Humza Yousaf
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“In what is likely to be my final speech as an MSP—other members have said this—I cannot think of a more consequential piece of legislation to be speaking to. In 15 years in this Parliament, I, like so many of my colleagues, have cast hundreds, if not thousands, of votes.”
“Even many of the bill’s strongest supporters have had to concede that there is no absolute, cast-iron safeguard against coercion. Coercion is not always loud. It is not always an overt threat. Sometimes it is quieter than that.”
“There must be a third one—one that gives people comfort, relief and, yes, dignity in their death— without sending the message that ending their life is the only option available to them.”
“I, too, thank Liam McArthur for the approach that he has taken in engaging with members across the chamber, on both sides of the debate. I do not think that there is anybody better suited—either in temperament or in manner of engagement—to have brought such a sensitive and complex bill to the chamber, and I sincerely thank him for that.”
“He had been a stocky man—5 foot 8 and 13 stone—before his diagnosis. By the time he died, he weighed just 6.5 stone. As I washed him, I could feel his bones protruding through his skin. When he died, I felt grief and heartache, but I also felt relief that he was no longer suffering.”
“When disabled people’s organisations and domestic abuse organisations and experts warn us, and when those who know what it is like to live with dependency tell us that this law could expose people to pressure that they may never name as coercion, we should not just hear them—we should listen to them.”
The complete record
Every one of 32 lines we hold for Humza Yousaf, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account.
“When disabled people’s organisations and domestic abuse organisations and experts warn us, and when those who know what it is like to live with dependency tell us that this law could expose people to pressure that they may never name as coercion, we should not just hear them—we should listen to them. To colleagues who remain undecided tonight, I simply say this. If you are not absolutely certain that this bill can protect those most at risk, then do not pass it. If even one person chooses death, not from true autonomy but from quiet pressure, that is one person too many. 19:57”
“He had been a stocky man—5 foot 8 and 13 stone—before his diagnosis. By the time he died, he weighed just 6.5 stone. As I washed him, I could feel his bones protruding through his skin. When he died, I felt grief and heartache, but I also felt relief that he was no longer suffering. I therefore say this with real empathy for those who are facing terminal illness, pain, fear and loss of dignity. If, in giving a small minority this option, we create a law under which even one person ends their life because they feel guilty, dependent or like a burden, then the Parliament will not have made compassionate law; it will have made dangerous law.”
“Even many of the bill’s strongest supporters have had to concede that there is no absolute, cast-iron safeguard against coercion. Coercion is not always loud. It is not always an overt threat. Sometimes it is quieter than that. Sometimes it is a look, a sigh, a hesitation, a sense that you are a burden, a feeling that your family would simply be better off without you. That is what troubles me the most. That is not to say that those who argue passionately for the right to an assisted death do not have a case; of course they do. We would have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by some of the testimony that we have heard. I know that from personal experience. When my uncle died from pancreatic cancer, aged 54, I washed his body in preparation for his funeral, as is our Islamic custom.”
“There must be a third one—one that gives people comfort, relief and, yes, dignity in their death— without sending the message that ending their life is the only option available to them. As someone who has taken a number of bills through this Parliament—and, dare I say, one or two that have even courted some controversy—I know how carefully we must think about the unintended consequences of legislation, especially legislation such as this bill, which is born of good intentions. Over the years we have corrected bad law, we have amended acts and we have even repealed acts. This bill is different, however. When the unintended consequences are death, there is no correcting it afterwards. No repeal can reverse it, and no secondary legislation can undo it. Death is final.”
“In what is likely to be my final speech as an MSP—other members have said this—I cannot think of a more consequential piece of legislation to be speaking to. In 15 years in this Parliament, I, like so many of my colleagues, have cast hundreds, if not thousands, of votes. Day after day, we come to this chamber and, more often than not, we vote as instructed by that slip of paper that is handed to us by our whips. However, today, there is no party line—no whip. Today, every member must be guided not by a slip of paper, but by the weight of their own conscience. My conscience tells me this: a society that leaves someone with a terminal diagnosis believing that their only options are either to endure intolerable suffering or to end their life prematurely has failed them. I refuse to accept that those are the only two choices available.”
“I, too, thank Liam McArthur for the approach that he has taken in engaging with members across the chamber, on both sides of the debate. I do not think that there is anybody better suited—either in temperament or in manner of engagement—to have brought such a sensitive and complex bill to the chamber, and I sincerely thank him for that. I echo Liz Smith’s comment that this debate, throughout its stages—1, 2 and 3—has been an exceptional demonstration of this Parliament at its best. It is perhaps cheeky of me to say this as I leave this Parliament, and as someone who has been an MSP for 15 years and was in Government for 12 and has never once voted against the whip, but perhaps less whipping in this Parliament might not be a bad thing after all.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how much it has allocated in the proposed Scottish budget to support its international development efforts. (S6O-05369)”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking in partnership with cultural institutions following the Parliament agreeing motion S6M- 18686 on 3 September, which called for boycotts targeted at the state of Israel. (S6O-05230)”
“Amendment 3 disagreed to. Amendments 4 to 6 not moved. The Convener: The next group is entitled “Reporting and statements on requirement for legislation (including defects in legislation)”. Amendment 7, in the name of Craig Hoy, is grouped with amendments 8, 11 to 13, 20 and 21.”
