John Swinney
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Since the report from several years ago was published, the Government has presided over the passage of legislation to rationalise that area of activity. Work is under way to transfer the responsibility for the funding of further education student support from the Scottish Funding Council to the Student Awards Agency Scotland.”
“I appreciate the urgency of the general policy elements of the question, because a number of applications are now being considered by planning authorities. My view is that, given the concerns that have been expressed by planning authorities, the Government has to be responsive to the issue.”
“For as long as we do not have a proper strategy on prison capacity, rehabilitation and clearing the court backlog, early release will be a revolving door, with people going in, coming out and going back into our prisons. Our justice system is in crisis, so we need a strategy.”
“I associate myself unreservedly Mr Cole-Hamilton’s comments about the feelings in the Muslim community. On Monday, I visited the Broomhouse mosque along with Simita Kumar and the Annandale Street mosque in Edinburgh with Ben Macpherson.”
“The development of further guidance will be undertaken in a manner consistent with the ruling by Lady Ross. Malcolm Offord: I thank the First Minister for his answer, which was more comprehensive than I expected.”
“I am a huge supporter of apprenticeship programmes. With foundation apprenticeships and graduate apprenticeships, the Government has brought forward important reforms that create new and successful pathways for young people. I am determined to make sure that every young person has that desirable pathway for their future.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,608 lines we hold for John Swinney, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 53.
“I absolutely concur with what Dr Allan has said, but I can assure Mr Ross that these things were discussed at the committee stages and that members were well aware of what is covered by the Scotland Act 1998 and what is not. Douglas Ross: I understand that the committee convener is very clear about what happened at her committee—indeed, I sat through some of those proceedings—but the person who started this debate is also a member of that committee and was raising these legitimate concerns, which is why I think we should address them. Liam McArthur: [Made a request to intervene.] Brian Whittle: [Made a request to intervene.] Douglas Ross: I am trying to take members’ interventions in order, but Mr Briggs wished to intervene on this point, so I will give way to him.”
“It is not just people at home—I am questioning it, too. I have sat through the last half hour and the comments from the First Minister, which I listened to with all sincerity; the comments from our Presiding Officer; and the comments from the member in charge. That has all happened in the last half hour. That was not what I was intending to speak about, but I was invited to speak about my amendments and other amendments in the group in which this issue has come up, and all that I am getting from members—or former members—of the governing party is “Don’t worry about this. Move on.” However, I cannot move on if I have concerns, and I believe that people watching at home will have concerns, too. I give way to Clare Haughey. Clare Haughey: I thank Mr Ross for taking my intervention—I am not going to take up too much time.”
“Alasdair Allan: I just wonder whether the member is bearing in mind, at the moment, that there are many, many people on both sides of this debate who care deeply about it, who are following these proceedings and who are wondering what the last half hour has been about. Does he not think that, given that some of this, such as the reservation of the regulation of medical professions, was in the Scotland Act 1998, all of this outrage is false outrage? We should get back to talking about amendments, and get back to talking about the bill that people are interested in. Douglas Ross: First of all, I have been outraged in the chamber many times, and I do not think that my current demeanour is similar to how I was when I was outraged. Dr Allan is suggesting that people at home will be questioning what the last half hour has been about.”
“I am shocked that it has come from a parliamentarian who has been here for some time and has served, like me, in both Parliaments—and I am perhaps more shocked that the comment was applauded by some other members. We should at no point with any legislation rush things, let alone legislation that is literally a matter of life and death. Therefore, if there are questions about how we have got to this stage, it is legitimate for parliamentarians to raise them and debate them—not for them to be urged to just forget all about it, maybe consider it in the future and get on with things just now. I will give way to Dr Allan.”
“There is now a conflict between what the First Minister stood up and said, what our Presiding Officer has told us as the guardian of this Parliament, and the points that were made by the member in charge of the bill. I will go through the members’ interventions as I remember them, starting with John Mason. John Mason: Does it really matter what happened in the past? Perhaps that is a debate for another time. We have been here for 10 and a half hours and expect to be here until 10 o’clock tonight and 10 o’clock tomorrow night. Does he not agree that we should just get on with the detail of the bill? [Applause.] 19:30 Douglas Ross: I am sorry, but I am shocked at that.”
