Martin Whitfield
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“To ask the Scottish Government, regarding any impact on its energy policy and strategy, and in light of reports that Torness nuclear power station is due to close by 2030, what its response is to the United Kingdom Government’s new fusion strategy, which aims to deliver thousands of jobs and long-term energy security. (S6O-05690)”
“I ask members to note my entry in the members’ register of interests. As we come to the conclusion of today’s debate, I rise to offer the full support of Scottish Labour for the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill.”
“The last few motions before us today are the final motions from the committee designed to put the standing orders book in its best possible state for the next session. The first motion, regarding the sixth report, relates to cross-party groups. We have had some challenges this session with the compliance of cross-party groups.”
“Last year’s fostering and adoption statistics show that children who are going through the adoption system face significant delays, with some waiting for six months or longer.”
“I will dwell on the comments he made as convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, because it is a tribute to him that he saw, in that committee, the ability to fulfil a role that is crucial for committees in a unicameral Parliament.”
“The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that motion S6M-21167, in the name of Graeme Dey, on a motion on legislative consent for the Armed Forces Bill, which is UK legislation, be agreed to.”
The complete record
Every one of 844 lines we hold for Martin Whitfield, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 17.
“I pass on my thanks to the convener and to the committee and those who supported it for what has been a fascinating journey on deliberative democracy over this session of Parliament. Indeed, the convener will admit that he has been on a journey as to the validity of deliberative democracy. It speaks to one of the strengths of this session of Parliament that people have been able to change their minds on certain things. On the issue of trust, which was mentioned earlier, I note that the ability for people to change their minds and for that change to be accepted because the evidence now points in a different direction is a very important, empathetic element of being a politician. The participation of citizens in deliberative democracy, as articulated in the blueprint, is an opportunity to show that.”
“I am very grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to follow Maurice Golden’s comments on where we are right now. In some senses, he went beyond the point of today’s debate, but he gave some fascinating insights. However, I think that it is only fair that we hear the end of the part of the commission on parliamentary reform’s report that Mr Golden was quoting. It went on to say: “Effective engagement, particularly using more deliberative methods, can improve transparency and policy making by bringing different perspectives, knowledge and skills to the scrutiny process.” Interestingly, that second part very much encompasses the excellent work of the committee.”
“I will give just one example: “More than 90% of participants” in the panel on climate change “responded ‘Very’ or ‘Extremely’ to the statement: ‘I feel like participating in the People’s Panel has improved the way I feel about the Scottish Parliament and the work it does to hold the Scottish Government to account’.” That impact is to be welcomed, but there is also potential for the impact of panels to be felt beyond individual participants, because they take their experience and knowledge back with them to their own families and communities.”
“All members will be concerned about the shocking figures on people’s declining trust in politics. Last year, the National Centre for Social Research reported that the British social attitudes survey had shown that “Trust and confidence in government are as low as they have ever been.” Further, the “Life in the UK 20204 Scotland” report gave Scotland a democratic wellbeing score of just 39 out of 100. It found that 63 per cent of people disagreed with the proposition that they could influence decisions that affect Scotland and, sadly, that 38 per cent had low levels of trust in members of the Scottish Parliament. From the independent evaluation of the people’s panels we know what a positive impact they have had on participants’ trust in the Parliament.”
“Will Jackson Carlaw take the opportunity in his speech to talk about the importance of the questions that are framed for those groups? What is asked, as well as how that is asked, is of great importance. Jackson Carlaw: I entirely agree with that point and will seek to address that in my contribution. The panels look at issues where a committee feels that the input of a panel would be useful and the panel’s report and recommendations go back to that sponsoring committee to inform its scrutiny work. I am not going to claim that people’s panels are a panacea, but it is clear from the work that my committee has undertaken that they can be an important part of the solution to a number of problems that we must address if the way in which the Parliament delivers for the people of Scotland is to evolve.”
“The Scottish Government’s promise was to renew every play park. Will it be every play park? The First Minister: I answered the point in my earlier answer, where a scoping—[Interruption.] Stephen Kerr: You did not. The Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, you have had an opportunity to put questions to the First Minister. I now ask you to desist from shouting from your seat. The First Minister: The Government undertook an exercise with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and worked with our local authority partners to determine the way in which the approach could best complement local work. That is the Government working in partnership with local authorities. That is what Parliament always asks us to do, and once again the Government has delivered. Environmental Protection (Keeping Pace with European Union) 6.”
