Liam McArthur
Scottish Liberal Democrats · Scotland
“I associate myself very much with the comments and requests of Kristopher Leask. This weekend sees the second Water Sound bluegrass festival take place in Burray, in my Orkney constituency. I therefore ask the cabinet secretary to offer congratulations to the organisers, Pete and Gail McAndrew, for getting the festival up and running.”
“I think that he said that it is taking place this weekend, in which case I hope that the weather holds up, as that could add something very special to a bluegrass festival.”
“I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement, which obviously comes on the back of eye-watering rises in business rates earlier this year.”
“I have a constituent who, for the past nine years, has desperately sought treatment for swelling on his legs and groin that has progressively worsened and is now profoundly incapacitating. Having sought treatment in Scotland, it is clear that that is not available.”
“Jenny Gilruth: The Liberal Democrats engaged with us throughout the budget process last year and they were able to extract a number of things from the Government. I hope that other Opposition parties will learn from their good behaviour.”
“There are strengths in the current system but I accept that there are inherent challenges in relation to the issues presented by revaluation, for example, and the wider challenges that businesses are facing.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,163 lines we hold for Liam McArthur, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 24.
“Section 7(1A), added by Bob Doris’s amendment 160, defines “indirect pressures” for the purposes of section 7(1)(zd). However, paragraph (za) and subsection (3) also refer to “indirect pressures” and therefore should also be covered by the provision in subsection (1A). Amendment 1 will ensure that that is the case. Amendments 2 and 3 will correct cross- referencing in sections 7(8) and 7(9) of the bill as amended as a result of the Parliament agreeing to amendments 165 and 168, in the name of Bob Doris. As drafted, amendments 167 and 168 both referred to subsection (3), which was the number given to the new subsections in amendments 165 and 166, which were intended to be related to the subsection mentioned in amendments 167 and 168.”
“I have lodged amendments 1 to 5 under rule 9.8.5D of standing orders, to address technical drafting issues in some amendments that were agreed to by the Parliament last week and to ensure that those amendments can work as intended, respecting the will of Parliament at stage 3 and ensuring the integrity of the statute book should the bill be passed this evening. Ahead of lodging these amendments, I informed the members who lodged the original amendments—Bob Doris, Jackie Baillie, Daniel Johnson and Paul O’Kane—and the Scottish Government that I would do so. I also provided a note explaining the purpose and effect of the amendment, which was circulated with the daily list yesterday—I hope that members have found that helpful. Amendment 1 will ensure consistency in relation to section 7(1A) of the bill.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-21101, in the name of Ivan McKee, on the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak button and I call Ivan McKee to speak to and move the motion. Minister, you have around seven minutes. 17:35”
“Section 1—The Scottish building safety levy The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 1 is on the application of the levy, exemptions and reliefs. Amendment 6, in the name of Michael Marra, is grouped with amendments 7 to 10, 5, 15 and 18.”
“The next item of business is stage 3 consideration of the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament Bill 73A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds; thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request- to-speak button or place RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after the group has been called. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.”
“Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress: Groups 1 and 2: 50 minutes Groups 3 and 4: 1 hour 5 minutes Groups 5 and 6: 1 hour 15 minutes—[Graeme Dey] Motion agreed to. Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 16:36”
“The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-21113, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for consideration of the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. Members who wish to speak to the motion should press their request-to- speak buttons now.”
“That concludes the debate on the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. Business Motion 16:36”
“Section 1—Meaning of “non-surgical procedure” The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 1 is on the meaning of “non-surgical procedure”. Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2, 10, 8 and 9.”
“The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP bill 77A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request- to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.”
“Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress: Groups 1 to 3: 45 minutes Groups 4 and 5: 1 hour 15 minutes Groups 6 and 7: 1 hour 40 minutes.—[Graeme Dey] Motion agreed to. Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 14:23”
“The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-21118, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill.”
“I also refer to the statement issued by suicide prevention leaders in Australia, which specifically cautions against conflating suicide prevention and assisted dying in public communication. The statement says: “Suicide prevention and” voluntary assisted dying “should be discussed separately. Confusing these terms can delay access to suicide prevention services for people in distress, and complicate or delay care for people with terminal illness who are seeking an additional choice at the end of life. “In any public communication, it is important that we refrain from talking about” assisted dying “as suicide or using language that associates the two.” For that reason, I do not support amendments 247 and 248 and urge the Parliament strongly to oppose them.”