“If one of the competency issues relates to the fact that legislation on drugs is reserved to the UK Parliament, I do not believe that, at any point during the bill’s consultation, introduction or debate, anyone ever thought that—were it to become law—drugs would not be used as part of the assisted dying process. I am not aware of the member in charge or supporters or opponents of the bill suggesting any other mechanisms that would be used to end someone’s life. It has been abundantly clear from day 1, line 1 of the bill, which begs the question of the conflict. Clare Haughey: Will the member give way? Douglas Ross: I will give way in a moment. There are other members’ interventions that I would like to take first.”
“On the one hand, the Scottish Government has stated that the bill, as lodged, is incompetent because it requires input from the UK Government, and Liam McArthur, the member in charge of the bill, has said that the Government was well aware of that from the very beginning. John Mason: Will the member give way? Douglas Ross: I will give way to John Mason in a moment. The Presiding Officer has ruled that the bill was competent at stage 1, and SNP members now say that that is right and to get on with it. Alasdair Allan: Will the member give way? Douglas Ross: I will give way in a moment, because Mr Mason wants to come in first. Just a few moments ago, the Government made it very clear that it does not think that the bill is competent, but the Presiding Officer said that it was competent, which is why it has reached stage 3.”
“The amendments would ensure that the medical professional who provided the substance remained in the same room as the patient once the approved substance was administered, because a medical professional might recognise that something was wrong before anyone else in the room did. The Presiding Officer: I call Douglas Ross to speak to amendment 211 and other amendments in the group. Douglas Ross: Before I get to my amendment 211, I want to speak to other amendments in the group in order to bring myself up to speed on where we have reached in the past 10 or 15 minutes. We have now debated the bill for 10 hours and 38 minutes at stage 3, and there is a conflict between what we have heard in the past 30 minutes and the rest of the 10‑hour, 38‑minute debate.”
“Amendment 210 would clarify that the authorised healthcare professional could be “present for the provision” of the substance, but might not necessarily provide it. That would allow the pharmacist’s role in the process to be clearly defined. Amendment 208 seeks to address concerns about employment law that were raised at stage 2 by the Scottish Government in regard to an amendment that was agreed to at that stage. Amendment 208 would address those concerns by broadening section 15(1A) to allow for other supply routes, provided that they are supervised by a registered pharmacist to ensure safety and security. Amendments 218 and 219 concern the liability of medical professionals in the event that something went wrong. If they were not in the room, they would not immediately be aware of any adverse reaction that occurred.”
“Imagine as a pharmacist you are in the room and you notice the doctor or nurse has made an error. In the legislation as drafted, it is unclear whether you would be able to intervene, which is a huge ethical dilemma. If this leads to a complaint or adverse incident, you may be directly implicated, even though you have no clear role as described by the legislation.” Amendment 221 would clarify that the role of an authorised healthcare professional could include a “registered pharmacist”. Amendment 214 would clarify that any “accompanying healthcare professional”—an accompanying doctor, nurse or pharmacist—could provide a terminally ill adult with an approved substance or remove the substance from the premises at which it was provided.”
“Imagine that the doctor or nurse asks you to hand the substance directly to the patient, rather than to them, or asks you to remove the substance at the end of the process, but you can’t because you’re not enabled by the legislation. Your ability to assist the process is impaired, and your professional skills and experience cannot be effectively utilised, even though these tasks would be well within your competency as a pharmacist. Imagine that the doctor or nurse asks you to compound or prepare the substance or prepare the medical device whilst you are accompanying them, but the legislation prevents you from doing so. This puts all the burden on the authorised healthcare professional and doesn’t allow your skills to be utilised to add capacity to the process.”