“The General Teaching Council for Scotland has responsibility for ensuring that teachers are adequately trained and properly up to the job, and that they are monitored throughout their career to ensure not only that they meet the baseline but, for those who carry additional responsibilities, that that is reflected in their registration. However, on the actual numbers, the cabinet secretary talked about the responsibility that she suggested universities have. Universities take that responsibility from the audit and, in essence, from instructions from the Scottish Government about forthcoming needs, because it funds university places.”
“The cabinet secretary, among others, acknowledged that. Another aspect of the debate, which is also reflected in other debates about education, is the Government’s demand that everyone recognises that it does not employ teachers. Everyone in the chamber acknowledges that the Government does not employ teachers; that is the responsibility, in the main, of our local authorities. However, it is the Scottish Government’s responsibility to create, define and manage the pool from which qualified teachers can be employed.”
“I make reference to my declaration of interests because I was launched into the current session of Parliament having been a primary school teacher and paid by a local authority. It has been an interesting debate. I thank the Liberal Democrats for taking the opportunity to bring education into the chamber. There has been agreement across the chamber that the education environment is—I will choose the word that is the lowest bar that we have—challenged because of the situation of teachers and their workload. A lot of members have pointed out that we need to address the quality of teaching as well as the salary to ensure that we can stimulate people to come into teaching, stay in teaching and see teaching as a positive and important career that will bring incredibly rewarding moments throughout their life.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the new report from the Royal College of General Practitioners Scotland, “Whole person medical care: The value of the General Practitioner”. (S6O-04718)”
“What consideration was given to the difference between the facilities that are available to the public and the facilities that are available to members of parliamentary staff but also staff who are employed by MSPs? Christine Grahame: Officials consider the SPCB’s various responsibilities as an employer, workplace provider, service provider and public authority, which adds to the complexity of fulfilling our obligations in ensuring that Holyrood is as inclusive as possible for all. Many of our staff use facilities in the public areas of the building and many members of the public use facilities in the private areas, particularly during events, meetings and evening receptions. The SPCB’s interim stance as set out in the EqIA seeks to balance those different requirements.”
“In that context, given the overwhelming support from the sector and the Scottish Youth Parliament for my proposed youth work (Scotland) bill, which would enshrine youth work provision in law, will the minister meet me to discuss the fundamental importance of youth work’s role not only in tackling youth violence, but in the lives of our children and young people? Graeme Dey: As I have already outlined to Martin Whitfield, the evidence of the importance that the Scottish Government places on youth work is there—it is in the funding that it provides for that work, to local government and by other means. Of course I would be delighted to meet”
“It is a fact that youth services are not run by the Scottish Government. As I have outlined to him, there is substantial funding going into local government to protect those services and additional moneys are provided by cashback for communities. Martin Whitfield: It is disappointing that the minister is unaware of the specific amount that is spent on youth work. Does the minister recognise that youth work lacks any formal legal status in Scotland, which leaves even vital local services at risk of being cut or deprioritised?”
“In addition, the Scottish Government provides targeted funding to the youth sector via the cashback for communities programme. Since its inception, the programme has committed £156 million to supporting around 1.4 million young people across all 32 local authorities in Scotland. Martin Whitfield: I offer my deepest sympathies to the families and communities that have been affected recently by youth violence across the whole of Scotland. Respected organisations such as YouthLink Scotland have reported more than £20 million in cuts specifically to youth work services since 2016. Does the minister accept that that reduction in provision has directly weakened the support networks that so many young people rely on, particularly those who are most at risk? Graeme Dey: I associate myself with Martin Whitfield’s initial remarks.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether its current investment in youth work is sufficient, in the light of reports of an increase in youth violence and the loss of local youth services in recent years. (S6T-02550) The Minister for Higher and Further Education; and Minister for Veterans (Graeme Dey): The Scottish Government continues to fund youth work in a variety of ways, including through the block grant that is given to local authorities, affording them significant autonomy in allocating resources for youth work in their area. Recognising the important role that local authorities play, the Government is increasing the resources that are available to local government in 2025-26 by more than £1.1 billion.”
