Paul O'Kane
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“It is clear that any ban on phones will have to involve young people. They will have to help to co-design it and they will have to be at the heart of how we implement it—we should not forget that in the debate. There are already myriad discussions about how we might do that.”
“That is why we have advocated for a national charter on behaviour and standards and national leadership on discipline in schools, to empower headteachers to set out consequences, look at the issue of community partners such as campus cops and restore the relationships that now do not exist in many local authorities.”
“I am pleased to contribute to the debate, and in doing so, I thank Pam Gosal for bringing the issue to the chamber, and I wish her well. Pam was one of the first MSPs I met when I was elected to this place; we were in the same little group on the first day.”
“I am sure that many of us who watched the first day of proceedings in 1999 never thought that we would sit in the chamber and help to form the next part of the story of the Scottish Parliament.”
“Her work with me and others across committees on drug deaths and drug harms was very important. I hope that we will all continue to focus on that in the next session of Parliament. She can be assured that her contribution in that space is very valued. I also pay tribute to you, Deputy Presiding Officer.”
“Given that it is the last day of the parliamentary session and that we are about to enter an election period, colleagues will expect some politics from me. It is clear that the Government has failed to grip these issues during this session.”
The complete record
Every one of 463 lines we hold for Paul O'Kane, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 10.
“If it is not councils, it is teachers themselves, who, according to this Government and its amendment to the motion, should be happy with their lot and stop complaining. Indeed, I think that there was an air of “You’ve never had it so good” from the cabinet secretary and ministers. I am constantly inspired by our teachers. I come from a family that has teachers in its ranks. Teachers inspire and shape our young people, often in extremely difficult circumstances, but they are being let down by a lack of leadership. Leadership can be at the heart of many of those challenges. When I was on East Renfrewshire Council, I was the education convener, and I had the privilege of appointing headteachers to many of our schools.”
“He told me that the Government had listened and was taking a number of measures. The EIS said of the Government plans: “Whilst there are elements of the plan which are helpful, the EIS has been clear that the action plan must be backed up by sufficient resources to deliver meaningful change to ensure that Scottish schools are to be safe places to learn and to work.” The NASUWT found that, in 2025, a shocking 62 per cent of teachers were not aware that the national action plan on relationships and behaviour was being taken forward. It seems that the view of the First Minister and the cabinet secretary is that that is all somebody else’s issue. We heard some of that rehearsed in the helpful contribution from Willie Rennie.”
“Violence and disruption are on the rise, attendance is falling dramatically, there are cuts to the additional support that is needed for our children and young people, and teachers are feeling undervalued and burned out. The evidence is stark from trade unions, individual teachers, school leaders and young people, who often capture that reality with their mobile phones. It is not only the Labour Party, Opposition MSPs or the media who are saying that—it is a reality in our schools and communities. The cabinet secretary cannot continue to bury her head in the sand. Back in May, when I asked the First Minister about violent attacks in Renfrewshire that were uploaded to social media, I was assured that there would be meaningful action rather than more talking shops.”
“I thank the Presiding Officer and all colleagues for the support that they have shown to me during my recent period of leave. Being a dad is the best job in the world, and I join the ranks of those across the chamber who are perpetually caffeinated, who spend moments in morning meetings removing Ready Brek from their clothing and who often find themselves humming the theme tune to “Hey Duggee” while walking the corridors. Perhaps it is fitting that my first contribution on my return is on the subject of education, because few issues that we debate in the chamber are as important as the learning experiences and life chances of our children and young people. Current experiences in classrooms across Scotland have been recounted in some detail in the debate.”
“We live in a society where we are wrestling with issues of prejudice in different forms and in different shapes, and we must be vigilant— Mr O’Kane knows the degree to which I am concerned about these issues—in confronting the sources of that prejudice. We are acknowledging historical prejudice, but there are versions of prejudice that are still prevalent in our society today. The Government does not have immediate plans for a redress scheme, but, as I indicated in my response to Alexander Stewart, this will be the start of further dialogue with the community. I am keen to ensure that we follow up the apology with means of supporting the community and individuals within the community to overcome the damage that has been done in the past.”
