Michael Marra
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“I thank Jack Middleton for bringing the debate to the chamber. Its subject is of widespread concern, and will impact significantly on communities across the north of Scotland and in my North East Scotland region.”
“Indeed, the decline of quality local journalism that is embedded close to people is a tragedy. As many local newspapers face increasing issues with sustainability, it has become more, rather than less, important for the biggest companies and corporations to ensure that their journalism is rooted in communities.”
“More broadly, I believe—Jack Middleton has touched on some of this—that the decision is an act of surrender to what is a wildfire of commoditised fear that is weaponised by tech oligarchs to purposely undermine real freedom in pursuit of power and profit.”
“Although it is a commercial decision from STV, backed by the regulator to this point, it is also the latest example of what is becoming an ever- growing list of services being centralised away from communities in Scotland. Those in the north- east and further afield have, over the years, seen the same situation before.”
“The absence of regional journalism will only hasten that process, and whatever we might think, collectively, about the barrier and where the balance should sit, local people should have that accountability and the opportunity to make their case about where power is situated.”
“I welcome the hard work that Our Union Street is doing to re-energise Union Street and the centre of Aberdeen. The project is working along with partners to bring together a shared vision of the future of the city centre.”
The complete record
Every one of 754 lines we hold for Michael Marra, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 16.
“I do not particularly believe that we will get significant economic growth just through growing our workforce—I do not agree with Stephen Kerr’s definition of how that economic growth works. Stephen Kerr: Will the member take an intervention? Michael Marra: I will do so in a moment. The things that have bedevilled our economic growth in this country have been issues of productivity as well as issues of labour force participation. Meghan Gallacher: Will the member take an intervention? Michael Marra: I am sorry, Mr Kerr, but I will take Meghan Gallacher first. Meghan Gallacher: I thank Michael Marra for giving way. Surely, given how much a policy of expanding childcare will cost, we need more incentives to get people into work and grow the tax base, which will allow us to look after those services, if there is consensus to do so.”
“We have to make sure that the social barriers to having families are lowered wherever they can be. The SNP’s record in this area has been, I believe, bedevilled by a lack of definition of the issue. Too often, we have been told that expanding childcare was about the attainment gap and expanding female participation in the workplace. That brings us to the points about policy design that have been covered by many colleagues. The way in which we design the policy will get us different outcomes. Meghan Gallacher made a good point about whether we can get a realistic assessment at the start of the process of what has been delivered against the last set of promises that were laid out. Let us start from that moment of truth and set that out. I come to the economic side of the issue with a bit of scepticism.”
“She touched on the issues of cross-boundary placements for children, which I think all returning MSPs will have experienced in our casework. The Cabinet Secretary for Education, Culture and Gaelic identified the consensus among many—but not all—party manifestos. That provides an opportunity to touch on these substantial and substantive issues for our constituents. Childcare is in all those manifestos because people have told us that the costs are eye watering and that they struggle to get the support that they require. It is right that this is one of the first areas of concern that the Government brings to Parliament in the first weeks of term. I was struck by Maggie Chapman’s example about the joy of a pregnancy being limited by the thought of the cost. It is little wonder that this country has the lowest birth rate in our history.”
“I begin my first speech of the parliamentary session with broad congratulations to the many people who have to be congratulated. I will not list them all, but they certainly include the front benchers of the Government, who have won a handsome victory in the election just passed. I also congratulate you on your position, Deputy Presiding Officer, and members on the many excellent maiden speeches that have been made today. The five years will pass in a flash, then people will look at you as if you know what you are doing. I still do not have a clue where the committee rooms are based on their different numbers. If somebody new or an old hand could explain it to me, I would appreciate it. I have to say that I was particularly impressed— we should not be surprised—by my colleague Katherine Sangster’s speech.”
“We have delivered ambitious and successful changes in the ELC sector and in childcare before. That made a huge difference to families across our country, and I am confident that we are ready to do it again. 16:08”
“We are not starting with a blank slate; we are building on a knowledge base, having already considered the frameworks that are needed to grow capacity and support the sector, and we are building on a framework of engagement to make sure that our commitments reflect the needs and views of children, families and our communities. [Interruption.] Sorry—I thought that someone was trying to intervene on me. Things are tough out there for families. I am proud that the Scottish Government’s record of doing those things can support them through the tough times that have been caused by factors such as the pandemic, Brexit and the cost of living crisis. Every child in Scotland deserves the best start in life, which is why we are committed to eradicating child poverty and giving families the support that they need.”
