Douglas Ross
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to comments by the Scottish Information Commissioner who stated, in relation to the Government’s handling of information concerning the Salmond files, “I can no longer trust the government to handle this information unsupervised and will explore more intrusive options to ensure complianc…”
“I literally follow sport from the sidelines in my role as a match official but, more than that, as a parent of two boys in Moray, I give credit to the sporting organisations in Moray and across the Highlands that provide so many opportunities for young people—boys and girls— throughout the country.”
“When we are thinking about the bill, which will undoubtedly pass at stage 3 today, I am sure unanimously, we might consider what she said in her email: “Calum can’t advocate for himself due to his complex disability, but he can express this truth: the children aren’t naughty, they are scared.” Children should not be scared in Scotland, an…”
“I rise to make my final speech in the chamber. I chose to speak in this debate, on this subject, for a number of reasons. First, the member in charge proved to be a very conscientious and determined member in getting the bill through.”
“The work that I have done as an individual member, as a party spokesperson, as a party leader and as a convener has been assisted by their tremendous efforts.”
“I am frustrated that we have politicians who cannot speak for four minutes without having the lectern up and reading from a script, daring not to deviate by taking an intervention.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,089 lines we hold for Douglas Ross, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 22.
“For four years, the family had tried to get an ADHD diagnosis for him through the national health service but, for four years, they had come up against brick walls and been unable to get the diagnosis that they needed. They spent personal money that had been gifted to them from the boy’s grandmother to go private in Stirling, because she could see how urgent things were. They quickly got a diagnosis and, indeed, medication, which is making a big difference to this young boy’s life. However, because the boy’s diagnosis was made by a private operator, the NHS board will not pay for the medication that he needs. I wrote to the health board and the Scottish Government about that. My office chased up a response in advance of today’s debate, as I had not had one.”
“It cannot be only Opposition MSPs who have people coming to their surgeries, reaching out to them and copying them into letters to the First Minister, as Willie Rennie cited. SNP ministers and back benchers must be getting the exact same thing. When I had a surgery in Lossiemouth just a few weeks ago, a parent came to me to say that she was at the end of her tether, because she has seen very clearly that the support for her son in primary school has dwindled in recent years. He is not getting the same level of support and assistance as he did just a few years ago, and she is facing the consequences of that at home and when he is out of school. Just a couple of weeks ago, I held a surgery in Knockando, where there was quite a harrowing case from a mum who came to me about her son.”
“I do not know whether any minister wants to deny that or say that it is the truth. No—they do not. Maybe the Government has accepted, having lost its majority when the Greens left office, that it is more difficult to stitch up deals to remove the critical elements of motions. That is healthy, as it is forcing the Government to do things that, clearly, it would not normally want to do. There is no doubt that this is a major issue. Stephen Boyle’s Audit Scotland report on additional support for learning was deeply damning, but it was also, sadly, predictable. I will speak about a couple of recent cases that I have had in Moray. Miles Briggs also gave examples, as did Pam Duncan-Glancy in the context of Glasgow, and other speakers.”
“This is a very important debate that has been brought forward by Miles Briggs and the Scottish Conservatives. I am struck by the Scottish Government amendment, which I think that the minister said was worded to simply add to the Conservative motion, because the Government wants consensus and to move forward. Maybe it is the cynic in me, and maybe I can be proven wrong by the cabinet secretary and the minister, but will they confirm that it is a fact that they agree with every word in the motion and that, as soon as it dropped into their mailboxes, they said, “Yes, we will support that”? Or did they make discreet attempts to find a body of votes with the other parties that would strike out a lot of the critical text in the motion and replace it with something bland and vague, as the SNP always does?”