“Is he able to say anything further on that? If not, is he able to say why that is and whether he thinks that redress in the form of compensation would be appropriate? The First Minister: I welcome the comments that Paul O’Kane has put on the record and his acknowledgement of the shared obligation that we have on the matter. As I indicated in my statement, it is right that those who hold office today act on behalf of the state in relation to failings and errors that happened long before our responsibilities started. I do that unreservedly in the Parliament today. I also associate myself with Paul O’Kane's comments about the contribution of other organisations, such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which have, of course, advanced many of these questions. Mr O’Kane’s question raises the issue of cultural prejudice.”
“Once again, it is important that we pay tribute to all the individuals in the Gypsy Traveller community who have spoken out and have had to relive injustices in order to get the recognition and the apology that they deserve. It is also important to put on record the work not just of Christina McKelvie, about which I accord myself with the comments of the First Minister, but of all the other organisations in Scotland, particularly the Scottish Human Rights Commission under the stewardship of Professor Angela O’Hagan and others, that continue to work on these issues. In response to Alexander Stewart, the First Minister acknowledged, once again, that this is the beginning of a conversation and a process, but I do not think that he said in definitive terms whether there will be consideration of a redress scheme.”
“I thank the First Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I welcome the formal apology that he has made to Scotland’s Gypsy and Traveller communities. The Government is right to acknowledge that, although they occurred before the Parliament was established, the Scottish state and its public institutions should recognise the wrongs that were visited on Gypsy and Traveller communities. The tinker experiment was wrong and should never have happened. It exposed some of our most marginalised communities to cultural injustice, prejudice and failure. Although that occurred many decades ago, it is clear that it has had a lasting effect. On behalf of the Scottish Labour Party, I add our apology to that of the First Minister. We have heard that it has taken a long time to reach this day.”
“Cashback for communities does, indeed, do great work and, clearly, youth work is part of the response. However, I have spoken with a number of youth groups in my community, including Johnstone Castle Learning Centre, which is locked out of that funding because its income is under £200,000. Most youth groups that we represent in our communities will not have an income of £200,000. What does the minister suggest that they should do to ensure that their life-saving work continues? Siobhian Brown: I am aware that applications for funding opened last week. I was not aware of that criterion, but I will write to Paul O’Kane, because I am sure that the Scottish Government supports other funding streams for such groups. Supreme Court Judgment (Scottish Prison Service) 7.”
“A lot of tangible action could make a real difference in how we support women to leave a financially abusive relationship, to get the right support and, fundamentally, to get on to the right footing and have the right financial support to move on with their lives. There is a huge amount of work for us all to do, but I am particularly cognisant of the role that men play in understanding the issues, moving forward and supporting the women in the chamber and beyond in Scotland so that we can all move forward together for equality. 16:03”
“I will reflect on the work that is being done in committees in the Parliament, which is very important. A lot of good, high-quality work can be done in committees, not least in the Equality, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee—some members of the committee are in the chamber for the debate—but also the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, which is concluding its report on the impact of finances on women who are leaving a domestically abusive relationship. Its forthcoming report will be important, because the evidence that we heard in the committee’s inquiry was stark and concerning.”
“We must reflect on whether we are giving them the right support to be the best men that they can be and to respect and understand what is acceptable behaviour towards women and girls. Many of those issues have already been explored very eloquently in the debate. We need to take robust action to push back on toxic influences, toxic figures online and the drip- feeding of outdated and harmful views towards women, which has arguably set back our debates quite some way. We have to push harder to look at potential new ways to target those narratives, particularly online. I pay tribute to everyone, particularly the women in the chamber, who continue to work collaboratively to do that and to raise those issues and ensure that they do not disappear from our discourse.”