“I have no doubt that there will be challenges on the way, but they must be worked through as we progress the offering and the expansion of childcare, not only to early years but to later years and into primary school. Working with its partners, the Scottish Government has already done that through the delivery of the 1,140 hours. We have put in the hard graft and built the foundations to do it again. We have continued to make progress, including supporting the creation of new childminding businesses and investing in wraparound care. About 7,000 children and families who are most at risk of living in poverty now benefit from school- age childcare programmes.”
“Does the member share my concerns that the initial costings that were set out for the policy seemed to be based on a lower level of uptake than the equivalent level in the rest of the UK? In developing the costings for the policy, we are assuming that, for the earliest years, there will be a lower uptake in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. Does that cause her some concern? Clare Haughey: It is interesting listening to this debate. We have heard arguments from both sides of the chamber about nine months being too early for children to go into childcare, and Mr Marra is now worried that the costings are not correct. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will take all that into account in her discussions with the sector, COSLA and local authorities.”
“I, Michael Marra, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me”
“Tom Arthur: There is an opportunity, particularly in the next session of the Parliament, to work constructively together to ensure that people are receiving the support that they require. NHS Grampian (Deficit) 2.”
“I made that point directly to the chief executive of NHS Tayside, as I have to every other health board that I have met. I recognise the point that Mr Marra makes and I welcome his recognition of the important distinction between mental health services and neurodevelopmental services. Where there is a co-occurrence or a comorbidity, CAMHS may be the appropriate setting. I assure the member that I have had reassurance from NHS Tayside that it is working in this area and I have had similar assurances from every health board. The Scottish Government is working with all health boards, including through the national autism implementation team. I encourage members to engage directly with their health boards. I appreciate that the member does that, as I know that he actively engages with NHS Tayside. The Presiding Officer: Briefly, please.”
“The move to separate autism spectrum disorder assessments from mental health services is more than a simple clinical distinction. I understand the motivation for separate pathways that the minister has set out, but I have been working with a young boy who has been on the child and adolescent mental health services neurodevelopmental waiting list since January 2023. The details of his case are distressing, but there is no diagnosis in sight. Does the minister recognise that that wait is far too long? There are deep consequences for my constituent’s wellbeing that are overwhelming both him and his family. Tom Arthur: I concur with Mr Marra and appreciate the points that he raises. I want to be absolutely clear that such lengths of waits are completely unacceptable.”
“On top of all that, expert caring staff are opposed to the bill because there is a huge hole at its heart where protection for those dedicated professionals and their care of patients should be. Ceding the process to backroom officials is an unsafe dereliction. It is the job of elected representatives to hear the voices of the people, to balance competing claims and to act in the public interest. We have exhausted scrutiny of the bill, which the vote at stage 1 allowed to happen. However, to those who agreed with the principle and must now judge the practicality, I say, please, not this bill. 18:56”
“I worry that some staff, fantastic staff, would no longer go into work in that sort of environment.” I know from speaking directly with staff that that would be true and that a delicate balance would be broken. Instead of improving palliative medicine, which we all have agreed must improve, the bill risks harming it. The Government reiterated just yesterday that the costs of the bill will be high and that no new money is available to our NHS. Beyond principle and practicality, there is a lack of safeguards and a fear of coercion in our deeply unequal society, in which the vulnerable and the disabled might easily see themselves as a burden and in which women suffer daily at the hands of men.”
“Like many Dundonians, I have said goodbye to beloved family and friends in Roxburghe house, which is an outstanding palliative care facility in the verdant shadow of Balgay Hill in Dundee. This morning, I was struck by the testimony of Dr Martin Leiper, who was the lead consultant physician in palliative medicine in Tayside and who led that hospice during his 35 years in our NHS. Of our vote tonight, he said: “I’m really worried about the effect that it might have on my former place of work … Whether its staff would be willing to work in an environment where palliative care was delivered and also there was the option for life to be ended.”
“Today, I believe that MSPs must listen to those who know the messy, emotional, painful and inevitable business of dying best of all—those who have seen thousands of deaths rather than our terrible handfuls, and who have the duty of seeing the aggregate as well as the individual. We should acknowledge together that those who would be most involved in delivering the process of dying that we will vote on today are asking us to vote against it, from the patient’s trusted general practitioner to the psychiatrist who assesses for capacity, the pharmacist who provides the drug and the palliative care staff who are there at the end. All of their esteemed professional bodies have considered the bill and are asking MSPs to vote against it tonight.”
