Rhoda Grant
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“To correct the minister, I say that the agricultural funding was rolled up into the block grant rather than being Barnettised. The exact same amount of money is being received because of that. Stakeholders are concerned about the lack of detail in tiers 2 and 3 of the rural support plan.”
“It feels a little like groundhog day. South Uist and Barra face yet another chaotic holiday period. South Uist faces an 85 per cent cut in its ferry service during the Easter period. The First Minister knows that this community has suffered from cuts for years, and that has caused businesses to struggle.”
“We have given certainty about what the payments will look like between now and 2030. The funding has been Barnettised—it may well be rolled up into the block grant, but it has definitely been Barnettised. The funds from the United Kingdom Government have been frozen.”
“This will be my last speech in the Parliament, and it feels apt that it is about crofting, because the cross-party group on crofting was one of the first cross-party groups that I was involved in setting up, and it feels as though things have come full circle. It would be wrong of me, in my last speech, not to pay tribute to some people.”
“I thank Tim Eagle for his kind remarks. There will be a lot of thank yous in this contribution, because I also want to thank all those who helped us with our work on the bill, including Parliament staff on the committee and in the legislation team, as well as those who gave evidence to the committee and the bill team and the minister, for…”
“As MSPs, we should remember that we could achieve only a fraction of what we do were it not for those who work with us, so I thank them for their support. I also want to thank our Scottish Labour staff pool and the parliamentary staff who support us so well.”
The complete record
Every one of 428 lines we hold for Rhoda Grant, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 9.
“We have given certainty about what the payments will look like between now and 2030. The funding has been Barnettised—it may well be rolled up into the block grant, but it has definitely been Barnettised. The funds from the United Kingdom Government have been frozen. I repeat that we are the only part of the UK that continues to provide direct support, and we have the most generous package of farming support anywhere in the UK. Food Security and Resilience 6.”
“To correct the minister, I say that the agricultural funding was rolled up into the block grant rather than being Barnettised. The exact same amount of money is being received because of that. Stakeholders are concerned about the lack of detail in tiers 2 and 3 of the rural support plan. They are concerned that there is no specific guidance on what farmers and crofters need to plan for. Given that the top 20 per cent of claimants receive 62 per cent of direct payments, will the Government move beyond rhetoric and commit to a redistributive mechanism such as front-loading or capping payments, so that public money can serve the public good? Jim Fairlie: The first point to make is that we currently cap. On the point about front-loading and so on, we will look at a number of options.”
“It feels a little like groundhog day. South Uist and Barra face yet another chaotic holiday period. South Uist faces an 85 per cent cut in its ferry service during the Easter period. The First Minister knows that this community has suffered from cuts for years, and that has caused businesses to struggle. The community was instrumental in getting the Scottish Government to provide compensation, but what it really wants is to run its businesses successfully and, to do so, it needs a reliable ferry service. Will the First Minister intervene and ensure that those islands do not suffer another dismal holiday period?”
“I want to see the Highlands and Islands thrive. I want people to understand our unique way of life—which is often different throughout the region—and I want people to respect our culture and heritage, not trample on it. Most of all, I want our people to have equality of service and infrastructure and equality of opportunity that our young people can access by staying rather than leaving. I urge the next Parliament to achieve that. 17:14”
“As MSPs, we should remember that we could achieve only a fraction of what we do were it not for those who work with us, so I thank them for their support. I also want to thank our Scottish Labour staff pool and the parliamentary staff who support us so well. Over the past few weeks, I have been seeing people and thinking to myself how much I am going to miss them. It will be strange not being here, but I am going to enjoy watching the new Parliament come together. I am also looking forward to spending a lot more time with my long- suffering family. Special thanks go to my husband Mark and the rest of the family for their support over the years. In conclusion, may I say: be kind to each other. Debate and disagree, of course, but be respectful when doing that. We are all here to make our country a better place.”
