Murdo Fraser
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“This has been quite a lively debate so far. I might take a slightly more sympathetic approach to Reform than other colleagues who have spoken. To be fair to Reform members, they have been on a steep learning curve in relation to how they approach debates in the Parliament.”
“After all the promises that were made about Reform members coming in to shake this place up, they cannot even get the basics right. If these are the foxes in the hen house, the chickens will be sleeping pretty safely tonight. That seems reflected in Reform’s most recent electoral performances.”
“I will make what I hope is a constructive suggestion, which is that it would be more helpful to have a debate on any one of those topics to allow us time to discuss the issues in detail. We will all be here for another five years, so Angela Ross should not fire all her bullets at once.”
“Murdo Fraser: I will give way in a second. The only things that have been left out are the NHS and justice. Virtually every topic in the remit of the Parliament is covered in the motion, as are some topics that are not in the remit of the Parliament.”
“Most significantly of all, we had a superb Conservative victory in the Aberdeen South constituency, with my good friend Douglas Lumsden winning just shy of 50 per cent of the vote—a massive swing from the SNP. Reform received just 2,478 votes, or 8.6 per cent of the total.”
“He will know that there is a necessity in the case of individual judgments for those involved to consider whether there is any basis on which an appeal should be mounted in a particular case.”
The complete record
Every one of 699 lines we hold for Murdo Fraser, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 14.
“I thank all those who made their first speeches during this debate: Duncan Massey, Jack Middleton, David Barratt, Mark Simpson, Pauline Stafford, Heather Anderson, Kristopher Leask, Alan Brown and Sanne Dijkstra-Downie. All of them made well-informed and helpful contributions, and we heard a wide variety of opinions. That is as it should be in a Parliament such as this. I do not want to single anybody out, but I very much enjoyed the contribution from my fellow Fife representative David Barratt, although I was absolutely horrified at the revelation that he first visited this building as a primary school pupil. That makes some of us feel very old. David Barratt: That was the intent. Murdo Fraser: I thank Mr Barratt for that sedentary contribution.”
“Will the minister take an intervention? Stephen Gethins: Do you know what? I will take an intervention, despite this being my first speech—and who better to take one from than Murdo Fraser?”
“I, Murdo MacKenzie Fraser, 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”
“I know that people will argue that in Edinburgh, during the festival, the place is buzzing and it can easily sustain a visitor levy, because demand outstrips supply. However, Edinburgh is not all of Scotland, and many parts of Scotland would love to have even a fraction of the visitors that Edinburgh has.”
“I am sure that we will want to return to those in the future. Let us put all that in a bit of context, because the visitor levy continues to be controversial. We have made the point on numerous occasions in the chamber that Scotland is already seen as a high- cost tourist destination. We have VAT on hospitality at 20 per cent, which is the second- highest rate in Europe. If we add a visitor levy on top of that, at anything between 5 per cent and 10 per cent, we push up costs even more. Many Scottish families already find it cheaper to fly overseas for a holiday rather than take a break here, and overseas visitors will be balancing the cost of visiting Scotland in comparison with that of visiting other European destinations. We need to be careful that we do not price ourselves out of the market.”
“The Scottish Conservatives very much welcome the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, which corrects errors and misjudgments arising from the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 that the Parliament passed back in 2024. I thank the minister for his constructive engagement with me and other colleagues on the content of the bill and for all the work that he and civil servants did to get it through so quickly. That just shows what can be done. If the minister is back as a minister after the election, who knows what other matters might be dealt with very quickly if the political will to do so is there? Although Scottish Conservatives welcome the changes in the bill, there are other changes that we believe could have been made to improve the legislation in this area, which we discussed when we were looking at amendments last week.”
“However, if councils take advantage of the flexibility that the bill offers and implement a fixed-fee option, the prices might be set in the same way, which would have a disproportionate impact on the cheaper end of the market. That is why we need to revisit the issue and take the opportunity to exempt campsites and caravan parks. The Holiday and Residential Parks Association has calculated that, if a charge of £2 per person per night was applied, it would add £168 to the cost of a fortnight’s break in a static caravan for a family of six. That is a very significant additional cost. I do not want to see anybody, least of all those from low-income families, being unable to afford a holiday because of the imposition of a visitor levy. That is why amendments 5 and 6 are required. I move amendment 5.”
