Pauline McNeill
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“Does she welcome what I am setting out to do in providing an expansion in GPS technology for bail management and home detention curfew, in order to give reassurance around the community management of offenders? Pauline McNeill: Yes, I do. I would like an early indication of additional investment in GPS technology.”
“I have consistently raised my concerns about prisoners not being guaranteed time out of their cells, and a number of prisoners have written to me, as a criminal justice spokesperson, because they cannot get access to the rehabilitation programmes that it is vital for them to do in order to be considered for release back into the community…”
“Scottish Labour welcomes the opportunity to have an early discussion on the state of the Scottish prison system. There is a lot in the amendments from the other parties with which we agree. We have just heard a considerable announcement. I will address some of it, albeit briefly.”
“The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has just taken up his post, and I respect the fact that he is at least attempting to put some bold proposals out there. I will address some of them briefly. Changing the definition of long-term sentences from more than four years to more than five years has serious implications.”
“What investment is the Scottish Government prepared to make to commit in the longer term to robust alternatives, such as GPS monitoring, which is referred to in the Scottish Labour amendment, to ensure that communities are safe? I do not mind saying that I have had this conversation with many previous cabinet secretaries.”
“On the release of long-term prisoners at 60 per cent or two thirds of their sentence, when I was not in Parliament, one of the big issues around the release of long-term prisoners was that the public thought that a prisoner’s sentence would be served in jail, and nobody could really follow the number of years that they would spend there.”
The complete record
Every one of 391 lines we hold for Pauline McNeill, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“Another reason for our overcrowded prisons is extremely high reoffending rates, particularly for those serving short-term prison sentences. There has been a revolving door. We already know about that, and there is evidence to show that there is less reoffending with community sentencing. The rate is far lower if people are given a community payback order—just one quarter of people on those are reconvicted within a year.”
“Does she welcome what I am setting out to do in providing an expansion in GPS technology for bail management and home detention curfew, in order to give reassurance around the community management of offenders? Pauline McNeill: Yes, I do. I would like an early indication of additional investment in GPS technology. Considering all that we would need to do to provide safety for communities, I think that investment in GPS technology would need to be front ended. Karyn McCluskey, head of Community Justice Scotland, pointed out that good, structured, unpaid work helps to repair the harm that people have caused and gives them purpose. We know that. There is power in seeing the results of our labour, but we need such sentences to be more robust, and we need sheriffs presiding over them in order for us to have confidence in them.”
“What investment is the Scottish Government prepared to make to commit in the longer term to robust alternatives, such as GPS monitoring, which is referred to in the Scottish Labour amendment, to ensure that communities are safe? I do not mind saying that I have had this conversation with many previous cabinet secretaries. Scottish Labour has said that we are in favour of robust alternatives to custody, but, over a very long period of time, there has not been any serious approach to that. Community sentencing cannot be a tick-box exercise. Neil Gray: I recognise Pauline McNeill’s long- standing commitment to looking at community alternatives to custody.”
“On the release of long-term prisoners at 60 per cent or two thirds of their sentence, when I was not in Parliament, one of the big issues around the release of long-term prisoners was that the public thought that a prisoner’s sentence would be served in jail, and nobody could really follow the number of years that they would spend there. There should be transparency in sentencing, and the public should understand the sentence that is given by the courts—I hope that the cabinet secretary will take that on board in the consultation, because, for Scottish Labour, that is fundamental. Questions remain about the potential changes.”
“The Cabinet Secretary for Justice has just taken up his post, and I respect the fact that he is at least attempting to put some bold proposals out there. I will address some of them briefly. Changing the definition of long-term sentences from more than four years to more than five years has serious implications. In my understanding, that means that there are prisoners who have committed serious offences who would be eligible for release under the rules of the short-term prisoner regime. Those who have followed the debate will know that that is early release at 30 per cent of the sentence served, and the definition of short-term sentence would increase to sentences of less than five years. I have some preliminary concerns about that.”
“I have consistently raised my concerns about prisoners not being guaranteed time out of their cells, and a number of prisoners have written to me, as a criminal justice spokesperson, because they cannot get access to the rehabilitation programmes that it is vital for them to do in order to be considered for release back into the community. We must be clear about the severe state of the Scottish prison system. I do not believe that that was inevitable—Stephen Kerr alluded to that in his intervention—and the reality is that, in 20 years of Scottish National Party Government, ministers did not even consider that there might be an increase in the prison population. Henry McLeish warned of that in 2008, and he was not the only person to do so. There have been warnings that it could happen, yet here we are.”
