Liz Smith
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“For many years, I have come to this debate conflicted, well understanding several of the key points raised by those who support assisted dying, partly based on my own family experience, but also understanding the key points in the case against.”
“As a result, I worry about the implications in relation to coercive situations within families, who may put pressure on vulnerable relatives to end their lives, perhaps for financial reasons in increasingly difficult fiscal situations or for reasons that suit their circumstances rather than those of the patient.”
“I wish to say what I said at the start of my stage 1 speech: “Nobody could possibly doubt the far-reaching implications of the most appalling human tragedy at Grenfell tower in 2017, nor the importance of ensuring that nothing like that can ever happen again.” It is absolutely right that measures are put in place to improve building stand…”
“As the minister knows from stage 2, I have concerns about whether people involved in the conversion of historic buildings will face specific unintended consequences as a result of the imposition of the building safety levy, mainly because projects of that nature are not usually speculative and they tend to be a more expensive way of produ…”
“That must include the medical profession’s commitment to saving lives. I continue to worry about a situation whereby we hand ultimate power to doctors, with the possibility that voluntary action could lead to involuntary action.”
“It is on occasions such as these, when the matter that is under consideration is so challenged by complex ethical, moral, legal and practical questions, that I have come to know the Scottish Parliament at its best. We saw that last week and I believe that we are seeing it again this evening.”
The complete record
Every one of 413 lines we hold for Liz Smith, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 9.
“As I have mentioned, the debate has always been complex and emotive, and it has deserved our fullest attention. As I stand down from the Parliament in a few days’ time, I thank all colleagues, former and present, for their engagement with me over the past 20 years. However, I also express my earnest hope that, in future sessions, much more of our politics might be conducted in the current manner—considered, respectful and free from the unpleasant rancour that has come to colour far too much of our political discourse. I believe that the public both wants and has a right to expect that change if Scotland is to be a stronger nation. 19:32”
“That must include the medical profession’s commitment to saving lives. I continue to worry about a situation whereby we hand ultimate power to doctors, with the possibility that voluntary action could lead to involuntary action. Then there is the issue of constantly improving medicine—the fact that, all the time, ever more successful treatments are being developed, including some treatments for diseases that were previously thought to be terminal. That is not unrelated to some of the arguments about the widening of the eligibility criteria, as has been the case in Canada. I note, again, that the lead committee worried about the broad definition of “terminally ill”, believing that that could include those who might well live much longer.”
“As a result, I worry about the implications in relation to coercive situations within families, who may put pressure on vulnerable relatives to end their lives, perhaps for financial reasons in increasingly difficult fiscal situations or for reasons that suit their circumstances rather than those of the patient. My second reason for opposing the bill is my on- going concern about the lack of safeguards and the hidden costs. Irrespective of whether members are for or against the principle, medical professionals are very clearly telling us that some aspects of the bill are both unsafe and unworkable because of the removal of section 18, which contained vital protections that, in their eyes, are central to the safe, ethical and fair delivery of care. For me, society must surely always have a respect for the sanctity of life.”
“I sympathise with all those who tell us that this debate is all about free will and the right to choose, but that free will and the right to choose can never exist in a vacuum. They are contingent on other factors: being free from pressure and free from any coercion. Death, whether assisted or not, also affects the rights of other people. I make that point because that issue has been a substantial part of the concern of many within disability and other vulnerable groups, who believe that the bill would apply too much pressure on them. I share that concern. As MSPs, we often deal with very vulnerable constituents, and I have personally and professionally learned a great deal from that experience.”
“For many years, I have come to this debate conflicted, well understanding several of the key points raised by those who support assisted dying, partly based on my own family experience, but also understanding the key points in the case against. It is a debate in which I have become much more interested and, as such, I hope, better informed, given all the reading that I have undertaken on the subject and having listened to the many hundreds—perhaps many thousands— of constituents who have been in touch not just about this bill but about the two previous similar bills. I thank them all. However, there are two particular aspects of the debate that continue to trouble me a great deal and which are the main reasons why I will vote against the bill this evening. The first relates to the protection of our most vulnerable constituents.”
