Lorna Slater
Scottish Green Party · Scotland
“I am grateful to the minister for highlighting the impact of Green policies such as free bus travel and free school meals. The Scottish Greens have always maintained that progressive public services should be underpinned by sustainable and fair sources of revenue, which is why we have consistently supported changes to Scotland’s income ta…”
“It is also worth stating that the ask in this country is great, but the offer is even greater, with free tuition, free prescriptions, the baby box and the child payment, which the UK Government has followed suit on. There is also free bus travel and free interisland ferry travel for under-22s.”
“It is a matter of urgency that Scotland’s land register be completed so that a comprehensive and publicly accessible online map can be created. I would be very interested to hear the cabinet secretary’s view on the importance of that aspect.”
“If the public purse is stretched, that is the first place that we should look for money. It might involve taxing polluters or using extended producer responsibility schemes such as the deposit return scheme, but in any case it is clear that we can no longer afford to subsidise polluters. The same goes for carbon emissions.”
“In the previous session of Parliament, I was part of the cross-party SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee. I would like to highlight to the cabinet secretary two of the recommendations that resulted from that committee’s work.”
“We therefore recommend that the Scottish Government urgently undertakes a strategic mapping exercise to identify the functions of all Scottish public bodies and where they overlap, to inform decisions on future size, structure, and coherence across the public sector.” Michael Marra: It strikes me that that is precisely what Scottish Labou…”
The complete record
Every one of 468 lines we hold for Lorna Slater, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 10.
“He had excellent care. My mother spent hours with him every day, and he saw his grandkids regularly. He knew that he was not going to get better. He would never again be able to play Scrabble with my mother at the kitchen table or walk in the woods bird- watching as a citizen scientist—his favourite thing in the whole world. That was on top of the daily discomforts of tubes and injections, of being lifted and moved, of interventions and medical procedures, and of being rushed to hospital in the middle of the night when something went wrong. My father was afraid that he would lose capacity and that the moment would come when he would lose the ability to make choices and understand what was happening to him.”
“The reality is that only people as comfortable with administrative paperwork and as determined to work through complicated logistics—arranging multiple in- person meetings and so on—and setbacks as my well-educated middle-class parents could have made that happen. When the doctor arrived, he gave what he called his “butter chicken speech”. He said, “Hello, Mr Slater. I see you’re here with your family. That’s lovely. We don’t have to do this today, Mr Slater. I can come back next week or next month. If you would even like to just have butter chicken with your family tonight, we can make sure that you can do that.” Dad had to energetically—and, to be honest, quite grumpily—insist that the procedure go ahead. Dad was very ill. He was dying and had been moved to a palliative care facility a few months earlier when that became clear.”
“My father chose to have a medically assisted death. He died on 6 November last year. The process to access assisted dying was not straightforward. My mother, who was devastated by his decision but understood it, had to initiate the process and find the doctors and nurses with the right training. The service was not offered by the palliative care facility where he was, so she had to find people who were willing to attend from other facilities. Dad then had to go through all the interviews, the paperwork and the cooling-off period. At each stage, the medical practitioners tried to dissuade him from proceeding.”
“I suggest that, if the under-18-year-old would be in a vulnerable state, anyone who was facing terminal illness would be in a vulnerable state, and they need to be treated equally sensitively. I press amendment 18. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“I understand that such a situation would need to be treated very carefully, but phrasing the provision so tightly that the conversation would have to be ended is problematic. Jeremy Balfour: One of the really helpful things in the past three days has been that we are actually debating and listening to one another. I have heard a number of members express concerns about amendment 243, and it may save some time if I say now that I will not move it. Daniel Johnson: I thank Mr Balfour for his intervention. That is helpful. In a sense, I think that Parliament has accepted the principle. If we accept that it would not be right to raise the topic of assisted dying with an under- 18-year-old, have we not already accepted that it is a sensitive matter that must be discussed only once that is instigated by the individual?”