“Scottish Labour welcomes the opportunity to have an early discussion on the state of the Scottish prison system. There is a lot in the amendments from the other parties with which we agree. We have just heard a considerable announcement. I will address some of it, albeit briefly. I hope that the Presiding Officer will consider that we all heard the announcement only an hour ago and have to try to respond to it. I reiterate what I have said before: it is a national disgrace that we are nowhere near solving the problem of an overcrowded prison system that is making it extremely difficult for staff to manage prisons, and is making things extremely difficult for prisoners themselves. As we have heard from HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland, we are breaching international standards and human rights.”
“To ask the Scottish Government when it plans to renew its strategy on preventing knife crime, particularly among young people. (S7O-00131)”
“As national security is a reserved issue, we want to align our systems to ensure the same level of public protection regardless of where someone is convicted. The Scottish Government and the Parliament were given very limited time for scrutiny, so I understand why standing orders have to be suspended. Scottish Labour supports strong action on national security but, as we have always said, we also want to ensure that we protect the integrity of the Scotland Act 1998, and if there are any implications for the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament—for example, in relation to the early release of prisoners—clearly it is a matter, albeit a minor one, for the Scottish Parliament. Scottish Labour is content to support the Scottish Government’s legislative consent motion. 17:36”
“As we heard from the cabinet secretary, the UK Government’s National Security (State Threats) Bill introduces new offences of supporting or assisting organisations that are linked to foreign powers. As has been noted, the bill was introduced to close loopholes. However, although it was introduced only this month, the reason for its introduction is clear: MI5 has reported a 35 per cent increase in state threat activity. That includes cyber operations, espionage and political interference, which I am sure members of the Parliament are interested in. Therefore, although the bill is not a matter for the Scottish Parliament, the wider issue is of interest to everyone. I agree with the cabinet secretary that there is an argument for having consistency across the UK.”
“To ask the Scottish Government for what reason people on the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde waiting list for ADHD assessments are reportedly being informed that their expected waiting times have been extended beyond those previously communicated. (S7O-00086)”
“She also spoke about the speed at which some of the vehicles are driven, which can, of course, have an impact on whether there has been criminality. I assure Pauline McNeill that we are considering the matter and that we recognise the importance of safety as well as prevention across our communities. Cashback for Communities (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) 9.”
“In parts of Glasgow that I have covered for many years, I am getting an alarming number of reports of incidents that go beyond antisocial behaviour and are now criminal issues. Kirsten Oswald: I am grateful to Pauline McNeill for providing such a local focus on the issue. The police take a serious and considered view on the matter. We remain committed to doing everything that we can to support them in enforcement, and we are absolutely open to further action. The police have advised that they believe that their current powers are sufficient, but we want to go further where we can. That includes removing the need for a warning before antisocially driven vehicles are seized, as Pauline McNeill mentioned.”
“I agree with the minister that there is a challenge, because seized e-bikes have been found to be capable of going at up to 70mph, which is far above the 15.5mph legal limit. Many e-bikes have been modified and lack proper brakes for high speeds, which has led to the police calling them death traps. It has also been reported that, in Glasgow, there has been a 600 per cent increase in the number of children aged seven to 15 attending accident and emergency departments due to e- bike or e-scooter incidents. Will the minister clarify whether the police have the powers to issue warnings or fines for what they regard as the dangerous use of e-bikes in pedestrian or residential areas?”
“I am telling them that people on the streets of Scotland and—behind closed doors—police officers are asking the same questions. It may be the case that nothing corrupt or wrong went on, but until there is an inquiry that allows such wider questions to be asked, I am afraid that, for the SNP, the issue will simply not go away. So, if you will not support our motion on the setting up of a parliamentary inquiry, give something to the general public—never mind the Labour Party—so that they can be satisfied that the questions to which I have referred can be legitimately asked.”
