Edward Mountain
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“They should spare a thought for the 1,700 people who make this place work. Do not ignore them. It is they who make it possible for members to do what they do on a daily basis. Secondly, make friends across the chamber. I have tried to do that, and it has delivered for me. Thirdly, focus on one issue. My issue found me.”
“There will be £6.6 billion in co-benefits from the changes in the transport sector, relating to improved health outcomes, increased exercise and reduced pollution, which I mentioned in my statement. I mentioned the changes from the draft plan in my statement and in my response to Sarah Boyack.”
“The other thing that has frustrated me and, I think, many people across Scotland is the constant deflections that we hear. There are cries of, “If only we had the tools and the levers of power that we need.” I gently remind politicians in this Parliament that it is about what is possible, and much is possible in this Parliament.”
“Rhoda Grant has been an incredible champion for crofting—I have seen that come to the fore through the passage of this legislation—and a force for the Highlands and Islands. She has also called for the right to food.”
“Elements of the legislation will help crofters to begin the process of adaptation, but there was room in the bill to speed things up. At stage 2, we proposed giving crofters the benefits from environmental use of the land, an environmental use advice service and public financing.”
“As this will be my last speech in the Parliament, I hope that the minister will excuse me if I touch only briefly on the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill. It is nothing like what we were promised in 2016.”
The complete record
Every one of 490 lines we hold for Edward Mountain, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 10.
“I might then be in a position to support her. Katy Clark’s amendment 288 sets out that, if a landlord has been unable to sell a property, they cannot let the property. That means that, just because of the state of the market, they would be burdened with having to pay double council tax on that property for the period in which it was unable to be let. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Mountain, I ask you to bring your remarks to a close, please. Edward Mountain: I am just doing that. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Perfect. If we all stick roughly to the time limits, we will get through all the business that we need to get through. Edward Mountain: The provisions in amendment 288 would be unjust. I will leave it there. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Mountain.”
“I am not sure that I see the logic of that, so I look forward to hearing Maggie Chapman’s arguments. It would be a bit like the transfer window for football teams, with things not being allowed to happen at certain times of the year. Under amendments 284 and 284A, removal costs would be paid by the landlord. That would be completely unjust, and I see no reason for it. It should be for the tenant to move their equipment out of the house in the same way as they moved it in. If Ms Chapman expects the Conservatives to support amendments 284 and 284A, which would compensate the tenant for moving out, will she give me an assurance that the Greens will support my amendments 206 and 214, which would require tenants to pay for the cleaning costs at the end of their tenancy if they have kept a pet in the home?”
“I cannot support Maggie Chapman’s amendment 8, which would extend the eviction notice period to 12 months in certain circumstances, such as when the landlord intends to sell the property or when the eviction is intended to alleviate financial hardship. All that it would do is to create more financial hardship for the landlord and tilt the balance too far in the tenant’s favour. The provisions in amendments 198 and 198A would be unfair on both parties. There is no justification for the notice period for evictions to be extended beyond 16 weeks. 15:45 Maggie Chapman’s amendments 77 and 44 propose a five-month ban on evictions every year. I think that the ban would be during the winter period. That would mean that a tenant could not be evicted during the winter, whatever the problems were.”
“In some cases, they might be drug users or drug sellers who never seem to be moved on, which causes problems for neighbouring people in tenancies. That has happened in various places around Inverness and across the Highlands. It is therefore perfectly reasonable that, once antisocial behaviour has been proven, there should be a finite amount of time before the tenant is moved on. I support Meghan Gallacher’s amendments on terminal illness, which I am delighted that the cabinet secretary and the Government appear to support. It seems totally appropriate that terminal illness is considered in such cases.”
“I am now probing to see whether the cabinet secretary agrees that four months is a more reasonable period than three months and she is therefore in a position to support that. I do not believe that it would restrict the discretion of tribunals and courts; it would just give them deadlines to work to. Amendments 394 to 397 are about evictions for antisocial behaviour. They relate to PRTs, secure tenancies, assured tenancies and protected statutory tenancies. They mandate that, for each type of tenancy, the tribunal’s specified period for a person to be evicted for antisocial behaviour should be no more than two months. That provision has been specifically requested by people who are not landlords but are tenants, because they have been told that tenants in the house next door to them have been behaving antisocially.”