“Unlike any other form of guidance, that guidance will be incredibly sensitive. If the bill passes, the guidance that will be required will have things in it that will have a huge impact. Other people have mentioned other jurisdictions where certain provisions have been put in place. All that I would say is that I do not think that the Parliament should be trying to short-circuit the process. Furthermore, it will be open to us to legislate further in the future. Simply saying that other places have looked at the issue and taken other options is not an argument against the amendments. Perhaps that is a journey that we need to go on. Although I have a great deal of sympathy for what Jeremy Balfour has set out in amendment 243, I have problems with requiring a conversation to be ended immediately.”
“My amendments do not prevent communication. They seek to strike a balance. One of the things that my amendments make clear is that, once the conversation has been initiated, nothing prevents it from taking place. There is a danger that, if we frame the proposal in other ways, some ambiguity might be caused, but I think that the position in my amendments is clear. Ultimately, I have some concerns about the fact that a great deal of what happens will end up being dealt with in guidance. The conversations will involve nuanced interactions, and we cannot legislate for that. I think that that is unfortunate, in a sense. That is why, at stage 2, I lodged amendments that sought to provide an unusual level of parliamentary oversight with regard to the development of the guidance.”
“However, we need to understand that, given that we are talking about the point at which people are dealing with the most difficult healthcare considerations, if a doctor presents assisted dying as an option at the end of the list of options, that will have an impact. As Bob Doris put it, that is not a neutral option. I do not believe that doctors are the only information source. Ross Greer’s information was helpful in that regard. Members may decide that what I am proposing is not right, but it would be false to say that it would deprive people of information. If my proposal were accepted, we would need to think carefully about how that information could be provided. I am saying that we also need to think carefully about the impact of the information being provided by the self-same person who is presenting difficult news to a person.”
“I note, however, that the chamber elected not to make suffering a condition for consideration of the issue. I accept that there is a point around information. I am asking the chamber to think about the impact that that information has when it comes from the doctor who is in consultation with the patient at that time. To reflect Jeremy Balfour’s point, we need to think carefully about the authority that a doctor has in that relationship and the impact of their words. I respect doctors’ professional judgment but, unfortunately, they do not always get it right—I have experience of that.”
“The evidence from Australia and elsewhere has shown that not everybody is aware of the option of assisted dying, especially people in vulnerable groups, people with language barriers and people in rural areas. I do not think that it is reasonable to suggest that a doctor could see an eligible patient—a patient who is dying and is suffering— and not be allowed to indicate that the option exists. To watch someone suffer and be unable to tell them that they have a choice that they are not aware of would be unbearable for a doctor. We must all be realistic about the fact that not all suffering can be alleviated, even with the very best palliative care. Daniel Johnson: I take the member’s point. I do not mean to use the term “death” in a way that would take away from the points that have been made.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Daniel Johnson: I am happy to do so after I finish my point. I recognise that none of those conversations is easy—that they are all quite difficult. The amendments are not about prohibiting those conversations; they are simply about the point at which they should be initiated. 18:45 Lorna Slater: I hope that the chamber has not lost sight of the purpose of the bill, which is to prevent suffering. The member says that the purpose of the bill is to bring about death, but I point out that the people who are eligible for the choice that we are discussing are those who are already dying. Death is already something that is ahead of them. They have to have had a diagnosis that they will die within six months. Death is already part of that conversation.”
“For decisions such as this, which cannot be reversed, the Parliament should insist on nothing less.”
“Those are human realities that clinicians encounter every day. For decisions of this magnitude, it is not reasonable to leave a single doctor to carry out that responsibility alone. Some will point out that establishing such a panel would come with a cost, and that is true. However, when the stakes involve human life, the cost of proper oversight is not an optional luxury; it is part of legislating responsibly. Taken together, my amendments in the group would not simply add procedural detail but address a fundamental weakness in the bill. They would introduce specialist scrutiny, independent advice and clearer safeguards where the bill currently relies too heavily on individual judgment. I repeat my concern about the nature of many of the assumptions that we are making.”