“It is on occasions such as these, when the matter that is under consideration is so challenged by complex ethical, moral, legal and practical questions, that I have come to know the Scottish Parliament at its best. We saw that last week and I believe that we are seeing it again this evening. That is because, for free votes, the increasingly confrontational and divisive politics of this chamber can be put to one side. Such votes encourage widespread respect across the debating chamber for different views, which are always sincerely held by the individuals concerned, and many are based on personal reflections. I again pay tribute to Liam McArthur for the respectful manner in which he has led the bill.”
“As the committee convener said during the stage 1 debate, the major issue is the likely impact on the housing market, which, as we all know and as Michael Marra set out earlier, has already faced significant challenges. The most significant concern among witnesses and members of the Finance and Public Administration Committee was the fact that the bill could actually reduce house- building capacity, because it would make certain sites unviable and would thereby have a detrimental effect on the ability to deliver much- needed affordable housing.”
“That is not because improving building standards is not the right thing to do; it is because, throughout the process, witnesses and stakeholders have expressed considerable concern in their evidence, including about the fact that far too much of the important detail could be left to secondary legislation. As colleagues know, and as I pointed out in the stage 1 debate, “it is unusual for a committee not to fully endorse the general principles of a bill.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2026; c 66-67.] However, the Finance and Public Administration Committee did not endorse them at stage 1, which I think was for good reasons—because there was concern about the extent of the negative externalities.”
“I wish to say what I said at the start of my stage 1 speech: “Nobody could possibly doubt the far-reaching implications of the most appalling human tragedy at Grenfell tower in 2017, nor the importance of ensuring that nothing like that can ever happen again.” It is absolutely right that measures are put in place to improve building standards, especially so that the people who are engaged in the new-build sector fully recognise and adhere to their responsibilities. It is also right that there is a legislative process to ensure that for the future. However, the question that we as parliamentarians continue to face is whether the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill is the right procedure and whether the levy is the right measure. Conservative members—and, I suspect, several members in other parties—have had serious doubts.”
“As the minister knows from stage 2, I have concerns about whether people involved in the conversion of historic buildings will face specific unintended consequences as a result of the imposition of the building safety levy, mainly because projects of that nature are not usually speculative and they tend to be a more expensive way of producing new homes. However, importantly, the conversion of historic buildings into new homes delivers a wider public benefit, which the Parliament has supported in other ways regarding the historic buildings issue. At stage 2, the minister agreed that the Parliament should seek ways to support such conversions, but he was concerned that a perverse incentive might be created in the system for people to seek listed building status for buildings in order to avoid paying the levy.”
“I understand Mr McArthur’s point that it is unusual for such guidance to require that level of parliamentary oversight, but assisted dying is such an important issue that it is not just sensible but essential to have such a provision in the bill.”
“For that reason alone, it is not sufficient for such guidance simply to be issued and then left untouched—Parliament has an important role in scrutinising it. I will come to Mr Greer’s point in that respect in a minute. Amendment 268 provides that, when guidance that is issued under section 5 has to be reviewed or revised, those changes would have be brought back to Parliament for approval by resolution. I say to Mr Gray that that applies in the first instance, but other amendments make such approval possible at a later stage should the Parliament determine that such changes have to be made. Amendment 272 would ensure that such guidance was not left to drift indefinitely. It would require the guidance to be formally reviewed after an initial period of three years and then at least every five years thereafter.”
“My four amendments in the group—amendments 268, 269, 272 and 273—seek to build on the amendments that Mr Kerr has lodged, and all share the common purpose of seeking to ensure that the Parliament retains proper and democratic oversight of how guidance under the act operates in practice. I believe that that is a view shared by members across the chamber. As the debate over the past four days has shown, colleagues appreciate that the bill places significant responsibility in the hands of the Scottish ministers. The guidance issued under the act will shape how the service functions across Scotland, influencing the decisions that are taken by medical practitioners, health boards and other public bodies.”
“There are many ways and different times that it can be delivered to the individual. We must ensure that the person understands all that and that the discussion that the doctor has with the patient is formally recorded. I absolutely support that. I hope that, if the bill is agreed to, there is a huge improvement in palliative care, so that it is not a case of somebody thinking, “Palliative care is not available or suitable for me; therefore, this is what I must do.” I want both choices—for myself and for everybody else. So, for probably the first and last time, Mr Ross, I support you.”