“We ought instead to be concentrating on ways to try to alleviate pain and suffering for people who are terminally ill.” I agree with that. As a father, I cannot think of anything worse than losing a child. If someone who has lost four children, three in such terrible circumstances, takes that view on a bill like this, that is something—and someone—I believe I should listen to, and to whom I have listened. For those reasons, I will not support the bill today. 15:46”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: That was not so brief. Mr Ross, please bring your remarks to a close. Douglas Ross: I will. I would like to respond to that intervention, but perhaps I will do so in another debate. In concluding, I will quote a former member of this chamber. Dennis Canavan was a Labour MP and an independent MSP. He has suffered much personal tragedy in his life. Whenever I have heard him speak on the radio or in interviews about this issue, I have felt compelled to listen to him. As someone who has lost four children, including three sons to terminal illness, he said this about the bill: “My sons died in dignity and I disagree with supporters of the Bill who claim that the suicide option is necessary to ensure dignity in death.”
“Liam McArthur: On expansion of the eligibility criteria, I assure Douglas Ross that there is no example of a terminal illness mental capacity model anywhere in the world in which the eligibility criteria have expanded. On the numbers, I conceded to the finance committee that identifying the numbers in year 1 and projecting forward is enormously difficult. We have not seen that done in legislation in any other jurisdiction. I based my calculations on an estimate and an understanding, having looked at places such as Victoria and Oregon, which I then transposed to a Scottish context. Although there will be variation, we see that the numbers start off small and then increase as confidence in and understanding of the legislation and the way it operates in practice grow—and, indeed, as the medical profession’s confidence grows.”
“My question is therefore whether the bill would be a success if more than 25 people feel comfortable—in Liam McArthur’s view, there are safeguards—about taking their own lives in year 1. Or would that be an indication to us, as parliamentarians, that there could be major flaws in the legislation, which have resulted in more people being able to take their own lives than had been anticipated? I ask that question because I do not know the answer, and I am not trying to direct it in any way. At the very least, we have a great range of potential deaths in year 1 alone, and no one seems to have a firm answer on that. I give way to Mr McArthur. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please be very brief.”
“In almost every other country in which assisted dying has been introduced, it has grown. It has become bigger. The number of people who are affected has increased. I worry that, if we start the process today, it will simply grow and grow. Liam McArthur: [Made a request to intervene.] Douglas Ross: I will give way to Mr McArthur in a moment. The other issue that I want to focus on is the numbers. In his financial memorandum, Mr McArthur suggests that up to 25 people could take the assisted dying route in year 1. The Finance and Public Administration Committee disagreed with that. It looked at international research and did some scientific studies, and it suggested that the number in year 1 could be between 170 and 180. Mr McArthur’s medical advisory group has estimated that there could be between 174 and 580 deaths annually.”
“However, I have concerns about the bill, and I will go over just some of the issues. First, I have concerns on behalf of the disabled constituents who have contacted me—we have also heard from Jeremy Balfour about some of his concerns, and Pam Duncan-Glancy has articulated many of the issues before the debate and will do so again today. Many disabled constituents feel that the bill could leave them vulnerable and under pressure to take a decision. A quote that I heard earlier today was that a change in the law may, for disabled people, seem “more than a right to assisted dying, it becomes a duty.” If they feel that there is a duty on them to end their life to help others, it is more than giving them a right—it is putting a huge burden on them. Secondly, this could be just the start.”
“Despite how difficult it is for us all, and despite our debate having been aided by the balanced nature of the arguments on both sides—which is different from previous debates on the issue—I know two things for certain. First, none of us will please all our constituents with our decision today. The country and our constituencies are divided on the issue. More people may be in favour, according to opinion polls, but people are still divided. Secondly—and importantly—I know that every MSP will make their choice today having taken the issue into their heart, having considered it deeply and personally, and having looked at it with great integrity and respect, after a great deal of soul searching and reflection. That is the least that we can do for our constituents, and I think that it will show the Parliament in a good light.”