“That could also risk devaluing the skills of a pharmacist. I asked pharmacists to outline a few of their concerns, and this is what they said: “Imagine being a pharmacist, present at an assisted death but without the power to act. Imagine the patient or a family member is anxious and asks you for advice about how the substance should be taken or asks you to confirm that safety checks have been completed, but you aren’t enabled by the legislation to support. This devalues your role as a pharmacist and adds a burden, confusion and potential distress to the patient and/or carer as they don’t get the immediate reassuring answers they are looking for from you.”
“Stephen Kerr: Brian Whittle is saying that the Government did not say that, but the Government is clearly saying—as we can hear from the sedentary comments—that it did. Brian Whittle: The Government clearly did not say that, otherwise the Presiding Officer would not have said that the bill was competent at stage 1. [Interruption.] However— The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another, colleagues. Brian Whittle: Moving on— The First Minister: You should. Brian Whittle: Do not make it worse for yourself, First Minister. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: We have been debating with great courtesy and respect throughout this debate. Let us continue to do so. Let us hear Mr Whittle. Brian Whittle: The bill is not clear on the role of a pharmacist in the process of assisted dying with respect to their scope of practice.”
“I am merely stating that there is quite a lot of anger, given the amount of work that has been put in, that such information could have been brought to us at stage 2 but was not. [Interruption.] I will not labour the point. We have heard the discussion, and I am sure that members in the chamber can make up their own minds about whether the Government has been open, honest and helpful. Stephen Kerr: Will Brian Whittle take an intervention? [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another, colleagues. Stephen Kerr: Is my friend saying that it would have been more helpful to supporters of the bill if the Government had said this at stage 1, when we had a full debate in the chamber? Kate Forbes: We did. Neil Gray: We did.”
“The UK Government has said to us that it is the duty of the Scottish Parliament to pass legislatively competent legislation, and it indicated to us that there was a need for a section 30 order, which we agreed to and has been passed by the Parliament. There are also provisions that will end up in a section 104 order, should the Parliament pass the bill, to make the bill legislatively competent. I cannot allow Mr Whittle’s comments to stand without putting on the record what the Government has done, in good faith, to fulfil its duties to ensure that the statute book remains intact and effective and that legislation that is passed by the Scottish Parliament is within legislative competence. Brian Whittle: I acknowledge the First Minister’s assertion. He knows, I hope, that I have the greatest respect for him.”
“A section 30 order would not have had to be sought from the United Kingdom Parliament had provisions in the bill not been outside legislative competence—the order just would not have been required. My Government, in good faith, sought a section 30 order to enable the Parliament to pass a legislatively competent bill. We secured agreement with the United Kingdom Government on a section 30 order. Members know how keen I am to get section 30 orders on other subjects, although I have been less successful in securing them. However, other issues remain outstanding, which is why Mr McArthur moved amendments to remove provisions and put them in a section 104 order, which would be determined by the United Kingdom Government should the bill be passed by the Parliament.”
“The Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, as I have already said, I am required under the Scotland Act 1998 to take a view on the legislative competence of each bill at its introduction. I did so in this case, and that was my view. Brian Whittle: As I said, the bill was passed competent at stage 1, which goes against what the First Minister says about the Government having been open and honest in the way in which the bill has been delivered. I stand by my assertion that the Government has been, at best, unhelpful. The First Minister: This is an incredibly sensitive issue for all members of the Parliament. My Government’s reputation is being attacked by Mr Whittle, and some of Mr McArthur’s comments fundamentally undermine some of the actions that he has taken on the bill. It is important that I make the position clear to the Parliament.”
“I again emphasise that the reason why those provisions are being removed in our votes yesterday, today and tomorrow is precisely that they are not competent and within the responsibilities of this Government. That issue should be well known by members across the chamber. Stephen Kerr: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This is quite a confusing situation for us. I am sorry—SNP members might not say so—but the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are saying something very different from what Liam McArthur has said, and something quite different, if I have understood it, from what the Presiding Officer has said. I therefore seek your guidance, Presiding Officer. At the introduction of the bill, was it your judgment and decision that it was a competent bill to be considered by the Parliament?”
