Alison Johnstone
No Party Affiliation · Scotland
“We will use the same voting procedure as before. Members voted by secret ballot. The Presiding Officer: Voting in this round of the Presiding Officer election is closed. I invite the scrutineers to proceed to the back of the chamber for the counting of votes. Again, candidates may also observe the count.”
“I now invite any scrutineers appointed by the candidates to go to the back of the chamber to observe the counting of ballot papers. Candidates may also observe the count.”
“The first meeting of the seventh session of the Parliament is resumed. I have received four valid nominations for the position of Presiding Officer. I shall now announce the nominations and ask all candidates, as their names are announced, to make themselves known to the chamber.”
“Ballot papers should be marked with an X before being folded and then placed in one of the ballot boxes provided at the rear of the chamber. At the end of each voting period, I shall invite any scrutineers that have been nominated by each candidate to monitor the counting of votes at the back of the chamber, which is where clerks will emp…”
“Members should remain in their seats until I invite them to collect their ballot paper from clerks at the back of the chamber. Members with surnames beginning with the letters A to F should collect their ballot papers from the desk on my left at the back of the chamber—the clerks there have their hands up.”
“15:29 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: This voting period is now open, using the same voting procedure as before. Members voted by secret ballot. The Presiding Officer: Voting in the third round of the election of the Presiding Officer is closed.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,933 lines we hold for Alison Johnstone, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 39.
“There are five questions to be put as a result of today’s business. The first question is, that motion S6M-21036, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-21036, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument. I ask the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion. Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees that the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 (Characteristic of Sex) (Amendment and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.—[Graeme Dey] 22:09”
“The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-21077, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees— (a) the following programme of business— Friday 13 March 2026 9.30 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions 9.30 am Stage 3 Proceedings: Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time (b) that, for the purposes of consideration of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, on 13 March 2026, Rule 2.2.3 of Standing Orders be varied to replace "09:30 and 12:30” with “from 09:30”.—[Graeme Dey] The Presiding Officer: I call Jeremy Balfour. 21:26”
“Thank you, colleagues. I advise members that as there is insufficient time to finish the debate on the next group this evening, and as there are still a number of procedural items that we must conclude today, we will conclude amendment proceedings for this evening. We will resume those proceedings tomorrow, and we will move on to our next item of business. Business Motions 21:25”
“Taken together, my amendments in the group highlight the number of practical and clinical questions that remain unresolved in the bill before us.”
“Given the potency of the substances, the bill should clearly address the risk of diversion, misuse or unsafe storage. On that point, I was pleased that one of Mr McArthur’s amendments in the previous group was not agreed to. Amendments 106, 122 and 124 relate to reporting complications, because there will be complications. Provision of lethal medication in the NHS will place us in entirely new territory. If complications occur, particularly where distress or prolonged death is involved, it is vital that that information is recorded, analysed and reported to Parliament so that meaningful oversight is possible. We have to understand that people are individuals and that they all interact with and respond to drugs in unique ways.”
“I am sure that we will hear about some dignified deaths but not about the unpredictable reality of what administering those life-ending drugs might mean. My amendments 213 and 215 to 217 address the ambiguity around self-administration. They would make it clear that no physical assistance may be provided at the point at which the substance is taken. Without clarity about that, there is a risk that what is described as assisted dying could in practice move close to clinician- administered euthanasia. The amendments attempt to protect the central claim made by the bill’s sponsor that the final act would be undertaken solely by the individual. Amendments 99 and 100 deal with what would happen if the approved substance is not used. They would require the immediate securing, return or destruction of the drug, alongside written documentation.”
“Sue Webber: I will. I assume that the member will go back a bit. Jamie Hepburn: I have some sympathy with the points that have been made with regard to amendment 90, but the note that the Government has shared with us says that there is a challenge around the idea that adequate time would be allowed for a person to consider the decision and ask questions, given that there is no definition of “adequate time” in the bill. We are looking at passing a law here. Is there anything in the bill that would define “adequate time”? 18:45 Sue Webber: The bill is full of ambiguity, and there is not a lot of clarity in much of it. We need to ensure that patients who are perhaps considering an assisted death—which is not something that I would consider—are given the stark reality of what the process entails.”
“The amendments would require that a registered medical practitioner clearly explains the risks, side effects and uncertainties that are associated with the substances that are used to end life, including the possibility of complications or of the substance failing to cause death. Evidence from jurisdictions where assisted dying is in operation shows that those substances can involve large quantities of medication and unpleasant side effects and that anti-nausea drugs are sometimes required simply to keep them down. In a small but significant number of cases, the drugs do not work as intended—in other words, they do not cause death. If the bill is to proceed, it is surely essential that patients are fully informed of those realities. My amendments 213 and 215 to 217 address the ambiguity around— Jamie Hepburn: Will the member give way?”