“Furthermore, it does not sit comfortably with me that it has been announced in the press today that Murrell said that he was interested in talking about a plea of guilty in March. I know the court system quite well, and I am not comfortable with the fact that it took until the second or third week in May for that plea to be discussed and negotiated and for an outcome to be reached. I have questions about that. Jamie Hepburn is right to say that we need to be careful about questioning the independence of the Crown and the police. I totally accept that point. However, it should not be the case that we, as politicians, are never prepared to challenge when we do not feel comfortable about things that we see. I ask members to forget that it is me or the Labour Party telling them this.”
“It will not go away, and the fact that it will not go away is being further fuelled by the Government’s refusal to consider any scrutiny of how the situation was allowed to arise in the first place. There can be no denying the public interest in the course of events that was reported in 2021, which involved the governing party. Therefore, it is in the public interest, and the SNP’s interests, to do more to show that those questions can be answered. Although it is the case that an individual has now been convicted of a serious criminal offence and found responsible for the crime, the issue goes beyond that. That is where the Green amendment misses the point. I do not understand why the SNP’s appeal for donations for an independence referendum was not included in the COPFS investigation.”
“My question to those who are still seeking a parliamentary process is how on earth, realistically, they would expect that to avoid the naked partisanship that we saw during the inquiry into the Alex Salmond allegations in session 5, in which evidence that was given by witnesses off the record, to protect their privacy, was leaked by members of the Parliament. Pauline McNeill: I think that there are members of all parties who would take an honourable position on such a committee, but that is just my personal view. I turn to the matter of why there are wider questions to be asked. Every newspaper, broadcaster and social media outlet is talking about the issue.”
“As Anas Sarwar said, people still have questions about how it was ever allowed to happen. We have seen no evidence that lessons have been learned. The SNP position has remained the same throughout: “This is our business. Keep out.” Coincidentally, that is exactly what those who questioned the accounts were told. The SNP is opposed to a parliamentary inquiry. I have listened to some of the points that have been made about the reasons for that, but my problem is that SNP members have not made any serious suggestions about how a wider look could be taken at the questions that need to be asked. Patrick Harvie: I am genuinely trying to treat the issue with the seriousness that it deserves. We have proposed a way forward that would be independent.”
“I have just heard that, apparently, what has happened does not diminish the SNP—I will come to that. Let us talk of victims. There has not been much mention of the ordinary people who believe in the cause of independence and gave their own hard- earned cash—they have an interest, too. The SNP has been in power for 20 years—that is a success—and it is going to have been in power for 25 years, which has never happened, but surely that means that there is a much greater responsibility on it to lead the way in tackling the cynicism against all of us from an electorate where almost half did not vote in the recent election. There is public distrust of all politicians. The Government has a big responsibility in that regard, which it does not seem to be waking up to. There has not been a bigger scandal in Scottish politics in recent times.”
“Robin McAlpine, the well-known Scottish writer, campaigner and supporter of independence, said, when addressing the SNP response to the Murrell criminal case, that “The biggest mistake you are making is misunderstanding the nature of this scandal for the public.” I believe that he is right. He said: “They are sick of powerful people abusing their power. They are in a cost of living crisis and the list of luxury purchases” that Peter Murrell stole “is nauseating. They think you’re all at it (unfairly) and that you all have each other’s backs so justice is never done”. The SNP does not see what is going on. That is the point that McAlpine was making. Willie Rennie made that point, too: that SNP members do not see that this is not only hurting Scottish politics but hurting their party.”
“When it comes to accountability, it is about the fact that an individual has perpetrated criminality at the expense of my party members the length and breadth of the country who contributed their hard-earned donations. Pauline McNeill and I both work in political parties with volunteers and we know that members work hard to raise money and make their contributions. I am profoundly grateful to every one of them, and I am horrified by what has happened in this case. However, the accountability for that lies with Peter Murrell, who has betrayed the trust of the members of my party.”
“The First Minister: Pauline McNeill knows the justice system well, because she was a long- serving member of the Criminal Justice Committee of the Parliament; indeed, she and I served on that committee together for 12 months, from 2023 to 2024. She will know, therefore, that the timetabling of individual cases and the possibility of delay are very regular items in court scheduling and court processes. I made the point to Mr Kerr, who was completely wrong in what he said, that the decision to defer the hearing from February to May was not some exceptional incident. That happens on a very regular basis; indeed, I might even go so far as to say that it is very much the case—it might be stretching it to say that it is invariably the case— that hearings are delayed.”