“Amendment 186 would establish an independent panel of experts to provide guidance in those situations. The panel would include expertise in psychiatry, palliative care and safeguarding. Where there were doubts about capacity, mental health concerns or the possibility of coercion or undue influence, the case would have to be referred to that panel. In further answer to Lorna Slater’s intervention, I note that that is deliberate, because I want us to keep our eyes firmly on the patient and their concerns, and pressure on vulnerable people is not always obvious. A person may speak about autonomy while quietly feeling that they have become a burden. Those arguments are being rehearsed over and over again in our debates on amendments to the bill, because they should concern us. Someone may appear calm while experiencing treatable depression.”
“To be frank, I am not suggesting anything other than that we should be extremely careful about how we scrutinise this process, and that we view it as a process, rather than two doctors with the heavy burden of making those decisions. I do not think that that is fair on the doctors, and I certainly do not think that it is fair on the patient. I am taking a holistic view of how an individual may reach a decision about requesting and applying for assisted suicide. Amendment 186 addresses a related concern. The bill would leave doctors largely on their own when carrying out assessments, yet the questions that they may face can be extraordinarily difficult. For example, they may involve concerns about mental health, the possibility of coercion or complex family circumstances.”
“Stephen Kerr said that the judgment should rest with two doctors, as the bill currently proposes. At no point in his contribution has he said that the person whose judgment matters is the patient or that it is their choice to make. I very much hope that the member has good intentions and that he is not attempting to set an impossible bar that cannot be achieved. He is moving the decision further and further away from the patient, yet it is the patient’s decision that we wish to enable. The patient must be fully informed and fully consenting, but their decision is the important one. [Applause.] Stephen Kerr: The wellbeing and welfare of the patient is at the heart of my amendments. I am at a bit of a loss as to why some colleagues felt that Lorna Slater’s intervention was somehow a contribution that merited their applause.”
“There are many decisions that we will be asked to make, sometimes in cases where we do not know what the future could hold—and particularly in relation to some of the earlier discussion about the section 104 process. As I was saying, I do not believe that the amendments in this group can address the circumstances that lead to the deep-seated inequality that so many of our citizens face— inequality that could result in them not getting a fair chance or an equal chance at life or, indeed, the care that they need at the end. Only concerted efforts to create a fair and equal Scotland could do that. Until then, for me and for many people like me across Scotland, it is inconceivable to suggest that the introduction of assisted dying is about choice, when so many people do not have choice in life, nor indeed in death.”
“Taken together, the amendments in this group reflect a clear recognition that stronger safeguards and better support are needed. However, I do not believe that they can address the circumstances that lead to the deep-seated inequality that so many of our citizens face. Stephen Kerr: I notice that, in her compelling remarks, Pam Duncan-Glancy has not addressed Sue Webber’s amendments 137, 318 and 324. If nothing else, do those amendments not point out how incomplete the bill is in respect of the potential legal and moral dilemmas that we might be placing doctors in? Pam Duncan-Glancy: I thank the member for that intervention. I think that Sue Webber’s amendments highlight the inadequacies across the bill that we are being asked to discuss today.”
“Ahead of today’s debate, the British Association of Social Workers said: “Societal and institutional pressures, including pervasive narratives around being a burden, the cost of care, or the emotional and financial toll on families, can shape a person’s decision in ways that are profound and deeply difficult to detect.” We will come on to some of those pressures when we discuss the amendments in group 4. I remind members that rights for disabled people are not yet realised. The amendments in group 2 seek to address the issue, but it is difficult to argue that amendments can do that. Research shows that disabled families are 62 per cent more likely to fall into deep poverty, one in four disabled people do not get the palliative care that they need, and 10,000 people are stuck in their own inaccessible homes.”