“I have reflected, as have colleagues, that those debates cannot just take place at that time, or during those 16 days in the case of that example. We need year-round scrutiny and interrogation to ensure that we do not miss those important issues in the day-to-day work of the Parliament. The point has been made already, but I agree that it is crucial that men—those who are in the chamber and other male colleagues in the Parliament—are involved in that scrutiny. It is always the case that too few men take part in these debates. I always try to say that it is very important that we reflect on our actions and behaviours. We must also reflect on how we are bringing up a new generation of boys and young men and informing their attitudes towards and understanding of women.”
“Whatever the internal processes and challenges have been in collating the information that was needed to deliver an annual statement, there is now an opportunity for us all to take cognisance of it, reflect on it and decide how to move forward in relation to both the Government’s actions and the actions that Parliament can take through scrutiny. This debate will be important in that regard, but it is important that we come together annually to reflect on what progress is and is not being made. There are similar opportunities in the parliamentary calendar to reflect on and debate issues that are relevant to supporting women and girls in Scottish society. Every year, we have many important opportunities for debate, such as on the annual 16 days of activism on gender-based violence.”
“I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate. Like colleagues across the chamber, I welcome the publication of the annual statement, which finally delivers on the recommendation that Scottish ministers deliver an annual statement on gender policy coherence. As we have heard, that was first suggested by the National Advisory Council on Women and Girls in 2019. It has taken the time since then for the annual statement to be brought to fruition. I appreciate that we have had challenges in the intervening period—not least Covid—but we should reflect on the amount of time that it sometimes takes to prepare reports and then decide how we will implement the actions. Members across the chamber have reflected on the fact that having reports is all well and good but that taking action is really important.”
“The Presiding Officer: Concise questions and responses would be appreciated. Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (Edinburgh) 4.”
“Angela Constance: I very much appreciate Mr O’Kane raising his constituency concern directly in the chamber, but I point to the fact that we have invested in the cashback scheme, which is focused on diversionary activities, and in the violence prevention framework. We are also investing in our police force. I do not remember anybody in the chamber other than me arguing for an increase in funding for Police Scotland. Funding for policing in Scotland has increased by £90 million, and the budget, which not everybody in the chamber voted for, increased by £1 billion the resources going to local authorities the length and breadth of the country. I remain committed to working with colleagues on what works, based on the evidence, to prevent as well as to respond to youth violence.”
“I have, like other colleagues who have raised this issue, seen these kinds of incidents in my region. As the cabinet secretary knows, we had a recent incident of damage and vandalism at the united services club in Barrhead. The last social club in the town, it is run by older volunteers, and the incident was very distressing for them. I heard what the minister said, but the Government has now had a number of summits. We need to know when the funding will come to support local authorities, community organisations and, crucially, the police in taking a focused and holistic view of the issue and to enable us to get the solutions that we need for communities.”
“That is why the Scottish Government will deliver the effective scrapping of the two-child cap when Labour has failed to do so. We are determined to move forward on that, and to do so more quickly than we had originally thought that we could. The payments will come after people apply, depending on when their universal credit is paid. That is because we have a devolved system that relies on parts of the system that are reserved and that relate to universal credit. The simple way for us to deal with the issue is to have all the powers here and not to rely in any way on a Labour Government’s promises or the false hopes that it raised before an election and on which it continues to fail to deliver afterwards. The Presiding Officer: I call”
“It is the SNP that failed to deliver on its commitments to expand free school meals; it is the SNP that stripped employability services to the bone; and it is the SNP that created a housing emergency, with 10,000 children in temporary accommodation. Is it not the truth that more of the same will not deliver the 2030 targets and that the SNP Government is out of ideas and out of time to meaningfully reduce child poverty? Shirley-Anne Somerville: What Labour has delivered since it came into power is a review of universal credit and a delayed child poverty task force report. The reason why the Scottish Government stepped forward at the budget is that some people—I can appreciate where they came from on this—actually thought that a change of United Kingdom Government, from Conservative to Labour, would make a difference, but it did not.”