“This will be my last speech in the Parliament, and it feels apt that it is about crofting, because the cross-party group on crofting was one of the first cross-party groups that I was involved in setting up, and it feels as though things have come full circle. It would be wrong of me, in my last speech, not to pay tribute to some people. To start with, I pay tribute to Maureen Macmillan and Peter Peacock, who were elected on the Highlands and Islands regional list with me in the first session of Parliament, and David Stewart, who joined us thereafter. I shared staff with all three of them. There are too many staff to mention here, but I want to thank them all for their work and support. A special thanks goes to my current team— Andrene, Laura, Stuart, Michael and Emily—who have been a fabulous support to me and my constituents.”
“People from the Highlands and Islands were prosecuted and jailed simply for asking for land on which to work to feed their families. The early crofters were politically astute. They set up their own political party, affiliated to the Highland Land League, and had five MPs elected in 1885. The Crofters Party was a predecessor to the Labour Party. In 1886, a year after the election in which it had five MPs elected, the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act was passed, and we have to learn from the speed at which those MPs worked. The act established the Crofters Commission and led to reduced rents. Those were the first land reformers. Sadly, it is a struggle that continues today.”
“As Tim Eagle said, it was not the bill that was promised. We all expected an overarching bill that put crofting on a firm footing for the future. That is unfinished business, but it cannot be done at the end of a parliamentary session. This bill was supposed to be dealt with early in the term and yet it will be the last one that we pass. Drafting an overarching crofting bill will not be easy. Crofting has evolved throughout the crofting counties in very different ways, so the way that crofting works in the Western Isles is very different from the way that it works in Shetland, and it is different again in the Moray Firth and the west coast. A new bill must strip crofting back to what it was set up to do. Crofting was devised as a result of the land raider protests to give people secure access to land.”
“I thank Tim Eagle for his kind remarks. There will be a lot of thank yous in this contribution, because I also want to thank all those who helped us with our work on the bill, including Parliament staff on the committee and in the legislation team, as well as those who gave evidence to the committee and the bill team and the minister, for their very constructive discussions throughout the process. Special thanks must go to Donna Smith and Susi Stuehlinger from the Scottish Crofting Federation—Donna is in the gallery again today. Their evidence and assistance were incredibly important to the bill, and they must rightly feel a great deal of ownership of it. We hope that the bill, as far as it goes, will put some protections in place but also make the administration of crofting little easier, and we will support it tonight.”
“Amendment 34 would have the effect of providing that proposed new subsection (1C) would not apply in relation to fast-tracked assignations to family members where the commission is satisfied that conditions in proposed new subsection (2B) are met. I thank the minister for his help with the amendment. I do not agree with amendment 35, which would remove the three-croft limit from family assignations. Although most family assignations are likely to be to an assignee who is already working the crofts and has helped to run the business, I note that the subsection that would be removed by the amendment will only allow scrutiny by the commission. It will not mean that the commission will deny such assignations; it will simply provide a safeguard to ensure that people do not accumulate crofts that could be better used. I move amendment 34.”
“Rhoda Grant: Amendment 34 would amend section 8 of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 to provide a simplified process for obtaining the commission’s consent to an assignation of a croft if certain conditions, which are set out in the proposed new section 8(2B) and which primarily relate to the assignation to a family member, are met. Section 11B of the bill will further modify section 8 of the 1993 act by inserting a new subsection (1C), which will provide that the commission may not grant consent or approval to an assignation “unless it is satisfied that the proposed assignee is aware of the duties they would have as a crofter, following any such assignation, under sections 5AA, 5B and 5C” of the 1993 act.”
“It will also provide direction and support to help crofters prepare such an application. Labour also supports the other amendments in the group. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Beatrice Wishart to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 1. Beatrice Wishart: I press amendment 1. Amendment 1 agreed to. Section 4—Enforcement of duties Amendments 2 to 4 moved—[Jim Fairlie]—and agreed to. Section 8—Assignations to family members The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 2 is on assignations. Amendment 34, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendment 35.”