“I reiterate the declaration that I made yesterday. I am a landlord who lets houses under private residential tenancies and I have also let or given housing to individuals as part of their job. I have been letting houses for more than 30 years and I am a qualified surveyor. Before I was involved in politics, I let houses for clients. I say that so that there is no accusation that I have ever used weasel words to cover up what I do. Amendments 192 to 196 would ensure that, when an eviction is to be carried out at the end of a tenancy, it must be done within four months of the end of the tenancy. The rationale behind that is that, in every month that the tenant who stays there is unable to pay the increased rent, the burden on them to pay it at a later stage increases. Amendments at stage 2 suggested a period of three months.”
“I hope that members can support my amendment.”
“That alone implies that action is in fact needed. I have often wondered about the approach that is taken when ministers say that something is already happening so we do not need to legislate. Surely that simply means that the thing is implementable and that putting it on a statutory footing can do nothing other than reassure. I therefore ask the Government to rethink its position on amendment 371 in order to reassure students as well as developers and providers, most of whom are doing the right thing, that the Government is on their side. My amendment would build on that on-going work and provide in legislation a statutory responsibility to produce a charter to reaffirm the protections that good practice providers already have in place and that students who are not lucky enough to live in those places need.”
“At stage 2, the minister said that the purpose-built student accommodation review group made a specific recommendation on the development of model terms and conditions for the sector to support improvements in the consistency of the rights that students can expect from all providers, and that work is under way in the sector to implement that recommendation by developing tenancy agreements alongside a model complaints procedure. I welcome all that work, and I would be grateful if the Government could involve us in that development as it goes forward, as the cabinet secretary has set out. I also welcome the work on the code that the cabinet secretary has set out, which NUS Scotland and others support. However, I have to say that I disagree with the comments that action is not needed. Not all accommodation providers adhere to the code.”
“The need for the amendment has been made clear to me and others across the chamber by students and NUS Scotland, who argue—and I agree—that students can find it difficult at times to address damage, mould, pests and so on, and to get support when they need to address those issues. Many students find it difficult to individually challenge them. It is crucial that the Government recognises the importance of all students having access to the best level of support to ensure that they have somewhere safe, comfortable, affordable and accessible to live while they study. That is why I lodged the amendments.”
“The charter would set out a summary of “(a) the purpose of purpose-built student accommodation, (b) the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants under a student residential tenancy, (c) the process for dispute resolution between landlords and tenants under a student residential tenancy.” The amendment states: “The Charter may also include standards and outcomes which landlords should aim to achieve”. In preparing the charter, the Scottish ministers would have to consult higher education institutions, local authorities, those who represent the interests of residents who are not students and, of course, student associations.”
“The NUS believes that a strategy is needed, and local residents believe that it is necessary. Without a strategy, and without taking a strategic approach at the local level, students and others in our communities could be done out of appropriate housing, which the Government must provide to meet the needs of all Scotland’s people. Therefore, I ask members to support amendment 370 and I ask the Government to kindly reconsider its position when it comes to making a decision on it. My final amendment in the group, amendment 371, would require the Scottish ministers to prepare a purpose-built student accommodation charter within 12 months of the act coming into force.”
“I said earlier to the cabinet secretary that, since 2015, purpose-built student accommodation has made up 28 per cent of the approvals for accommodation in Glasgow alone, despite the fact that students make up only 18.5 per cent of the city’s population. Students and residents across all areas, cities and regions in Scotland need accommodation. However, not all students want purpose-built student accommodation, and residents need a wide range of affordable housing options available to them. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a more strategic approach is taken to the provision of different housing tenures in local authority areas. I am disappointed to hear that the cabinet secretary does not think that intervention is necessary in this space.”
“The guidance may include “aims for the ratio of student residential tenancies to other types of tenancy”, views “on the role of purpose-built student accommodation within the available housing stock”, approaches “to engaging with landlords and tenants of student residential tenancies in decision making”, and “advice on how to collect data on student residential tenancies to support decision making.” The amendment would require ministers, in preparing the guidance, to consult “higher education institutions ... local authorities,” those who “represent the interests of residents who are not students, and ... students’ associations”.”
“I would welcome Parliament’s support for both those amendments. I turn to my amendment on a strategy for purpose-built student accommodation. Amendment 370 would require local authorities to take account of the needs of students when preparing their local housing strategies. It would also place a duty on the Scottish ministers to issue guidance to local authorities on the development of strategies for purpose-built student accommodation—a call that was supported by NUS Scotland in a motion to its conference as far back as 2021.”