“Given the fact that I, someone who had a firm view on the issue as the legislation started its process, have had difficulty with the decision, I can only imagine how difficult it has been for our colleagues who have been split on the issue or who will take a different position today to the one that they took at the outset of the bill’s passage through the Parliament. The closer that we got to today’s debate and vote, the more that ramped up for me and, I know, others. This morning, I woke up to the headline, “MSPs prepare to make crucial life or death decision”. It is as clear as that. What we decide today—one way or the other, whichever side of the argument members are on—will impact on lives and on how people die.”
“I do not support the bill and I will vote against it this evening. I say that as someone who has always been against this form of legislation. Despite that, the vote has still been one of the most difficult that I have had to consider. Despite my own personal views, which have not changed—ultimately, I will still vote in the same way—I could not fail to be moved by the experiences that have, throughout this period, been shared with me by constituents who have watched loved ones die in pain and have just wanted to do something about it, or who themselves have a terminal illness and simply want the opportunity to make their own decision about their own life.”
“I say all that because we must recognise the horrors of war, but we must also recognise that those stories will be lost if we do not continue to articulate them in the future. It is a commitment that I give to my boys and future generations; we must ensure that they know about the horrors of the past, and that we never forget the sacrifices of so many in that war and in many other conflicts. 16:10”
“Dr Jean Munro is 101 years old and is a resident at Lynemore care home in Grantown-on-Spey. She spoke about working in hut 6 at Bletchley Park, but really did not acknowledge how important her role was. In fact, until the 1980s, she would not even tell her friends and family about the role that she played in the war. Then there is 101-year-old Mamie Cree. I know Mamie because her son, Stewart Cree, was a councillor and the convener of Moray Council. She speaks about how she was conscripted to go from Keith to Dalkeith during the war, which was a major thing for her because she had never travelled further than Elgin. Mamie speaks about her work in Army payroll but also about some of the positives, such as how she went to wartime dances and how, at one of those dances, she met her future husband, Jack, to whom she was married for 75 years.”
“He did not know why he was wearing party clothes but, in years to come, he will, and I want to ensure that the next generation knows about the sacrifices of the past. It is in that spirit that I really commend to members a two-part podcast produced by Parklands care home. The company has care homes across Moray and the Highlands and has produced a podcast called “Peace at Last: Memories of VE Day” so that memories will not be forgotten but will be passed on to the next generation. Listening to some of the residents’ experiences will bring a tear to your eye: tears of sadness because of what happened but also tears of joy at the resilience that many of those people still have eight decades after VE day. I will pick a couple of those who shared their first-hand experiences.”
“Throughout this week, as I have watched many of the events shown on television and listened to today’s debate, I have been struck by the ever- dwindling number of people who fought in that war. When I watch remembrance Sunday events, I see that the veterans marching past the cenotaph look older and frailer and are fewer in number. That reminds me that we owe them a great debt of thanks for what they did, but that we also have an obligation to ensure that their memory lives on in future generations because of what they sacrificed during the war and, as Karen Adam reminded us, because many did not come home. This morning, my three-year-old was excited that he did not have to wear his usual uniform to nursery and that he got to wear his party clothes.”
“The royal family posted a comment this morning to remind us that the then Princess Elizabeth went out on to the Mall on VE day, pulling down her uniform cap so that she could go out incognito to join the thronging crowds that had turned out to celebrate. She went on to reign over this country for 70 years and it was important for her to be among the people whom she would serve for seven decades. We have heard many quotes today from Winston Churchill. The one that strikes me most is that he said: “We may allow ourselves a brief period of rejoicing, but let us not forget for a moment the toil and efforts that lie ahead.” Although there was celebration, there was still much to do.”
“It is a real honour to contribute to the debate. I associate myself with the motion in the First Minister’s name, with the moving speech that he gave today and, as Stephen Kerr said, with many of the speeches that he has made on the subject in the past. It is encouraging that all our party leaders have taken part in today’s debate to show the importance of the subject. When I was considering what to speak about, I wondered whether I should focus on the celebration that the war in Europe had finished or whether I should recognise that the war continued for some time thereafter. I will do a bit of both. There is absolutely no doubt that VE day was a celebration.”