“I still have the memories of a weekend in Oban in a static caravan when it rained every day, as it sometimes does. As we face a cost of living crisis, with rising bills everywhere, we should not be making the cost of a short break in Scotland even more expensive and therefore putting it out of reach for low-income families who might not be able to afford any other sort of holiday. I appreciate that, if councils bring in a visitor levy on a percentage basis, those who stay in campsites or in a caravan park will pay less than those who stay in a more expensive place, such as in a hotel or in larger self-catering premises.”
“Amendments 5 and 6 have the purpose of exempting camping and caravan sites from the legislation, thereby ensuring that those who stay in such sites will not be subject to a visitor levy. The Conservatives attempted to make a similar change to the original legislation when it went through the Parliament, but the amendments were rejected at that time. However, it remains my view that the matter should be reconsidered, particularly given the changes to the legislation that are being introduced through the bill. Camping and caravaning, including staying in static caravans, represent low-cost, affordable holiday options for many families who could not otherwise afford a break. I remember that—and I am sure that others in the chamber will remember the same—when I was growing up, that was the sort of holiday that we had as a family.”
“Ivan McKee: I agree with Murdo Fraser that it is important to ensure, as we have done throughout this process, that the administrative burden on and costs for businesses are taken into account. I encourage local authorities to act favourably in any conversations that they have with local businesses about administrative costs. I press amendment 4. Amendment 4 agreed to. After section 2 The Deputy Presiding Officer: Amendment 5, in the name of Murdo Fraser, is grouped with amendments 6, 25, 26 and 32. Murdo Fraser: The Scottish Conservatives support the bill, which makes much-needed corrections to the original flawed legislation. I will say more about that context in the closing debate next week. In the meantime, I will speak briefly to my two amendments in the group.”
“I will comment briefly on the group. I welcome the amendments. They deal with an issue that has been raised by many accommodation providers, which is that the cost of administering the visitor levy will fall on them. The amendments will allow accommodation providers, if a local authority agrees, to retain a proportion of the sums that are collected in order to help them to cover costs. All that I say to the minister—perhaps he can address this in winding up—is that I hope that the Scottish Government will encourage councils, if they are introducing the visitor levy, to act reasonably and ensure that the exemption is applied. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Ivan McKee to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 4.”
“Russia is a major threat to much of eastern Europe, as those nations well know. The Baltics do not believe that, if successful, Putin will stop at Ukraine, and neither should we. It is our duty to do everything in our power to ensure that he is not successful, including whole- heartedly supporting Ukraine, financially and militarily. Glory to Ukraine. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before we move to the open debate, I encourage members who wish to participate to make sure that their cards are in and that they have pressed their request-to-speak buttons. 12:58”
“Despite this grim picture, the Ukrainian people’s determination to achieve a just peace remains resolute. We must not accept the Carthaginian peace that President Putin desires, which would allow him to permanently weaken Ukraine and annex the country at a later date. Peace is best achieved by Russia abandoning its imperialist war, vacating areas conquered and leaving an independent democratic Ukraine to decide its own future, with its territorial integrity restored. While the world’s media focus is, understandably, on the latest middle east conflict, Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities are hit daily by Russian missiles, thousands perish on the front and peace talks appear moribund. Four years on from Russia’s invasion, Ukraine remains steadfast, while Putin wastefully throws away the lives of his soldiers.”
“Putin has been handed a billion-dollar windfall as the United States loosens sanctions on Russian exports due to the surge in global oil prices, which, ironically, is caused by the US’s illegal war on Iran. Iran supplies the notorious Shahed drones that Putin sends indiscriminately, night after night, against Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure. President Trump is seemingly in awe of Putin, and his ham- fisted peace negotiators’ approach makes it look more like he is pursuing a real estate deal—a deal similar to the infamous Munich agreement that Hitler, Mussolini, Chamberlain and Daladier imposed on Czechoslovakia in 1938. Appeasement is never the answer. Ukraine has been urged to make all the concessions to end a war that it did not start.”
“Full details will be sent to all candidates, but the top line of each pledge is: first, to help the Ukrainian people to defeat the illegal Russian invasion of their country; second, to prevent Russia from financing its invasion of Ukraine through trade; third, to build practical solidarity links between the Scottish and Ukrainian people; fourth, to help Ukrainian refugees to build new lives here if they want to do so; and finally, to provide necessary Scottish Government material support for Ukrainian refugees. I trust that all candidates, across all parties, will support those aims. Preventing Russia from financing its invasion of Ukraine through trade is particularly pertinent.”