“On that basis, my amendments 52 and 71 introduce regulation-making powers for ministers to create an offence of advertising assisted dying and related penalties, an approach that was also taken in the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at Westminster. That would ensure that the offence is specific and effective in capturing those that it is intended to capture. Such regulations would also be subject to the affirmative procedure, which would allow the Parliament to scrutinise them properly. Murdo Fraser’s amendment 247 and Stephen Kerr’s 248 both seem to require that any lawful communication about assisted dying must refer to, among other things, suicide prevention information. I strongly echo the comments on that from the convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, Clare Haughey.”
“I begin in customary fashion by reminding members of my entry in the register of members’ interests in relation to the support that I receive from three separate campaign organisations in the context of the bill. I also reflect that there might be other members who have participated in the debate who should declare similar interests. An offence of advertising assisted dying was introduced at stage 2. I entirely support the creation of such an offence but I have also reflected on the Scottish Government’s commentary that the offence in the bill does not refer to intent or effect and contains multiple inconsistencies in definitions and exceptions.”
“The declarations must also be signed and witnessed by others, as is set out in the bill. A person must be assessed as eligible by two doctors acting independently. Then, after a second declaration is signed and witnessed, the terminally ill adult must request provision of the substance and decide whether to use it. Mr Ewing’s amendment 192 would reinsert a required role for a solicitor, which is the issue that the Law Society of Scotland first sought to have me address. I therefore cannot support amendment 192, although I understand and sympathise entirely with Mr Ewing, who finds himself in the same position that I found myself in when I was drafting my bill. I move amendment 94.”
“The other amendments in the group— amendments 190 and 191, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, and amendment 192, in the name of Fergus Ewing—stem from a misunderstanding of the purpose and role of the proxy in the bill. Amendment 191 seeks to add various criminal offences into the proxy provisions. However, I again make it clear that the purpose behind those provisions is simply to allow a person who cannot sign a first or second declaration for themselves to ask a proxy to do it for them, and that the bill provides clear rules on who can and cannot be a proxy. I also note the Government’s concerns about competence in relation to amendment 191 and the reservation of employment rights. There are no risks here of behaviour to criminalise. It is still the requesting person who makes the declaration, with a proxy standing in for the signing.”
“My intention was always for the signing proxy merely to stand in place of the terminally ill adult who is unable to sign for themselves. In response to concerns raised, amendment 94 would have the effect of requiring the proxy to read out the declaration and then sign it in the presence of the adult. That would change the proxy’s position to a facilitative one for an adult who is unable to sign their own name. I am satisfied that that would address the concerns that have been raised while allowing the provision to work as intended. Amendments 65 and 68 respond to a Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee recommendation that the affirmative procedure should apply to regulations under section 12(5)(e).”
“My amendments 94, 65 and 68 relate to the issue of signing by proxy. The bill would allow a proxy to sign a first or second declaration form on behalf of a patient who is unable to do so. I put on record my thanks to the Law Society of Scotland for its advice and engagement on those matters. Amendment 94 would change section 12(4)(a) to the effect that a proxy would not be able to sign a declaration unless the proxy “has read the declaration to the person making it”. The amendment seeks to address concerns from the Law Society that the provision as it stands, which requires the proxy to be “satisfied that the person understands the nature and effect of the making of the declaration”, could imply more extensive assessment and be open to legal challenge.”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament recognises that, in 2026, medicine will have been formally taught at the University of Edinburgh for 300 years; notes that, while there remain challenges for the NHS and higher education, reflecting on 300 years of history provides an opportunity to provide honesty on the past, and consider opportunities for the future of medical education and research; congratulates the organisers, who have curated a rich and diverse programme of events to explore the 300 years, including lectures, alumni reunions and public events; understands the value that the Edinburgh Medical School has contributed to the economy and health of Scotland, and the world, including what it sees as its crucial place in life sciences research, health innovation and policy, and wishes all staff and students the best for 2026. 12:56”
“The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-20683, in the name of Martin Whitfield, on Edinburgh medical school 300. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to- speak buttons.”
“We talked yesterday about coercion, and I think that directives are part of a package.”