“Kate Forbes: Perhaps Brian Whittle would allow me to intervene, purely because I was referenced in Liam McArthur’s comments. There are two points that I would put on the record. First, it is well known across this Parliament—and it has been for many years—that the regulation of drugs and employment rights are reserved issues. That is why there has been extensive debate about whether they should be devolved. That point is fairly obvious to all members. Secondly, those are not immaterial or insignificant issues to the core bill. The bill cannot exist without those fundamental provisions, which is why the section 30 and section 104 orders have to exist.”
“Once that statement is made, there is no further role for the Presiding Officer in commenting on legislative competence. Where members have views on a bill, including on whether its provisions or the bill raise issues of legislative competence, they have the opportunity, during the Parliament’s consideration of the bill, to make those views known and debate them. However, those matters are not for the Presiding Officer to comment on. The Scotland Act 1998 provides for further checks after a bill has been passed, and whether a provision of a bill, as agreed by the Parliament, is within the Parliament’s legislative competence can only be definitively determined by a court. Brian Whittle: I welcome Liam McArthur’s intervention, and I stand by what I said.”
“The statements that the Deputy First Minister made were not correct, nor indeed was what the First Minister said. Stephen Kerr: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I think that that intervention from Liam McArthur requires that we get some clarity from you, Presiding Officer, about the nature of the bill when it was first presented to the Parliament. Liam McArthur has said that it was the decision of the Presiding Officer that it was a competent bill to be considered by the Parliament. The Scottish Government is saying something different. Matters of competency in bills is a matter for the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer: As Presiding Officer, I am required under the Scotland Act 1998 to take a view on the legislative competence of each and every bill at its introduction.”
“Liam McArthur: I am slightly reluctant, given the generous comments that the First Minister has made about me, to push back in the way that I am going to push back, but both the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister have now claimed that the bill that was introduced was legislatively incompetent. Presiding Officer, I am sure that you will testify that there was confirmation from you that the bill that was introduced was competent. At all stages—I acknowledged this at stage 1—there were areas of the bill that, were the Parliament to back the general principles, would need to be picked up with the UK Government to ensure competence; namely, around the use of medicines and medical devices, and also around employment and the regulation of professional bodies.”
“The Government has a duty to ensure that the statute book is intact and properly formulated, based on the advice that is available to us. That is what has been honestly and openly presented to the Parliament. 19:15 Brian Whittle: Well, First Minister, let me tell you. I know from a number of MSPs and from my colleagues on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee how much work members have put into the bill and how much work Mr McArthur has put into it, and it is only recently that that information has been made available to us. I am sorry, but I disagree intently. [Interruption.] You can protect your Government all you like, First Minister, but that is my opinion on the matter. The Presiding Officer: Speak through the chair. Brian Whittle: Liam McArthur wishes to make an intervention.”
“I am grateful that Mr McArthur has acknowledged those issues, but he introduced a bill in the Parliament that did not recognise the issues that the Government had put on the record. I firmly reject the accusation from Mr Whittle that the Government has not engaged. The Government is neutral on the bill, but it has been pointing out for some considerable time that there are issues of legislative competence, and we have sought means of resolving them. That is why there is a section 30 order. It would not have happened without Government engagement on that question. That is why Mr McArthur has brought forward the provisions that will result in a section 104 process, because the matters must be resolved or the bill will be legislatively incompetent.”
“Will Brian Whittle take an intervention? Brian Whittle: I will do so in a second. We have been trying to get to a place where the bill is competent, only to find out at the last minute that it might not be competent. The pushback and the lack of engagement from the Scottish Government, which I noted at stage 2, is quite disgraceful. The First Minister: I am grateful to Mr Whittle for giving way. I have not participated intensively in the debate, for obvious reasons, but I cannot have Mr Whittle say what he has said about my Government. The Government has engaged substantively on this agenda. We have made it clear consistently that the provisions on medications and employment rights were outside of legislative competence. That is not a surprise. The Government has been putting that on the table for a long time.”
“However, the fundamental ethical questions about the principle were addressed at stage 1, and, in this debate at stage 3, we have to address whether we have a practical bill that can afford people the choice that many members want but that also affords people protection. The debate is about the bill that we have in front of us—that is absolutely critical.”