“For example, to help to defend against deadly Russian drone attacks, more than 280 tonnes of fishing nets were sent from Scotland, following a request from President Zelenskyy’s Government. Vital infrastructure and strategic locations in eastern Ukraine are now protected by nets draped overhead, which catch exploding drones. On the meat grinder of its front line, Russia has barely inched forward in the past 30 months, but the use of drones makes it almost impossible for people to live safely within 30 miles of Russia’s lines. The Ukraine Solidarity Campaign Scotland urges all candidates in the upcoming Scottish parliamentary election to support its five pledges for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.”
“I am just about to move on to Scotland’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, 3.7 million Ukrainians who have been driven from their homes are internally displaced, and 5.9 million have been forced to cross into neighbouring countries. In Scotland, 29,000 Ukrainians—mostly women and children— arrived with a sponsor through the homes for Ukraine scheme and have made an invaluable contribution. That includes a former intern in my office, who found a new home with a family in Beith. I welcome the on-going voluntary work to help the people of Ukraine, which Mr Fraser touched on. I also welcome the Scottish Government’s unwavering support for Ukraine and Neil Gray’s sterling work as minister with special responsibility for Ukraine. Although Scotland’s devolved Government is limited in how it can support Ukraine’s people, we must do what we can.”
“I associate myself entirely with everything that Kenny Gibson is saying. He might be coming on to talk about the support that people in Scotland are showing for Ukraine. Will he join me in saluting the many voluntary groups throughout the country, including Tayside and Strathearn Help for Ukraine, based in Errol in Perthshire, which collects donated goods from all over Scotland, including food, clothing and medical supplies, and takes them on a weekly trucking journey to Ukraine to help those in need? Will he join me in calling on the Scottish Government to do what it can to support those efforts in Scotland? Kenneth Gibson: I absolutely agree with that very welcome intervention. Indeed, it means that I no longer have to cover that part of my speech, because Mr Fraser has touched on it. I concur with what he says.”
“The Presiding Officer: We move to constituency and general supplementary questions. Ferry Services (Arran)”
“The First Minister: The innuendo of Mr Fraser’s remarks is not lost on me, but I will quote the commissioner again: “I think the Scottish Government in general is actually very good when it comes to freedom of information.” As I said in my first answer to Katy Clark, there have been 13,000 FOI requests since the start of 2024, with 95 per cent of those responded to on time, and with thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of information issued in relation to the Hamilton inquiry. I reiterate what I said to Katy Clark. I am not going to knowingly do anything that gets me into the area of compromising the anonymity of women in cases of alleged sexual assault. There are court orders that must be followed and this First Minister is going to follow those court orders.”
“The problem with the First Minister’s defence is that it ignores the fact that David Hamilton, the Scottish Information Commissioner, has spent his entire career in the criminal justice system and he probably understands these issues better than anybody else in this chamber. His criticism of the Government is that the excuses that it has given are, in his words, “preposterous and unacceptable”. Surely we should be listening to him. The Government should be complying with his reasonable requests. Otherwise, it gives the impression that this is a Government that is addicted to secrecy.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to expand the availability of venture capital funding to aid business growth. (S6O-05650)”
“When the well-funded lobby group Dignity in Dying, which is promoting the bill, was formed many years ago, it was called the Euthanasia Society. In the 1970s, it rebranded itself as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. Two decades ago, it rebranded itself again as Dignity in Dying. However, no one should be in any doubt as to the origins of the campaign group and its true agenda. Suicide is a difficult subject for anyone to discuss. I know that those who support the bill do not wish to conflate what the bill seeks to do with suicide, but that is unavoidable for the reasons that I have outlined. Suicide is a terrible social curse.”
“Language is important in this debate. The bill that is before us is called the assisted dying bill, but we know that that language confuses people, because there are people who believe that the term “assisted dying” covers palliative care, the administration of pain relief and anyone’s life in a hospice. In reality, the bill is about assisting suicide. That is the legal reality. It has never been the case in Scots law that assisting someone to end their life has been legal, so the bill will represent a fundamental change in our law. On the two previous occasions when the Parliament has debated similar bills, those bills have been described as assisted suicide bills. There has been a deliberate change to sanitise the debate that we are having. 09:45 The change reflects another sanitisation.”
“Before I talk about amendment 247, I draw members’ attention, if they are not already aware of this, to the fact that the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland has just informed us in the past few moments that it has moved from a position of neutrality on the bill to a position of opposition. I hope that members will reflect on that when they reach a view on how they will vote on the bill in its entirety. Amendment 247, which is in my name, would introduce a new subsection in section 21A that would create a mandatory requirement for all public-facing communications about assisted dying to include suicide prevention information. Its purpose is to ensure that vulnerable individuals, including those experiencing distress or suicidal thoughts, are provided with clear guidance and access to appropriate crisis support services.”