“I lodged those two amendments because students have spoken of having significant challenges with notice periods in certain circumstances and, in some cases, they encounter substantial barriers to ending their tenancy early. For example, students who are on an interruption of study do not have the choice to end their lease without incurring costs or being required to find a replacement student tenant. The same is the case for students who withdraw from their studies. For those reasons, I would welcome Parliament’s support for amendment 105. Amendment 116 is consequential to amendment 105. It will amend section 52 to provide that regulations on termination of student tenancies that are laid under the power that is conferred by amendment 105 will be subject to the affirmative procedure.”
“Pam Duncan-Glancy: I thank the cabinet secretary for her indication that the Government will support my amendments 105 and 116, which will provide for the creation of regulations to set out the circumstances in which students in residential tenancies can terminate their lease. Amendment 105 will add a new section to the bill that gives a power to Scottish ministers to set out in regulations a process for tenants in student residential tenancies to terminate their tenancy, in specific circumstances and subject to specific requirements. It will require ministers to consult stakeholders before laying draft regulations and require those regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure.”
“Moving on, I am not sure that amendment 222, which sets up a public body to act as a guarantor, will be helpful. I think that it might saddle that public body with a huge amount of debt. 15:15 Without going through all the amendments, I can say that, bizarrely, I find myself in the position of agreeing with much of what Ross Greer suggests regarding the power to bring tenancies to an end and the model terms and regulations for landlords to apply when it comes to student lets. I look forward to Ross Greer talking about those amendments. I think that we are both, in different ways, trying to protect students and make sure that they find it easier to get accommodation in Scotland.”
“If we demonise all landlords and get rid of all that accommodation, it will just exacerbate the housing crisis that we face. Maggie Chapman: What does Edward Mountain think happens if a landlord sells a property because they no longer wish to continue being a landlord? Does he not accept that that property is then available for other people to live in? Edward Mountain: That is a wonderful idea, Ms Chapman—just come up to the Highlands and have a look round. I am sure that other members in this chamber, such as Ms Forbes, will tell you that what happens to a lot of the houses that become available is that they are bought up as second homes, which does not help anyone in the local community to find housing. I do not accept that argument.”
“That would give the landlord more confidence, and it would mean that students would not have to rely on trying to find a guarantor. I would ask the cabinet secretary to consider that carefully, because the amendment is meant to work in the favour of students, not work against them. On Maggie Chapman’s amendment 220, having been in the industry for 30 years, I take grave exception to the general characterisation that she makes of landlords. That is not my view of landlords. Maybe it is just that I work in the Highlands and in more rural areas, but landlords are not out to make life difficult for tenants. In fact, long-term tenants are much better for landlords than short-term tenants. Maggie Chapman’s characterisation does the industry a vast injustice. I point out to her that there are 300,000 let properties in Scotland.”
“The amendments attempt to do that—they are probing amendments, maybe—and I have the support of the students in seeking to make those changes. I would also like to talk about amendment 221, which is about deposits for non-UK domiciled students. I do not take the point that the cabinet secretary made that it is discriminatory. The fact that such students are charged greater fees than anyone else might be viewed as discriminatory. The amendment is a way to help those students to get accommodation for the simple reason that being a guarantor for somebody is a very difficult and onerous condition to take on. It is very difficult for landlords to accept guarantors if they are outwith the country. My aim with the amendment is to make it easier for non-UK domiciled students to get a flat by paying more of the rent up front.”
“We all know, particularly those of us who have had children go through university, that the rent that they pay is a huge burden on them and one that they will take through to later life. The purpose of my amendments, which I lodged on the back of requests from various student bodies that approached me, is to place checks and controls on the rents that are set for student accommodation. The cabinet secretary was right to say that I lodged similar amendments at stage 2, which were pushed on my behalf. I wanted to bring them back, because I want to ensure that students understand that this Parliament understands the pressure that they face with the rents that they are charged as a result of being at university.”
“Every time that we discuss the bill, I will remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. To be perfectly clear, and so that there is no dubiety, I state that I let houses under private residential tenancy agreements— those are long-term lets—and I give houses to employees as part of their employment contract. I have been in the house-letting industry for more than 30 years, and have let houses under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1998 and the subsequent housing acts that were passed in 2006, 2010 and 2014. I am a qualified surveyor and I let houses on behalf of clients prior to my time as a member of the Scottish Parliament. Given all that, I believe that I come here with some experience. My amendments 179 to 191, and amendment 258, which is a technical amendment, seek to enable students to query their rents.”