“However, I am interested in his view on whether it is right that a Parliament that has responsibility for health and criminal justice has found itself struggling to debate the issue. This afternoon, we should be focused on the fundamental ethical issues that are at the core of the debate; instead, we are having a difficult technical debate about constitutional law because the devolved settlement has proven to be inadequate. Does he agree with that? Michael Marra: That is worthy of reflection, and Mr Greer sets out some of the challenges. I have already set out what I think to be some of the limitations of the member’s bill process in dealing with the issue.”
““Unconscionable” is a strong word, but in these circumstances I think that it is correct. We should not be looking at legislation in which people are not afforded those fundamental protections in their employment. It also goes beyond those individuals. It has a fundamental impact on our health service and on our ability to provide palliative care, social care and emergency healthcare across Scotland. Given the statistics that I have set out, we have to think about what it will do to our NHS if we remove the cohort of staff who are unwilling to participate in assisted dying because they are not afforded appropriate protections. Ross Greer: I have significant sympathy for much of the argument that Michael Marra is laying out.”
“For those reasons, I do not think that the timetable for this bill will be within this parliamentary session. Alasdair Allan: Does the member agree that it is not only in this chamber that the concerns that he has rightly outlined are being expressed? In the past few weeks, members have had a letter from former presidents of colleges of physicians and surgeons, who say: “This is an issue of huge concern. … it seems unconscionable to us that parliamentarians would be committing our profession to such a monumental change in responsibilities without complete clarity on what protection would be offered for those who, for reasons of conscience, would decline to be involved.” I take it that that is a direct reference to the section 104 order. Michael Marra: That is certainly what I took that to mean when I received the letter.”
“However, the language in the letter that I read indicates to me that this is no four- day process. It is not a three-week process. This is a situation where people will have to give careful consideration to the interrelations. Alasdair Allan: Will the member take an intervention? Michael Marra: I will if I can complete this point, Mr Allan. We should also all be cognisant of the fact that the UK Parliament is in the process of considering its own assisted dying legislation. I am sure that, if that legislation passes, there will be issues that the UK Parliament or the UK Government, or the officials who work for the UK Government, will wish to consider around the impact that it might have on different approaches to employment legislation across the UK and protections that are afforded to individuals.”
“Martin Whitfield: I will take the member back slightly rather than address the question that he is discussing. Does he have concerns about the length of time that the bill will take? One of the challenges with the bill is that, if it is passed, when it will come into force and whether it can even be looked at as coming into force without this fundamental question being answered with regard to— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Michael Marra. Michael Marra: Mr Whitfield makes a very fair point. Clearly, given the timetable that we have, the bill will come under the auspices of a successor Parliament. It is not clear. In his initial statement to Parliament, Mr Gray set out that the Government would wish to prepare a memorandum for the UK Government within days on the effect of the stage 3 amendments that would be passed.”
“the UK Government is not yet in a position to agree to the specific form of the Section 104 Order.” Again, I am entirely sure that that it is a reasonable and legal means of setting out the limitations of the process. However, I think that, as parliamentarians, we would all ask whether that is a sufficient means for dealing with what is a central part of the bill. I have looked at the other areas where section 104 orders have been pursued, and they are used for reasonably technical issues. This issue is fundamental to the bill. It is about defining who can have a conscientious objection, so that people can have security in their employment, and it relates to the standards of training around those issues. I think that that is of the utmost importance, and I cannot believe that it will be dealt with sufficiently in this manner.”
“This also speaks to the fact that we are trying to resolve very complex inter- Government issues when it is not a Government- to-Government process. That illuminates the limitations of using a member’s bill in such an area. Further to that, the letter from the UK Government to the Scottish Affairs Committee, which has also gone to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, is very much open to interpretation. It says that the UK Government is “content in principle to take forward a section 104 Order. ... It is important to note the complexity of these matters and the detailed policy and legal work that would be required from both governments. This will require further consideration and analysis by respective officials. ...”