“My support for the amendment has nothing to do with his proxy declaration for independence yesterday. 17:30 I think that the issue that amendment 154 addresses is very important. As a firm supporter of the bill, I want to put on the record that, for me, when it comes to end-of-life assistance and palliative care, it is not an either/or. Both should be available. It is about what is appropriate for the individual, so I very much welcome nailing this down. Douglas Ross’s amendment says that, when assessing a declaration, the doctor “must”—it would be mandatory, which is great—discuss available “palliative care options”. That is excellent, because we know that palliative care comes in many forms. It is not necessarily given in the hospice or the hospital; it could also be given at home by Macmillan nurses.”
“For that reason, although many of the amendments in the group seek to improve the process—I recognise that, and the motivation behind them—if we are to genuinely protect people, we must ensure not only that support is discussed or signposted, but that people are able to access the support that they need in order to live before we consider making it easier for them to choose to die. I do not think that we can ensure that that will be the case through the amendments in this group, or, indeed, through any of the amendments that we will debate over the coming days. Christine Grahame: There are many amendments in the group with which I agree and some with which I disagree, but, mercifully, I will speak to only one of them: amendment 154, in the name of Douglas Ross, which I support.”
“At stage 2, I lodged amendments that would have meant that support such as social care had to be available, accessible and affordable, and that packages ought to be in place to support disabled people to lead an independent life before the bill was implemented, in order to address that concern, but I was told that they were out of scope. I understand that, but I guess that that is the point. We cannot address the risks that the bill presents by providing for assessment in the bill, because of the existence of other factors that motivate the choice to end a life.”
“Given how hard it is to grow up with a disability, many disabled people have said that they would have considered using the option of assisted dying, had it been available. Therefore, those amendments are really important. However, we all know that referrals are not always actioned, waiting lists are long and referrals do not always result in the delivery of support. We must remember that in the context of what we are being asked to do. My biggest concern is that none of the amendments in the group would address the fact that some people might have needed support, social care or otherwise throughout their lives, but it has not been there. The absence of that support and the relentless fight for it that many people can face could lead them to feel that not going on was an attractive option.”
“It is crucial that all of that is reported and recorded, and I understand what motivated the amendments that seek to provide for that. However, it is important to note that, although many of the amendments in the group seek to ensure that people would be asked about support and that conversations would be had and recorded, which is crucial, none of them guarantees that such support would be provided. I want to make a few points about that. The amendments that would provide for information to be recorded but would not deliver the additional support that is needed would not address the unmet needs or health inequalities that exist throughout life and at the end of life. The amendments that would require referrals to be made to others—especially those that relate to young people—are helpful.”
“Colleagues should consider the uncertainty that could arise if a cancellation was made but not formally recorded. That could give rise to problems in relation to who would be responsible, what safeguards would be triggered and how we would ensure that the individual’s changed wishes were respected. As it stands, the bill does not address those matters with sufficient clarity. Amendment 197 seeks to provide the necessary clarity. It would reinforce the expectation that decision making in this process must be recorded accurately and promptly, and it would ensure that there were consequences if that did not happen. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I recognise that some of the amendments in the group seek to remove the possibility of improper motives influencing the process while others seek to include additional steps on assessment.”
“I heard what Mr McArthur said about amendment 197, but I know from my work in this Parliament that, sadly, there are times when medical practitioners are not always entirely professional in their oversight activities. Amendment 197 would require the medical practitioner to issue a written apology to the adult for any distress that had been caused and to confirm in writing that the cancellation had been properly recorded. That requirement matters, because the recording of a cancellation is not merely an administrative step. A cancellation represents a fundamental change of an individual’s decision. If such a change was not properly recorded, there would be a risk of the system proceeding on the basis of information that was simply wrong.”
“Amendment 197 would address a practical but, nonetheless, important gap in the bill—namely, what happens when a cancellation is not recorded. The bill requires that a cancellation of a first or second declaration be recorded within seven days but, as drafted, it is silent on the consequences if that does not happen. In legislation of such complexity and sensitivity, that silence could be taken as uncertainty. If the bill is to proceed, the law must be absolutely clear on the responsibilities and on what happens when those responsibilities are not met. Amendment 197 therefore seeks to introduce a clear accountability mechanism. If a cancellation is not recorded within the required seven-day period, the responsible medical practitioner must face professional accountability.”