“Although I support the principle behind the amendment, I remain concerned that we can never really be certain whether such factors have influenced a person’s decision to seek assistance to end their life. Research by Marie Curie highlights the scale of unmet need in Scotland. In 2022, around 18,500 people—roughly 30 per cent of those who died— experienced “unaddressed symptoms and concerns”, while also lacking sufficient access to general practitioner care at the end of their life. Every five minutes, someone in the UK dies without the care and support that they need.”
“To address such issues goes beyond the bill, but that is the risk that it carries: that we pass it in a world that makes it easier to choose to die. Amendment 140 would provide specific groups with access to clear information, specialist advice and multidisciplinary support, which I welcome, but such support should not be limited to particular groups; it should be available to anyone who considers accessing the assistance that is set out in the bill. It is the general absence of such support that worries me. Until it is made available, it could be easier for people to choose to die than to live. Amendment 141 recognises that individuals might seek an assisted death not solely because of their illness but because of external pressures of suffering.”
“The amendments cannot undo such deep-seated inequality, which also affects homeless people, disabled people and people who die early because of where they live—aspects that are related to society as opposed to their inherent health. Although I urge members to support amendment 140, it would not go far enough to protect people or to ensure that it is easier to choose to live. The amendment is specific to the bill’s provisions, but before someone who is covered by the amendment gets a terminal illness, society has already discriminated against them. They have already experienced significant inequality that will affect their life and their view of themselves, and that will have already shortened their life.”
“Amendment 140, in the name of Emma Roddick, would require specialist multidisciplinary information and support to be provided to people who have an intellectual disability or a developmental or cognitive condition. That would be an important safeguard, especially given that people with learning disabilities are likely to die 25 years earlier than others. Their social circumstances and other matters that impact them mean that, if they become terminally ill, they are less likely to access the care that they need. There is a real risk that the bill creates an inequality that means that people with the most can see that life is an easier choice but others choose to die.”
“Support at the end of life should not be limited to those who have identifiable psychological conditions, and support for psychological and mental health should not be limited to those who are at the end of life. As all members know from reading their inboxes, and from their families and neighbours, it is difficult for constituents to access the support that they might need for their mental health. Amendment 139 would help some people who consider the option of assisted dying, but it would not protect the thousands of people who need mental health support before that point. It would not give them the help that makes it easier to choose to live.”
“If we say, “If you try this—if you are so desperate that you attempt this on your own because, for whatever reason, we have not made it available to you—you can then never be eligible for that help,” we risk forcing people down an even more desperate path, because we are pushing them away from the medical support that they want. 16:15 Pam Duncan-Glancy: It is incredibly important that, in all aspects of people’s lives, we help them to understand the value of living and support them to continue doing so. That is one reason why the world-leading work that we do in suicide prevention in Scotland is incredibly important. That applies throughout the life course, including at the end of life.”
“One of the more upsetting things in our stage 1 debate was hearing examples of people who are unable to access assisted dying and therefore feel that they need to take action to end their lives. That is because they cannot get the medical help that they need, as assisted dying is not legal in Scotland. Does the member not worry that, if the bill was made too narrow, we would be forcing people to take matters into their own hands and to cause themselves physical harm and increased injury because the medical assistance through the bill would not be available to them?”
“I do not know whether that profession is morally upstanding enough compared with politics, but we will find out in due course—perhaps Murdo Fraser can give us some advice on that. I thank all members for their contributions, and I commend the motion in my name to the Parliament.”
“I thank all the stakeholders from the areas of law and technology in Scotland who submitted their views to the various consultations and responded to the Scottish Government’s consultation as well as the committee’s call for evidence. I say a special thank you to members of my policy team, who are sitting at the back of the chamber, and members of the Scottish Government’s legal team, who are also here. More than with any of the other bills that I have worked on that I mentioned earlier, I had to depend a lot on their advice—even for pronunciation. They helped me out greatly throughout the process. This is not my farewell speech, but, as I look to my post-politics life, I now feel partially qualified as a Scottish lawyer.”