“That has stayed pretty static since 2014. However, at the local authority level, there are undoubtedly challenges. I have engaged with the group that the member alluded to. I am happy to engage with all partners on the issue. Substantively, though, I engage with our teaching trade unions. I engaged with them yesterday for two hours on a range of different issues, and we had a significant contribution from them on this issue and the way in which the uncertainty affects their members. I am very alive to that. We have to work with local authorities on the issue, recognising their responsibilities in law, and I will continue to engage with the teaching trade unions to that end.”
“Challenging behaviour and relationships can be difficult for all teachers and staff, but particularly for supply teachers, who do not necessarily have the opportunity to build up a rapport with their students. We know that the cabinet secretary met Scottish Teachers for Permanence back in November. I understand that, at that meeting, she committed to meeting it again and arranging a meeting with COSLA, but it tells me that, despite requests, it has not had an update on that. Will the cabinet secretary agree to meet it urgently to discuss the issue and its recent survey? Jenny Gilruth: Mr Ross’s point in relation to supply is pertinent. We have real challenges at the current time in relation to that issue of permanence. If we look across the country, about 80 per cent of all teaching jobs are permanent.”
“John Swinney recently awarded all his highly paid ministers a £20,000 increase in their salary. Despite saying that he would not benefit from that, a response to a freedom of information request that I have received suggests that John Swinney did receive the increased salary in his most recent pay packet. Given that John Swinney said earlier that he wants to be “straight with the Parliament”, can he tell us whether it is correct that his most recent pay packet included that uplift? Will he pay that money back? Does he accept the anger among people across Scotland who see highly paid ministers get a salary increase while budgets are cut?”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Rhoda Grant to speak to and move amendment S6M- 17360.1. 16:44”
“Mairi Gougeon: I move amendment S6M- 17370.3, to leave out from first “with the EU” to second “with the EU” and insert: “on fishing with the EU that enhances access for EU fishing vessels to UK waters without consulting the Scottish Government, despite the fishing industry being of comparatively greater importance to the Scottish economy than to the UK economy as a whole; understands that the reported deal could result in a multi-year access guarantee as opposed to annual negotiations between the UK and the EU; notes the need for an agreement that delivers improvements for Scotland’s fishing communities, including access to the single market for fish and seafood and long- term stability for fishing businesses; further notes the poor record of successive UK Conservative and Labour administrations in delivering for Scotland's coastal communities; calls on the UK Government to engage with fishing stakeholders and the Scottish Government to ensure that Trade and Cooperation Agreement renegotiations reflect the needs and priorities of the Scottish fishing industry; further calls on the UK Government to provide multi-annual funding that keeps pace with the equivalent EU funding that Scotland would have received as a member state, and that all marine funding be devolved; recognises the significant economic harm created by Brexit in reducing trade and access to labour for fishing businesses”.”
“I do not know how that can be corrected on the record. The cabinet secretary deliberately tried to use a phrase in this debate that was not in context. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You have made your point, Mr Ross. That is not a point of order—it is perhaps a debating point. I require the cabinet secretary to move her amendment.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The point that the cabinet secretary made was—I know the word that I am not allowed to use—deliberately misleading and referred to a previous deal. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You are not allowed to use that terminology either, Mr Ross. Douglas Ross: I cannot use the words “lying” or “deliberately misleading”? The Deputy Presiding Officer: No, you cannot. Douglas Ross: What words can I use? The Deputy Presiding Officer: That is not a point of order, Mr Ross. Douglas Ross: The cabinet secretary has— [Interruption.] I said “deliberately misleading”, but I am not allowed to use that term either. The cabinet secretary deliberately used a quote that did not refer to the final Brexit deal on fishing and claimed that that was the opinion of the member who said it—me—when it was not.”