“Group 8 is entitled “Provision of approved substance and device”. Amendment 90, in the name of Sue Webber, is grouped with amendments 96 to 98, 208, 210 to 214, 42, 215 to 217, 43, 10, 218 to 220, 99, 11, 100, 12 to 16, 221, 101, 102, 222, 103 to 105, 223, 44, 106, 224, 110, 111, 122, 124, 126 to 128, 70, 130, 131, 134 and 135. I draw members’ attention to the procedural information in relation to those amendments that is set out in the groupings. Sue Webber: I will speak to amendments 90, 96, 134, 135, 213, 215 to 217, 99, 100, 106, 122 and 124. As members can see, I have quite a few amendments in the group. Together, they are an attempt to clarify several areas of the bill where significant uncertainty remains. Amendments 90, 96, 134 and 135 are concerned with informed consent, which we have heard a lot about.”
“Thank you. That concludes portfolio questions on constitution, external affairs and culture, and parliamentary business. Justice and Home Affairs Knife Crime (North Ayrshire) 1.”
“The next item of business is a committee announcement. I call Ruth Maguire, deputy convener of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, to make an announcement on pastoral support for”
“The vote is closed. Jackie Baillie: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise; I could not connect on the app. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Baillie. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“When we allow something to start with, shortly afterwards it becomes a matter of encouraging it. The two do go together, and that is one of my fundamental objections to the bill: that it will lead to encouragement by whoever. To sum up, I hope that colleagues will vote for my amendment 231, or at least for one of the other amendments that cover similar ground.”
“John Mason: If a religiously based hospice is providing a service, including within its own premises—I think that most of them provide a greater service outside—the two very much go together. I cannot imagine people who are opposed to assisted dying in a hospice then going out and helping people to take part outside the hospice. Lorna Slater: I object very strongly to the member using the word “encourage”. There is no encouraging here; there is allowing people to understand their options, so that they can make an informed choice. I ask the member not to use that word, please. John Mason: That is a fundamental point—it is quite a good one. I do not know if the member has seen the Japanese film “Plan 75”, but it was extremely good and raised some of these issues. This goes back to the question of drift.”
“There is something fundamental here. If the ethos of an organisation is to protect life, encouraging or allowing people in to do the opposite brings a real problem. Miles Briggs: Everyone is talking about hospices, but this point does not just concern hospices. Most people concerned are at home. That is where the vast majority of people want to die; they are telling us that that is their wish. Under Mr Mason’s amendment 231, would he not expect people to be supported at home by the same organisations? Would that just be within the hospice boundaries? If that is the case, the capacity that would be removed to care for people at home would be vast. I am not quite sure what Mr Mason is trying to achieve through his amendment.”
“John Mason: That is a pretty extreme case. I am not aware of any medical facility in this country that does not allow access for blood transfusions or similar. There is a fundamental difference there. Daniel Johnson made the same argument. It is all very well saying that such organisations, including hospices and care homes, should be able to refer people to others when they will not provide the service, but that itself goes against the ethos of those care homes and hospices. If their aim is to protect life as much as they can, albeit not necessarily to extend life indefinitely, even encouraging or allowing somebody to come in and talk about, and perhaps to encourage, assisted dying is fundamentally against their ethos. Mr Johnson said that he is striking a balance, but I do not think that he has done that.”
“Mr Mason’s argument is that the organisation would be compelled to participate. Given the protections that we have discussed to ensure that individual practitioners are never forced to participate, the question, then, is whether the organisation should have to facilitate that and allow outside medics in. The parallel that I think of, on that basis, involves a faith-based organisation that runs a hospice but is sincerely of the view that blood transfusions are unacceptable. I do not think that it would be acceptable for that organisation to deny paramedics access to give someone a blood transfusion. Surely this argument is about access, not about compelling an organisation to participate. It is about allowing access to medical professionals, so that the individual patient has the right to make that choice.”
“Are we going to force the likes of the Salvation Army, for example, whose poverty alleviation work is so widely appreciated, to take part in assisted dying against its wishes and conscience? I am conscious that a similar amendment was rejected previously, because it was felt that— Ross Greer: I am grateful to Mr Mason for taking my intervention. When this debate started, I was broadly in favour of an organisational opt-out. However, the more I have thought about what it would mean in practice, the more I have realised that it would result in people ending their lives in the most undignified way in the car parks of hospices that they might have gone into, with no intention of seeking an assisted death, but having changed their mind once they got there. On balance, I would prefer that the individual had that right.”