“I am sure that Mr Whittle would agree that it will be important to ensure that there is clarity around what would happen should somebody change their mind, having submitted an advance care directive. On balance, I support Brian Whittle’s amendments in this area and genuinely thank him for the power of work that he has done not just at stage 3, but also earlier, at stage 2, on the same issue. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Brian Whittle to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 149. 15:30 Brian Whittle: I say at the outset how disappointed I am to hear the Government’s position on this. Of course, the Government is right: advanced care directives are not legally binding. That is not why they are there—they are there to give clarity not just to the healthcare professional who is reading the notes, but to loved ones as well.”
“General Medical Council guidance already places a duty on doctors to provide relevant information to patients and to have a dialogue with them about the decisions that they may wish to make. It is relevant to note that the bill, as currently drafted, requires the registered medical practitioner to explain and discuss with the person, as far as is considered appropriate, the nature of the substance that might be provided to assist the person to end their own life, including how it will bring about death. The person will therefore be fully informed from the start and, in practice, that provision will likely facilitate a discussion between the person and their doctor about what should happen in all possible circumstances.”
“Brian Whittle’s amendment 149, and consequential amendment 159, would require assessing doctors to make a person aware of the option of making an advance care directive, and they would work along with the consequential regulation-making power in amendment 303. As I have said previously, I see a great deal of value in advance care directives. I am pleased that the amendment that Mr Whittle has lodged sets them out as an option rather than as a requirement for those seeking assistance. Advance care planning is a valuable tool in helping people to ensure that their wishes are understood and respected. To deliver truly patient-centred care, people should be able to decide what care plans they have in place and what medical treatments they do and do not receive, including if they want to refuse treatments or palliative care.”
“How we act and how we stand is a measure of the integrity and moral character of this Parliament and our society—not just in the eyes of history, but in the judgment of the people of Scotland and, most importantly, of the most vulnerable among us.”
“We heard from Daniel Johnson about making the legal definition clearer. We all know that, if the bill becomes an act, it will be interpreted by the courts over time, and even the safest safeguards could well be eroded by the courts. The measure of a society is not only how it protects autonomy but how it safeguards those who are most vulnerable. If the bill is passed, it will define us as a Parliament and Scotland as a society by the way that we treat those who are weakened, most at risk and often overlooked. We have a duty as parliamentarians to ensure that no disabled person ever feels that their life is conditional or less valued, or that assisted suicide could be considered as something that brings economic benefit. Every life must be respected, protected and affirmed without compromise.”
“However, again, the disturbing implication is that difficult circumstances, such as poverty, vulnerability or domestic abuse might make assisted dying an option for some. Let me be clear—I believe that that is outrageous and not the type of society that I want to live in. Being poor or living with disability is not a choice, and it should never be used as a reason to facilitate the ending of someone’s life. Many people have told the Parliament that their fear is not just of overt coercion but of subtle pressure—the sense of being a burden, the worry about consuming scarce resources and the feeling that others might be better off without them. Those pressures, let me tell members, are real, and legislation that treats disability as a factor in eligibility risks legitimising those fears.”
“How we treat those with terminal illness and disability speaks volumes about the type of people and the type of society that we are, and we should make no mistake about it—we will be judged by that. I welcome what Daniel Johnson has tried to do, because, just recently, Lord Falconer, who is taking forward the bill in the House of Lords, said: “Your financial position might be an element in what makes you reach a decision.” He went on to note: “The evidence from abroad is that it is people from perhaps more financially secure circumstances who make this sort of choice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 January 2026; Vol 851, c 2019-20.] His argument is that assisted dying is framed around choice.”
“Jeremy Balfour: I have to say that that is not the evidence that the disability community has presented to me, and it is not the evidence that is coming loud and clear from those with lived experience, in particular in Canada and parts of Australia. I have to say that I disagree fundamentally with the presumption that Mr McArthur puts forward. As I was saying, people with disability face higher rates of poverty, limited access to healthcare, social isolation and, at times, a sense that society does not fully value their lives. Against that backdrop, the bill would risk compounding those pressures and subtly signalling that the lives of our most vulnerable are less worthy of protection.”