“The information that we have is on the means by which a section 104 order will be pursued, which is a different matter entirely. There may very well be a strong case for why a section 30 process was not deemed to be the correct vehicle for the UK Government to pursue the matter, but I do not believe that Parliament has heard it. Martin Whitfield rose— 17:15 Michael Marra: I will complete this point and then take an intervention from Mr Whitfield. I do not believe that Parliament has had that case set out to it by the UK Government sufficiently, and I would be willing to hear it. However, as I pointed out in my response to Mr Hepburn, if we had looked at this matter two years in the past, we could have pursued some form of negotiated settlement.”
“Will Mr Marra further develop his argument about the uncertainty that is left for Parliament should the section 104 order route be pursued rather than a section 30 order? A section 30 order would provide the Parliament with the legislative competence to act and to define its position. I wonder whether Mr Marra would consider that a section 104 order leaves uncertainty for this Parliament about its legislative intent being followed. Michael Marra: The First Minister makes a fair point, and I will come on to that. I am not going to stand here and advocate the position that the UK Government has taken in this regard, because the letter that I have from the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State for Scotland does not set out the position as to why a section 30 order was declined.”
“We have discussed with Glasgow City Council the support that can be made available by the Government to ensure that business owners—many of them owners of small businesses who were, as Annie Wells said, just getting on with making their living but have had their world turned upside down—get support to assist them at this difficult time. The Government will look to work with the city council to do that.”
“Those are people’s livelihoods, so will the First Minister outline what immediate practical support can be offered to those businesses in the area? The First Minister: I am acutely conscious of the impact on a range of businesses, not only in the buildings affected by the fire but in the surrounding areas where there is an exclusion zone and where access is difficult. That situation might persist for some time to come and I am clear about those impacts. Kaukab Stewart, the local member, has briefed me on the dialogue that she has had with individual businesses, and the city council will be in dialogue with them as well. When I visited the site yesterday, I made clear that I recognise the impacts.”
“It is iconic in the city. A number of steps will have to be considered as part of the recovery process that is under way, but the Government will work collaboratively with Glasgow City Council to enable that to be the case. A whole sequence of decisions will require to be taken by the council for that to be done. I reassure Annie Wells that the Government will be partners with Glasgow City Council in enabling that to be the case. Annie Wells: I again thank the First Minister for his response. However, as we know, many small businesses have lost everything as a result of the fire. The owner of Wig Chapel has lost specialist tools and stock, while local businesses such as So Glow, Hundred Demons and Amber Rose Nails have also suffered.”
“I place on record my sincere thanks to and admiration for the firefighters, first responders, paramedics and police, who worked tirelessly throughout the night. Their professionalism and bravery undoubtedly prevented an even greater tragedy. I remember going to Glasgow Central station on every fair Friday of my childhood to get the train down to London, Bristol or Derby to visit family. It is a place that people in Glasgow hold most dearly. The fire has caused serious damage to a historical part of Glasgow’s city centre, including the loss of an amazing Victorian building. The First Minister has said something about support, but can I get a further commitment that all necessary support will be provided to restore that important part of Glasgow? The First Minister: I acknowledge the significance of the site in Glasgow.”
“A huge effort is under way to identify any safety issues in the train station, which must remain closed for now. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport has been briefed constantly and, yesterday, met Network Rail and ScotRail as they assessed the on-going challenge of restoring services. Above all else, let me be clear that the Scottish Government will stand with the city of Glasgow as it recovers from the fire. Given the significant cost that the city faces, we will back those words with cash. To get the work started, a ministerial oversight board has been established, chaired by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. We will rebuild, we will restore and Glasgow will flourish again. Annie Wells: I thank the First Minister for his response.”
“Let me begin by paying tribute to our emergency services—in particular, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—for their response to that major incident. Two hundred and fifty firefighters were involved and, at the fire’s height, 18 fire appliances plus specialist resources were deployed. From 8 o’clock this morning, the SFRS scaled back the response to four fire appliances and two high- reach vehicles, although it is important to point out that it remains a live incident. When I visited the site yesterday, I commended the work of the SFRS and others to the commanders and partners who led the response. It is a huge relief that there were no injuries, which is thanks to the efforts, professionalism and dedication of the emergency services.”
