Alasdair Allan
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Like other members, I very much hope to see further and more comprehensive legislation soon. Meanwhile, as other members have mentioned, it is important not to lose sight of the reasons for and origin of crofting law.”
“I am pleased that my final speech in this session of Parliament is about such an important subject to my constituents as crofting. I, too, pay tribute to the contributions that have been made on the issue over the years by many members, not least by Rhoda Grant and Edward Mountain. This bill has been in the works for a long time.”
“However, the history that I have just recounted means that crofters are very aware that this traditional, culturally vital way of life requires legislation to sustain and protect it. The bill is a step forward in what must be a longer process of crofting law reform.”
“I was pleased to secure several amendments at stage 2, including to give ministers the power to regulate the transfer of owner-occupier crofts, to prevent a right-to-buy where a crofter is in breach of their duties, to explicitly include enforcement duties in the Crofting Commission’s responsibilities and to introduce a more practical and…”
“Depending on the voting intentions of my constituents, I look forward to working with the next Government on the additional legislation that will be required. In the meantime, the bill is an important step forward on the road to crofting legislation reform and I urge members to give it their support. 17:26”
“My amendment 6 would make it clear that that power includes the ability to make provisions on the transfer of associated grazing shares, should it be desirable to strengthen or modify the regime set out in sections 14A and 15. I move amendment 6.”
The complete record
Every one of 496 lines we hold for Alasdair Allan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
“Depending on the voting intentions of my constituents, I look forward to working with the next Government on the additional legislation that will be required. In the meantime, the bill is an important step forward on the road to crofting legislation reform and I urge members to give it their support. 17:26”
“I was pleased to secure several amendments at stage 2, including to give ministers the power to regulate the transfer of owner-occupier crofts, to prevent a right-to-buy where a crofter is in breach of their duties, to explicitly include enforcement duties in the Crofting Commission’s responsibilities and to introduce a more practical and proportionate civil rather than criminal penalty where there is a failure to uphold certain duties. Other members also improved the bill with their amendments, and I thank them for supporting those and other amendments last week that related to grazings shares and the involvement of the Crofting Commission, where necessary, on grazings committee applications for environmental or forestry use of common grazings.”
“However, the history that I have just recounted means that crofters are very aware that this traditional, culturally vital way of life requires legislation to sustain and protect it. The bill is a step forward in what must be a longer process of crofting law reform. The bill streamlines administrative processes, frees up the Crofting Commission to focus on its enforcement duties and combines the functions of the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. That tackles at least some of the areas on which there was the greatest consensus among stakeholders. The next piece of legislation will need to be more comprehensive. However, I believe that the crofting community supports the general principles and the final form of the bill that is before us today.”
“Like other members, I very much hope to see further and more comprehensive legislation soon. Meanwhile, as other members have mentioned, it is important not to lose sight of the reasons for and origin of crofting law. Throughout the 19th century, the people of the Highlands and Islands faced systematic persecution and eviction at the hands of some landlords who increasingly viewed humans as unprofitable. After the Napier commission examined those issues in the early 1880s, as has been mentioned, five members of the Crofters Party were elected as MPs. That pressure led to the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886 finally being passed. For the first time, crofters had legal security of tenure and the right to fix a fair rent. It is rare that any sector wants tighter regulation.”
“I am pleased that my final speech in this session of Parliament is about such an important subject to my constituents as crofting. I, too, pay tribute to the contributions that have been made on the issue over the years by many members, not least by Rhoda Grant and Edward Mountain. This bill has been in the works for a long time. Following the Shucksmith report in 2008, the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 was passed. In 2014, the so-called crofting law sump concluded that a significant overhaul of crofting legislation was still required. As the minister has outlined, 140 years of successive crofting acts have created a complex legal situation that is not currently serving crofting particularly efficiently, so the bill is a welcome move to simplify some of that picture.”
“I support that approach and I will say more about it when we consider amendment 26, which will commit ministers to a review of crofting legislation in general. Issues concerning common grazings are among the most important ones that the future review will consider. I recognise the issues that Edward Mountain has raised, and I am happy to support amendment 50, which will commit the next Government to consulting on them. I thank him for his contributions on this important matter.”