“Gaining consent to be absent should not be used by crofters as a way of avoiding their duties under crofting law. Crofters often apply to be absent, and the agreements on absence are quite often open ended. Of course there are times when a crofter would need to be absent—for example, to attend to training, or for healthcare and the like—but an agreement on absence should not allow people simply to hold crofts with no intention of returning to them. Amendment 42 would require the Crofting Commission to publish guidance on how it exercises its functions under sections 21B to 21D of the 1993 act, which are on consent for absence from crofts. That guidance will set out for crofters the commission’s policy on how it will assess an application for consent to be absent.”
“That would mean that the imposition would be on the person who is acquiring or purchasing the croft to satisfy the commission that they were aware, rather than the commission having a duty to satisfy itself of that person’s awareness. Indeed, that could be difficult, given that no existing mechanism would make the commission aware of such a transfer. Amendment 41 would insert a new subsection (1A), which sets out a non-exhaustive list of things that regulations under section 19C(1) “may” make provision about. Those include: “the steps which must or may be taken by a person to satisfy the Commission of the person’s awareness of the duties, and … the effect of a failure to take such steps.” Amendment 42 deals with a crofter’s application to be absent from a croft.”
“Amendment 39 would modify new section 19BC by substituting “may” for “must”, meaning that the power to make regulations would be discretionary rather than there being a duty to do so. That would resolve a technical issue, because making regulations under the affirmative procedure is not necessarily within the minister’s gift, as, strictly speaking, such regulations are subject to the approval of Parliament before they can be made by ministers. Amendment 40 would modify new section 19BC to reframe the duty so that regulations would need to make provision “about how a person is to satisfy the Commission that the person is aware of the duties of an owner-occupier crofter under section 19C before the person” acquires or purchases the croft.”
“New section 19BC of the 1993 act, which is entitled “Regulations on requirement for proposed owner to be aware of owner-occupier duties”, requires Scottish ministers to make, by regulations, “provision requiring that before any person may … acquire title to a croft as a nominee of a crofter, or … purchase a croft from a constituting landlord, … the Commission must be satisfied that the person is aware of the duties of an owner-occupier crofter under section 19C.” Amendment 38 would reword the title of the new section—section 11B—introduced by an amendment in my name at stage 2 and would make a consequential change to the title of new section 19BC, to reflect the changes that would be made by amendment 40.”
“I will speak to amendments 38 to 42. I thank the minister for his assistance with the amendments. Amendments 38 to 41 seek to deal with the issue that often arises when crofts change hands on the open market. People see that croft assignations or crofts themselves are for sale and fall into the trap of believing that they are simply buying a house or a piece of land without any additional obligations. That is why crofts are often left unworked, which falls foul of crofting law. The purpose of my amendments is simply to ensure that anyone who purchases a croft or buys a lease of a croft knows what their obligations are.”
“Finally, I thank my parliamentary team, past and present, who have been outstanding, and the Parliament’s non-Government bills unit for its professional and dedicated support, which has got me to this point. I also thank the minister and his officials for some constructive engagement throughout the passage of the bill. Tonight, Scotland can ban greyhound racing for good. We will be a better, more compassionate country for that. Let us do this for the dogs. Let us pass the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill. The Deputy Presiding Officer :That concludes consideration of the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. Business Motion 15:19”
“There will still be dogs who are kennelled and trained in Scotland and raced across the border when the bill becomes law. It is for Westminster to end greyhound racing in England. There are passionate champions who will fight for that in Parliament, including the Green Party’s newly elected MP, Hannah Spencer. However, the Welsh Government, which had its Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill passed in the Senedd last night, has pledged to end the suffering of Welsh greyhounds that continue to be raced over its border. I call on the Scottish Government and the minister to follow that lead and ensure that no dog is left behind in Scotland.”
“It is only through love that these dogs heal from their years spent in an exploitative industry. Reading through the consultation responses to my bill, I learned about dozens and dozens of dogs like Bert—gentle souls who had been scarred— and the patient work of rehomers across Scotland to bring them into their lives and heal them. For those who still ask where the evidence for a ban on greyhound racing is, I point to Bert and Bob, Sasha and Joy, Bluesy and countless other dogs who have been treated abysmally by a gambling industry that disposes of dozens of dogs every month of every year. There is a challenge for the minister, because, although I warmly welcome his reconsideration of the evidence and his support for the bill so that it can become law, it must be only the first step.”