“If we are going to have advocacy, it needs to be available to everybody, and on a face-to-face basis. Part of the reason why I am lodging amendment 207 is that we need an independent body that is responsible for ensuring that advocacy is available. We could make sure that that applies throughout Scotland. The amendment is not merely procedural; it is a fundamental safeguard that would ensure that those who are charged with supporting some of the most vulnerable individuals in our healthcare system are properly trained, accountable and subject to independent scrutiny.”
“The establishment of a statutory body would provide precisely that structure, offering independent supervision of advocates within assisted dying services in the national health service, which is the point that Audrey Nicoll made in her intervention. Rhoda Grant: I am interested in amendment 207, but my one concern is about something that Mr Fraser will be aware of. In rural areas where there are accreditation services, people tend to be locked out of gaining accreditation because of the long distances that they have to travel. We see that again and again. In a way, we would need more advocates in rural areas, just because of the sheer distances from services. If the bill becomes law, everyone should have face-to-face advocacy to support them through the process. Murdo Fraser: I very much agree with Rhoda Grant.”
“Amendment 207 would oblige the body to enforce those standards, maintain robust records and produce an annual public report, all while maintaining appropriate confidentiality protections. Crucially, the amendment would place on the Scottish ministers a statutory duty to provide sufficient funding to enable the body to discharge its functions effectively, which is the point that was raised a moment ago by Pam Duncan-Glancy. Without such funding, the safeguards that are envisaged here—which I know Mr Greer supports—could not be realised in practice. We have to ensure that the funding is in place. I absolutely accept the principle of advocacy services and welcome the fact that Ross Greer’s amendments were agreed to at stage 2. However, the operation of such a service requires clear procedural frameworks and oversight.”
“As Ross Greer has properly identified, amendment 207 proposes the establishment of a new statutory entity to be known as the independent advocacy oversight body, which would be charged with the accreditation, monitoring, auditing and reporting of advocacy services operating under the act. It would replace what was inserted at stage 2, which was the ability of ministers to make regulations to establish advocacy services. Although that was an improvement to the bill, my concern is that it does not go far enough and that there is a need for independence. The purpose of the body would be to ensure that all advocacy providers meet formal standards of competence, independence and accountability.”
“It is also fair to put on the record that multiyear funding has been delivered through Creative Scotland to a record number of organisations. Mr Fraser will know—as do colleagues across the chamber, and as do the national performing companies—that I am in favour of multiyear funding being delivered for the national performing companies. I hope that his party will commit to that. If I have the good fortune to return to this place and, indeed, to this office, I look forward to delivering just that. Perhaps next time, Murdo Fraser might actually vote for it. Scottish Opera 3.”
“We are so fortunate to have the national performing companies, but, as we have just heard, the standstill budget that the Scottish Government has handed down means that they are potentially having to cut back on some of their activities. In 2021, in the programme for government, the Scottish Government—indeed, the cabinet secretary himself—committed to three-year funding for the national performing companies. Five years later, that has still not been delivered. Why has that promise been broken, and what is the cabinet secretary going to do to make sure that it is now delivered? Angus Robertson: We are now 70 per cent through the record additional uplift in annual spending in culture, which I hope that Murdo Fraser—having voted against the budget, of course—will welcome.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Under rule 9.8.5A, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to propose that the time limit be extended by 30 minutes. Motion moved, That, under rule 9.8.5A, the time limit be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Graeme Dey] The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that the time limit for debate on amendments be extended by 30 minutes. Are we agreed?”
“A specific power to confer such a regulation-making power on the secretary of state would need to be identified, such as by way of a section 30 order, as has been done in connection with provisions to do with substances and devices. The Scottish Government has no comment on the remaining amendments in the group. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members will note that, despite extending the previous time limit by 30 minutes, we will shortly reach the next time limit, and we still have a further group to debate. As a consequence, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to propose that the last sentence of rule 9.8.5A be suspended. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to move such a motion. Motion moved, That the last sentence of rule 9.8.5A be suspended.— [Graeme Dey] Motion agreed to.”
“Another vehicle would therefore be required to fulfil the requirements of amendment 133B, such as provision in an act of the UK Parliament. As I said in response to Mr McArthur’s previous intervention, we do not have legal or competence concerns with amendments 133 and 133A. On amendment 238, the Scottish Government’s position is that it might raise issues of legislative competence as it would provide a power to set out the required training, qualifications and experience of health professionals. Amendment 239, which seeks to give power to the secretary of state, would be outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, as the substance of the power is beyond competence.”