“Amendment disagreed to. The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that amendment S6M-17352.4, in the name of Lorna Slater, which seeks to amend motion S6M- 17352, in the name of Kate Forbes, on supporting Scottish industry during turbulent economic times, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ross. We will ensure that that is recorded. For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against 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) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) 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) 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) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP) 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) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (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) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) 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) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] 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) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) 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) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) 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) 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) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on amendment S6M-17352.2, in the name of Daniel Johnson, is: For 22, Against 98, Abstentions 0.”
“That represents less than 0.5 per cent of the total prison population in Scotland. The Presiding Officer: Thank you. That concludes topical questions. [Interruption.] My apologies. We are clearly behind schedule, but that is not the way to get us back on track. We move to question 2 from Martin Whitfield. Early Years Provision (Affordability) 2.”
“The cabinet secretary said that she wants to bring clarity to the debate. Following on from Sharon Dowey’s question, can the cabinet secretary tell us how many biological men are currently incarcerated in the female prison estate in Scotland? What is the issue with dealing with that right now? The judgment was very clear that there should no longer be biological men in the female prison estate, and the Scottish Government should deal with it immediately. Shirley-Anne Somerville: I referred to some of the information on that in my response to Sharon Dowey. The SPS reports the total number of transgender people in custody on a quarterly basis. The latest figures show that there are a total of 16 transgender women and transgender men located across the male and female estate.”
“This is a very straightforward question. Does the First Minister believe that a trans woman is a woman—yes or no? The First Minister: I have set out that the Scottish Government accepts the judgment of the Supreme Court, which ruled that, in the Equality Act 2010, a woman is defined by biological sex. Loch Long Salmon Farm 6.”
“Jim Fairlie: As I said, I spoke to Mr Ross and Mr Ewing last week, and I have raised those points with NatureScot. We have come to the conclusion that actions will be taken this year to ensure that we deal with the immediate problem, but there will be a summit to ensure that we take the appropriate action to preserve the status of the gulls and, at the same time, ensure that we can live beside them. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Shared Care Agreements (ADHD and Autism) 2.”
“I agree with everything that Fergus Ewing has said about people being injured—indeed, this is happening daily, or weekly. Only this morning, I received a freedom of information response from NatureScot. To my question about how many injuries it had recorded as a result of gull attacks in each of the past five years, it said in response that it does not hold that information. How can it make decisions on licences when it does not know the impact? I have previously put it to the minister that NatureScot has been refusing licences for various reasons, including a suggestion that businesses give customers umbrellas to protect themselves as they walk in and out, because they will not be attacked by gulls if they have them. Does the minister agree that that is utter madness and that NatureScot has to treat this as a serious issue?”
“I am grateful that it is reconsidering that, but will the cabinet secretary apply as much pressure as possible to state that, given the prevalence of Huntington’s disease in the north of Scotland and particularly in the Grampian area, that would be the wrong choice for Aberdeenshire health and social care partnership? We need to maintain that specialist support. 18:19”
“That is just one of many cases that I could raise with the cabinet secretary that highlight shocking waiting times and the board’s lack of courtesy and respect for patients. I will quickly raise another issue. Moray has one of the highest rates of Huntington’s disease anywhere in the UK. In Grampian, new research indicates that the north of Scotland has the highest rate of Huntington’s disease on earth, at a rate that is five times the global average. People with Huntington’s have such complex needs that they need specialist support. The cabinet secretary will be aware of Aberdeenshire health and social care partnership’s potential decision to remove the funding for specialist Huntington’s support.”
“She was sent home on the bus, and then she had to come back through on the bus on 27 December. There seemed to be little care or compassion for this woman, who was clearly suffering and just wanted to get a resolution for her issue. This has been going on for some time now. When I wrote to the cabinet secretary and the health board, the situation still had not been resolved. Linda has an appointment for an MRI scan on Saturday morning. After an operation in October, she finally has an appointment for an MRI at the end of April. Because it is a morning appointment and she is a Moray patient, she has to get the 10 past 6 bus to that appointment. When she came into my office, Linda said that she is devastated, that she feels that she is treated as if she is a number and that no care or compassion is shown.”