“If we learn those lessons, we will radically improve the levels of resilience, self-esteem and confidence, and, as a direct result, improve attainment, attendance and behaviour. If we do so, we will raise aspiration across the board and put an end to the mediocrity and negativity in the education system that too often affects the lives of our young people. 15:23”
“Schools should be an opportunity for every single young person to reach their potential, whatever their abilities and whatever their background. Every single child is good at something, and it is the job of the school, in conjunction with the child and their parents, carers and guardians, to identify and nurture that capability. For many children, that might not be something that they find in the classroom, but something that they find in the field of extracurricular activity. At the risk of repeating what I said at the time of the passing of my Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, why on earth do we not learn the lessons from what works well to motivate young people and deliver the best outcomes?”
“He then said that, from the employers’ point of view, there are not enough young people coming through schools and FE with the competency level that is needed, which often relates to poor attitude and poor discipline—not turning up on time, missing transport or asking to leave early without a valid excuse. That, to me, is just as serious an issue as the concerns about attainment levels. It relates to something else that I mentioned in my maiden speech; namely, that we need to do far more to prevent too many of our young people from becoming disengaged at school, because that is when the poor discipline sets in. In what is my last contribution to an education debate, I want to leave the Parliament with the following thoughts.”
“Despite a few improvements in some aspects of Scottish education, our schools overall are not doing nearly as well as they should be, for the reasons that have already been set out by previous speakers. In that maiden speech, I went on to highlight what I felt should be done to improve matters. I have not really changed my views in the intervening time. Before I offer some final thoughts before standing down, I will repeat one comment that was made by Ian Hughes from the Construction Industry Training Board at the Finance and Public Administration Committee just yesterday. He noted the size of the vast pool of potential talent in our young people and how colleges are doing well to try to harness that.”
“In particular, it is deeply worrying that the CBI, in its recent manifesto for the elections, highlighted the fact that it is now commonplace for the Scottish business community to spend an unacceptably high percentage of its … training budget on what is, in effect, remedial education … rather than on new skills and on ensuring that Scotland is better able to compete on the international stage. The reality is that the basic levels of reading, writing and arithmetic of too many of our school leavers is … not good enough”.— [Official Report, 30 May 2007; c 214-5.] All those words are a direct quote from my maiden speech in the Parliament on 30 May 2007. I genuinely regret that they are just as relevant today as they were back then.”
“Presiding Officer, “There is no doubt that Scottish education can rightly claim many distinguished achievements in its long history, for which we have been admired throughout the world. However, the Parliament should be in no doubt about the concern among today’s employers that in some areas we are failing to live up to that reputation, given our inability to produce a workforce that is adequately skilled to cope with the demands of the 21st century.”
“He said that he felt that there were basically four reasons for the increasing demand for public inquiries: an increasing “culture of blame” among the public; diminishing trust in public institutions; a lack of understanding about the role of public inquiries; and an increasing tendency for the Government to think that such inquiries might be the best way to address a complex problem. He offered the view that, in principle, inquiries engender a high degree of trust among the public, most especially those that are judge led. They are often regarded as one of the only means of holding a Government to account when there have been serious breaches of trust. John Mason: Will Liz Smith take an intervention?”
“My colleague Craig Hoy mentioned the concern that, for some inquiries, there is so much work being done by Police Scotland in the backroom that that is taking officers away from preventing crime and catching offenders. We know that the spiralling cost of inquiries is becoming excessive, with inquiries having cost nearly £260 million since 2007. My perspective on the whole debate has always been that it is important to try to understand why the number of public inquiries has increased and why the accompanying costs have increased to such a degree, especially in recent cases. I was very taken by the evidence that was given to us in relation to all that by John Sturrock KC.”
“I declare an interest in that I am a witness to the Eljamel public inquiry, which began in 2025. The Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report makes it very clear in paragraph 77 that “Public inquiries are an essential mechanism for holding public bodies to account”, because they are designed to get to the truth about certain harms and failures to support victims, and because they make valuable recommendations about future policy. The convener has rightly outlined that there is a particular concern about the spiralling costs of public inquiries and the burden that that is placing on the taxpayer. It is not just about the direct costs but, as the convener said, the opportunity costs.”