“I am grateful to Jeremy Balfour for taking my intervention. We had some of these exchanges at stage 2, but I wonder whether he would reflect on the evidence in the detailed research that was carried out by Professor Ben Colburn at the University of Glasgow, which indicated that, across all the international jurisdictions with assisted dying laws of this type, there is no evidence of a disproportionate impact on those in the disability community. Moreover, there have been no detrimental impacts in terms of wider rights or perspectives of disabled people as a result of the introduction of such laws.”
“I advise members that there is a bit of time in hand, so if you take interventions, you will get the time back, and possibly a bit more. Douglas Lumsden is next and has a generous six minutes. 15:33”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M- 20944, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button, and I call the Minister for Business and Employment to speak to and move the motion. You have a generous seven minutes, minister. 14:27”
“Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2 to 4.”
“The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—SP bill 75A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division at stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button as soon as possible after I call the group. Section 3—Presumption of ownership The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 1 is on control in relation to digital assets.”
“Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio question time, and the portfolio on this occasion is social justice and housing. Social Security Budget 1.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles in rural and island communities. (S6O-05599)”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament expresses its concern that a reported increasing number of banks have introduced banking charges for small charities, community groups, community councils and other not-for-profit organisations; recognises what it sees as the immense work done in communities across Scotland, including across Aberdeen Donside, by these groups, many of which operate on tight budgets and are being affected by such banking charges; believes that most people are still feeling the consequences of having to bail out banks following the 2008 financial crisis and that banks that benefited from a bail out now levying banking charges on community groups is distasteful and hinders the work of these groups, and notes the view that banks should allow community groups to use their funds for the purposes which they were gathered for, instead of bolstering the profits of banks.”
“The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-19214, in the name of Jackie Dunbar, on banking charges for charities and not-for-profit organisations. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20957, in the name of Jamie Greene, on fixing Scotland’s ferries fiasco. 15:57”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20956, in the name of Willie Rennie, on judging the Scottish Government on its education record. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak button. 14:51”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20934, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on the European Charter of Local Self- Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill at reconsideration stage. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request- to-speak button now and I call Mark Ruskell, the member in charge of the bill, to speak to and move the motion. You have around six minutes, Mr Ruskell. 16:17”
“Section 2—Duty to act compatibly with the Charter Articles The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 1 is on the compatibility duty. Amendment 1, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 2 to 5.”
“The next item of business is reconsideration stage proceedings on the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have before them the bill as passed at stage 3—that is, SP bill 70B— the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat function if they are joining us remotely. Members should now refer to the marshalled list.”
“That concludes the debate on the Contract (Formation and Remedies) (Scotland) Bill. European Charter of Local Self- Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill: Reconsideration Stage 16:02”
“It will be for Mr McArthur to set out the points as he wishes and persuade—or otherwise—members of this Parliament as to the merits or challenges of assisted dying. We have put record levels of resource into the national health service. As I have pointed out to Mr Marra and Mr Mountain, we are seeing a sustained improvement in the performance of our health service, thanks to the hard work and efforts of our staff. We are proposing reforms and changes to the way in which we deliver health in this country, so that a more sustainable health service can address the issues that the people of Scotland are facing. The Presiding Officer: That concludes topical questions. I will allow a moment or two for members on the front benches to organise themselves. Ferries and Ports”
“The health committees here and at Westminster heard evidence from Australia and elsewhere confirming that the introduction of an assisted dying law of this type does not lead to cuts in services. Indeed, such laws often go hand in hand with increased investment in and access to palliative care. Does the cabinet secretary accept the need for all MSPs to look at the evidence of what happens in practice? Does he agree that, with an election in May, all parties are free to propose additional investment in health and care while also delivering more choice for dying Scots, which recent polling by John Curtice—for the social attitudes survey— confirms enjoys overwhelming public support across Scotland? Neil Gray: I reiterate that the Government is neutral on Mr McArthur’s bill.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20893, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, on the cost- effectiveness of Scottish public inquiries. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak button. I call Kenneth Gibson, on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, to speak to and move the motion. You have a generous eight minutes, Mr Gibson. 14:26”
“Good afternoon. The next item of business is portfolio question time, and the portfolios this afternoon are climate action and energy, and transport. Wave Energy Scotland (Funding) 1.”
“It would be helpful if we did not have the running commentary from members on the front benches as people are speaking. 16:24”