“When I was elected in 2021, I was undecided on the issue of assisted dying, although I knew that a decision was likely to be made on it in the current session of Parliament. Over the five years of this session, I have learned from colleagues and constituents that being a member of Parliament is far more about listening than it is about speaking, and I have listened to the voices of my constituents who have sat at bedsides and suffered as relatives have died the most difficult of deaths. Those families have our empathy and our sympathy, and it is a privilege to be entrusted with their stories.”
“I am sorry to say that the bill has not been greatly improved by the amendments lodged either at stage 2 or at stage 3, and the minister has refused to support many sensible amendments that sought to analyse the levy’s impact on the house-building market and to introduce exemptions in specific cases. The minister has also repeatedly failed to commit to the independent sensitivity analysis of local areas that the committee recommended and on which several members lodged amendments. That does not give confidence to the Parliament, the sector or the thousands of Scots who are without a home to call their own that the SNP Government takes seriously the mess that it has made of Scotland’s housing system and the further damage that the levy could do if it is not introduced carefully. 17:52”
“More than 10,000 children are still stuck in temporary accommodation, and house-building rates are at record lows. It is estimated that the levy will add an additional £3,500 to the cost of building a new home. In evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, house builders were clear that the levy will render house building unviable anywhere outside Edinburgh and the Lothians. Those are the repercussions that nobody on the Government benches or, in particular, the Green benches seems to be willing to tackle. On that basis, and in an unprecedented step, as Liz Smith described, the committee made no recommendation on the general principles of the bill. That gives a clear indication of the committee’s serious misgivings about the viability of the levy in its current form.”
“If we wound back the clock to the day after the Grenfell disaster—15 June 2017—I do not think that we would imagine that our country could possibly be in this position. There are specific structural differences in the housing and building sector in Scotland that make remediation challenging—that is without dispute. If the SNP wants to do something to speed up the process, those are the areas on which legislation could be brought in, and the Parliament should be looking at them. An additional tax on house building will not change any of those differences— none of them. The critical point is that this levy comes at the worst possible time. Scotland is still in the grip of the SNP-made housing emergency, which the Government acknowledged nearly two years ago but has done precious little about since then.”
“That shows the Scottish Government’s utterly shameful record of incompetence. The reason that work has not been completed on a single building in Scotland is not that we do not have a building safety levy. The Scottish Government has failed to spend even a fraction of the almost £100 million provided by the United Kingdom Government for the purpose of cladding remediation. The Scottish Government has now admitted that those funds, which were intended for such remediation, were used to fill budget gaps across Government. It is up to the Scottish National Party Government to explain why it has taken so long to act, leaving people in Scotland at risk of fire and death in their own homes.”
“On 4 September 2024, John Swinney said: “Keeping residents and home owners safe is our priority, and we are taking action to protect lives by ensuring that the assessment and remediation of buildings with potentially unsafe cladding is carried out.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2024; c 26.] At that point, seven years on from the Grenfell disaster in which 72 of our fellow citizens perished, remediation had been completed on precisely zero buildings in Scotland. Based on the latest available statistics, from November 2025—and the minister refused to demur from those statistics today—that figure still stands. Eight years and nine months on from that fire, not a single building remediation in Scotland has been completed. In contrast, in England, 1,938 remediations had been completed by November 2025.”
“I note the concern from some stakeholders that the bill is in contravention of the housing emergency declaration. Our housing emergency action plan sets out that “Having a safe, warm and affordable place to call home is central to a life of dignity and opportunity.” Homes that are impacted by unsafe cladding cannot be said to meet that criterion. As the revenues that are raised will be spent on efforts to rehabilitate existing stock, the levy is intended to support the alleviation of the housing emergency, rather than exacerbating it. Given the scale of the funding challenges and the need to minimise any disruption in house building, the levy is a small but necessary contribution to the remediation of Scotland’s cladding-affected housing stock.”
“Through further engagement with our industry partners, the Government is committed to getting the balance right. Ensuring that the levy remains frictionless and fit for purpose requires reporting and reviewing mechanisms, and that is why the bill contains provisions for reports on the operation of the levy at least every three years. The changes that have been made by the Government and agreed by the Finance and Public Administration Committee at stage 2 mandate clear periodic reporting that ties spending directly to the cladding remediation programme, giving industry confidence in the operation of the levy. The Parliament asked for stronger reporting provisions, and the Government heard that call and acted. I am pleased that the amendments on that were agreed to.”