“I thank everyone who has engaged with our work to date. The evidence that we have received has highlighted areas in which committees are performing well: they carry out important, if sometimes unsung work; they have an impact; they hold the Scottish Government to account; they achieve good outcomes; and they provide an opportunity for us to hear directly from those who are impacted by the decisions that we take.”
“I wish to ensure that, whether members’ reflections are informed by their role as a committee member, convener or minister, those reflections have a chance to be aired, shared and discussed in a constructive and open debate. There have been three strands to the committee’s work: structure, elected conveners and evaluation. Today’s debate is the final part of our evidence gathering. As well as five oral evidence sessions, in which we captured practice and academic expertise on committee operation, we held a facilitated discussion with the Conveners Group and gathered written views from the public and from other legislatures, parties and committees, so we are primed to feed what we, as a committee, hear from members today into our work and, ultimately, our inquiry conclusions and recommendations to the Parliament.”
“How should we, as modern-day parliamentarians, set aside our individual and party viewpoints to focus on delivering the best scrutiny that we can, in the interests of our constituents? How do we develop a culture, to quote a fellow MSP, of “being prepared to be open and to accept that you might hear evidence over the course of the process that leads you to change your mind”? As I open this debate on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s inquiry into committee effectiveness, I am keen to make it clear that today is about hearing the views, reflections and experiences of members in the chamber on that important matter. As a committee, we do not hold a monopoly on wisdom about committee effectiveness.”
“It is a pleasure to open the debate and to see so many people eager to contribute to what is, in essence, an evidence-capturing session for what I, modestly, think is probably one of most important inquiries that any committee will undertake during this parliamentary session. Let us turn the clock back to 1774 and listen to the words of Edmund Burke, who was trying to explain to his electorate some of the challenges that he faced and the relationship between elected representatives and their constituents. His reflection was that “government and legislation are matters of reason and judgement, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion”? If I can be so bold, I will take those words and look at them in relation to the challenge of scrutiny.”
“Motion agreed to. The Presiding Officer: The next item of business is consideration of business motions S6M-17608 and S6M-17609, both of which are on a stage 2 timetable for a bill. I call Jamie Hepburn to move the motions. Motions moved, That the Parliament agrees that consideration of the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill at stage 2 be completed by 20 June 2025. That the Parliament agrees that consideration of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 2 be completed by 27 June 2025.—[Jamie Hepburn] Motions agreed to. Parliamentary Bureau Motions 17:00”
“I move, That the Parliament agrees— (a) the following programme of business— Tuesday 27 May 2025 2.00 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Topical Questions (if selected) followed by Scottish Government Debate: Growing Community Owned Energy in Scotland followed by Committee Announcements followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Wednesday 28 May 2025 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands; Health and Social Care followed by Scottish Liberal Democrats Business followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Approval of SSIs (if required) 5.10 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Thursday 29 May 2025 11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions 11.40 am General Questions 12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions followed by Members’ Business 2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Social Justice followed by Ministerial Statement: Galloway and Ayrshire National Park Proposal followed by Ministerial Statement: NHS Grampian followed by Ministerial Statement: Responding to RAAC in the Public Sector Across Scotland followed by Legislative Consent Motion: Tobacco and Vapes Bill - UK Legislation followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 4.50 pm Decision Time Tuesday 3 June 2025 2.00 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Topical Questions (if selected) followed by Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee Debate: Public Participation Inquiry followed by Committee Announcements followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Wednesday 4 June 2025 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, and Parliamentary Business; Justice and Home Affairs; Education and Skills followed by Scottish Government Business followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Approval of SSIs (if required) 5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Thursday 5 June 2025 11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions 11.40 am General Questions 12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 12.45 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business (b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 26 May 2025, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.”
“The motion that has been lodged by the bureau tables business that has been considered. I am content to take an intervention for 30 seconds, if the minister is able to intervene, in order to facilitate the passage of time. Notwithstanding that, I move the motion in the bureau’s name.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the effectiveness of its current export and investment support policies. (S6O-04675)”
“I therefore ask Mr O’Kane not to press amendment 117 and not to move his other amendments in the group, with the exception of amendments 123 and 126. If amendment 117 is pressed or if any of the other amendments is moved, I urge members to oppose it. I ask members to support my amendment 1 and Mr O’Kane’s amendments 123 and 126. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms White, do you wish to contribute to the debate on the group?”