“Every organisation has values and, for faith- based organisations, those values are potentially incompatible with the introduction of assisted dying. We cannot find ourselves in a situation in which, should the bill be passed, organisations are forced to participate by the state in the ending of life against their principles and wishes. Presumably, their only other option, as has been mentioned, would be to close down, and we are not at this time in a position where we can lose hospices—or care homes, for that matter. Both sectors need to be expanded. If we were to pass the bill without this amendment, the state could actively force participation in assisted dying by organisations that have no desire to have anything to do with it.”
“I call John Mason to speak to amendment 231 and other amendments in the group. John Mason: I will concentrate on my own amendment, by I will also touch on some of the others in this group. Clearly, quite a few amendments have been lodged on the whole area of opting out, conscience and all the rest of it, and my own amendment, like Daniel Johnson’s, purely focuses on organisations. It seeks to introduce a new section to the bill for the purpose of an organisational constitutional objection. Surely it is completely wrong that organisations should be compelled to participate in the bill’s provisions when they provide a service for a very different reason—I am thinking of, for example, care homes.”
“Where appropriate, that will include planning and making arrangements to ensure that they receive the palliative care that is right for their circumstances.”
“In this group, amendment 138 does not specify who should produce a palliative care package or what is meant by “this pathway has been … made available”. The amendment does not detail whether that is a reference to the document itself or to the services and support detailed within it being made available. More generally, I highlight that the Scottish Government’s palliative care strategy, “Palliative Care Matters for All”, sets out the aim that “People of all ages with life shortening conditions and their families and carers receive palliative care, care around dying and bereavement support based on what matters to them.” As part of that, we are working to ensure that person-centred future care planning is discussed as early as possible following diagnosis in a person’s care journey.”
“If we agreed to the proposed six-month prognosis provision, it would narrow the definition and would remove people who would be at risk and who we would not wish to access the service. I am not claiming that that approach is perfect, but I think that it is an improvement on what is currently in the bill. I think that, without it, the bill would pose an unacceptable level of risk. On that basis, I urge members to support amendment 2 and the other amendments related to the six- month prognosis. Neil Gray: As I set out during the debate on group 1, I will address amendments in group 2 only where there are technical, legal or legislative competence issues that the Government wishes to highlight.”
“Kate Forbes: I am grateful for the balanced way in which the member has outlined those arguments. How would he respond to some of the concerns that palliative care doctors have raised? They have expressed worry and concern about how the legislation might make them find it harder to do a proper prognosis when they know that a six-month prognosis is not accurate and that it might risk somebody accessing assisted dying far ahead of their natural death, even by years? Ross Greer: I take on board the concerns that those palliative care doctors have raised, but I would say that individuals in that situation for whom they made such a prognosis would be eligible regardless, under the definition that is currently in the bill.”
“More than those hypotheticals, we have all had correspondence with constituents, and most, if not all, of us have met constituents, who have put their situations to us, so we have had to judge whether they would or would not be eligible. The current definition would capture all those who I personally believe should be eligible to make that choice at the end of their life, but, on balance, it would probably risk capturing those who I do not believe—and, I think, a majority in the Parliament do not believe—should be put at that level of risk. Yes, a six-month prognosis would narrow down the number of people who would be eligible, but it would do so by balancing the risks. It would take out people who, we believe, would be at greater risk of an assisted death in a manner that we would not support.”
“We heard a moment ago from Lorna Slater about the desperate situations that some people find themselves in and the far-from-dignified ways in which their lives end. Much as the potential flaws and drawbacks of using a six-month prognosis have already been laid out, there was a majority in the Parliament at stage 1 in favour of the principle that people should have more agency over how their life ends, while there was clearly not a majority for the definition that is currently contained in the bill. I am sure that we have all wrestled with hypotheticals about what kind of people in what situations would or would not be eligible for an assisted death under the bill.”
“Members will note that we have passed the agreed time limit for the debate on this group to finish. I exercise my power under rule 9.8.4A(c) to allow debate on this group to continue beyond the limit in order to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed. Ross Greer: I want to speak in favour of Daniel Johnson’s amendment 2 and the other amendments in relation to the six-month prognosis limit, not because I think that that is a perfect system, but because there is no perfect way to design it. We are trying to balance harms here. There is no option that is free of suffering, even if we vote down the bill. To live is to experience suffering to some extent at some point in our lives.”
“Section 2—Terminal illness The Presiding Officer: Group 1 is on the meaning of “terminal illness”. Amendment 136, in the name of Daniel Johnson, is grouped with amendment 1. I call Daniel Johnson to speak to both amendments in the group and to move amendment 136.”