“Also included in the bill at stage 2 was a duty for ministers to introduce a minimum 15 per cent discount on brownfield development, which will ensure that the additional costs of building on previously developed land are taken into account. Moreover, the bill includes delegated powers to allow for further exemptions and reliefs to ensure that the levy keeps pace with an industry that is subject to a wide range of external factors. As I set out at stage 2, the Scottish Government will consult on proposals for a brownfield relief of at least 50 per cent, and a further relief for conversions. We will also use the opportunity of consultation to consider other support measures, such as payment flexibilities for build-to-rent or purpose-built student accommodation developments.”
“Thanks to members and stakeholders, the bill was amended at stage 2 to increase the levy-free allowance to 29 units, which will remove around 85 per cent of developers from the scope of the levy entirely. That supports a healthier and more diverse house building sector. The universality of the allowance also ensures that medium-sized developers will see a sizeable share of their activity exempted, which will strengthen their capacity to invest in future projects. The increase of the threshold to 29 units will also benefit development in rural areas, removing up to 89 per cent of units from the levy in classes 4 and 6 of the urban-rural classifications, depending on developer behaviour.”
“Those who have called for the levy not to be introduced would have to be honest that the consequences for future Scottish Governments could include higher taxes that would be borne by the general public, less money for hospitals, schools, roads or, indeed, less money for affordable housing. As far as possible, I have looked to ensure balance and that any costs that arise from the levy do not restrict the supply of house building. When introduced, the bill contained protections for those parts of the sector that could be most impacted, including exemptions for social and affordable housing, island house building and an annual levy-free allowance to protect Scotland’s small and rural house builders.”
“The programme’s costs are forecast to be between £1.7 billion and £3.1 billion over the expected 15- year lifetime of the programme. Faced with the need to ensure that Scotland’s public finances are sustainable, the Government has proposed through the bill that a contribution to those costs be made by the residential property development industry, just as the previous Conservative and current Labour Governments have done in England. During its 15-year lifespan, the levy will raise an estimated £450 million for the programme, meaning that the levy will form only a contribution to the overall funding requirements.”
“Will the minister confirm how many building remediations have been completed and whether he is satisfied with the progress rate? Ivan McKee: As the member will know, a significant amount of work had to be done before the work commenced, but, as I have indicated, that work is now ramping up, as will the funding requirement. In the first year of the levy’s operation, the spending review has allocated £115 million to cladding remediation. The Scottish Government has rightly stepped in to marshal the necessary work to protect and repair Scotland’s housing stock and to ensure that it is properly funded. I am sure that members across the Parliament will be supportive of that work. Undertaking that vitally important work comes at a sustained and significant cost to the public purse.”
“Liz Smith’s amendments 9 and 18 would exempt historic listed buildings from the levy, which we on the Labour benches would support. Ivan McKee’s amendment 5 will require ministers to lay before the Parliament for approval a Scottish statutory instrument relating to reliefs. It is right that the Parliament should have the chance to scrutinise those reliefs, so we will support amendment 5, too. I move amendment 6.”
“The minister did not support a similar amendment that I lodged at stage 2, but I hope that, in the intervening period, he will have reflected on the risks that the legislation could pose to Scotland’s already fragile house- building sector. I turn to the other amendments in the group. I recognise that Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 7 has a similar intention to my amendment 6. I look forward to hearing the debate, and I note that, if the Government is willing to support amendment 7 instead of my amendment, I would be willing to support it, too. Michelle Thomson’s amendments 8, 10 and 15 seek to exempt from the levy properties that are sold to first-time buyers. I trust that Michelle Thomson has met the minister since stage 2, and I hope that the Government will be able to support those amendments.”
“My amendment 6 would give a firm guarantee that any construction or conversion work begun before 1 April 2028 will not be subject to the levy. It seeks to give some certainty to the sector so that house builders can get on and build now instead of choosing to sit it out for two years, waiting to see what a future Government might or might not do. Appearing before the Finance and Public Administration Committee on 18 November 2025, the minister stated: “the commencement date for the levy will be deferred by one year, to April 2028.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 18 November 2025; c 42.] I believe that the amendment can be agreed to in keeping with that commitment.”
“That is the context in which the SNP Government is bringing forward this bill. During stage 1 evidence, the Finance and Public Administration Committee repeatedly heard about the potential for the levy to damage an already precarious house-building sector in Scotland. The possible introduction of a levy with as-yet- unknown rates is deeply destabilising for a market that needs certainty to plan and make decisions for the long term. Across the sector, house builders are making decisions now about where and how much to build, but they cannot do that with the uncertainty of a levy hanging over them. I place on record my thanks to Homes for Scotland and others in the sector who have engaged constructively on the bill and have supported the drafting of amendments, including some that I will speak to today.”