“That applies particularly to the group’s chair, the Rt Hon Lord Hodge, and Professor David Fox of the University of Edinburgh, who continued throughout the project to be most generous in sharing their enormous intellects with my officials, the committee and everyone else who was involved in the process. That is very much appreciated. I also thank the Economy and Fair Work Committee for its thorough scrutiny of the bill. It is a short bill, as we have all said many times, but it is not simple. It is better for the careful attention to the technology and legal issues with which it grapples that it got from the committee, which was most ably assisted by its clerking team, whom we thank, SPICe and the committee’s expert advisers from the University of Aberdeen: Professor Burcu Ripley, Dr Alisdair MacPherson and Mrs Donna McKenzie Skene.”
“That, of course, means more energy and electricity, so we must get the balance right by protecting our planet while taking advantage of new technologies as they come along. I listened to the comments that members made about the need to keep all those issues under review and ensure that our law is kept up to date with fast-changing technologies. That was also discussed at stages 1 and 2, as we touched on some of the areas that we need to return to. Work is also taking place in the rest of the United Kingdom on some of those issues, and we will listen to what the expert groups elsewhere in the UK say about what needs to be done in future legislation. I put on the record my thanks to members of the expert reference group for giving so generously of their time.”
“When I learned during the progress of the bill— as, I am sure, other members of the Parliament did—that hundreds of thousands of Scots own crypto assets, it brought home to me just how quickly the world is changing. Perhaps I have a lot more to do to keep up, as do others. That was a startling statistic, and there were others. All that changing technology has implications for commerce, which the bill will help to address. It also has consequences for the environment in energy use and water use, as Lorna Slater and Sarah Boyack mentioned. We do not understand the consequences of all that yet, but we have to start thinking through and preparing for them. The more technology we use, the more processing power is required.”
“That is at the heart of what the bill is about. Despite the fact that it is legalistic and technical, it is important. It is about the world that is changing around us. Murdo Fraser: Will the minister give way? Richard Lochhead: With trepidation. Murdo Fraser: When that tremendous technology of the iPhone was invented, did the minister think that the world would spend most of its time watching cat videos? Richard Lochhead: I suspect that that is the case only in Murdo Fraser’s household. The rest of us are watching Aberdeen Football Club and more worthy causes on our mobile phones. I suspect that we all spend far too much time on our smartphones.”
“All those pieces of legislation were a lot longer and more time consuming than this bill—or, indeed, the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill, which I led on a couple of weeks ago and was also quite short—but they have all been about preparing Scotland for the future and responding to the challenges and opportunities that our nation faces. When I became a member of the Cabinet for the first time in 2007, just after the Scottish National Party had been elected as the Government for the first time, with about five other members of the Scottish Cabinet, it was, if I recall rightly, the month before the iPhone was launched. I ask members to think about that for a second. Nowadays, our lives depend on our smartphones and we carry out all our lives on them. I ask members to think how the world has changed in that short space of time.”
“14:43 Richard Lochhead: Clearly, this has been a short debate, but we have gone over some of the reasons why it is an important debate, and I will turn to that issue shortly. First, I thank Murdo Fraser for his kind comments. The great news for him is that this is not my farewell speech—that is still to come—so he will have the joy of hearing that, as will all 128 other members of the Parliament, on the day before we break up for the election. I am sure that he will look forward to that with bated breath. However, this is my last speech on legislation. Over my 17 years in government, I have brought to the Parliament proposals for a plastic bag levy, tenant farming legislation, legislation to help Scotland to prepare for flood risk, marine legislation and various other legislation.”
“The Scottish Government, like other Governments around the world, will need to be informed and proactive to keep ahead of those risks. They are too great and too closely linked with fundamental elements of our economy and banking system for us to wait for a crisis before acting. Members of the Economy and Fair Work Committee enjoyed taking evidence on the bill and attempting to get our heads around the technical and legal challenges and opportunities that digital assets present. The Scottish Greens will support the bill at stage 3, but we expect the Scottish Government to move quickly to provide guidance and further legislation to address the broader risks that digital assets present.”