“On the two-child limit, over the history of that policy, Scottish Labour has been consistently clear that we want it to be scrapped, but the haphazard and last-minute decision to include its mitigation in the budget makes a mockery of the claim that the cabinet secretary made over many years that she was powerless to do anything about it. I note the letter that has been issued before we meet her this afternoon, which outlines that applications will be open but does not say when payments will be made. It also talks about using Scottish child payment data—the cabinet secretary was not willing to admit to that in the past. On the wider picture facing Scotland’s young people and the root causes of child poverty, responsibility for failing to meet the targets lies with the Scottish Government.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance sight of her statement, both at the usual time and in her morning press exclusives. There has been a lot of spin and, in the statement, there is a myriad of excuses, but the reality is that there is also failure. For all the rhetoric that we have had from the First Minister and the cabinet secretary, after the Scottish National Party’s 18 years in office, relative child poverty, after housing costs, has fallen by only 1 per cent. When the cabinet secretary says that rates are “broadly ... stable”, what she really means is that the dial has not shifted.”
“Does he agree that continuing such partnerships is a fitting legacy for people such as Betty, who had such a love for and connection with Malawi? Angus Robertson: I commend Paul O’Kane for asking that question and putting on record his condolences, which I share, to the family, friends and colleagues of Betty Cunningham, the former provost of East Renfrewshire. Her long commitment to supporting projects in Malawi was widely recognised, including through her receipt of an OBE for services to East Renfrewshire and to Malawi. I pay particular tribute to the Betty Cunningham International Trust, which she established and which built a health clinic and nursery schools. There is much to commend in her lifetime of work and commitment to the people of both East Renfrewshire and Malawi. A96 Union Bridge Works (Debate or Statement) 6.”
“On Saturday we received the sad news of the passing of Councillor Betty Cunningham, a former provost of East Renfrewshire, who was known to many members on all sides of the chamber and who was described as a “force of nature”. Among her many achievements, Betty was responsible for setting up an international trust after visiting Kaponda in Malawi in 2007. The trust has supported the provision of education, healthcare, and agricultural skills and opportunities, as well as taking hundreds of young people on cultural exchanges to Malawi. One of the key areas of interest there is oral health. Can the cabinet secretary say how the Government is partnering with charitable organisations such as the Betty Cunningham International Trust on projects such as MalDent?”
“The shop is her defiance, her reason to go on. The authorities of the Republika Srpska do not want her here, but this unassuming, smiling small lady in her 80s is a rock, unmovable, strong. She tells us that soon she will travel to the United Nations in New York to call for the international community not to forget and to do more. This is what the mothers do. They stand because others cannot. In the darkness of our journey back to Sarajevo, there is much to process. I think of the sun setting on those rows and rows of white stones and the words that are written in the books held in common by the Abrahamic faith. What have you done? Listen—your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. 13:10”
“We visited the memorial centre at the battery factory, which was the Dutch UN base at Potocari, and we retraced the footsteps of those days in July 1995. We were all rendered speechless by video footage of what happened after the UN allowed the Bosnian Serb forces to separate boys and men from women and girls. Promises of safe passage to free Bosnian territory were a lie. In the video, filmed by their executioners, we watched six men shot dead. The two youngest were spared until they had dragged the four bodies of their comrades into a shallow grave. There are no words. We all reach out to each other without speaking as we climb the stairs to meet the directors of the centre. Before we left, we met Mother Fadala. She speaks to us at her shop, selling flowers, books and memorial items. Like all the mothers, she lost everything.”