“On a point of order, convener. I could not connect but I would have voted no. The Convener: Thank you, Mr Yousaf. We will ensure that that is recorded. For Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) 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) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Lorna Slater] Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Convener: The result of the division is: For 25, Against 84, Abstentions 0.”
“Imagine your child suffering the catastrophic effects of a man-made famine while thousands of tonnes of food were simply across the border, and you could do nothing about it. The author Omar El Akkad wrote: “One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This”. I urge members across the chamber not to wait until that day but to examine their consciences and ensure that, when our children ask us what we did when a genocide was occurring, we can at the very least say that we were on the right side of history. 16:41”
“In that vein, let me end by telling the chamber about my wife’s cousin, Sally. She is in Gaza with her husband and four children. As I tell her story, I want members to think of their children, their nieces and nephews and their grandchildren. Sally, her husband and their four children are being starved. When Sally hugs her children, instead of feeling a warm embrace, she feels instead their spine, their ribs, protruding through their skin. They are becoming quite literally emaciated in her arms, and while they cry through the pain of not eating or drinking, she has to try to comfort them while starvation grips her body. I say to members: imagine that that was your child.”
“Predictably, one of the most vocal voices to oppose that suggestion is the very man who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It has been to my astonishment that, over the past 48 hours, some members in the chamber have expressed the view that we should not have this debate in our nation’s Parliament. That was never, by the way, an argument that they made when we debated Ukraine, and I wonder why Palestinian lives matter less. They have said in their arguments in the past couple of days that foreign affairs are reserved to the Government in London. To them, I ask: is your compassion reserved? Is your humanity reserved? We have an absolute obligation in this place to tell the stories of those who do not have the privilege of the platform that we have.”
“What has become of us that we can allow ourselves to be so divided by the geopolitics when a massacre of tens of thousands of children is happening in front of our very eyes and the world does virtually nothing about it? Shame on us. Gaza is the cemetery upon which our collective humanity has died. We should be in no doubt about what we are witnessing. It is a genocide. That is the opinion of the world-leading authority on genocide, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, which has declared that Israel’s conduct meets the legal definition of genocide. It is not the only organisation to have done so. Amnesty International, MSF, Oxfam, Israeli human rights organisations such as B’Tselem and many more voices of authority tell us that genocide is taking place in Gaza.”
“Try telling the parents of the 17,000 children who have been murdered in Gaza, “Never again.” Look into the eyes of the tens of thousands of children who have become orphans and tell them that we really meant it when we said, “Never again.” Tell the families of all the hospital workers, journalists and aid workers who have been massacred with absolute impunity, “Never again.” So awful is the genocide that we are witnessing that we are having to create a new lexicon just to describe the horrors that we are witnessing. Dr Tanya Haj-Hassan, a Canadian paediatrician who has worked in Gaza, tells us that doctors had to create a new abbreviation for the children they were treating: WCNSF—wounded child, no surviving family.”
““Never again.” Those are the words that we repeat every year when we attend Holocaust memorial day. We rightly gather and promise to honour the memories of the 6 million Jews and all those who were killed during the evil of the Holocaust. “Never again,” we say. I am not sure whether, in the annals of human history, we have ever told ourselves a bigger lie.”
“I move amendment S6M-18686.2, to insert at end: “; welcomes the actions taken by the UK Government to respect the jurisdiction and independence of the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court, restore funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, restrict arms sales licences to prevent breaches of international law, issue sanctions on Israeli ministers and settlers in the West Bank and commit to recognising a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly; calls on the Scottish Government to update the Parliament on the due diligence checks carried out by Scottish Enterprise during investment decision processes to ensure that defence products are not used in breaches of humanitarian law in Gaza or elsewhere, and considers that there must be an immediate ceasefire, with delivery of humanitarian aid and food into Gaza, the release of all the hostages and a pathway to a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine, secured by a two-state solution.” 16:06”
“We can further help to make a difference by clearly and immediately signalling our support for the recognition of the state of Palestine. Today, let us send out a clear message that we believe in peace and in a two-state solution. That does not mean that we need to take sides, other than to be on the side of those who wish to live against those who wish to take life— those who seek to make peace against those who seek conflict. Let us speak of solidarity for peace, for a ceasefire and for a two-state solution, as we have always argued. Let us argue not for division for our own ends but for peace for those who suffer for no reason.”
“We might not all agree on the appropriate time to recognise the state of Palestine, but I believe that that time is now. We might also not agree on what other actions should be taken to bring about that peace, but any action needs to be effective, involve international pressure and co-operation, and be under constant review. Important actions are already being taken by the UK Government, as set out in my amendment, in relation to restoring funding for UNRWA and respecting the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. Action is being taken by the Scottish Government, too, which is welcome. Although we, in these islands, cannot alone end the killing in Gaza and the West Bank, we can help to make a difference by how we act and how we speak.”
