that it is acceptable to assume that a life like ours would be intolerable and not worth living. People question that regularly. Presiding Officer, someone has to shower me. Someone has to take me to the toilet and help me in the toilet.”
“I was ill, I was crying daily, and the pain from my advanced stage arthritis, which will likely result in early death, got worse, because I was worn down by fighting. I am one of the most empowered disabled people in the country—one of 129 people who have the privilege of sitting in this Parliament—and I have been broken by how hard it is to live, or to try to live, like everyone else. Even when pain is intolerable, it is the everyday ableism and discrimination that make me feel like I cannot go on. 14:45 When I have the support that I need and when I am not fighting, I and people like me can live well, and we can thrive. We believe that life, at that point, is tolerable and even well worth living. We even believe that in circumstances in which others do not think that a life like ours would be worth living.”
“It includes many disabled people—indeed, as I said at stage 2, it could include me. I recognise that the amendments in this group try to provide greater clarity, but I do not believe that they resolve that fundamental issue. The provisions in them are highly subjective. I acknowledge that the member who has lodged them recognises that, but I will talk briefly about why that is important. People’s experiences and their views about what they can live with change over time. They are shaped by the society in which we live, as well as our views of ourselves. Absolutely everything that I have, I have had to fight for. I had to fight to get overnight care so that I could go to the toilet, because the council had said that it would be cheaper to use incontinence pads. That fight in particular nearly broke me.”
“I thank the member in charge of the bill for the way in which he has taken it through Parliament, and I thank other members for the way in which they have engaged in the very sincerely personal debate. I know that members are taking very seriously the weight of these decisions. I also thank the legislation team, which has done a power of work in getting us through many amendments, and Parliament staff for the time that they will put in to help us get through the amendments. As currently drafted, the bill defines someone as terminally ill “if they have an advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unable to recover and that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death”. That definition is, as my colleague Daniel Johnson has pointed out, incredibly broad.”
“It will not take rocket science, but it will take change—in small places, close to home, in housing, in care, in transport, in employment and so on. It will also take bravery on the part of all members who return and the new members who enter Parliament with them. I wish everyone who ever occupies these benches all the best of luck in the world to deliver a fairer Scotland, because disabled people need them to. I will continue to work day and night, out of here, to help to make that happen, too. 13:17”
“In preparing for today’s debate, I was reminded of the training on disability equality that I gave to MSPs in 2017. One member said to me, “The experiences you describe are unacceptable. Why aren’t disabled people beating down the doors of this place to get it fixed?” I replied, “Because you can’t get here to beat down the doors if you can’t get out of bed.” It is that basic, and until we sort out the basics, representation of disabled people on the high street, in workplaces and in this legislature will be a pipe dream for too many. We must not let being a representative stay in the dreams of disabled people. We must allow them to realise it, because disabled people have a place in here, too. Let us leave the chamber with renewed resolve to make that happen.”
“We are here, surely, to improve the everyday lives of the people we serve and to ensure that the people who come next take us further and faster on our journey to a Scotland that will be a land of opportunity for all of us. We cannot afford to backslide, because the distance to go is too great. Too many disabled people cannot get out of their beds because they have no social care. Too many disabled people are trapped in their own homes because those homes are inaccessible. Too many disabled people cannot get around Scotland because they cannot get on public transport. Too many disabled people are not in work because of all that, as well as the negative attitudes that mean that some employers are afraid to employ disabled people.”
“People from other protected groups continue to face underrepresentation in here, too. There should be nothing about us without us. Policy and practice and the laws that govern them should work for all of us. To get there, we need to have a more representative Parliament. When I was elected in 2021, I was the first permanent wheelchair user to become an MSP. Although I am extremely proud of that and of my time here, it should not have taken so long. I will not be returning here in May, but I will continue to fight for disabled people to take their rightful place in society and here in their Parliament. I will leave the ladder of opportunity to enable disabled people to come after me.”
“I put on record my thanks to the brilliant staff in security, information technology, facilities management, the chamber desk, catering, the Scottish Parliament information centre, legislation and cleaning—with a special mention for the brilliant Brenda Law—for taking inclusion so seriously and making me and others feel so welcome. I also thank the Presiding Officer for leadership on that and for agreeing to host the first ever parliamentary disability summit in 2023, to celebrate international disabled people’s day. I hope that it becomes a biannual summit. Although, in this session, much has been done on inclusion that we can be proud of, we are not there yet. Almost one in four people in Scotland are disabled, yet only 5 per cent of members in this place say that they are.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate and I thank my colleague Jeremy Balfour for bringing the matter to the chamber. His commitment to disability rights has meant that he has kept it on the agenda, and I hope that he is able to continue to do that in here after May—or, if not, from outside this place, as I will be doing. The value of lived experience matters. Our job in here is to represent constituents and to improve lives, and we can only do that well if we represent the breadth of experience that exists. This parliamentary session has seen an improvement in representation, which has been reflected not only in legislation, but in the way that our Parliament does its business.”