“The next item of business is stage 3 of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 46A—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. 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 on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after the group is called. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.”
“Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (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: 1 hour 45 minutes Groups 3 and 4: 5 hours Groups 5 and 6: 6 hours 30 minutes Groups 7 and 8: 10 hours 30 minutes Groups 9 and 10: 12 hours 30 minutes Groups 11 to 14: 15 hours 30 minutes Groups 15 to 17: 18 hours Groups 18 to 20: 21 hours—[Graeme Dey]. Motion agreed to. Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 14:27”
“The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-21024, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for consideration of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. Any member who wishes to speak to the motion should press their request- to-speak button now.”
“The Presiding Officer: The next item of business is consideration of business motions S6M-21033 and S6M-21034, on variations to standing orders. Motions moved, That the Parliament agrees, for the purposes of consideration of the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill at stage 3, that Rule 9.10.2A be varied to replace the word “fifth” with “eleventh”, so that the deadline for lodging a stage 3 amendment was Wednesday 4 March 2026. That the Parliament agrees, for the purposes of consideration of the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, that Rule 9.10.2A be varied to replace the word “fifth” with “ninth”, so that the deadline for lodging a stage 3 amendment was Thursday 5 March 2026.—[Graeme Dey] Motions agreed to. Topical Question Time 14:06 Glasgow Union Street Fire 1.”
“The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-21032, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to business. Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for— (a) Wednesday 11 March 2026— delete followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill and insert followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill delete 8.00 pm Decision Time and insert 10.00 pm Decision Time (b) Thursday 12 March 2026— delete followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill and insert followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill delete 5.25 pm Decision Time and insert 10.00 pm Decision Time (c) Tuesday 17 March 2026— after followed by Topical Questions insert followed by Ministerial Statement: A Year of Progress in Bringing Down Long Waits - Driving Continued Improvement and Building a Stronger NHS after followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill insert followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill delete 8.00 pm Decision Time and insert 10.00 pm Decision Time (d) Wednesday 18 March 2026— after 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Deputy First Minister Responsibilities, Economy and Gaelic; Finance and Local Government insert followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill (e) Thursday 19 March 2026— after followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill insert followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill delete 6.20 pm Decision Time and insert 9.05 pm Decision Time—[Graeme Dey] Motion agreed to.”
“Parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers, youth leaders, faith leaders, people in positions of power and influence, neighbours and friends: remember them, give thanks for them, and show your appreciation. We are now these people in positions of power and influence. So, think again. Who are those you nurture, those you influence, those you may inspire? What do they see and hear? What should they see and hear—in this place, at home, in your neighbourhood, in your constituency, in your local schools, on the telly or on the socials? I will leave that one with you. Business Motions 14:05”
“While the date for international women’s day is fixed, the date for mothers’ day changes each year. It is all tied in with the timing of Easter: the first Sunday after the first full moon occurring on or after the spring equinox of 21 March. Mothering Sunday, the fourth Sunday of Lent, is three weeks before Easter Sunday. It was the day when those working away from home—those in service—were given time off to return home to visit their family and to worship in their mother church, the place where they were nurtured in their faith. I like that wider meaning: it is a time to remember those who nurtured us, those who helped to mould us into the people we are today; it is a day to show our appreciation. Have a think. Who are those people for you? Who are the people who nurtured you, shaped you and inspired you?”
“There is a lot to celebrate, but there is still much work to be done, both in Scotland and worldwide, to raise awareness and advance gender equality—be that in tackling the gender pay gap, lack of representation in leadership roles, gender- based violence or unequal access to education and opportunities—and, quite simply, to show basic respect to girls and women. On Sunday coming, 15 March, we will remember some particular women. It is mothers’ day. In nurseries and primary schools the length and breadth of the land, cards are being created and presents are being made. By the weekend, the shops and supermarkets will be filled with cards, gifts and overpriced bouquets in shades of pink. Hotels and restaurants will be fully booked. There will be an air of expectation and anticipation on the part of both children and mothers.”
“Good afternoon. The first item of business is time for reflection. Our time for reflection leader today is the Right Rev Rosie Frew, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The Right Rev Rosie Frew (Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland): Good afternoon. Sunday past, 8 March, was international women’s day. It is always on 8 March, and it is a global day celebrating the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women. There have been many throughout history and in the present day.”