“I am grateful to Edward Mountain for his collaboration in Sir Lewis Ritchie’s report, and I would be happy to write to him with more detail on his further questions.”
“I welcomed the Lewis Ritchie report in 2018, and I was delighted to play a part in some of the recommendations. One of the recommendations was that a fast-response vehicle and a paramedic should be based at Portree hospital. I think that the fast-response vehicle cost £100,000. In 2024, the fast-response vehicle was seen heading towards Fort William. Is it back? Is it manned? Will it be replaced in 2025, when its life is determined to be up? Neil Gray: I heard about the situation with regard to the rapid-response vehicle when I was meeting campaigners. I also heard about the positioning of the Ambulance Service at Portree and about how the Ambulance Service staff are helping as a multidisciplinary team to ensure that safe and sustainable services can be delivered on a continuing basis at Portree.”
“It needs to have the ability to call on helicopters, and I strongly believe that, given the prevalence of wildfires across the UK, an aircraft that is capable of bombing fires with water should be available to both Governments. I urge the Scottish Government to liaise on that issue. 13:18”
“No one will be able to attribute the cost or the blame to any individual, so it needs to be dealt with through insurance. We need to make sure that, when the Government draws up woodland grant schemes and peatland restoration schemes, insurance forms part of the proposal. I also point out that retained crews across the Highlands lack the necessary equipment. Some of the retained crews do not even have showers at their stations, so they can be fighting fires all day and not even be able to get a shower before they go home. Finally, I want to say that we need more assets. The Government has to draw together assets such as Argocats and the associated systems.”
“This Parliament, which believes that it knows better than the people on the ground, has dictated how muirburn and the management of moorland should be carried out. I am afraid that, after nearly 30 years of experience of doing that, I find some of the decisions that the Parliament has made to be completely bizarre. I am short of time, but we need to consider what we do with regard to woodland grant schemes. When I was driving across the Dava moor the other day, by Lochindorb, I noticed all the trees that had been burned. They were all part of a woodland grant scheme and will all have to be replaced. Who will bear the cost of that? Why should it be the landowner? They did not start the fire, and there was nothing that they could do.”
“I want to make the example personal by drawing attention to one contractor, Stephen Shand, who did not work on the estate but dropped everything to move his equipment up to where the fire was and start fighting it. He had no indication that he was going to get paid for it; he did not worry about that. He was trying to fight the fire because it was on a neighbour’s land. We rely on such effort, and it is really important. The Parliament should acknowledge the effort that people make. Fuel load is a critical issue. It is difficult to manage the fuel load in areas with wind farms— which we are getting more and more of across Scotland—and there is a particular difficulty in managing fuel load in relation to the peatland grant schemes.”
“In many cases, specialist vehicles are required to get to them. That is what the fire brigade needs, and keepers and estates often supply such vehicles. I also reiterate the point that Mr Ewing has made, which is that wildfires are often best fought at night, when the wind is low and there is a heavy dew. However, that is the time when some parts of the fire service are unable to attend, which means that it is certainly the time when keepers go out and fight those fires. I remember one in Tongue that we fought for five days, successfully putting it out at 4 o’clock in the morning, having fought it every day and night during that period, taking only two hours off to rest. Neighbours can provide specialist knowledge in such situations.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am involved in a family farming partnership in Moray. I thank Emma Roddick for bringing this debate to the chamber. If it has done nothing else, it has held the minister’s feet to the fire with regard to a response to a request that I made on 8 August for him to meet my constituents, Mr Ewing’s constituents and other constituents in the region to discuss the issue. I found out today that he was unable to attend because he had accepted a subsequent request that was made by another MSP. That is not good enough, and I will make a complaint through the correct channels. I have some experience of wildfires, having fought plenty of them in my time. They happen in remote areas, and it is really difficult to fight them.”
“Jim Fairlie: In response to the first point that Edward Mountain made, I say that he is absolutely correct. I refused to attend the meeting that he asked for on the basis that we are already planning a number of events in order to get experts in the room who know exactly what they are talking about. As far as our ability to go forward is concerned, that is what those discussions will be about, and I will be more than happy to share information about the discussions with the Parliament as we develop them. Cervical Cancer Screening 2.”
“I am interested to hear that the minister will attend a meeting. I wrote to him on 8 August requesting such a meeting and he told me this morning that he is too busy between now and Christmas. Well, there we go. This year, there have been 62 fires in the Highlands. That is the highest number since five years ago, when there were 85, and we still have a big part of the year to go. In the past 10 years, there have been 570 fires in the Highlands, which represents a third of all fires in Scotland, and it is going to get worse because of things such as the muirburn code. Surely we should have centralised assets, including access to aircraft—fixed wing and rotary—in order to fight fires and save lives, rather than relying on private estates and the will of good neighbours to fight these fires.”