“I hope that the crofting community, Rhoda Grant and other members who have engaged with what is happening will see that the Crofting Commission has sped up its provisions to make sure that it is getting the work done far more timeously than was the case in the past. I turn to Edward Mountain’s amendments 48 to 50. In the debate on the bill at stage 1, there was strong cross-party consensus on two points: first, that the bill contains a number of important and valuable crofting reforms; and, secondly, that the next step must be a more strategic and fundamental review of crofting to identify a direction of travel for the coming decades. That review will, of course, include common grazings.”
“Amendment 14 provides that we will follow the Land Court’s principle whenever possible but that, pragmatically, we will allow the grazings owner to take over the role if need be. Amendment 13 will allow a longer timescale for the letting of vacant shares in order to allow for the commission’s necessary exchanges with both the owner and the grazings committee. Rhoda Grant: Amendment 13 seeks to increase, from three months to five months, the time for the Crofting Commission to respond. People already complain that it takes far too long to do so. Can the minister give an assurance that people will not have to wait five months for a response from the commission? Jim Fairlie: It will be for the commission to make those determinations.”
“It also covers the circumstance where the owner-occupier crofter is letting only part of the croft. In that circumstance, they will be able to specify whether the grazing right is attached to the part that is let or the part that is not. Again, however, that will be subject to the commission’s consent. Amendments 12 and 14 will clarify who has the right to re-let a vacant grazings right. The Land Court has ruled that that should be the person who was the landlord of the inby croft when it was a tenanted croft, or their successor in title. Sometimes that person is not the same as the person who owns the land over which the grazing rights are exercised, and sometimes, perhaps after a passage of years, they cannot be traced.”
“My amendments at stage 2, and now at stage 3, have been informed by those discussions between my officials and that group. Amendments 7, 10 and 11 will clarify the wording of the bill but will not materially change the purpose of the provisions. Amendment 8 will remove from the bill a change that we proposed to make to the right to buy an apportionment. That was never a core part of the provisions on retaining grazing rights with crofts and, following input from the group of advisers, I have decided that it is best not to venture into that territory without further examination of the legal implications of any proposed change. Amendment 9 will clarify that, when an owner- occupied croft is let, an attached share may have one of two legal forms.”
“The only exception should be that, if there is a specific application to separate the grazing right from the croft, that should be treated like any other application to divide a croft. The separation may happen only if the Crofting Commission consents, and it will take account of the current and future interests of the crofting community, among other things, in its decision-making process. That is what sections 14A and 15 are designed to achieve. However, because this is a complex area of law, officials have drawn on advice from a small group of stakeholders and experts, many of whom are practising crofting solicitors, to look closely at those two sections. I am extremely grateful to those people for giving up their time to help us to get this right.”
“It is an area of law where the policy intention is clear and, I think, agreed by everyone involved, but the means of achieving it is definitely not simple. A tenanted croft generally comes with an attached right to use common grazings and, in legal terms, the grazing right is a pertinent of the tenancy. Our policy is that grazing rights should stay attached to crofts, no matter what changes a croft goes through. It might be bought by its tenant and become an owner-occupied croft, and it might then be sold or even re-let to a new tenant. It might fall vacant and eventually be re-let by the Crofting Commission. However, the policy aim is that, no matter what happens to a croft, the grazing right should, by default, stay attached to it.”
“My amendment 6 would make it clear that that power includes the ability to make provisions on the transfer of associated grazing shares, should it be desirable to strengthen or modify the regime set out in sections 14A and 15. I move amendment 6. Jim Fairlie: I am happy to support Alasdair Allan’s amendment 6, for the reasons that he has set out. The link between owner-occupied crofts and grazing rights is a complicated area in which property law and crofting law intersect, so it is sensible for ministers to have regulation-making powers in case the provisions on the grazing shares of owner-occupied crofts require to be refined in the future. My own amendments in the group also concern that connection between grazing rights and owner- occupied crofts.”