“I agree with the First Minister that we should not second-guess the courts. However, does he agree that the way in which such decisions on a trial are made matters to the public and affects how they view all Government institutions and the decisions that those institutions make, and that such decisions should, therefore, not only be fair but must be seen to be so? The legal process may be at its end, but does the First Minister agree that accountability for what happened in the first place cannot be ended, not just for the sake of party or parliamentary politics, but for the sake of all those whistleblowers and people who challenge institutions in the first place where that is a very hard thing to do?”
“Angela Constance: There is an important role for CCTV and for other tactics that Police Scotland, in partnership with local authorities and other stakeholders, has at its disposal. I hasten to add that, as events this week show, Police Scotland and prosecutors have a good record of bringing to justice those who are intent on mobbing, rioting, vandalism and antisocial behaviour at football matches. It is important that we all work together to ensure that the police have the tools of the trade. I commend our police force: they are very good at following up on disorder. Those who think that they have walked off free should be wary of any celebration, because Police Scotland will leave no stone unturned in bringing to justice people who have been on the wrong side of the law.”
“Attacks on our police officers, who are simply doing their job, are unacceptable. In order to identify those who were responsible for criminal behaviour last Saturday, the police need all the tools that are available. However, closed-circuit television coverage of Glasgow city centre is no longer available 24/7 due to funding cuts. Will the cabinet secretary—and, I hope, the First Minister—assure the Parliament that, in any future discussions on how we police effectively, and in identifying those responsible, prosecuting them and ensuring that they know that the rule of law will be enforced, she will address the full operation of CCTV in Glasgow, which is Scotland’s largest city?”
“I, Pauline Mary McNeill, 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”
“To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland report indicating that staff shortages mean young prisoners at HMP and YOI Polmont lack enough opportunities for work, education or recreation and spend “far too long locked in their cells”. (S6F-04789)”
“Surely the minister shares my concerns about the issue. Is it not time to shift that decision, at least until the Parliament settles in and we can have a proper look at the impact of the budget on the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service? Siobhian Brown: As I said to the other member, the chief officer has said that the service will not make any changes to operations that put the public at any unacceptable level of risk. With the service delivery review, it is right that the SFRS takes its time to go through the more than 3,000 responses and to make decisions. The SFRS is the expert in the area, and we should allow it to take the decisions on how the service should best be configured.”
“The centralisation of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service was not just about reducing duplication; it was about much more than that. In 2023, 166 firefighters were cut from the service and there was a temporary withdrawal of 10 fire appliances. It was not simply about duplication. Last week, Colin Brown of the FBU wrote to the First Minister and said: “It is impossible to accept the argument that fewer firefighters, fewer stations, fewer pumping appliances … and longer response times will somehow make communities safer.” The Criminal Justice Committee has heard not just from the union but from SFRS management that they are concerned about the budget’s impact. Is it right for the board to make a decision in June, when the new Parliament will only just have been elected? I think that that will result in the burying of bad news.”
“In one of the final acts of this Parliament, I urge colleagues to stand with victims, to stand with communities and to stand with justice and vote against the SSI. 20:54”
“They will also not understand why the cabinet secretary comes to the Criminal Justice Committee and to this chamber saying, “Remember, short sentences don’t work,” and is now asking us to bring in a measure that makes short sentences even shorter, further reducing the time for rehabilitation. We must not forget that there are alternatives to letting criminals go free, such as proper rehabilitation programmes, completing construction of the overdue Highland and Glasgow prisons and having in place a serious strategy to reduce reoffending. We must be clear that it is not the case that we must vote for the SSI or bad things will happen—it is a case of voting for the SSI and bad things will happen.”
“As the member said, it was only a year ago that such prisoners were serving 50 per cent of their sentence, and we are being asked to agree tonight that that should decrease to 30 per cent. Does the member agree that sentencing is already controversial for the general public? It is very hard for the public to understand what our sentencing system is now. With this proposal, it will be even more confusing. Does he further agree that making this permanent change is not the way to manage prisoners? Liam Kerr: I do agree. I think that Pauline McNeill made that exact point in committee very eloquently. The public will not understand this.”
“People can try to make it a neutral act as much as they possibly can, but I do not think that it ever can be. There is a strong argument that a doctor should never raise assisted dying with a patient. Rona Mackay—who I know has different perspectives on the bill—said that such protections have been included in some jurisdictions, and they are perhaps being reviewed. At least other jurisdictions that have passed assisted dying legislation thought that the proposed protection was important. That has been put on the record this afternoon.”