“At a time when we are racing to electrify our industry and transport to try to keep ahead of a collapsing climate, the fact that so much energy is being used to generate speculative assets that can be used to avoid taxation, bypass legislative safeguards and otherwise undermine the reliable and transparent operation of our economy is clearly a cause for concern. Digital assets are evolving rapidly, and our legislative response will need to be sufficiently dynamic to manage the risks that increased use and legitimacy of digital assets, such as blockchain-based currencies, bring. As I said in the stage 1 debate on the bill, I believe that such currencies, if unregulated, present a significant risk to individual investors and to the structure of our banking system, and that robust regulation will be required to mitigate those risks.”
“The bill seeks to be technology neutral and future proof. It establishes a legal baseline that will need to have frameworks of regulation and guidance built on top of it. I recognise that “digital assets” is a very broad category in relation to what the bill will now allow us to legally consider as things. Some can have positive and constructive impacts on our society, whereas some might be harmful or at least risky. I am sure that colleagues share my distress at the energy-intensive nature of bitcoin mining, for example.”
“The Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill is a narrow bill that defines the existence of digital assets in Scottish law. That is necessary because of the absence of a body of case law that covers the matter. The bill clarifies that digital assets are capable of being treated as property and owned within our legal framework. The bill responds to expert recommendations from the digital assets in Scots private law expert reference group and others. Their work has highlighted the gaps, risks and practical challenges that arise with attempts to categorise digital assets in our long-standing legal framework. The bill draws directly on several of their recommendations, especially those on defining digital assets and clarifying the principles of ownership and control. Their expertise has shaped much of the bill’s structure and rationale.”
“I again thank the Scottish Law Commission and Professor MacQueen for the significant and comprehensive work that has been undertaken to review the Scots law of contract and for the Law Commission’s recommendations, to which the bill gives effect. The Scottish Law Commission serves a valuable function in reviewing our laws and making sure that they are fit for a modern Scotland. I thank it for the work that it has undertaken on the four other SLC bills that have been introduced in this session of Parliament and for its continued engagement with the Scottish Government in taking them forward. I commend the motion in my name.”
“As Professor Hector MacQueen told the committee, to abolish the postal acceptance rule without partial codification of the law on contract formation would likely lead to less clarity. Part 2 of the bill deals with remedies for breaches. Notably, the bill now includes the provision on the law of contractual retention. In 2018, the Scottish Law Commission said that, although the law of retention needed clarification, it should be left to the courts to do so. However, by 2024, stakeholders thought that legislation was needed to bring clarity to the law. We consulted on a scheme for reform of retention, which a majority of respondents agreed with. That came through clearly at stage 1, and amendments were lodged at stage 2 and agreed to by the committee.”
“The bill will modernise important parts of Scots law of contract while clearing up doubts that have arisen over the years. The bill largely restates the common law on formation of contract to improve accessibility of the law, and it makes important reforms to clarify and modernise the law. The provisions are a result of a significant law reform project that was undertaken by the Scottish Law Commission, which included four discussion papers on different areas of contract law. The overwhelming majority of consultees agreed that the law needed reform. On contract formation, the principal reform is the abolition of the postal acceptance rule, which has been a repeated recommendation by the SLC for more than 50 years.”
“However, since 2013, there has been a lot of work involving the DPLR Committee and its predecessors, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to create a framework for quickly implementing Scottish Law Commission recommendations for law reform. Since 2013, 10 such bills have gone through. In this session alone, we have passed the Trusts and Succession (Scotland) Act and the Judicial Factors (Scotland) Act, and I hope that this bill on contract law will be passed, too. To my mind, the only older Scottish Law Commission report that remains unimplemented is that on section 53 of the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2003, so we are making progress with the Law Commission’s recommendations. Contract law is fundamentally important to our everyday life.”