“I simply express my regret and apologies for the delay that has been experienced, which is for those reasons and those reasons alone. The Presiding Officer: That concludes First Minister’s question time. Our next item of business is a members’ business debate. There will be a brief suspension to allow those leaving the chamber, including the public gallery, to do so. 12:47 Meeting suspended. 12:49 On resuming— Disabled People’s Representation in Scottish Democracy”
“I am very sympathetic to the point that Beatrice Wishart raises, and I have answered questions on the topic before. I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to engage directly with Beatrice Wishart on this question. The theatres that undertake activity to tackle breast cancer and other cancers are the same theatres that are used for breast reconstruction surgery. Where we have backlogs in the aftermath of Covid, clinical priority has been attached to the immediate treatment of life-threatening conditions that individuals face. Sadly and regrettably, that has led to significant delays in breast reconstruction surgery. That is the rationale for where we find ourselves. I will ask the health secretary to engage directly with Beatrice Wishart to support her constituent.”
“The partnership action for continuing employment initiative that the Government puts in place to support employees who lose their jobs will be available to help those from BrewDog who have lost their jobs. Breast”
“With the greatest respect to Mr Lumsden, I think that the issues in relation to BrewDog’s situation have a great deal more to do with other factors than with business rates levied by the Scottish Government. On the question of business rates, however, in the budget that was passed last week—which Mr Lumsden did not support—the Government put in place support and reliefs totalling, if my memory serves me right, more than £900 million in relation to business rates relief. We are supporting transitional relief as part of that figure to assist businesses in the hospitality sector. The Government will, of course, engage closely with the BrewDog employees. I am deeply concerned about the way in which they have been treated. It is appalling for members of staff to be treated in this fashion.”
“I assure Clare Haughey that the Government, under my leadership, will continue to deliver the improvements in the national health service, and we will to continue to do what is already in place.”
“I expect that to be the case, because the Government has committed to reducing long waits in our NHS. As my colleague Clare Haughey has said, there have been eight months of continuous reductions in long waits for out-patients and for patients with a treatment time guarantee. The latest data this week shows that operation numbers are up by 5.6 per cent in the 12 months to December 2025. General practitioner numbers are up and 16 walk- in GP centres are being delivered across the country. I know that the Labour Party absolutely loathes the GP walk-in centres, but I am pleased that they will provide more access to healthcare services in Scotland. The national performance against the 18-week CAMHS standard has been met for the past year.”
“I pay tribute to Monica Lennon for the work that she has done on the bill. I understand that the committee decided not to proceed to stage 2 consideration, which is a matter for the committee. The issues that Monica Lennon raises about nature loss, biodiversity and climate change are sustained, important priority issues that cannot be avoided. That is why the Government is committed to our policy agenda. Should the Government be re-elected, it will consider the issues that Monica Lennon has raised with me. We all have to recognise that there is now a much more divided debate on the issue. It is important that leadership is deployed to ensure that we address the necessity for climate action and restore nature loss. That is what I am committed to doing in the programme of my Government. National Health Service”
“There is a dilemma at the heart of the question that Miles Briggs raises. On a regular basis, members of Parliament press the Government to enable local authorities to take more comprehensive decisions about their localities. Over time, Mr Briggs has argued for me to enable local authorities to have more scope to do things, but he is now asking me to intervene to stop that happening. Those are local matters that local authorities must consult on and make decisions about. It is their responsibility to do exactly that. On the subject of a referendum, I say to Mr Briggs that I think that the next referendum that needs to take place in Scotland is a referendum on Scottish independence—and the sooner the better. Ecocide (Scotland)”
“I reiterate my call for the removal of the energy profits levy, and it should happen the sooner the better. The Presiding Officer: Let us make sure that we can hear one another. People in the gallery would very much like to hear members’ contributions. Congestion Charging (Edinburgh)”