“That is an NHS policy question, as well as a medical question. I also agree with what Kate Forbes said about patients being vulnerable. We must provide a safeguard because of that. The greatest safeguard here, in terms of the ethics of the legislation, is to ensure that we are safeguarding the profession with clarity on what is expected at this point in a person’s pathway to their diagnosis, should it be terminal. Bob Doris: I am very sympathetic to the amendments in this group, particularly that of Daniel Johnson. Although his is a brief amendment, there is a lot more light and shade in it than in some of the others. This debate is indeed about light and shade. First, I do not believe that raising assisted dying is a neutral act by any clinician. It is not a neutral act. It cannot be.”
“As we discussed yesterday, members of the medical profession will need to decide whether they wish to participate in the administration of assisted dying. In some ways, I feel that there could be a protection for those in the medical profession in the amendments in this group, because if it is clear that they will not be expected to introduce the option into the conversation, they will be asked not to. Those people’s function, as I understand it, will be to administer and assist a person who wishes to take their life. It seems to me that, if the bill were to pass, a review would be the best way to decide whether or not there are omissions, but the current provision is absolutely wrong. I agree that there is some confusion here with the “Do not resuscitate” policy, which was misused during Covid.”
“I want to make a short contribution on this group of amendments. Doctors’ opinions are very influential, in my experience. It is also my experience that that can vary among different cultures. I appreciate that many members have looked at different jurisdictions and the legislation that applies there, but we should see the legislation in the context of our own culture. That is my experience: that doctors are very influential in our society. It should be clear that a doctor’s opinion should not form any part of a diagnosis. That is a substantive issue in relation to the bill—which, as I have said on the record, I will not be supporting. However, if it is passed, I want to ensure that there are safeguards in it.”
“If it is a necessary practice to download the full contents of anyone’s phone or device, that should be all the more reason to ensure that cast-iron protections are in place. What steps could the Scottish Government take to reassure complainers, and anyone else, that there is proper oversight to prevent such a situation from ever happening again?”
“Police Scotland has been fined £66,000 for a deeply serious data protection failure after the full contents of a female officer’s device—including medical records, intimate images and sensitive personal information—were extracted and shared with a colleague whom she had accused of rape, along with his lawyer and his Scottish Police Federation representative. Today, it has been reported that the Scottish Information Commissioner found that the force failed to minimise data collection, lacked adequate technical and organisational safeguards and did not report the breach within the legally required 72 hours. Police Scotland has apologised for the incident and said that it has learned lessons from it, but does the First Minister agree that that is an absolute scandal?”
“We did not think that we would be here, and let us be honest that the situation is unprecedented. I have served in five parliamentary sessions; Jackie Baillie has served in more, as has Nicola Sturgeon. We cannot face this situation again, so let us try to deal with it sensibly and keep as many people on board as we can. We do have options. My final plea is that we stop the bidding war when it comes to the reasons why people will have problems attending on Friday. We are all dedicated to taking whatever position we want to take on the bill, and we must all do our best to ensure that we reach the end of the process and that members are satisfied that they can make a decision that they are comfortable with. The Presiding Officer: I call the minister to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. 21:49”
“I want to speak in support of what Jackie Baillie said earlier and what Nicola Sturgeon has just said. It would seem sensible to have a look at this. I will make a plea, and Ruth Maguire is right to do the same. We were almost going to get into a bidding war about who could and could not attend and for what reasons. We are all dedicated, no matter what party we are from and no matter the reason why we came here. As Kevin Stewart said, we all travel from different parts of the country, we all have personal circumstances, and we all have constituents to look after. Let us not ever get into this situation again and let us put on the record that, in future parliamentary sessions, we must resolve matters so that there is enough time to deal with all the legislation that we want to pass.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to recent reports that police officers are attending up to 700 mental health-related calls per day. (S6O-05624)”
“Is this not an opportunity for Parliament to come together on the protections that we think should be in place? For the Parliament, which is passing primary legislation, to stay silent on those protections by voting them down could mean that the Scottish and UK Governments would be unable to take an informed view on the will of the Parliament. Jeremy Balfour: If I understood Mr Doris correctly, I have a worry. For example, if, in a moment, the cabinet secretary tells me that amendment 227 is incompetent, but Parliament then votes for and passes it, that would make the act incompetent and it would have to go to the Supreme Court. That does not seem to me to be a particularly good way of dealing with the issue.”