“Many joined us this morning outside Parliament with their dogs, and I thank them all. In 2015, my family rehomed an ex-racing greyhound called Bert. He sadly passed over the rainbow bridge last year. He was a wonderful dog. He was kind and affectionate and so patient with kids—and even with cats. However, until I started working on this campaign, I did not fully understand the trauma that Bert had endured while racing. The physical scars were obvious—the ear tattoos and the broken leg that constantly made him lame—but it was his mental trauma that we struggled with at the beginning. He could not sleep at night without a light on because he had been raised on a puppy farm. His separation anxiety was awful. He was scared of vans and loud noises from his days of kennelling and being shipped around the country to races.”
“I give special thanks to Clare Haughey, Rona Mackay, Christine Grahame, Karen Adam and the many other members who have been relentless in advocating for the bill. I also thank Gill Docherty and Jax Brown, who came to my office in 2019 to educate me about the dangers of greyhound racing, and whose petition to Parliament was the inspiration behind the bill. Their work at the trackside alongside others, including Gill Donn and her team, has been critical, because they built the case for an end to greyhound racing in Scotland. Now, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Dogs Trust, OneKind, Blue Cross and many others have joined the fight, and we have been able to link to the campaigns of Grey2K to end greyhound racing globally. Over the years, thousands have joined us on that journey.”
“It will prevent oval greyhound racetracks from being opened, but I do not think any such track would have received planning permission had it been sought in any event. At stage 2, I tried to see whether we could do more to enhance animal welfare through the bill, but that was not possible. Some amendments were not competent, and those that were competent did not impact on any dog. It beggars belief that, in a Parliament that has been sitting late in the evening for weeks to pass essential legislation, we have made time for a bill that does little or nothing. I will leave my comments at that and will take up no more precious time. 15:14 Mark Ruskell: I thank the many members from all parties in the Parliament who have contributed to the passage of the bill. It is a shame that they were not all able to speak this afternoon.”
“I congratulate Mark Ruskell on getting his bill to this stage. I also thank the committee staff, the legislation team and those who assisted us during the bill process, as well as those who gave evidence to the committee. I have said more than once that we have had a fragmented approach to the welfare of dogs throughout this session of Parliament. We have had a number of members’ bills, but, as Finlay Carson said, what we need is a Government bill to pull together all aspects of animal welfare and stop the confused and piecemeal approach that has been taken. Animal welfare is a concern for us all. Many people have family pets, and we cannot allow demand for those to lead to animals being harmed. However, the bill will do nothing to improve the welfare of any animal in Scotland.”
“That guidance will shape how safeguards are applied, how professionals are trained and how the system operates in practice. If that guidance can be changed without proper parliamentary scrutiny, the reality of the law could shift over time without the Parliament ever having the opportunity to examine those changes. That should concern us all. Experience elsewhere shows how laws of this nature can evolve once they are in operation. Canada is often cited as an example. The legislation there began with what many believed were strict limits, yet, within a relatively short period, the scope of the practice expanded far beyond what many legislators originally understood that they were voting for.”
“Amendment 271 would ensure that the guidance issued under the act had clear legal force—again, through the Parliament. Taken together, the amendments are about accountability. To answer directly the point that Liam McArthur made about process, I do not see the bill as a particularly ordinary one. It is an extraordinary bill and an extraordinary departure from our current practice and our current societal norms. Hence, I believe that enhanced parliamentary scrutiny is essential. Much of the detail on how the legislation will work from day to day will not be found in the bill. That has been accepted by the member in charge, and it raises issues of costs and budgets. How the legislation will work will depend on the guidance that is produced after the bill has been passed.”