“As I turn to other amendments in the group, I remind members of my previous comments on the Parliament’s responsibility to consider matters of legislative competence in passing legislation. On amendments 3 to 6, 145 to 147 and 156, the Scottish Government’s view is that sections 4(5)(a), 6(6)(a) and 15(8), to which the amendments variously relate, might raise issues of legislative competence and should therefore be removed from the bill, with any necessary provision made instead through an order under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, should the bill be passed. Amendment 133B, from a practical perspective, suggests using a section 104 order to confer a regulation-making power. It is considered that such an order cannot be used to confer regulation- making powers.”
“I have already set out our intention to address issues of legislative competence and our discussions with the UK Government, which has given an in-principle agreement to take forward a section 104 order and to consider and make appropriate provision to specify the training, qualifications and experience that are required for participating healthcare professionals. Should the bill be passed, the Scottish Government will continue to engage closely with the UK Government on the form that that section 104 order will take. To respond to Mr Greer’s direct question, I give my commitment that, should I continue to hold my current responsibility after the election, I will seek to keep Parliament informed.”
“Collectively, they would remove the sections of the bill that would require the Scottish ministers to specify, by regulations, the training, qualifications and experience of co-ordinating registered medical practitioners, independent registered medical practitioners and authorised health professionals. The amendments would also make other changes consequential on that removal. As I have outlined previously, the Scottish Government’s view is that the provisions in the bill might raise issues of legislative competence, as they might relate to the G2 reservation in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, which relates to the regulation of the health professions.”
“In previous debates, as well as in this one, members have pointed to the fact that debate is central to discussion that we are having. This is not a constitutional debate, although it certainly engages issues around the constitution; it is a question about whether this Parliament should get to see complete legislation and the full implications of that legislation before it makes a decision. 21:45 Neil Gray: The Scottish Government has worked with Liam McArthur on amendments 86 to 89, 120, 121, 123 and 125, as well as amendments 101, 104 and 105, which are in group 8.”
“I therefore understand the motivations of those seeking to make many of the amendments and do not intend to stand in their way, but it is difficult to endorse those moves with much enthusiasm. My concern is that we are being asked to pass legislation here without having any real idea of what the UK Parliament has in mind or how it intends to plug the holes in our own law. I have already mentioned a letter that was sent to members by former presidents of the royal colleges of physicians and surgeons to make clear their concerns about that. We cannot interrogate any of what might be in a future section 104 order, because it has yet to appear. In any case, such an order, by its very nature, receives limited parliamentary scrutiny. I mention those things to point to the dilemma that has been created.”
“As members understand, that is because such powers would be out of scope for this Parliament. Therefore, should the bill ultimately pass, we face two options. Either Parliament agrees to Liam McArthur’s amendments, effectively outsourcing such important decisions to unelected UK officials, or Parliament does not agree to the amendments, which would mean that the legislation would be all but certain to end up in the Supreme Court. To avoid any misunderstanding, I accept that the areas in question here are pro tempore indisputably reserved to Westminster. However, I also believe that it is not good lawmaking to draft laws to end up in the courts while issues of competence are settled.”
“I do not want to rehearse a lot of the arguments that we have already had about how much this has turned into a debate about the limits of the devolution settlement, rather than one about the issue at hand. I hope, given the strength of feeling that the cabinet secretary has seen from members across Parliament, that there will, at least from this Government, be consistent engagement with the Parliament and that, if Scottish ministers are given direction-making powers, they will ensure that the Parliament is engaged before they issue any directions, even if that does not have to go via the Parliament. I will conclude on that point. Alasdair Allan: Liam McArthur’s amendments would remove ministers’ powers to set regulations defining the training, qualifications and experience of the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner.”
“Scottish ministers have the ability to direct the national health service without going via the Parliament. The Parliament would have the final say via the backstop of the commencement regulations, but it would be far better if the Government were to engage with the Parliament upfront. With that, I will not move amendments 238, 239 or 133B, but I urge members to back amendment 133A, and I would also be keen to hear from the cabinet secretary. Neil Gray: I can confirm to Mr Greer that the UK Government has not expressed a preference for how that issue should be resolved. Ross Greer: I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that clarification, disappointing though it is.”