“Jeremy Balfour: The cabinet secretary has just confirmed that, if we pass the bill and it becomes an act, it will go away to both Governments to be discussed and that we can be consulted and look at that but will have no veto. That means that we could end up in a situation where people or institutions have to do things that we, as a Parliament, do not want, because we have been told by the UK and Scottish Governments that they have to do them. Bob Doris: I have listened carefully to Mr Balfour’s argument, much of which is very powerful. Has he considered how a future Scottish, or UK, Government would know the will of this Parliament on the protections that are outlined in the amendments before us here today if we do not take a view on them and vote on them?”
“I am deeply concerned about the process that we are involved in this afternoon with regard to this whole group of amendments. Other members have explained them well, but my understanding— perhaps the cabinet secretary can clarify this when he speaks—is that, although both ministers and both Governments will be involved in the process of producing things, it will not come back to this Parliament. Neil Gray: I can confirm that the section 104 process does not set out a role for the Parliament. However, I would be happy to keep the Parliament updated, should the bill pass and should the section 104 process be required, to allow colleagues to consider and scrutinise the section 104 process, whether it involves me or any future ministers.”
“I hope that everyone in the chamber agrees that we need to work with the principle that conscientious objection is built into any future system of assisted dying. It is not an optional add- on or top-up, and it might cause some inconvenience, but we need to protect individuals in that regard. The bill simply will not work without it, because it will not have the confidence of the people of Scotland. We cannot have a situation in which, for example, because of inconvenience, a person not fulfilling a request could result in a junior healthcare staff member having to facilitate an action that would lead to someone having an assisted death. Nurses and doctors who have just qualified from university could be asked to do so in one of their first jobs in their careers, even if it was against their conscience, and that cannot be acceptable.”
“I hope that amendment 226 is agreed to on that basis. Jeremy Balfour: We are clearly at a slight disadvantage in debating these amendments, because we do not know how the Scottish Government will respond and what advice the cabinet secretary will give. My amendment 227 would make the conscientious objection section clearer. Like other amendments, it seeks to close potential loopholes by which staff will be asked to indirectly participate in the process of assisted dying provision. The amendment would add to section 18(1A) examples of such types of participation—for example, the requirement to refer, direct or signpost a person to another individual or organisation to facilitate assisted dying—to ensure that that cannot be the case.”
“When we pass legislation in the Parliament and it reaches the royal assent stage, unless there are specific provisions in certain sections of a bill that will not come into force, it all comes into force. It is a serious flaw in the bill. I have said on record that I will not be voting for it, but we always have to consider that it might pass, so we want legislation to be the best that it can be. For those reasons, I will support the other related amendments. I urge any member who believes that this is an important aspect of the bill to vote to put it in the bill. I believe that it is competent. In that way, the Parliament’s intention would be crystal clear that we want a cast-iron guarantee for clinical and non-clinical staff to exist from the minute of royal assent and that we do not want them to have to wait.”
“This is a significant bill, and it gives me cause for concern that that has not yet been resolved. As the member in charge of the bill has suggested, it could be dealt with at a later stage under a section 104 order, but that is not satisfactory. It is important to put it in the bill, and I think that it is competent. There is a good argument that it is, particularly when we are talking about non-clinical staff. We are not talking about regulations here; we are talking about the operation of our NHS. I am not comfortable with the suggestion that there would be a gap between royal assent and the legislation coming into force. Where would that leave those who wish to object? It is crazy that we would consider there being a gap of any sort.”
“For belt-and-braces purposes, it is important to include those members of staff who may be involved in a process, should the bill pass. For some people, any involvement in the ending of life, however indirect, raises profound moral, ethical and religious concerns. If we are serious about protecting the conscience of those individuals who may wish to step back from the process, we must cover everyone. Amendment 226 would close a loophole in relation to that. Some have argued that such amendments might risk making the bill harder to implement, but it seems to me that there must be a cast-iron right of clinical staff and non-clinical staff not to participate. It is of serious concern that we are at stage 3 yet are arguing over whether this is competent. Perhaps lessons have to be learned about the operation of devolved and reserved matters.”