“Alasdair Allan: I will speak to my amendment 6, but I begin by saying that I strongly support sections 14A and 15 of the bill, which will prevent the further separation of grazing shares from crofts, which has been an unfortunate consequence of the crofter’s right to buy and has been detrimental to crofting. I will also support the minister’s amendments 7 to 14, which will strengthen those sections still further. My own amendment 6 would support sections 14A and 15. Section 10A, which was inserted by one of my amendments at stage 2, gives ministers power under the affirmative procedure to make regulations on the transfer of owner-occupied crofts.”
“In addition, amendment 21 requires the commission to take account of the owner’s decision, including the reasons stated by the owner for any refusal. Other changes within amendment 21 and in amendments 17 to 20 will remove duplication and correct cross-references. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the minister to wind up. Jim Fairlie: I have nothing further to add. Amendment 5 agreed to. Section 10A—Power to make provision about the sale of owner-occupied crofts The Deputy Presiding Officer: We come to group 4, on common grazings. Amendment 6, in the name of Alasdair Allan, is grouped with amendments 7 to 14 and 48 to 50.”
“Amendment 16 clarifies that the commission has full discretion to substitute its own decision when it considers that an owner’s original decision was unreasonable. That would apply whether the owner’s decision was to refuse outright, to put conditions on the project, or to approve it. Amendment 21 expands the list of factors that the commission must take into account in reaching its decision, in line with the commission’s standard decision-making criteria as set out in section 58A(7) of the 1993 act. That list will now include the interests of the estate, the interests of the crofting community and the sustainable development of the crofting community, as well as such things as the public interest and any objections received.”
“I will speak to my amendments 16 to 21. Proposed new sections 50 and 50ZA of the 1993 act make changes to the regime for crofter-led forestry projects on common grazings and, importantly, also extend that regime to other crofter-led environmental projects. A system whereby the grazings committee has to get separate consent from both the landowner and the commission is to be replaced by one in which the commission has the final say. The commission must, of course, consider the owner’s views, but alongside other factors such as the benefit to the crofting community and the public interest. In short, my amendments would ensure that the commission, and not the landowner, has the final say on crofter- led environmental projects.”
“We now have a bill that is opposed by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society in Scotland, numerous former presidents of the royal colleges of physicians and surgeons in both Glasgow and Edinburgh, the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland and Inclusion Scotland. The Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, meanwhile, has said that the bill “infringes the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”. Anyone who feels that they can see past objections such as those needs to feel very sure about the bill. I am not, and so, respectfully, I will be voting against it. 21:45”
“Clearly, families, doctors and nurses already have to wrestle with deeply distressing end-of-life decisions. I am in awe of the members who have been able to speak so openly and movingly of those experiences. The manner of some deaths raises questions about human suffering to which I offer no trite answers. However, I have to recall the advice that is often given to legislators that hard cases make bad law. That is definitely not to belittle the terrible hardness of the situations of which we have been speaking tonight and on which we now have to legislate; rather, it is to remember that our laws generally have a wider application than we envisaged.”
“I recognise that the bill is founded on the vital principle of personal autonomy. For me, however, it exhibits an idealised vision of that autonomy. It pictures a world in which people exercise choices without any external forces ever being placed on them. I think of the woman in a controlling relationship or the person who has the unspoken fear that living out his last years in a care home might cost his children the family house. The bill also seems to assume that people seek out the help and support that they need in their lives to allow them to be assertive about their rights. In rural and other traditional communities where the desire to save face and avoid being talked about can be powerful forces, such an assumption is, believe me, often ill-founded.”
“I realise that there were legal reasons why Parliament had to remove the provisions that guaranteed health professionals a right not to participate. The best hope now is that those gaps will eventually be filled in by Westminster. That prospect clearly reassures some members but, notably, it does not reassure the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland. I was personally surprised that Parliament did not accept an institutional right to opt out. Like Mr Hepburn, I was also genuinely taken aback when Parliament rejected some of Mr Johnson’s amendments. They would have prohibited doctors, rather than patients, from initiating a conversation about assisted dying. For older patients from many backgrounds, a doctor is still an authority figure, and some people have told me that they simply lack the confidence to ever contradict a doctor.”