“By clarifying that, the bill aims to reduce the need for court intervention, giving parties a clear legal basis for resolving disputes themselves. The Scottish Law Commission has publicly welcomed the bill as a legislative implementation of its proposed reforms. The Scottish Greens are content to support the bill at stage 3 today. 15:59 Siobhian Brown: I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate. I have listened to what has been said and I am pleased with the recognition of the importance of the bill and the valuable work that the Scottish Law Commission has done in keeping our law up to date. I want to touch on Roz McCall’s point about why the process has taken so long. I cannot speak to the reasons why Governments back in the 1970s and 1990s did not take forward contract law reform proposals.”
“For example, if a consumer pays for a service that never occurs but the contract says that there are no refunds under any circumstances, under the bill, that policy might be enforceable if the consumer agreed to the contract, even though the default law would allow recovery. A welcome change in the bill is the clarity on the right of retention. The bill confirms the right of a party to withhold payment when the other party is in breach. That means that you can withhold the payment if someone does not do what they said they were going to do and in doing so, you would not be in breach of contract law. That was always the case, but the bill has made it clearer. There are conditions and limits to that, of course. Retention only applies where obligations are reciprocal, and withholding must be proportionate to the breach.”
“It also codifies remedies for breach, including restitution and valuation of benefits where no price is agreed. Those changes are intended to make the law clearer and more predictable. There are questions about how the rules will interact with existing consumer protection frameworks. Consumers will still need to exercise caution when entering into contracts and read the small print. The bill allows parties to contract out of statutory provisions. Although that respects commercial freedom, some consumer advocates fear that it could weaken protections for individuals in asymmetric relationships.”
“Although this is a technical bill, its implications are far reaching. Contracts underpin everyday life, from employment to housing to business. The bill seeks to modernise Scots contract law by clarifying how contracts are formed and what remedies apply when obligations are not met. Scots contract law is historically based on common-law principles, which are scattered across case law and are often hard to access. The Scottish Law Commission identified in its 2018 report that parts of the law were unclear, outdated and difficult to find, creating uncertainty for businesses and individuals. The reforms in the bill follow the Scottish Law Commission’s recommendations and aim to provide greater certainty and accessibility. The bill introduces statutory rules on offers, acceptance, withdrawal and lapse.”
“That is for a very important reason. However, I understand that there has been a sufficient exchange of information to know that these vessels are a good fit for”
“Lack of a detailed engineering design specification at place of order was what kicked off the difficulties with the current vessels and, at the time, caused those of us who worked in marine construction to raise our eyebrows in shock. What is the status of the design specification for the new vessels? Does Ferguson Marine actually know what it will be building? Kate Forbes: Obviously, there has been engagement up to this point, particularly from Marine Scotland. The member will appreciate that, within Government, there are quite tight lines of communication. My responsibility is to Ferguson Marine, which, in this case, would be constructing the vessels. Quite rightly, I am not particularly close to the parts of Government that would be procuring the vessels—namely Transport Scotland and Marine Scotland.”
“The Scottish Greens would like the Scottish Parliament, led by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, to develop a robust and well-thought-through recall bill for MSPs. We will not support this bill today, but we would like the project to be taken up as early as possible in the next session of Parliament, with the aim of creating a bill that all parties in the Scottish Parliament can come together and support, in order to create a transparent and fair process for the recall of MSPs. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Alex Cole- Hamilton to open on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. 17:53”
“It would be a horrendous repression of democratic expression if a poorly drafted recall bill prevented members from participating in peaceful protests for causes that they wish to support, including Scottish independence, if it meant risking their seats. We have seen from recent history that we cannot draft legislation in the hope that no future Government will abuse it for political gain or to remove dissent. Crossing our fingers that all future people in power are good old chaps with good intentions is dangerous. Famously, Boris Johnson illegally prorogued the UK Parliament with the intention of gaining political advantage, so we know that the UK Government is as much at risk of abusing process as any regime. This bill, as drafted, does not give us comfort in this matter.”