“Martin Whitfield: I am grateful to the minister for taking the intervention, particularly at the peroration of her remarks. Does she have confidence that the commitment to amend the explanatory memorandum after the bill becomes an act represents enough of a guarantee? Is she confident that the interpretation that will be placed on it not only by the regulators but also, perhaps, by the courts will be strong enough for it to reflect the Government’s change of view and ensure that we correctly encompass overseas registered lawyers? Siobhian Brown: I am. I think that adopting the text that the Law Society has provided and putting it in the explanatory notes will ensure that that will be done. As I said earlier, Paul O’Kane’s amendments could have unintended consequences.”
“Amendments 124 and 125 would delete section 44(1)(e), which sets out that practice rules are to include rules about “the making and handling of any complaint about an authorised legal business”. I consider that, given the provisions that will allow the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission to make minimum standards for complaints handling in consultation with the profession and the Lord President, it is important that section 44(1)(e) remains as a mechanism to apply those standards. After careful consideration of amendments 123 and 126, I am content to support them. I therefore ask Mr O’Kane not to press amendment 117 and not to move his other amendments in the group, with the exception of amendments 123 and 126. If amendment 117 is pressed— Martin Whitfield: Will the minister take an intervention? Siobhian Brown: I will.”
“In particular, they would in some ways rule out use of the structures in part 2 of the bill, which will otherwise cater for those types of lawyers and allow them to be brought in as qualifying individuals if they are made licensed providers or if the other rules that govern them are changed. On that basis, Mr O’Kane’s amendments are unnecessary, and they would be problematic in some respects as they would specifically refer to “registered European lawyers” and “registered foreign lawyers”, rather than their being included under “qualifying individuals” in the bill. The amendments would provide less future proofing to implement the legal structures in the bill.”
“That will provide additional clarification in the bill’s provision on professional indemnity insurance. The effect will be similar to that of Paul O’Kane’s amendment 119, but my amendment 1 means that amendment 119 is unnecessary, as defining “legal business” by reference to the definition of that term in section 39(2) also draws in the definition of “qualifying individual” as set out in section 39(8). Although I recognise the intention behind Paul O’Kane’s wider amendments in the group— amendments 117 to 122 and 138, which have been developed by the Law Society—we consider that they would have unintended consequences.”
“That will be done in the explanatory notes to the act if the Parliament agrees to pass the bill today. I confirm that I have engaged extensively with the Law Society of Scotland. I wrote to it last night, outlining the position and confirming that I am happy to adopt its suggested wording in the explanatory notes. In particular, registered foreign lawyers will still be required to work with other solicitors in Scotland in order to practise where that is already provided for in the existing legislation. The new regime in part 2 of the bill will not change that. 15:45 My amendment 1 will define “legal business” in section 18 by reference to the definition of that term in section 39(2) in order to make the definition consistent in the bill.”
“As things stand, I will move the amendments when they are called and I urge members to support them. I move amendment 117. Siobhian Brown: I will begin by speaking to my own amendment 1 before moving to those lodged by Paul O’Kane. The Law Society of Scotland has asked for clarification of registered foreign lawyers being included among the “qualifying individuals” as defined in section 39 of the bill. At stage 2, I agreed to correct and strengthen the explanatory notes to make it clear that registered foreign lawyers are included as “qualifying individuals” as they exist at present and to make it clear that part 2 of the bill, on the regulation of legal businesses, does not change the basis on which existing individual rights to practise are still required by the existing underlying legislation.”
“It would be helpful to have on the record, without equivocation, that it is, indeed, the minister’s intention to adopt the Law Society’s text for a revision to the explanatory notes. However, we are dealing with a central issue that has been a focus of concern since the bill was introduced, two years ago, so I am concerned that that letter of last night was the first time since stage 2 that the Government has directly laid out its position to the Law Society, which would be responsible for regulating all these matters and has repeatedly raised the issue. As I have outlined, the matter is critical for the legal services market in Scotland, and so, despite that last-minute adjustment to the Government’s position, I will press my amendments to ensure that the matter is beyond doubt and to take what might be called a belt-and-braces approach.”