“A silent reverence lingers before we rise to walk one last time in the fading light around the thousands of graves, touching the names etched into the grey stone on the Srebrenica genocide memorial— each a son, a father, a brother, a husband. There is something incomprehensible here— something that makes me want to stay longer, to try to understand, to cry out, to do something, although nothing seems to meet the enormity. The journey here reminded us of the fragility of the peace agreement and the prevalence of denial of the genocide in the Republika Srpska. In each service station and each town, there would be people who had turned on their neighbours, people who had stayed silent in the face of what was happening, and people who even carried out those unspeakable acts. They are walking these roads, sipping coffee, watching our bus pass.”
“There has been some warmth today and all around are hints of spring, but as evening falls there is a chill that seems to reach down to us from the mountains. Nzad has just finished speaking to us. He is framed by row upon row of white gravestones. He survived a mass execution as a child and walked with bullet wounds to his head and stomach for days to reach safety. He is a softly spoken man. He speaks calmly and generously answers our questions. He speaks about his daughters, who just yesterday played with Bosnian Serb girls in the local volleyball team. Despite the horrors done to him and to those he loved, he wants a better future for his children.”
“Like Michelle Thomson, I was honoured to take part in the delegation to Bosnia and Herzegovina in March, along with minister Siobhian Brown and many others from across public life in Scotland. It was one of the most profound things that I have done as an MSP and, as Michelle Thomson referenced, a great opportunity to understand and encounter people who lived through those horrendous experiences 30 years ago. When I was in that delegation, each evening I tried to write something to capture my thoughts and experiences. In the speaking time that I have, I will read to colleagues one of the reflections that I wrote on the day that we came back from Srebrenica: The sun is slowly dipping below the hill.”
“I add my thanks to Michelle Thomson for lodging the motion and opening the debate; I recognise the way that we have engaged across parties in the chamber to ensure that the debate could take place today. I also pay tribute to the excellent work of Beyond Srebrenica Scotland and to its chair, Sabina Kadić-Mackenzie, for all her efforts in ensuring that we protect the memory of Srebrenica and educate people about what happened there 30 years ago. To that end, I urge colleagues to join the events in Parliament today. There will be a drop-in in the Fleming room, where some of the young people whom Karen Adam referenced will talk to members, and a photograph will be taken outside at quarter past 2. I hope that colleagues will be able to join us in those endeavours.”
“I think that the bill will provide major, overdue regulatory changes for the benefit of consumers and practitioners alike. It will simplify a system that is too complex and will make proactive a system that is too reactive. Consequently, we will support the bill, as amended, this evening. 17:43”
“I believe that their previous position was to support the tenets of the bill and not to support an independent regulator. I welcome the powers that I have worked on with the minister that have now been included in the bill. I highlight to the minister, however, that amendment 42 not passing and the related subsequent or previous amendments passing might cause some challenges in the legislation. It would be useful if, in a return to Parliament or in her summing up, she clarified how she intends to take that forward, given that it will be a challenge in the statute book. The post-legislative scrutiny would be a helpful vehicle to seek to deal with those issues. We need to understand what issues will remain in that space, and I hope that she will use the post-legislative scrutiny to do that.”
“It will provide tangible improvements to the legal system and legal services and much- needed additional protections to consumers and the public. I am disappointed that the Conservatives will not join us in supporting the bill this evening, although I appreciate that they are speaking of their concerns about what it means for consumers. I point out to Tess White and others that an independent regulator is not being widely called for by people involved in the process, particularly the Faculty of Advocates, which I referred to earlier, but also the Law Society and others. If an independent regulator were answerable to the Lord President, I do not think that it would be an independent regulator. There is a challenge in the position that the Conservatives have arrived at.”
“We are talking about the ability of some of the biggest law firms in the United Kingdom to operate in Scotland and about—as I said in my remarks on the amendments—thousands of jobs and tens of thousands of clients. The Law Society and others have been highlighting those issues for the two years since the bill was introduced. It is my understanding that, although the Law Society is the regulator and the body responsible for administering the legislation, there have not been detailed discussions with it on those matters preceding the correspondence that was issued last night, which I referred to earlier. I believe that, ultimately, over the course of stages 2 and 3, the bill has been brought to a better place.”