“Official Report Email: official.report@parliament.scot Room T2.20 Telephone: 0131 348 5447 Scottish Parliament Edinburgh EH99 1SP The deadline for corrections to this edition is 20 working days after the date of publication. Published in Edinburgh by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP All documents are available on the Scottish Parliament website at: www.parliament.scot Information on non-endorsed print suppliers is available here: www.parliament.scot/documents For information on the Scottish Parliament contact Public Information on: Telephone: 0131 348 5000 Textphone: 0800 092 7100 Email: sp.info@parliament.scot”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3A of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act. The Presiding Officer: That concludes decision time. Meeting closed at 17:36. This is a draft Official Report and is subject to correction between publication and archiving, which will take place no later than 35 working days after the date of the meeting. The most up-to-date version is available here: https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report Members and other meeting participants who wish to suggest corrections to their contributions should contact the Official Report.”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament notes the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s consideration of the appointment to Environmental Standards Scotland at its meeting on 17 February 2026; welcomes the Committee’s recommendation that the Parliament approves the appointment of Laura Young as a board member, in accordance with the provisions of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021, and approves the appointment as required by schedule 1, paragraph 2(2) of the Act. The Presiding Officer: The final question is, that motion S6M-20935, in the name of Shona Robison, on a financial resolution for the Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to.”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees that the Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill be passed. The Presiding Officer: The Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill is passed. [Applause.] The next question is, that motion S6M-20964, in the name of Edward Mountain, on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, on the draft climate change plan, be agreed to. Motion agreed to, That the Parliament notes the findings and recommendations in the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s 10th Report, 2026 (Session 6), Report on the Draft Climate Change Plan (SP Paper 1031), and the reports and letters from other committees, as referenced in the report. The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that motion S6M-20981, in the name of Gillian Martin, on the appointment of a board member to Environmental Standards Scotland, be agreed to.”
“For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) 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) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) 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) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Leonard, Richard (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) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) 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) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) 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, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (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) 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) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on motion S6M-20944, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, is: For 114, Against 0, Abstentions 0.”
“There are four questions to be put as a result of today’s business. The first question is, that motion S6M-20944, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, be agreed to. As this is a motion to pass a bill, the question must be decided by division. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system. 17:31 Meeting suspended. 17:34 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: We move to the division on motion S6M-20944, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. Members should cast their votes now.”
“The next item of business is consideration of motion S6M-20935, in the name of Shona Robison, on a financial resolution for the Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill. Motion moved, That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3A of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act.—[Shona Robison] The Presiding Officer: The question on the motion will be put at decision time. Decision Time 17:31”
“The next item of business is consideration of motion S6M-20981, in the name of Gillian Martin, on the appointment of a board member to Environmental Standards Scotland. Motion moved, That the Parliament notes the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee’s consideration of the appointment to Environmental Standards Scotland at its meeting on 17 February 2026; welcomes the Committee’s recommendation that the Parliament approves the appointment of Laura Young as a board member, in accordance with the provisions of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021, and approves the appointment as required by schedule 1, paragraph 2(2) of the Act.—[Gillian Martin] The Presiding Officer: The question on the motion will be put at decision time. Freedom of Information Reform (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution 17:31”
“Mr Lumsden knows that I am very keen that all members treat one another with courtesy and respect at all times. I will intervene when I feel that that is required. Cabinet secretary, please continue. Gillian Martin: Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have concluded. The Presiding Officer: I call Michael Matheson to wind up the debate on behalf of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. 17:20”
“This Government will succeed in its determination to eradicate child poverty and consign the Tory party in Scotland to electoral history. Queen Elizabeth University Hospital 2.”
“Of course, there has been a resumption of the nasty party under the leadership of Russell Findlay. One illustration of the characteristics of Mr Findlay’s plan is the fact that, if it was implemented, the two-child limit would be restored in relation to the Scottish child payment, which would consign more families and more children in this country to poverty. One of my objectives as First Minister is to make sure that we succeed in eradicating child poverty. We are already making significant progress on that. In Scotland, there has been a reduction in child poverty while it is rising in the rest of the United Kingdom. Next week, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice will set out to Parliament the next steps in tackling child poverty.”
“Every other party backs the SNP’s out-of-control benefits spending, but the Scottish Conservatives will keep telling the truth. The SNP’s benefits spending is unaffordable, unfair and unsustainable. We have set out a sensible plan to tackle fraud and to reduce the £7 billion—and rising—benefits bill. Mr Swinney can posture all he wants, but surely he can now see that the benefits system is completely and utterly broken. The First Minister: I am always respectful in my engagement in Parliament, and I will not apologise for setting out some hard truths to the Tory party. I did not conjure up the description of the Tory party as “the nasty party”. That description was conjured up and openly used by Theresa May, the former Conservative Prime Minister, who, in a moment of self-reflection, told the Conservatives what they needed to hear.”