“Conversely, if RFLs are not included in the definition of ‘qualifying individual’ and no separate provision is made for them, then Section 39 does not permit existing MNPs”— multinational practices— “to be authorised, which would prejudice the continuation of some of Scotland’s largest and most successful law firms, many of which are MNPs.” In an attempt to tidy up the matter, the minister has indicated her intention to alter the explanatory notes on the definition of qualifying individuals. I am also aware of her correspondence with the Law Society only yesterday, in which she confirmed that she intends to adopt its draft text of a revision to the explanatory notes.”
“The minister is well aware of those issues and the potential implications for the legal services market if we do not get that right. As I said, those issues were raised during previous stages of the bill process and in correspondence from the Law Society, which has neatly explained why the bill, as drafted, should be remedied. The Law Society said: “As a result, the provisions of Section 39 of the Bill as they stand conflict with the provisions of the 1980 Act. If RFLs”— registered foreign lawyers— “are included in the definition of ‘qualifying individual’, then Section 39(2) at the very least implies that one or more RFLs may form a legal business owned exclusively by RFLs, without any Scottish solicitor ownership, and that business would require and be capable of authorisation under the Bill, when that is not correct.”
“It has taken a substantial number of months to get to where we are with the bill. If the matter is not resolved, is there not a real risk that—perhaps not overnight, but in the very short term—we could see the ownership and control of law firms in Scotland going to other jurisdictions, which could create an incredibly risky knock-on effect here in Scotland? Paul O’Kane: In my contribution I have outlined, and will continue outlining, the concerns that are being raised, which are those that Mr Whitfield has outlined. In particular, there is a sense that many established and well-known law firms, particularly trade union lawyers and those that support people with personal injury claims, may have issues with operations in Scotland because the bill has not clarified structures.”
“There are complexities in relation to the placement of a child in secure care, which I am sure that we will get into in other members’ questions. I believe that our work on reimagining secure care for the future will continue to help with the issue.”
“Natalie Don-Innes: I recognise the concerns that members are bringing to me. I disagree that there was a lack of forward planning. I was very clear during the passage of the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill, and in each of my previous statements to the Parliament, that a huge amount of planning had taken place to ensure that we were ready for the changes that were introduced as a result of that bill. At the time, there was ample capacity in the secure care system, but it is an evolving matter. As I said, I have laid out the additional capacity. We have four beds currently, and we are looking at implementing other measures to increase that further. I point to the “Reimagining Secure Care” work.”
“I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement. We are in a really challenging position with regard to secure accommodation. We have talked about the availability of four beds today. That is, in fact, three beds plus one emergency bed, which fulfils a different role in the system. In the previous statement, when we talked about Rossie, those four beds were offered as a contingency resource. If not for that resource, we would be completely full today. On 4 June, it will be one year since the bill received royal assent, and we are having the same discussions again and again. Does the Scottish Government recognise that the lack of forward planning, in the face of all the evidence that is coming, is continuing to fail some of our most vulnerable children in Scotland?”
“I give him a commitment today that I will take that issue away and engage with officials on how we might be able to extrapolate that data. We already gather data on positive destinations at the point of pupils leaving school and again around nine months later. I will take the member’s issue away and engage with him and with my officials further. Schools (Computing Science) 6.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for the approach that she is taking to dyslexia today. It is an important condition from which a significant number of young people suffer. Could the Scottish Government look at situations in which dyslexia was not diagnosed during school life but a positive destination has been recorded for the individual, and consider whether it should still be classed as a positive destination, given that the dyslexia diagnosis was missed? I recognise that the issue crosses a number of portfolios, but concerns have been raised with me by individuals who were recorded as being in a positive destination but now, having been diagnosed with dyslexia, need additional support. Jenny Gilruth: The member raises an important point.”
“One of the requests of the National Autistic Society is that the Scottish Government clarifies whether it will implement a nationwide system for accessing autism and ADHD diagnoses and, if so, how. Will the cabinet secretary address that when summing up? What will that system look like? I echo the point that there are gatekeepers to some of the existing pathways and people may not know how to access them. I recognise that time is short. This has been a fascinating debate and it is one that we should return to in Government debating time so that we can discuss solutions that we have been shown today. 16:23”
“We drift between those ideas in the Parliament. I do not think that we do that deliberately, but the failure to differentiate between the two ideas leads to the problems that we have noted with regard to co-ordinated care plans, for which there are requirements for external inputs. We fail to understand the importance to parents of a diagnosis, and the importance that a diagnosis has for children in enabling them to understand their identity and strengths and the challenges that they might face. There has been a call to be careful with the language that we use. We must do that, because that challenge does not exist only in the chamber; it rolls outwards. There are parents who feel that their young person has been removed from a list that would have resulted in a diagnosis and they do not know how to address that.”