“She contacted the health board repeatedly—that was all done by the patient rather than the health board coming to her. Eventually, her condition got so bad that her neck and cheek started to swell again and she was struggling to swallow. Linda went to see her local GP, who was so worried that he got her booked in for an appointment at ARI on 23 December. To get to ARI from Forres, she has to get a bus from Moray to Aberdeen, because she does not drive. With a swollen neck and cheek and with difficulty swallowing, and with her GP’s concerns, she got on the bus and went through to ARI. She waited all day for a CT scan on 24 December. She was told at 4 o’clock in the afternoon that it was not going to be possible for her CT scan to be done that day, and she was asked whether she could come back after Christmas, on 27 December.”
“She came into my office in Forres and outlined what she had gone through. On 3 October last year, Linda had a neck dissection to remove a lump. She was in Aberdeen royal infirmary for six days and, at the end of that time, she was told that tests proved that she had an aggressive form of melanoma. On 5 November, she saw her surgeon, who went through the next steps for her, which included oncology and physio. Because it was an aggressive melanoma, she expected—as her surgeon did—that she would immediately or very quickly get further information about her next steps. However, nothing came, and she became worried and frustrated. She kept on contacting NHS Grampian to find out more. Let us remember that Linda’s operation was on 3 October and that she met her surgeon on 5 November. She waited and waited and waited.”
“I hope that this is a wake-up call to NHS Grampian and those at the higher echelons of the board, because, day in and day out, we are seeing what our constituents are having to put up with. So far, managers and senior managers have been getting away with allowing the care for our constituents to be sub-par—that is the most polite way that I can put it. In the short time that I have, I will discuss a couple of issues. One is a case that I wrote to the cabinet secretary about. I received a response from him, and I wrote to NHS Grampian and received a response on behalf of the interim chief executive. It is such a shocking case that it highlights what, sadly, too many patients in Moray, which is part of NHS Grampian, are facing. Linda Fraser from Forres agreed to allow me to mention her case in the chamber today.”
“I congratulate Douglas Lumsden on lodging the motion for debate and for the way in which he has led the debate. Kevin Stewart and I knew each other before either of us was elected to the Parliament. We fought like cat and dog on Grampian joint police board. However, perhaps uniquely during the time in which we have known each other, today I agreed with almost everything that he said. I have seen from my own case load that there is too much bureaucracy in NHS Grampian. I echo the point that there are outstanding staff at every level of the organisation dealing with patients on the front line but they are not being listened to by the decision makers and senior managers. I hope that the cabinet secretary will take that on board. He is hearing that not just from Opposition members but from his Government colleagues.”
“We wanted a statement on the massive increase in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder referrals here in Scotland. We wanted a debate on the care home sector and the challenges that it is facing. Patrick Harvie: On a point of order, Presiding Officer, the member appears to be debating a business motion that was debated and voted on before the April recess, rather than debating the international situation. I know that Mr Ross does not always follow the standing orders of the Parliament, but I wonder whether the Presiding Officer could advise members on that point.”
“We have been on recess for a fortnight—we have not been here for over two weeks—and what are we voting on tonight? Nothing. We do not even have a motion. We will not have a single division of this Parliament on the first day back after recess, because this is the topic that the SNP Government has chosen to debate in its scheduled time. What could we have discussed today? I am looking at the submission of statement requests from just the Scottish Conservatives—I am sure that there were plenty of other requests from the other parties. We wanted a statement or a debate on the situation with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Where are we with RAAC in our public buildings? We wanted a statement on agriculture policy, because it is a continuing issue that is affecting our farmers and crofters.”