“Highlanders have now lost yet another medical specialty from our area. Our last vascular surgeon has been forced to leave, as the service has been so downgraded that it is no longer functional or safe. His loss can be added to the loss of our only interventional radiologist in the region and of maternity services in Caithness. Those are critical losses—more critical to the Highlands than the inevitable loss to the Scottish National Party of the Inverness and Nairn seat in 2026. The First Minister’s Government is condoning a situation in which Highlanders are forced to get into cars and travel hundreds of miles for treatment when they are seriously ill. When will he put a stop to the destruction of local healthcare in the Highlands, as it appears that his Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care is incapable of doing so?”
“John Swinney stood before us and said: “Here in Scotland, we will, forever, stand with Ukraine.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2025; c 13.] We will stand with Ukraine, but we will not defend it or allow it to defend itself. Those are the sorts of mixed messages that we get. I have lots of other examples of that for lots of SNP members who have not turned up to the debate. The SNP wishes to diversify rather than defend the country. Let me say, as an ex-soldier, that that is pure hypocrisy and not understandable. 16:42”
“One has only to look at Iran, North Korea, Russia and China as central places where division is being sowed. I highlight some of the comments that we have heard about Ukraine. I will quote Lorna Slater and see whether she will stand up to defend this. On 5 March 2025, she said: “Support for Ukraine is wide and deep. Not since the end of the cold war have Europe’s values been tested as they are being tested now. In the face of Russia’s aggression, however, we are resolute.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2025; c 93.] We are resolute, but we do not seem to be resolute in providing Ukraine with the ability to defend itself. That is a completely mixed message.”
“Let me be entirely clear: I believe that the first duty of every Government is ensuring the security of the country and the population. That will not be achieved by giving hugs and kisses to those who threaten us. Let me be clear that the only place in the world that has benefited from a flower power revolution is Portugal, in 1974, when soldiers put carnations in their guns to prove that they were not going to fire at civilians. Every other country has to use bullets to defend itself and fight against aggression. Countries need weapons to defend themselves, and they need to be confident that their politicians will give them the ability to defend themselves. In very short and simple terms, our armed forces need to walk softly but carry a stick in order to defend us against the growing turbulence across the world.”
“When I was a soldier, there were 138,000 soldiers in Germany; now, in the UK, fewer than 60,000 can be deployed. I am also pleased that the Scottish Labour amendment identifies that, without the type 26 frigate programme, Ferguson Marine would not be able to rely on having a future. I struggle with the SNP’s policy, which is that the party supports diversifying from defence expenditure and defence industries but likes defence. It seems to me that you cannot have the two. I would be delighted if Lorna Slater asked AI to articulate the Scottish Greens’ policies, because they seem completely incoherent. It seems that they support delivering first-field dressings to Ukraine but not giving soldiers the ability to defend themselves on the battlefield, which is ludicrous.”
“I am delighted to stand up and speak in the debate, even if it is to highlight some of the incredible things that I hear other parties saying. First, I put on the record that the MOD is a very important contributor to Scotland. It invests huge amounts of money—more than £2 billion a year— and our arms exports and weapons exports are incredibly important. I do not need to point out to members that Lossiemouth, which is in the region that I represent, has just benefited from a Boeing investment of more than £100 million. I am sorry that Daniel Johnson is not in the chamber, but I recognise what he said about the importance of investing in our armed services and what the Labour Party is doing. I was pleased to hear him say that because, for too long, our armed services have been cut down.”
“I move amendment S6M-17981.1, to insert at end: “; welcomes the confirmation from the UK Government that it will provide the funding for the welding skills centre so that the project does not collapse; notes the contradiction in the Scottish Government’s policy, as the publicly owned Ferguson Marine shipyard is providing steel fabrication work for Type 26 frigates, and believes that this haphazard and misjudged policy is holding back the creation of jobs and economic growth in Scotland.” 16:20”
“The whole-society approach and, critically, the mobilisation of our industrial base will require devolved levers to be pulled. To make a brief point on the Green amendment and the point about human rights checks, these things are not incompatible. If we want to increase our defence spending and support our allies, we need to enhance our human rights checks, because it is critical that we understand where our spending and arms are going and how those arms are being used. Those things are not incompatible. We cannot support the Green amendment nor the SNP amendment because, far from diversifying away from defence— The Deputy Presiding Officer: You need to conclude— Daniel Johnson: —we need to invest in it.”