“Scotland has been in the grip of a housing emergency for years. Even the Scottish National Party Government acknowledged in May 2024 that that was the case, although it must be said that, almost two years later, not much has changed. House-building figures in December 2025 showed the numbers of both new-build starts and completions falling, with social sector starts hitting the lowest point since records began and affordable housing completions down by 23 per cent. That all has real consequences. Statistics published last month showed that the number of children living in temporary accommodation was at a record high of 10,484 for the period being reported on. The number of open homelessness applications was also at a record high and rough sleeping is at its worst in two decades.”
“I am not so foolish as to challenge the chair, but, from that, I now understand that, if I am at home and voting, I can give a speech by proxy, with another member delivering it on my behalf. I take it that that is now an accepted practice in the chamber.”
“Secondly, why did Douglas Ross not intervene when I raised those points, if he was online and heard what I was saying? That raises serious questions about whether Douglas Ross is actually online and whether he is actually voting. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Grahame. I am aware that that point has already been addressed by the Deputy Presiding Officer. It is the case that rule 9.10.4 provides that, when a member has given notice that they are not moving an amendment, any other member present may do so. The rule has no bearing on the ability of any member to otherwise participate in or vote on proceedings. We will continue with our proceedings. Christine Grahame: On a point of order, Presiding Officer.”
“The practice is that members speaking remotely require to be on camera, but it seems to me that a novel practice is developing whereby a member gives a proxy speech for another member to deliver while they are still online and voting, so they do not need to be on camera. The reply that I received referred to rule 9.10.4, which refers to the fact that anyone may move an amendment on behalf of anyone, even if they are in the chamber. If the member does not move an amendment, anyone else can get up to do so. However, this is not about moving an amendment; this is about a member delivering a speech, word for word, for somebody who is online. Questions arise here. First, why did Douglas Ross not deliver his speech on camera? It was obviously pre-arranged that Mr Kerr would deliver it for him.”
“Amendment 112 disagreed to. Christine Grahame: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry—I fear that we will run out of time before I get this off my chest. As you know, I sent a note to the Presiding Officer on the issue that I intended to raise and I have had a reply, but—if you will forgive me for saying so—the reply is erroneous. I will explain why. The point is that Stephen Kerr delivered verbatim—he told us so—a speech for Douglas Ross. In other words, he stood in Douglas Ross’s shoes and delivered a speech at the same time as Mr Ross was online and voting. Therefore, Mr Ross was perfectly capable of delivering that speech online, on camera.”
“For MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Abstentions Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 7, Against 112, Abstentions 3.”
“Stuart McMillan: I have constituents who are on both sides of the debate and who want a referendum on the issue. In proposing this amendment, I am representing my constituents, and I am happy to do so. I press amendment 112. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 112 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed. Edward Mountain: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My voting app would not connect. Bizarrely enough, I would have abstained. Members: Ooh! The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Mountain. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“I have not been party to the intergovernmental discussions, but I have a real concern about that. Stuart McMillan: Mr Brown is right. There is no scrutiny function after the section 104 process, so this Parliament cannot change anything after that stage. As I indicated on a couple of occasions yesterday, traditionally, the section 104 order process would take up to 18 months after a bill had passed stage 3 in this Parliament. It is clear that that would not be the case in this particular situation. I intend to press amendment 112. I suspect that it will not be agreed to, but I will press it nonetheless. [Interruption.] Some folk are laughing, but I point out that I am standing here to represent my constituents. The Presiding Officer: Let us hear Mr McMillan.”
“There is no definite timescale for the process, which is why I was bemused by the idea that the Government had said that this law would be on the statute book by the time of the referendum that Mr McMillan proposes. We cannot say whether it is going to be enacted, because we do not know the outcome of the section 104 order process. 21:45 My point is for those who are proposing the bill: it is not their fault, but they must concede that it is a very uncertain thing to do, to leave vital provisions of the bill in the hands of somebody else and to take it on trust. I am not just making a party political point—I do not have the same level of trust as Stuart McMillan appears to have that the UK Government, in all circumstances, will follow through.”