“His letter to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee said: “our view is that the route of seeking to make provision in a section 104 Order, perhaps to give Scottish Ministers power to make directions about such matters, is the appropriate one”. The UK Government’s letter on the section 104 order is silent on the approach that it would take in that regard, so I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could clarify whether, in those discussions, the UK Government expressed any preference for how it would go about the section 104 order. Would the UK Government do that itself or would it give Scottish ministers direction-making powers? I bring up the point about direction- making powers because it was in the cabinet secretary’s letter and because those powers would not require the approval of this Parliament.”
“However, I am going to ask members not to support amendment 133B but to support 133A, much as I think it is not ideal, because 133B would effectively give the UK Government the choice of either granting a section 30 order—which is something that it clearly does not wish to do, for whatever reason—amending the Scotland Act 1998, or effectively blocking an assisted dying bill that this Parliament has voted for. I do not think that that would be an acceptable outcome. That is a roundabout way of explaining why, with all those options on the table, I am asking members to support amendment 133A. In closing, I have a question for the cabinet secretary.”
“Amendment 133B would require the specific solution that the UK Government must confer the training, qualification and experience regulation- making powers on the Scottish ministers. That is not a constitutional wedge issue; it is a fundamental point of safeguarding. This Parliament is trying to make arrangements for an assisted dying scheme, so it should be this Parliament that makes those decisions. If, under amendment 133A, the UK Government is to set those standards itself, I hope that it will listen to what Scottish ministers and stakeholders have to say, but there is no guarantee of that. We could have training standards that this Parliament does not support, which would leave us with the nuclear option on what to do with the commencement regulations. That is why amendment 133B was my preferred approach.”
“At stage 2, the committee decided that that was necessary by supporting my amendments to include such provisions, but they are in the section that is now being removed for the sake of legislative competence. I recognise the necessity for that, and my amendments 133A and 133B seek to resolve the situation. They seek to make commencement of the bill conditional on the gap being closed by the UK Government in the same manner as we have just addressed the issue of no- duty and no-detriment provisions through Liam McArthur’s amendment 133. Amendment 133A would simply require that the UK Government finds a solution to provide for the training, qualification and experience requirements, but it may do so in a way that it sees fit. That could mean it making the arrangements or devolving regulation-making powers to Scottish ministers.”
“I am grateful for the support of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing on the drafting of those amendments, and also for the support of Dignity in Dying and the Queen’s Nursing Institute Scotland. I think that we would all agree that it would not be acceptable to have a system of assisted dying without setting out the training, qualification and experience requirements for those who would deliver the system. As Liam McArthur said, we would not want to proceed in such a manner. Without the amendments, though, we could have such a bill. The bill proposes a dispersed rather than a specialist service, so it is not automatically the case that those who would be involved would have specific training and qualifications. This Parliament needs to decide that that is necessary.”
“My amendments 238 and 239 were in essence a way to reach the same outcome by replicating the structure of the cabinet secretary’s amendments 110 and 111 on a Scotland Act 1998- compliant way of creating regulation-making powers on the issue of training, qualification and experience. Amendments 238 and 239 are my least preferred options and I do not plan to move them. I lodged them simply because I wanted to give the Parliament the option and there were only a few hours between the cabinet secretary lodging his amendment and the deadline for members to lodge ours. I thought that it was prudent to lodge a structural equivalent to his amendments on poison control in relation to this area. I do not think that my amendments 238 and 239 are now necessary, as we have come to a solution elsewhere, in amendments 133A and 133B.”
“It will allow us to deal with some of the issues that have been raised about the capacity of medical professionals to identify these pernicious issues. As I said, I do not intend to labour points that have already been made. I am grateful for the time that I have had to add to the debate. Ross Greer: My contribution to the debate on this group directly follows on from what I said in the debate on group 3 on conscientious objection and no detriment, because the way that we resolve these issues is intertwined, as Liam McArthur laid out. Specifically, my amendments 133A and 133B are amendments to Liam McArthur’s group 3 amendment 133, which ties commencement to resolution of the issues on the right of professionals not to participate and to be protected from any detriment if they do not.”
“That is why I have raised the need for wider multidisciplinary input, including from social workers and other professionals, which will help to identify coercive control much more easily. Looking at the evidence that has been provided on other jurisdictions, I note that the Jersey review panel’s recent examination of assisted dying safeguards concluded that assessments should draw on as broad a range of professional expertise as possible. It acknowledges that medical training alone cannot provide what is required to identify coercion or coercive control. I say that to back up my previous point about social work, but also to make it clear that training is important and it is going to be required.”