“Look at the developments in the South China Sea, where China is increasingly testing internationally recognised boundaries. More recently, the situation in Iran is of grave concern. All that requires us to reflect on our defences and our defence requirements. The issue is not just about traditional and orthodox military threats. In the past two years, the UK has received 90,000 cyberattacks from foreign actors, almost 90 of which have been of national significance. That is why the UK Government has brought forward the strategic defence review, with a commitment of a spending increase to 2.7 per cent of GDP, and that is why the defence industry in Scotland needs our support and our investment across every area. We do not want to split the sector neatly between reserved and devolved areas. That is explicit in the strategic defence review.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Daniel Johnson: I am very happy to do so, but it will need to be brief. Edward Mountain: I will keep it very brief. I will quote Patrick Harvie, which I do not do often: “Scotland has strong solidarity with Ukraine and is outraged at those who would abandon it to an aggressor”— [Official Report, 4 March 2025; c 16.] Surely, by not giving it arms, we are doing exactly that. Daniel Johnson: I think that we are not taking our own defence seriously by not considering what we need to do in terms of restocking our munitions. My point is highlighted by the fact that treating the submarine welding facility as a munitions project is false. Submarines are not munitions. The issue is not just about Ukraine—it is about the rest of the world.”
“I am happy to continue to interact with the member to ensure that the effective, safe delivery of vaccinations is achieved in the Highlands, and I will ensure that I keep in touch with Mr Ewing and Mr Mountain to that end. Scottish Attainment Challenge Funding (Dundee City Council) 3.”
“I have always joined with Fergus Ewing in calling for vaccinations to be returned to GPs in the Highlands, but NHS Highland seems to believe that the only place to deliver services is Raigmore hospital. That is why it has also pulled enhanced GP services across the Highlands. If NHS Highland cannot manage its finances, and as it appears that it will be £50 million in debt by the end of the year, is the answer to the problem that it should be put into special measures? Neil Gray: We continue to work with all boards, including NHS Highland, on their financial positions, and we keep those positions under review. I know that Mr Mountain has an interest, as does Mr Ewing, in the position on vaccination services in the Highlands.”
“Kate Forbes: I understand the frustration that has been expressed by the member, as the convener of the committee to which the board is accountable, and by the committee, about timely responses, and also about the latest delay. There has been a need for consistent leadership of Ferguson Marine. I am pleased with the appointment of Graeme Thomson as the new chief executive. He brings decades of commercial experience of building vessels and I hope that he will apply that to the completion of the Glen Rosa. I expect the board of Ferguson Marine to demonstrate strong leadership, grip and full accountability for delivering the MV Glen Rosa without further delay or cost escalation. I have underlined that robustly to the leadership team.”
“For clarification, I say to the Deputy First Minister that the last time that Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) reported to the committee was in October 2024. The only reason that we have the dates that we have now is because Ferguson Marine was threatened with being asked to come before the committee if it would not reply to our successive letters. Andrew Miller, chairman of Ferguson Marine, sacked his first CEO because of delays and increasing costs. The second one whom he appointed left after six months. The latest one took over and had to announce further delays. Does the Deputy First Minister have confidence in Andrew Miller? I do not think that many other people do.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on how Police Scotland shares information with other statutory bodies about vulnerable individuals. (S6O-04655)”
“This bill ensures that the NHS medical practitioner who delivers the as yet unspecified mix of drugs to the patient will remain with that person until they die. We know that there are no available drugs that have an on-label use to cause death. If there were, they would be used in countries that approve of the death penalty. The unapproved mixture will need to be accompanied by a strong anti-nausea drug—and I can vouch that some of those are not infallible.”
“Although the bill attempts to prevent all types of coercion, I believe that it fails. I believe that there are three types of coercion—active, passive and state coercion. Although the bill may try to prevent open and active coercion, it does nothing to prevent passive coercion. The lack of sufficient palliative care will make people think about the potential cost of their private medical care and think that every penny that they spend on that care is one less for their family. It therefore will become a mix of passive and state coercion—as, in my opinion, was the imposition of the family farm tax. In that case, if you died quickly enough, then you could give your farm to your family tax free. The bill thus invites an early death and transforms the right to die into a duty to die—and, then, it becomes truly unacceptable.”