“She came into office part way through the bill process and inherited the bill in the condition that it was in. She has sought to listen and engage and has been constructive and co-operative through the stages of the bill—certainly with me. I genuinely appreciate her time and engagement and those of her officials and the wider bill team. I continue to have some concerns about the stage 3 consideration process that we have just completed. The fact that an issue as significant as the status of registered foreign lawyers and multinational practices was left to the final day of the bill’s passage to be resolved is quite concerning and shocking.”
“It might be the first time in the Parliament’s history that the senior senators of the College of Justice have come to give evidence on a piece of legislation that directly related to their functions and the function of legal services in Scotland. I am sure that many, in and outwith the chamber, were baffled that a policy could be formed and a bill introduced that so fundamentally threatened the profession’s independence, when there were no calls or recommendations for such a position to be taken. I recognise that the minister listened to the depth and breadth of concern about the proposals and lodged significant amendments at stage 2 to reverse that position. However, I think that serious learning remains to be done by the Government about how it took that position in the first place. I pay tribute, though, to the minister.”
“Their time and efforts have certainly moved the bill into a much better place than where it started. It would be remiss of me not to reflect on why the bill has taken so long to come to its conclusion. As we have heard, the bill was controversial when it was introduced, as the Scottish Government attempted to take control of legal services regulation through ministerial powers. Such was the significance of the threat to the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession, which is a fundamental tenet of a well- functioning democracy, the senior judiciary was left in the unprecedented position of speaking out on the proposals.”
“I am pleased to speak in the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour and confirm that we will support the bill at decision time this evening. As we have heard already in contributions, the process has been long for all involved—not merely this afternoon, although I appreciate that for colleagues it might have felt like two years when, in fact, it has been only two hours. We have been at the bill for two years, and it has been more than a decade since some stakeholders who have been calling for reform of the regulatory system began working for it. On that point, I thank all the organisations and individuals who have engaged on the bill, not least the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission and many others, including people who have experience of complaints against solicitors in Scotland.”
“The changes do not go far enough, which is why the Scottish Conservatives will vote against the bill later today. 17:37”
“that most of the attention and concessions in the debate so far have been given to the views of the legal profession, while there has been limited engagement with the views of consumers or consumer groups.” The reality is that, for consumers of legal services, it is not always clear where self- regulation ends and self-interest takes over. The view among consumers is that it feels like David against Goliath. The complaints process is overly complex, impossible to navigate and glacially slow. At stage 2, I lodged probing amendments that proposed using the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission’s existing infrastructure to investigate all conduct and service complaints. My key point is that the bill merely tinkers with the status quo.”
“Tess White: The independent regulator should report directly to the Lord President, definitely not the Scottish Government. It is to the minister’s credit that ministers’ powers to intervene were removed at stage 2, following calls from the legal sector and the Scottish Conservatives. At stage 3, our overriding concern is that the bill fails to decouple the complex complaints process from the system of self-regulation by the professional bodies. That was a recommendation of the Roberton review, as well as the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee at stage 1. I note comments from the SLCC’s Consumer Panel. It said: “We are concerned ...”
“Does she appreciate that the profession was 100 per cent against having an independent regulator? We have to be on one side or the other—we cannot sit on the fence or be on both sides. Tess White: I am saying that, when the bill process started, the Scottish Government wanted the judiciary to report directly to ministers, which was absolutely absurd. We have now reached a point where we are tinkering around the edges as the bill increases cost and complexity, and consumers are not being fully taken into consideration. Paul O’Kane: On the theme that the member has raised, the judiciary’s concern was about maintaining its independence in the processing of complaints. Does she envisage that an independent regulator would be answerable to the Government or the Lord President of the Court of Session?”