“Finally, on Keith Brown’s points, I do not disagree at all about the democratic deficit regarding the section 104 order, which the Deputy First Minister touched on earlier. Should the bill be passed next week, I genuinely think that the UK Government would act in good faith to deliver the wishes of this Parliament. I think that that would happen, but we would be taking it on trust. Keith Brown: I thank Stuart McMillan—who is my friend, too—for taking the intervention. I do not know whether he is aware—he may well be—that I sought the relevant information from the Government. A section 104 order is drafted by the UK Government and it cannot be amended by MPs or the House of Lords.”
“Jamie Hepburn: I say this respectfully to my friend, Mr McMillan—I should say, for the benefit of members, that we usually get on with each other. He is now saying what would happen, but, with respect, his amendment does not say that; it does not specify anything at all. With the best will in the world, he is speculating as to what might happen. We are making law here. The law should specify what should happen, but his amendment does not do that. Stuart McMillan: As I indicated earlier, the purpose of the amendment is for the holding of a referendum to be considered in the first place. As we know in this Parliament, when a referendum is to be held, a range of other activities needs to take place to make it happen. From my consideration of the situation, other activity would have to happen after this, if my amendment were to be agreed to.”
“Stuart McMillan: My understanding of Jamie Hepburn’s position is that there is a question about what would happen if the issue were to fail at a referendum. He alluded to that earlier in his comments, and that is what I took from it. If it were to pass at a referendum, the bill would be fully enacted. If it were not to be successful, other consideration would have to be given to the issue. As Jamie Hepburn— Jamie Hepburn: Will Stuart McMillan give way? Stuart McMillan: Hold on—let me finish my point. Jamie Hepburn will be very aware that the Parliament has struck down legislation in the past—I give the example of the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012. That might or might not be something that would be considered.”
“Murdo Fraser also spoke about traditions. This Parliament can create its own traditions—I put that point to Dr Allan, too, with regard to his earlier comments. We can create our own traditions in how we want to have our democracy. Jamie Hepburn: Will Stuart McMillan give way? Stuart McMillan: I am about to speak to Jamie Hepburn’s points, but I will let him go first. Jamie Hepburn: I have no objection to the notion of creating our own traditions, but I hope that, if we were to do so, they would be created for a purpose. I am still struggling to understand what the legal purpose of such a referendum would be, because it is not specified. I do not understand what the point would be of having a referendum to no practical effect.”
“That is what I am getting in my office, but the position described on social media is the exact opposite. Earlier, I purposely stayed away from saying what I am receiving, because I wanted to focus on the other aspect of my reason for lodging amendment 112. I say to Murdo Fraser that, yes, we are representatives. My constituents on both sides of the debate have asked me to lodge amendment 112, so I am content that I have done my job for all of them. I believe that it is the right thing to do anyway, but I have done that because it is what people in my constituency, on both sides of the debate, have asked me to do. On his point about voting, I note that the electorate votes for a wide variety of reasons, whether it be in an election or in a referendum, and I do not see this process as being very much different.”
“Although I note the Scottish Government’s comments on the feasibility of such an assessment, I certainly understand why MSPs might wish to see those services included in the review and do not oppose their inclusion, albeit that there might be questions about the extent to which such information will be available in a meaningful way. The Presiding Officer: I call Stuart McMillan to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 112. Stuart McMillan: On Liam McArthur’s final points, I note that I did not previously highlight what I am receiving in my inbox, including from my constituents. Mr McArthur mentioned a range of figures with regard to public support. From the perspective of my office, the ratio of people who are against the bill to those who are for it is 4:1.”
“As I said in the debate at stage 1, organisations that work in suicide prevention have also emphasised the importance of maintaining a clear distinction. Mental health charity SANE, along with suicide prevention leaders in jurisdictions including Australia, have stated that assisted dying should not be described as suicide and have urged Governments, the media and politicians to keep those distinctions. On Stephen Kerr’s amendment 298 and Miles Briggs’s amendment 299, which would require information on palliative and end-of-life services to be included in the review of the operation of the act, I have championed and will continue to champion the importance of palliative care.”
“I note that amendments 117, 118 and 119, in the names of Bob Doris, Jackie Baillie and Sue Webber respectively, all set out information to be included in the review of the operation of the act. Although I believe that much of the information would be captured in the review provided for in the bill, I am prepared to accept amendments 117 and 118. However, I do not consider amendment 119 to be proportionate, helpful or necessary. In relation to Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 297, which would require information on the impact of the act on suicide prevention and broader mental health outcomes to be included in the review, I do not believe that that reflects the purpose of what we are debating today. The bill is distinct from suicide prevention policy.”