“Although I am mindful that the Scottish Government has noted the possibility of a CMO opting not to participate in assisted dying, I am content to support amendment 274 if colleagues believe that it is workable and useful. Stephen Kerr: I am grateful to have heard the response of Liam McArthur to my amendments 266 and 271. I will explain further why they are essential. The amendments go to the heart of an important question: who ultimately controls the safeguards that would govern how the law operates in practice? My answer to that question will come as no surprise to those who have had to listen to me over the past four or five years: it is Parliament. Amendment 266 would require that any ministerial guidance relating to the safeguards in the act must return to the Parliament for scrutiny and approval.”
“If the Parliament is minded otherwise, I encourage members to support amendment 269, which takes a more proportionate approach than that taken in amendment 272 and the consequential amendment 273, both of which I cannot support. I support Ross Greer’s amendment 270, which would make it clear that anyone who is involved in the process in which a terminally ill adult requests and is provided with assistance to end their life must have regard to the relevant guidance. Jackie Baillie’s amendment 274 would require the chief medical officer to produce guidance on the assessment of patients who are under 25 or who have fluctuating diagnoses. As I have referred to in debates on earlier groupings, I fully recognise the value of ensuring that additional and specialist consideration is provided in those instances.”
“In relation to Mr Kerr’s amendment 271, the approach currently in the bill, which requires practitioners to have regard to guidance, is sufficient and consistent with the approach taken across other legislation. However, although I consider the proposed change to compel practitioners to be unnecessary, I am content to accept it if the Parliament wishes to support it. 11:15 On Liz Smith’s amendments 269, 272 and 273, I note that the bill already provides for guidance to be revised when the Scottish ministers consider it appropriate to do so. I am therefore not persuaded of the need for the guidance review provisions in amendment 269.”
“I cannot support amendments 261 and 264, as they relate to training provisions and touch on reserved matters, but training for practitioners will be a mandatory requirement under the bill and will require to be updated for many of the reasons that Rhoda Grant has highlighted. On Stephen Kerr’s amendments 266 and 271 and Liz Smith’s amendment 268, I do not believe that it is necessary for guidance that is made under the legislation to be subject to the Parliament’s approval. Such a measure would be unnecessary and out of step with the way in which subordinate legislation is made and scrutinised. I also note the Scottish Government’s view that amendment 266 raises competence concerns.”
“I refer to some of the comments that I made in the debate on an earlier grouping in response to Fulton MacGregor’s amendments, which touched very much on that subject. I turn to Rhoda Grant’s amendments. She made some important and relevant points in relation to the issue of our developing understanding of coercive and controlling behaviour. That touches on some of the issues that are reflected in the bill, but extends far more widely, as I know from my involvement in the passing of the relevant legislation in the previous session of Parliament, when I was a member of the Justice Committee.”
“Both will need to exist alongside each other, providing compassionate care and choice to terminally ill people at the end of life. Assisted dying is absolutely a form of end- of-life care, and in my view it would be inappropriate to seek to impose restrictions on ministers on how assisted dying may fit within end- of-life care services. Miles Briggs’s amendment 260 would require guidance to distinguish between lawful assistance to administer the approved substance versus direct administration. I recognise the clarity that the amendment seeks to add for medical practitioners, and I am content to support it. On Miles Briggs’s amendment 263, I am supportive of the principle of health board involvement in developing patient pathways that reflect international best practice in jurisdictions with assisted dying systems.”
“I ask Liam McArthur to reflect on that and support the amendment. Liam McArthur: I take the point that Bob Doris is making and I have heard that concern expressed. However, I do not think that there is any way of getting around the fact that, were the bill to be passed, assisted dying would be a choice as part of end-of-life care. As I said, I see it as a positive development that there is interaction between palliative and hospice care, for example, in the discussions around assisted dying. That allows for better engagement with palliative care. As I have indicated, in jurisdictions that have introduced such laws, there is considerable evidence of that. I have always been clear that it is not a case of either/or when it comes to palliative care and assisted dying.”