“I will say at the outset that I have a strong interest in and passion for international affairs and it is right that they are debated by parliamentarians, but this is an issue that is reserved to the UK Parliament. All the parties that are represented here have members of the UK Parliament who can ask these questions, raise these debates and have a discussion about the situation. Some of the speeches have been very compelling. What Alex Cole-Hamilton and Paul Sweeney spoke about in relation to their visit was important, for example, but we can discuss and debate such things in members’ business time at the end of the day. Right now, we are in Government debating time—this topic has been introduced by the Government of Scotland.”
“Last year alone, flooding displaced thousands in Brazil and South Sudan, and wildfires swept through regions of Canada, Portugal and California. In Scotland, we have seen the effect of severe storms, and we must act together to build a fairer, greener and more resilient economy and society as a consequence.”
“They have come together to sign what is becoming known as the Drumlanrig accord—a unified declaration by representatives of the Jewish and Islamic communities that condemns hate crime, bigotry and xenophobia and sends a crucial message of unity and mutual respect when it is much needed. I applaud everyone who has been involved in shaping that declaration for what it does in our communities. The issue of climate action has also been relevant to the formulation of our response to the changing international situation. There is more and more dismissing of the climate emergency, with populist leaders increasingly ready to trade the hope and the health of future generations for short-term gains. We have to recognise that climate change will increase conflict, hunger, disease, inequality and mortality. It has undeniably done so for some time.”
“Its displacement of people led to increased levels of migration that this country has positively responded to, but significant disruptions to economic activity have also come as a consequence of that conflict. I make that point to illustrate that the consequences of the international situation are felt directly and acutely here, in Scotland. Parliament has also debated the horror of the attack by Hamas on Israel and the significance and the brutality of the Israeli response. We have been at the forefront of calling for a ceasefire in that conflict, which has enabled us to make our voices heard in arguing for peace and stability. A benefit in recent weeks has been a sustained effort, which will be marked in Bute house this evening, of collaboration between the Jewish and Islamic communities in Scotland.”
“The First Minister: The international community will have seen that the Scottish Government has continued the important tradition of believing in the rule of law and accepting the Supreme Court judgment, which was at the heart of my responses last week. I was developing a point about the importance of our having a values-based approach to the international situation that we face. Much of that is focused on the values of the European Union, which have served us well and which this Government would want to see endorsed in the future. Our stance on international conflict is also relevant to the situation that we face. As a country, we have experienced the immediate implications of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.”
“I have made it clear—this is a normal rule of this Parliament—that we seek to debate the subject matter of the debate. I am always happy to take a wide view of what that is, but I am looking at the title of the debate, which is that it is a Scottish Government debate on the international situation. With the best will in the world, Mr Ross, please bring your remarks within the remit of our debate today. Douglas Ross: I have been contacted by a constituent who wonders about the international response to the Scottish Government and the First Minister’s answer to this question. Does the First Minister believe that a trans woman is a woman— yes or no? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Ross, we have dealt with that. First Minister, please resume and carry on with your speech.”
“First Minister, I will leave it to you as to how you wish to respond. The First Minister: Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Mr Ross is obviously very familiar with the answers that I gave at the weekend. Given that, I will stick very strictly to the context of the debate—[Interruption.]—to take this forward. Douglas Ross: Will the First Minister give way? The First Minister: I will give way to Mr Ross again. Douglas Ross: I am familiar with the answers that the First Minister gave at the weekend. Five times he was asked this question and he would not give a clear answer— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Ross— Douglas Ross: —and the people of Scotland— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Ross, could you resume your seat for a second? Thank you very much.”
“The First Minister spoke about giving a substantive answer. Given that this is a wide- ranging debate with no motion, I believe that we can ask any questions that seek a substantive answer from him. The First Minister repeatedly refused to answer this question at the weekend. This has nothing to do with accepting the Supreme Court judgment or otherwise; it is about his Government. Do John Swinney and the Scottish National Party Government believe that a trans woman is a woman or not? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before the First Minister rises to his feet, I point out to Mr Ross that wide ranging is wide ranging, but I am looking at the title of the debate, which is that it is a Scottish Government debate on the international situation. That is important to underline at this early stage in the debate.”