“I understand what the Deputy First Minister is saying, but Mr Marra has asked an important question. If there is to be radical change, as the committee has suggested and as the Deputy First Minister talked about in her evidence, decisions must be taken pretty soon—not least because of the fiscal implications, which I know the Scottish Government has concerns about. Does she agree with that? Kate Forbes: It is a general, long-standing protocol that ministers should not disclose their conversations at Cabinet, so I am trying to recognise that. I can reassure members that I have had conversations with my colleagues on these matters. However, what is discussed at Cabinet remains within the minutes of Cabinet until it is disclosed 15 years later, as a general rule.”
“I—and my colleagues on the Finance and Public Administration Committee—believe that it is time that the Scottish Parliament had a finance bill process. I hope that the next Government—whatever colour it might be—will agree to that. If we do not have that, decisions will continue to be made without the necessary evidence to back them up. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I give colleagues fair warning that I will cut off microphones at six minutes—you have been warned. 16:56”
“Like so many others, I do not understand why certain policies were selected as a priority when economic data shows that they are undermining the overall approach. What am I talking about? As the briefing on the recent spending review makes clear, in the graph that is headed “Real terms changes in portfolio spending”, which covers 2025-26 to 2028-29, education and skills, finance and local government, and the economy are all facing real- term downturns in spending over the next four years. That hardly demonstrates a Scottish Government that is committed to growth in the economy. I will finish on an absolutely instrumental point, which I made in the stage 1 debate and in the committee debate: we have to ensure much better scrutiny of the budget.”
“My second point is that there is a concern among many analysts, including the Auditor General, that there is no credible long-term plan to address the significant challenges arising from the bloated welfare budget and the increasing demands on health and social care. The Scottish Government always appears to be in favour of short-term fixes rather than addressing the long- term problem. My third point is about the tension between central and local government. They always seem to be at each other’s throats because of the huge pressure on front-line services, the delivery of which does not have the relevant money behind it. During the stage 1 debate, I cited examples of the inconsistencies within the Scottish Government’s policy priorities for economic growth.”
“Ivan McKee: What I will tell the member is that the support that we put in to help people with in- work benefits is perhaps one of the reasons why Scotland’s unemployment rate of 3.8 per cent is significantly below the UK rate of 5.2 per cent. Liz Smith: Mr McKee knows full well that the economic inactivity rate is a serious issue. It has come up in just about every meeting that I can remember of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. In giving evidence to the committee, the First Minister once said that it was Scotland’s most difficult economic challenge—I think that I am right on that, and I can look back at the Official Report. That is because we have to get people back into work so that productivity can increase and we get a better return on the tax base.”
“For example, the Scottish Government has been challenged so often to argue why its more generous approach to public spending on welfare yields better overall results all round for Scotland’s economy. Ivan McKee: Will Liz Smth take an intervention? Liz Smith: I will in a minute. The Government comes up all the time with the fact that it is an investment, but it never tells us what the return on that investment is, nor does it tell us where the money is coming from. Perhaps Mr McKee, who told us that there was going to be an extra £1 billion, which has changed to £1.5 billion, will tell me something new.”
“I am not talking about the four grand aims of this Government, which are promoting economic growth, tackling child poverty, addressing climate change and delivering high- quality and sustainable public services, but rather the specific policies that underpin each of those. Where is the accompanying Scottish Government evidence that is supposed to persuade us that the policy choices that it is making in this budget are those that will deliver the best outcomes, given the limited resources that are available? As a consequence of that, and especially given the tight fiscal constraints, which policies have had to be deprioritised, and why? Those are points that have frustrated the Finance and Public Administration Committee for quite some time.”
“Notwithstanding all the complexities that exist in the timing of different fiscal events, I do not personally feel that there is sufficient time for enough detailed parliamentary scrutiny of budgets or, therefore, for efficient scrutiny. I note the recent decision of the parliamentary authorities to announce that, for all new and returning MSPs, there will be special training on budgets. I welcome that. However, the very fact that that is having to happen speaks volumes about where the problem lies. I will make the following three points. First—and this definitely applies to this budget—there is not sufficient detail about Scottish Government policy priorities in relation to how well they deliver their outcomes.”