“It is interesting that the Government acknowledged that support staff numbers are currently at the second highest level on record, which relates to Ross Greer’s comment about how that is measured. Even at the second highest level, the number of staff is still insufficient for the very significant number of ASN-identified children that there are. A challenge on diagnosis has been raised in a number of debates, particularly with regard to autistic children and alternative pathways, which are constantly raised. I thank the National Autistic Society Scotland for its briefing on the debate. We often conflate the need for a diagnosis from a medical point of view with the requirement that children display elements that require additional support—but not for there to be a diagnosis—to trigger the support that occurs in our education system.”
“To pick up on Karen Adam’s slightly curtailed speech and the shout-out that I think that she was about to make, I note that these young people bring special gifts. They have enormous strengths that other children do not have. They have an ability to coalesce as a group and be empathetic to one another’s needs and celebrate one another’s strengths. Every person—not just children—should have the opportunity to do that. However, in our education system—to make a defence of mainstreaming—that opportunity can exist only if we can facilitate mainstreaming for as many of our children as that will work for. As we have heard, that requires resources. I go back to Maree Todd’s opening speech. I am grateful for the number of interventions that she took.”
“I think that the tension around time for some speeches in the debate shows the importance of the matter and what other areas we should, as a Parliament, have the opportunity to explore. I would like to start at the end, with Ross Greer’s comments about the lead teacher programme— previously, we had the chartered teacher programme. We seem unable to celebrate experienced, qualified and wise teachers staying in the classroom—we want to yank them out and place them in management roles with human resource, finance and other obligations, none of which are suited to their training. Doing that steals from our young people some of the best opportunities with which they could be gifted: time with a teacher—a pedagogue—who can be with them and meet them where they are. That very much speaks to the ASN situation in which we find ourselves.”
“There continues to be consensus around the principles of inclusion on which our system is based, and the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, the Morgan report and, more recently, the Education, Children and Young People Committee of this Parliament have unanimously supported the inclusive approach that the 2004 act sets out.”
“Does Maree Todd agree with the call from Miles Briggs that today’s debate must be a “wake-up call” for a fundamental change in how we move forward in this area? Maree Todd: As members will hear as I go through my speech—if I have an opportunity to get into it—and as the cabinet secretary will confirm, the Government is already taking forward a whole suite of work in this area. We are very keen to hear what more we can do and what would add value to the work that is already happening. I begin by highlighting that the approach that is set out in the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 is highly inclusive.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to address the reported lack of access to legal aid in rural regions. (S6O-04654)”
“That requires colleagues to back the principles of my bill at stage 1 so that we can get on with the job of trying to find an honourable, fair and equitable solution to this most wicked of problems. I believe that Parliament is up for that challenge and that we can take the next step towards allowing more choice, control, dignity and compassion at the end of life for dying Scots. At this stage, I have done what I can. It is now up to colleagues to decide. [Applause.] The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. Parliamentary Bureau Motion 19:05”
“It’s not right that we were expected to watch this woman who had been absolute dynamite her whole life be reduced to a shrunken mess in the bed ... Our last memories of our wonderful mum are of panic, pain and helplessness.” The challenge in coming up with a bill that will command majority support across the parties in this Parliament should not be underestimated, and I certainly do not underestimate it. Surely to goodness, the least—the very least—that we owe Heather, her daughters and all those who find themselves in similarly horrendous situations, or who will do in future, is to do the work that is necessary to see whether such a bill can be fashioned.”
“Let me leave the last word with Heather Black and her daughters Tora, Zoe and Sarah. Heather was a community worker in Muirhouse here in Edinburgh, and she was a fierce campaigner for HIV/AIDS patients in the early days. She pleaded for patients to be able to die with dignity. Five years ago today, 10 weeks after being diagnosed with oesophageal cancer, Heather died. Her daughters described that experience: “She was terrified and ... in pain ... she just wanted to go and she asked the nurses to help her and she also asked us to help her ... We had never seen her cry, but she cried a lot then ... ‘just kill me now,’ she asked us so many times ... The final days before her death were gruesome ...”