“I have found this debate hard, so I have no right whatsoever to offer any judgments about the conclusions that other members have so carefully reached and still more carefully argued tonight, not least Mr McArthur. For all of us on both sides of this debate, profound personal experiences and huge questions of principle are engaged— although, as Stephen Kerr rightly said, we are not debating a principle tonight. We did that at stage 1. We are now debating the bill. I tried to support amendments that I thought might introduce safeguards, but I avoided backing wrecking amendments, as I saw them, that might have landed the bill in court. After all of that, however, I am still looking at a bill that genuinely troubles me. One of the reasons is that, as other members have mentioned, there are significant holes in it.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update regarding the steps being taken to support families with the cost of living, in light of the conflict in the middle east and its impact on heating oil prices. (S6T-02959)”
“Amendment 252 agreed to. Amendment 253 moved—[Audrey Nicoll]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 253 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“For Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Abstentions Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 64, Against 50, Abstentions 2.”
“Amendment 251 agreed to. Amendment 252 moved—[Douglas Ross]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 252 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“For Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Abstentions Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 84, Against 31, Abstentions 3.”
“Amendment 249 disagreed to. After section 22 Amendment 113 moved—[Neil Gray]—and agreed to. Amendment 250 not moved. Section 22A—Assessment of likely impact of Act on palliative and end of life care services Amendment 251 moved—[Audrey Nicoll]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 251 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Abstentions Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the vote is: For 30, Against 78, Abstentions 9.”
“For that reason, I will not support Stephen Kerr’s amendment 249, which seeks to amend section 22. The Presiding Officer: I call Stephen Kerr to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 249. Stephen Kerr: I have no further comments to add to the short exchange that we have had on the issue. I press my amendment. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 249 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“Section 22 of the bill was included in the initial drafting to make it clear that any provisions touching on reserved matters would have no effect. I thank the cabinet secretary for the productive work that has been undertaken with the UK Government on advancing a section 30 order in record time and for the constructive engagement that has taken place on the use of section 104 orders to allow remaining matters of legislative competence to be dealt with. I note at this stage the amendments in my name and in the name of Ross Greer, which I think will give further reassurance to the Parliament. I therefore support the cabinet secretary’s amendment 113, on the removal of section 22, which is now redundant as a consequence of those positive steps, and I urge Parliament to do likewise.”
“The explanatory notes and policy memorandum that accompanied the bill on its introduction referred to the likely need for Scotland Act 1998 orders to achieve a comprehensive assisted dying scheme. In particular, reference was made to the J4 medicines reservation in the 1998 act. Given that a section 30 order has been agreed by the Parliament and made by the Privy Council, and that work is in progress on a section 104 order, it would seem that the section 22 provisions are no longer necessary. I have no further comment to make on Mr Kerr’s amendment, other than to restate our view that section 22 of the bill should be removed via my amendment. Liam McArthur: I thank Stephen Kerr and the cabinet secretary for setting out their positions.”
“It would ensure that the limits of devolved competence remained explicit in the bill and that no provision could override the constitutional framework established by the Scotland Act 1998. I think that we all accept that and, for legislation that deals with matters of life and death, that clarity is not optional—it is essential. That is why I will stand by my amendment. I move amendment 249. 10:15 Neil Gray: The substantive difference between my amendment and Mr Kerr’s is that mine would remove section 22 and Mr Kerr’s would amend it. I will speak to my amendment before I speak more substantively to his. My amendment would remove section 22, which is entitled “Limitations on effect of Act”, from the bill.”
“I appreciate the importance of the issue that Stephen Kerr is raising about not having a bill that would in some way be ultra vires in its operation. However, aside from the point that Mr Hepburn made, does Stephen Kerr not feel that the Scotland Act 1998 would preclude most of the problems that he is anticipating? Stephen Kerr: I am sorry, but I do not quite follow what Dr Allan is saying, because that is why I lodged my amendment, and that is also why Neil Gray lodged his amendment 113. It would seem that there is some accord, at least between Neil Gray and I, in respect of the need for such an amendment. That is why I lodged my amendment; I did not have sight of the cabinet secretary’s amendment. My amendment 249 seeks to provide the clarity that Dr Allan referred to.”