“In its eternal wisdom, the Scottish Government settled on a so-called workaround in the bill, which satisfied no one. It created sweeping new ministerial powers to intervene directly in the regulation of legal services, prompting widespread condemnation—from the legal profession and beyond—of what was seen as a Government assault on the rule of law. Its approach was considered to be bad law making. Siobhian Brown: Will the member take an intervention? Paul O’Kane: Will Tess White give way? Tess White: I will take the minister’s intervention first. Siobhian Brown: I am slightly confused by Ms White’s contribution. She said that the Scottish Conservatives would fully support having an independent regulator, but then she referenced the legal profession’s position.”
“Tess White spoke about the challenges that the bill presents, particularly with regard to the independence of the judiciary. However, I am not sure whether she is supportive of having an independent regulator, so it would be useful if she could clarify that. Does she recognise what the Faculty of Advocates said in its evidence to the committee, which was that it considers that to be “a hare that was ... shot long ago”? Tess White: We are fully supportive of having an independent regulator. The regulators and the judiciary were fundamentally opposed to the approach of having a single independent regulator, but we believe that it is important and that the corresponding recommendation of the Roberton review should have been followed through.”
“All of that leads to a slowing down, with difficulties in completing regulatory processes.”
“15:30 Amendments 129 and 139 to 141 seek to restrict the conduct complaints that are brought against solicitors in relation to them discharging regulatory functions on behalf of regulators, as defined in the bill. The concern behind the amendments is that an increasing number of spurious conduct complaints are being brought against solicitors discharging regulatory functions, which has a real impact on their ability to carry out those functions. In my opinion, that can be to the detriment of the public interest. The time spent dealing with such complaints places a burden on the regulator, and such conduct complaints can drive risk-averse behaviours by those exercising regulatory functions. It can also impact on the regulator’s ability to recruit and retain solicitor members of regulatory staff.”
“The existing fund, which is maintained by the Law Society of Scotland under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, is a crucial consumer protection, and the administration of that fund—the guarantee fund—is currently defined as a regulatory function under the 1980 act. I note that the minister told me in writing in advance of this afternoon’s proceedings that she considers that the issue has already been covered in the bill. If she could set out in her remarks how that is the case and the Government’s full position that it is a regulatory function, that would be most helpful to me and, I am sure, to colleagues in the chamber. I might not then press amendment 116.”
“I am pleased to speak to amendment 116 and to my other amendments in the group. As we begin today’s proceedings, I set out my thanks to all stakeholders for their engagement and briefings in advance of stage 3 and throughout the bill process, as well as my thanks to the minister and her team, who have largely been co-operative and responsive to many of the concerns through what has been a long process. Although I sense that we might still end up with some disagreement today, we will certainly start off in a positive vein. I will speak first to amendment 116. Section 7 sets out the meaning of regulatory functions. However, section 7 does not specifically detail that administering any compensation fund that is required under section 14 of the bill will be a regulatory function.”
“It was a difficult death, in which pain was present, and she felt that the option of assisted dying would have made that process far better not only for her loved one, but for her. I recognise the work of Marie Curie. Last year, I was very pleased to bring to the chamber a debate on “Dying in the Margins”. That exhibition, which we have heard about before this evening, sought to show to the world the conditions in which people come to the end of life in our society. It struck me that, in many ways, even in hospice care, we are already failing to allow people to have a good death. There is a failure to support people by adapting their properties so that they can die well, to allow people to access social services and to provide that wider end-of-life support.”
“Everyone in the Parliament and, indeed, across the nation approaches this debate with their own experience of and encounter with death, because death comes to us all and touches us all, no matter who we are. Seamus Heaney wrote: “death is not easily escaped from by anyone: all of us, with souls, earth-dwellers and children of men, must make our way to a destination already ordained”. The question, and the debate that we are having, is about how we die. I have sought to encounter and listen to my constituents and their stories. I think particularly of people such as Caroline, who came to see me and made me stop in my tracks as she spoke with passion and emotion about the death that her loved one experienced.”