“It must be lifted, which is why, across the chamber, along with people across this land, our continent and the globe, we have called for an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages and the free flow of humanitarian aid. However, the question that we face as Scottish parliamentarians is, “What can we do?” The Scottish Labour Party has argued for more than half a century for a two-state solution, and I recognise that other parties have long supported that, too. Statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people, and alongside a wider settlement, it is the only way for a lasting peace to be secured between Israel and Palestine. I believe that every member in this place wants an end to the killing and a lasting peace.”
“That needs to be kept under constant review, and we need to take all the actions that we can to stop those crimes from happening. As Mr Yousaf is aware, the killing is still on-going and needs to stop. Although there needs to be accountability, our priority must be to call for an end to those crimes now, to stop the killings with the bullets and bombs and the killings by the barriers that are preventing food from getting into children’s mouths and medicines to people’s wounds. In biblical times, famine was seen as a matter of weather or the will of God; today, the famine in Gaza is man made, on the edict of Benjamin Netanyahu.”
“I thank Neil Bibby for his contribution so far. I also welcome Anas Sarwar’s statement that a genocide is taking place. David Lammy called it a moral outrage and Keir Starmer called it horrifying. On that very point, assuming that Neil Bibby agrees with his colleagues, how on earth can it be justified to sell one single arm, weapon or F-35 component to the very country and regime that is committing that moral outrage, that horrifying situation, that genocide? Neil Bibby: I respect Mr Yousaf’s passion and his campaigning on the issue. He will be aware that the UK Government has restricted arms sales, and we have called for the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise to look at what we can do in a Scottish context.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it ensures that public procurement aligns with its obligations under international law. (S6O-04782)”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Lumsden, this is going to be a debate in which we are going to see emotions rise. I am asking, at the outset, if we can set a tone in which courtesy and respect is applied. Mr Lumsden, continue. Douglas Lumsden:”
“Wait a minute—come on. Douglas Lumsden: To say to my constituents—[Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Lumsden— Douglas Lumsden: —and even more disgustingly, in the case of the cabinet secretary— [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Lumsden. Can I remind you that the Presiding Officer— [Interruption.] Douglas Lumsden: Last week, the Presiding Officer did nothing about it—[Interruption.] On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. On 8 May 2025, the First Minister used the words “It is a disgusting organisation”—[Official Report, 8 May 2025; c 20.] in reference to ourselves. I seek your guidance. Nothing was raised by the chair then, so have the rules changed since that day, or has a different standard been applied?”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what actions it is taking to help tackle climate debt in the global south. (S6O- 04607)”
“That is not self-defence—it is slaughter, and our arms companies, our Governments and our nations must play no part in it. 15:25”
“There is no right to self-defence for those who have lived under armed occupation for decades and who continue to see the eradication of their land and the erasure of their culture and their identity as a people. Is there anyone who sincerely believes that Israel’s retaliation to those horrific attacks on 7 October 2023 has been proportionate in its self- defence? Was Israel defending itself from five- year-old Hind Rajab when it massacred her with 335 bullets? Was Israel defending itself from two- year-old Laila al-Khatib when an Israeli sniper shot and killed her while she was eating dessert with her grandparents? Was Israel defending itself from four-day-old twins Ayssel and Asser when killing them in an air strike while their father was registering their births?”
“How can we possibly claim to be a bastion of democracy and a standard bearer of international law and human rights when we are supplying weapons to the man who the highest court in the world has demanded face trial for war crimes? We must choose accountability, not complicity. I just touched on what I think is the legal case for why we should end arms sales to Israel. Let me end my contribution by mentioning the moral case. The Conservative amendment mentions Israel’s right to self-defence but nothing about the Palestinians’ right to self-defence. There is no right to self-defence for those such as my wife’s 95- year-old grandmother, who was kicked out of her house in 1948 alongside more than 700,000 other Palestinians. Their homes were given away by the British and their land occupied by Israel.”
“I suggest that anarchy and chaos in a world with more than 12,000 nuclear warheads poses a real existential threat to humanity. For those who still believe in a rules-based order—as I suspect all of us in the chamber do— now is the time to ensure that we are, at a minimum, complying with international law and supporting its equal application across the world. That is only one reason why I support calls to halt all arms sales to Israel. Let me remind members that Israel is a nation that is currently headed by a man who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes including using starvation as a method of warfare. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also wanted for crimes against humanity including murder, persecution and other inhumane acts.”
“I thank the Green Party for bringing this important debate to the chamber. Let me say from the outset that I support its calls to end all arms sales to Israel and agree that not a penny of public funding should be going to arms companies, including those in Scotland, that supply weapons or munitions to Israel. Some have suggested that we are at the beginning of a new world order. I suggest that it more closely resembles disorder than order. We are living at a time when one of our closest allies—which was on the same side as us in world war 2—was, on Monday this week, in the United Nations, on the side of dictators in Russia, North Korea and Belarus. It seems that, whether you choose to invade Ukraine or kill 18,000 children in Gaza, you can now do so with impunity. In the absence of any rules-based order, anarchy will ensue.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government in relation to lifting Crown immunity under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for the Scottish Prison Service. (S6O-04164)”