“However, I am not convinced that Bob Doris’s amendment 267, which would require that guidance must not describe assisted dying as part of palliative or end-of-life care, is necessary. There is no doubt that the therapeutic conversations, clinical support and other referrals that would be provided as part of the assessment process would form part of the care that can be provided to a dying person who is approaching the end of their life. Terminally ill people have said, time and again, that they want an additional option as part of their end-of-life care, which is what the bill seeks to provide. Bob Doris: I will not seek to debate or labour the point, but I am clear that palliative care is not assisted dying. The amendment would clarify that. Lots of palliative care practitioners want that to be clarified.”
“Amendment 55 provides that the guidance should include information on “raising and dealing with concerns in connection with the provision of assistance … both before and after death”. On amendment 54, I note the Government’s comment that any guidance would require careful development to avoid creating the impression that all forms of indirect pressure can be identified or mitigated in any singular way. That said, I recognise the benefit of the inclusion of such information in guidance, and I am content to support amendments 54 and 55. Mr Doris’s amendment 262 would add a requirement for guidance to be produced on the interpretation and application of the eligibility criteria in relation to the six-month prognosis. That is very reasonable, and I support amendment 262.”
“Miles Briggs’s amendment 265 also seeks to amend section 23(3)(A), to require guidance concerning the provision of assistance to be subject to the Lord Advocate’s approval. I know, as Mr Briggs confirmed, that he has been working closely with the RCN on the amendment. I am not minded to support it, as it seems an irregular approach to take to guidance. I note the Government’s view that it may interfere inappropriately with the Lord Advocate’s role. The cabinet secretary may comment on that in due course. I worked with Ross Greer on his amendment 259, and I am happy to support it, as it sensibly seeks to ensure that guidance must include provision about advocacy services. Bob Doris’s amendment 54 would require that information on identifying “indirect pressures” is included in guidance.”
“My concern is that the development of a patient pathway suggests that a patient would be placed on a pathway once they started to explore assisted dying. Given the enormity of the decision that they are making, alternatives should be fully explored at every stage of the process. I look forward to finding out whether that would happen, because people need to consider their actions as they go through the process. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Liam McArthur to speak to amendment 56 and other amendments in the group. Liam McArthur: Amendment 56 is technical. It removes section 23(3)(A), which refers to a subsection in the bill that does not exist as a consequence of the relevant amendment not being agreed to at stage 2.”
“It is therefore important that the knowledge and skills of practitioners are updated regularly. Updating will also be required in relation to other issues, such as safeguarding people who may not have the mental capacity to make such a decision or who may be vulnerable in other ways, so that practitioners can best support their clients. They must also have knowledge of alternatives to assisted dying in order to be able to properly inform their clients. I am not suggesting that practitioners must know every alternative, but they must know referral pathways to be able to provide the client with the best possible information available. All of the above is subject to change, hence the need for practitioners to have their knowledge and skills updated at regular intervals. I turn briefly to amendment 263, in the name of Miles Briggs.”
“Amendments 261 and 264 would provide for people carrying out functions under the bill to receive mandatory training, accreditation and on- going three-year refresher and competence training. The bill covers areas that are literally to do with life and death, and people who are empowered to carry out actions under the bill must be competent to do so. Competence is particularly important when it comes to issues such as identifying coercion. There has been much discussion about that, but it is only recently that the Parliament recognised coercive control as part of domestic abuse. Coercion could be used in encouraging a person towards assisted dying in a domestic abuse situation, but it could also be part of elder abuse. Knowledge and understanding of those issues are evolving and will change.”
“Based on the Australian and New Zealand experiences, I see the advocate as being an active participant in the process, alongside and on behalf of a patient who has requested their support. They are a constant safeguard, for example, against undue influences on and infringement of the rights of the patient. They have an important pastoral role, too, noting the immense—”
“Before I speak to amendment 200, I wish to speak to amendment 204, because it is paired with amendment 259, which we will come to in group 19. Together, these two amendments would take the intended role and responsibilities of the advocate and move them from the right to advocacy section of the bill into guidance. That is intended to improve operability and make it easier to adapt the role definition in future, based on experience of the system. That being said, I feel that it is essential to keep in the bill the clear expectation of what the advocate does. The advocate is not a human information service or, necessarily, just a navigator, although I am glad that the information service provisions, which were proposed by Jackie Baillie at stage 2, were agreed to.”