“I have doubts about whether the bill would allow enough time for proper face-to-face consultations, particularly for the first and second declarations that are set out in it.”
“I will speak to my amendments 176, 179 and 188. Normally, members hear me urging the NHS to do more of its work online to avoid unnecessary and gruelling travel for patients in the Highlands and Islands, so I appreciate the points that have been made by Mr McArthur, who makes the same case regularly. However, I believe that the matter that we are discussing today is in a different category. Whatever members’ views on the bill’s merits might be, I hope that we can agree that a person should not be put in a position where they have to make, via Zoom, a decision about ending their life. On the point that was alluded to, about allowing for flexibility, I ask members to forgive me if I am ignorant in this regard, but I honestly cannot see circumstances in which a doctor should not make the effort to visit such a patient.”
“Would clinicians be expected to proceed even where the pregnancy was well beyond the point at which abortion would normally be permitted? The bill is silent on that, and that silence is not a minor oversight. It is a fundamental gap in legislation that deals with matters of life and death. Without clarity, doctors would find themselves placed in an impossible position. 15:30”
“Whatever members’ views on abortion might be, pregnancy raises profound legal, medical and ethical questions that the bill simply does not answer. In those circumstances, we are not dealing with one life alone. There is also the life of the unborn child. That alone makes the situation fundamentally different from the rest of the bill. The problem becomes more acute when we consider the question of viability. In Scotland, a pregnancy beyond 24 weeks is legally understood to involve a viable child, yet the bill provides no clear guidance about what should happen if a woman who meets the eligibility criteria seeks an assisted death at that stage. Would the law allow a doctor to prescribe a lethal substance knowing that it would also end the life of a viable unborn child?”
“In conjunction with some other amendments that we will consider today or in the following days, what I propose is a useful yardstick or measure by which we can define who we want to qualify to use the possibilities that are set out in the bill. I move amendment 2. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Stephen Kerr to speak to amendment 137, in the name of Sue Webber, and other amendments in the group. Stephen Kerr: Sue Webber cannot be here to speak to her amendments 137, 318 and 324, so she asked me to present her remarks in the chamber, which I do gladly. Her amendments deal with a serious omission from the bill, which concerns what happens if a woman who is seeking an assisted suicide is pregnant.”
“However, although it does not use a period of six months explicitly, it has a stipulation that, to be eligible, the person must be nearing the end of their life. That is always going to be a difficult decision, but courts in other jurisdictions have been able to interpret the criterion. The most important thing is that it says, “We wish this to be used only by those who are in the final stage of their life.” That relates to Maggie Chapman’s point. I am glad that Brian Whittle intervened, because I note that we will discuss in later groups his amendments about advance care directives. They are really important in relation to having clarity of intent about future conditions, because we are dealing with people whose capacity may vary. This is not about people essentially making a decision at the time.”
“The six-months provision states, essentially, that we wish this to be used by those who are in the final stage of their life, and it is something that the courts in other jurisdictions have been able to interpret. At stage 2, we discussed whether such provisions are prevalent elsewhere. The Colorado legislation of 2016 has a six-months criterion; the legislation in Victoria in Australia has a 12-months criterion, as does Hawaii; and New Zealand has a six-months criterion, as do various other areas of Australia. The jurisdictions that do not have such a criterion in legislation that has been passed recently are in the minority. The Australian Capital Territory was used as an example of somewhere that does not have a criterion.”
“I thank the member. I appreciate the motives behind his amendment, but I wonder whether he has a view on how the courts or others would be expected to interpret the six-month rule. One way that has been used to interpret the rule in the benefits context has been to ask, “Would you be surprised if this patient was alive in six months?” However, Marie Curie found that that measure has an error rate of 46 per cent. I do not doubt the reason why the member lodged his amendment, but does he accept that there are multiple ways of assessing against the criteria that he seeks to establish? Daniel Johnson: I accept that but, for the reason that Brian Whittle gave, it would be dangerous to pass the bill in a completely open- ended manner.”