“I wish the cabinet secretary all the best in the future and, although I will not miss Mr Gibson’s SNP statements in the chamber, I will most certainly miss his convenership of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, in which he has been outstanding, and for which he is well recognised right around the chamber. It is through that convenership that Mr Gibson has regularly challenged us to debate effectively in the committee. It is on that basis, in my last contribution to a budget debate, that I will proceed in considering some of the issues that we have to address in the chamber, with specific reference to the budget that is before us.”
“However, there has been a 20 per cent real-terms cut in college budgets since 2021, when it is colleges that have to address the skills agenda and ensure that we get many more people back into the labour market. Those are the concerns with the budget. This is not just about different party-political angles or about what policies would be better in which places. There are fundamental issues, some of which the convener has raised in the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report and some of which are being raised by the analysts who scrutinise the Scottish budget. We should be listening to what they have to say, because these are serious challenges, not just for this budget but for the next Government, whichever colour it might be. 16:13”
“Why on earth does the Scottish Government believe that its policy on the non-domestic rates issue—although it is good to see some mitigation and relief in that regard—its visitor levy and its removal of the small business bonus for deer management businesses and some rural businesses will provide greater economic growth? The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care has just left the chamber, but three budgets ago, when he was Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Fair Work and Energy, we had an 8.3 per cent real-terms cut to the economy portfolio. We have had an increase in college funding, although the figure for it is disputed.”
“Thirdly, the analysts said that local government is facing a very serious issue of fiscal unsustainability in the long run, which definitely puts front-line services under threat. There is also the threat of significant council tax rises in April. Those are all very important points that do not come from me or from the Scottish Conservatives but from highly respected experts—I agree with what Michelle Thomson said about the Scottish Fiscal Commission—who do a deep dive into the Scottish budget. We should listen to what they have to say. In the light of those experts’ concerns, we have to ask why policies have been adopted in successive Scottish budgets that undermine the Government’s stated overall objectives, especially when it comes to economic growth.”
“However, seldom do we see the reverse of that, and we certainly do not see where the money is coming from. That situation is at the heart of the policy decisions in the budget. Secondly, the Auditor General for Scotland strongly made the point that there is no credible long-term plan to address the very significant challenges that arise from the bloated welfare state budget and the demands of health—which David Phillips spoke of today—and of social care. The Scottish Government appears to favour the short-term fix. We have concerns about the lack of a baseline in the budget and the fact that it is extremely difficult to track where money is being spent effectively.”
“The convener gave a very good summary of the concerns that the Finance and Public Administration Committee has expressed about the budget process. Before I move into my speech, I want to add some context from six of the expert analysts who attended the committee on Tuesday this week. They raised some very important issues that we should be thinking about. First, there is not sufficient detail about Scottish Government policy priorities and how well they deliver on the intended outcomes, and, as a consequence of the very tight fiscal constraints, which policies have been deprioritised and why. Those points have frustrated the committee from time to time. Professor Heald made the particularly interesting remark that the Scottish Government is often more generous in its approach to spending than Governments in the rest of the UK.”
“That is why we have taken steps to provide that through the oversight group that Professor Sir Lewis Ritchie will assist in co-chairing. We are doing that precisely because I want to address the points that Liz Smith makes. I understand the perspective that she is coming at this from.”
“Does the cabinet secretary accept that, although public inquiries are immensely helpful when it comes to establishing the truth, they are by no means the only mechanisms through which to re-establish public trust, and that any Government should not hide behind them in order to avoid answering very specific questions? Neil Gray: Yes, I do. I hope that my interactions with Liz Smith on another public inquiry will give her confidence in relation to what I am saying here and why I am saying it. I am attempting to ensure that the independence of a public inquiry is respected and that it is allowed to do its work. I am also conscious that, given the amended motion that was agreed last week, we must give greater assurance to the Parliament and members of the public as to the current safety of the hospital.”
“To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to improve transparency and accountability within NHS boards. (S6F-04616)”
“To ask the Scottish Government what support it will provide to young athletes who will be representing Scotland in sport in 2026. (S6O-05441) The Presiding Officer: I call the minister, Maree Todd.”
“I am not standing for election again in May, but I can tell members now that I will not stop campaigning. If the bill is not agreed to at stage 1 tonight, I will still give my views when we finally get the national performance framework consultation, and, in doing so, I will pick up on the fantastic contributions that we have had in support of my bill. The issues are not going away. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business. Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1”