“The member said that those amendments are technical in nature, but my reading of amendments 199 and 200 is that they push back somewhat, because someone has to be actively seeking assisted dying, rather than just considering it, to get advocacy services. I think that that is a backward step. Ross Greer: The amendments that I referred to as technical excluded amendment 200. I am about to come on to that amendment, which is one of the substantive amendments that I will talk to. For clarity, the amendments that are technical are amendments 198, 199 and the others that I mentioned. I believe that amendment 199 is technical. Amendment 200 is the substantive one that I will speak to, and amendments 201 through 206 are technical.”
“In relation to the crisis grants situation, we will be pressing the UK Government to take action, and I invite Rhoda Grant to join us in making sure that the Labour UK Government acts in that fashion. Private Healthcare (NHS Consultants) 5.”
“The First Minister will be aware that the UK Government is issuing guidance to its local authorities to use crisis and resilience funds to protect those who are dependent on oil and gas heating. Will he look at making crisis grant funds available to people in islands and rural areas who are dependent on gas and oil for heating? Will he also look at how Consumer Scotland can support the Competition and Markets Authority to engage with people who are suffering because of the soaring costs? The First Minister: Consumer Scotland will certainly engage very actively with the Competition and Markets Authority. Consumer Scotland is a very good organisation that serves us well.”
“My colleague’s amendments seek to create the clarity in law that would be required about a woman who is pregnant and, who would therefore—under the amendments to the bill—not be eligible for assisted dying.”
“I am a little concerned about the precedents that that would set. It is the case that, if someone is pregnant and is suffering from an illness that requires medication, whether she has medication that could damage the unborn child or refuses it is a decision for that woman to take. It seems to me that Sue Webber’s amendments in the group would take the choice away from the woman, which might be somewhere that the bill does not want to go. Stephen Kerr: The nature of the amendments cover the viable pregnancy—the viable other life— which is recognised in Scots law. I am not entirely sure that Rhoda Grant’s approach of restricting her view to the issue of a pregnancy before 24 weeks is the right one.”
“I move amendment S6M-20957.1, to insert at end: “; notes that disruption to ferry timetables is ongoing and continues to impact island communities; agrees that communities must receive support to deal with the economic and social impacts of disruption; calls for local representation ferry agency boards so that the needs of island communities and workers are at the heart of decision making; understands that the root cause of the ferry fiasco is the failure to invest in the ferry fleet and replace ageing vessels, and calls on the Scottish Government to have a rolling programme to replace the fleet going forward.” The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call on Maggie Chapman to open on behalf of the Scottish Greens. 16:17”
“Scotland needs a Government that is not afraid to act and that does not put off until tomorrow what really needs to be done today. We need a Government that will put in place a sustainable rolling programme of ferry replacement to ensure that our island communities are never again left in that position. That is what Scotland needs.”
“Bookings are cancelled, and tour companies no longer take bus tours to many islands, because there is nothing that they can do to accommodate 40 people when a ferry has been cancelled at short notice. That has a dire impact on the economy of our islands and it increases depopulation. The Government says that it is trying to stop depopulation but, in practice, its actions or inaction have caused it. What is really wrong at the core of the Government is its motto, “Put off until tomorrow anything that you cannot be bothered doing today.” The ferry fiasco shows the danger of that approach, because to put right such omissions in the future takes longer and needs many more resources. The whole of Scotland is suffering from that approach, which, whether it is in relation to health or education, has let citizens down.”
“Instead, a one-off fund was set up in a way that caused more division, pitting community against community. Division is also caused by some routes being given more priority than others when it comes to getting the best boats or having their timetables disrupted. That uncertainty means that services fail and businesses face increasing costs. Businesses have left the islands because they cannot work in these operating conditions. Indeed, it is only because of the resilience of businesses and their commitment to their communities that they have continued to operate under these conditions. However, they cannot do that indefinitely. The situation impacts on the hospitality industry.”