“Will the member give way? Jamie Halcro Johnston: If it is brief, yes. Alasdair Allan: I take it that I am an exception, because I am a member who lives on an island and who has raised such issues frequently. Does he also accept that, as much as we might agree on the problems that the ferry services have faced, yesterday’s important announcement about the replacement of the MV Lord of the Isles should be welcomed? Jamie Halcro Johnston: I feel like Dr Allan is looking for an endorsement ahead of the election. I recognise that there is some good news—”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Could you clarify whether the suspended member is allowed to vote? The Presiding Officer: The member will not vote, because the member has been asked to leave the chamber. The member is refusing to do so. The member was given every warning that I was very keen that he should remain and carry on joining in the day’s proceedings, but the member decided that that was not appropriate. It is extremely important that I protect the rights of all members equally across the chamber; therefore we cannot have on-going disruption. Decision Time 18:29”
“One of the beauties of a port-of-entry- style model in island areas is that it allows us to take advantage of the very limited number of means that most people have of getting there, thereby simplifying the task of levying any charge. I am glad that, rather than ignoring stakeholders, the Scottish Government continues to work with them on such questions. I am pleased to support the general principles of the bill and see it move forward to stage 2. I look forward to discussing how we might strengthen the bill to ensure that it responds to the suggestions made by businesses and island communities. The legislation can help to provide the infrastructure that ensures that our tourism economy has the means to bring about its own success in future, and it will ensure that the communities that host the industry see all its benefits. 15:41”
“I reiterate a proposal from colleagues in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, as well as from tourism bodies such as Visit Outer Hebrides. To ensure a balanced approach, consideration should be given to implementing a similar levy on cruise ship visitors and camper vans that come to the islands. I appreciate that, as Mr Rennie pointed out, time is limited in this parliamentary session to allow us to consider everything, but a port-of-entry-style levy, if introduced, would, I believe, strengthen the measures. I would encourage further collaborative working to consider that option. Small and medium-sized enterprises form the backbone of many rural and island communities. In implementing the levy, we must ensure that the administrative burden is minimised and that SMEs are not inadvertently brought above the VAT threshold.”
“A visitor levy helps to ensure that that infrastructure is maintained without having to divert vital funds from other priorities. Providing local authorities with additional flexibility on how a visitor levy is calculated is welcome. By giving councils the option to introduce a fixed rate, we can better ensure that the levy is implemented according to the needs of local authorities across Scotland and not only those in the cities. A couple of additional island-specific points arose out of the Government’s recent consultation on cruise ship levies, and I hope that those issues can now be given consideration at the next stage of the bill. In the Western Isles, many visitors arrive by cruise ship, or stay in camper vans rather than in hotels or Airbnbs.”
“A visitor levy is a welcome step forward for our local authorities, and I hope that it can now be implemented in a way that takes account of local factors. That is also the view that many tourist businesses in my constituency have expressed to me. Tourism is of increasing importance to island communities, and we are, of course, supremely blessed in the Western Isles. To highlight just a few things at random, tourists can choose from the Callanish stones; the plane landing on the beach on Barra; our distilleries; boat trips to St Kilda; HebCelt, the world-famous Hebridean Celtic music festival; the Ceolas festival; and our countless white sandy beaches. However, managing all of that requires local infrastructure.”
“It is only three years since the Government passed a bill on the matter, and here we are back again trying to fix the mess that was made. The Government really should have properly thought through the implications of the legislation before it brought it in. I hope that the lesson has been learned from that. The bill tries to fix that mess, so we will support it. 15:18”
“As things stand, some councils are pushing ahead with introducing a visitor levy without even doing a proper economic assessment. In my region, when Perth and Kinross Council ran a consultation, it found that there was overwhelming local opposition to a visitor levy across all sectors, yet, shockingly, the SNP administration, propped up by the Liberal Democrats, is still pressing on. In Stirling, the SNP is committed to bringing in a visitor levy at 3 per cent from next year. Although we support the bill today, we remain deeply concerned about the impact of a visitor levy on a sector that desperately needs more help from the Government before more jobs are lost and more businesses fold. I observe, in closing, that what we have seen from the Government is a remarkably cack- handed way of making law.”