John Mason
Independent · Scotland
“I noted press coverage just yesterday of the vacancy level for both primary and secondary teachers in the Highland Council area, yet I get complaints from young teachers that they cannot get a job in Glasgow.”
“I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing the debate and other members for their kind words. Many people in Scotland’s urban areas and central belt still care deeply for our remote, rural and island communities.”
“[Laughter.] I was proved correct during Covid, when it was treated as part of the mainland. I can understand the desire to have causeways, bridges or tunnels linking islands to each other or to the mainland. That makes access to a range of services much easier, from shopping to medical services, weddings and funerals.”
“Land mass should be a factor, too. This is my last speech in Parliament, so I thank all those who make this Parliament work, including fellow MSPs—and especially those who are leaving. We are much smaller than Westminster, and that is a big advantage in my opinion.”
“In my opinion, that should be a higher priority than dualling the A9. I do not often agree with Scottish Land & Estates, but I agree with some of the key points in its briefing for the debate. Tackling depopulation in rural areas has to be a top priority; and as it says, “if rural Scotland does not thrive, Scotland does not thrive”.”
“That has clearly got me into trouble at times, but it has certainly been a huge privilege to serve here. I conclude by thanking you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and your two colleagues.”
The complete record
Every one of 652 lines we hold for John Mason, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 14.
“That has clearly got me into trouble at times, but it has certainly been a huge privilege to serve here. I conclude by thanking you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and your two colleagues. In particular, I thank you, and especially Alison Johnstone, for taking a firm line when some members sought to bully you and undermine Parliament as a whole. Many of us are very grateful that you did so. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Mason. As a resident of Burray, I can assure you that the linked south isles in Orkney are definitely islands. With that, I call Mairi Gougeon to respond to the debate. 14:35”
“Land mass should be a factor, too. This is my last speech in Parliament, so I thank all those who make this Parliament work, including fellow MSPs—and especially those who are leaving. We are much smaller than Westminster, and that is a big advantage in my opinion. We all know each other, to some extent, and we have a building that is modern and fit for purpose, unlike the one on the Thames. We are not hampered by a second unelected chamber. One person can make a real difference in a chamber of 129, whereas, as I can say having been at Westminster, with its 650 MPs, one person does not count for much there, and Scotland counts for very little. I have tried, over my 15 years here, to say things that no one else would say and to ask questions that no one else would ask.”
“I noted press coverage just yesterday of the vacancy level for both primary and secondary teachers in the Highland Council area, yet I get complaints from young teachers that they cannot get a job in Glasgow. Somehow, we need to take that on as a national challenge and support teachers and other workers from urban areas to consider moving to more rural and remote parts of Scotland. Another aspect is political representation. Rightly, the three main island groups are guaranteed an MSP each, yet the whole west coast from Cape Wrath to the Mull of Kintyre forms only three constituencies and is represented by three MSPs. If the Western Isles can have an MSP for 22,000 registered voters, why should Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch have to have 63,000 voters? We need to address that by not being so fixated with the population of constituencies.”
“In my opinion, that should be a higher priority than dualling the A9. I do not often agree with Scottish Land & Estates, but I agree with some of the key points in its briefing for the debate. Tackling depopulation in rural areas has to be a top priority; and as it says, “if rural Scotland does not thrive, Scotland does not thrive”. Last summer, I visited Mingulay for the first time and I have previously visited St Kilda. I find it incredibly sad that islands that once supported a hardy population eventually had to be evacuated and now have no permanent human inhabitants. We do not want that to happen to any more of our islands or remote areas.”
“[Laughter.] I was proved correct during Covid, when it was treated as part of the mainland. I can understand the desire to have causeways, bridges or tunnels linking islands to each other or to the mainland. That makes access to a range of services much easier, from shopping to medical services, weddings and funerals. However, I caution that, from a tourist’s perspective, such fixed links can make an island less attractive or magical for a visitor and could have a negative economic impact. Talking of driving my car, my priority for road improvements in Scotland would have to be the A82 between Tarbet and Ardlui right at the top. The Road Haulage Association was in the Parliament last week. The fact that two heavy goods vehicles cannot even pass each other on stretches of that road is appalling.”
“I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing the debate and other members for their kind words. Many people in Scotland’s urban areas and central belt still care deeply for our remote, rural and island communities. I have visited a number of islands with the Parliament’s committees during the past 15 years, including Islay, Arran, Mull, Harris, Lewis, and Orkney, as well as going to Shetland for a council by-election. That has been one of the enjoyable aspects of being an MSP. Normally, I visit islands as a tourist and have visited some 38. I note that I consider the Uists and Benbecula to be one island as I can drive my car between them without using a ferry. I hold to the position from one of my more controversial moments in the Parliament that Skye has not in fact been an island since the bridge was built.”
“The two amendments differ in only the timing of the first reporting period— John Mason rose— Stephen Kerr: I will just finish my sentence. One reporting period would be for two years and the other would be for three years, but they share the same purpose. John Mason: Does the member think that he is being realistic? Edinburgh has millions of tourists who come for all sorts of reasons, but they could be put off doing so by the exchange rate, problems in the middle east and other sorts of things. Does he really think that we can pin things down to the visitor levy? Would his proposals not just add bureaucracy and make public service reform even more difficult?”
“Amendment 28 would require reporting on how the proceeds of the levy have been spent and, where the information is available, how the spending has affected visitor numbers, the length of visitor stays and the viability of tourism businesses. Those are not abstract questions—they go directly to the strength of the tourism sector in the communities where the levy would operate. Amendments 29 and 30 are alternatives to amendment 28. I am trying to be reasonable—I think that the minister knows that I am quite a reasonable person. [Interruption.] I hear that that view is being contested; I cannot believe that. These amendments would require a local authority to publish a clear report on how the net proceeds of a scheme have been used and what impact the use of the scheme has had.”
“The minister and I had an exchange about the nature of new taxes and what becomes of them when we had the stage 2 debate on matters that are not dissimilar to this. Money is collected and flows into the system, and the original purpose becomes harder to see, if not entirely lost. Businesses and communities begin to wonder whether the levy is doing what they were told it would do. Given that the Parliament has authorised the collection of the levy, it is entitled to expect more than a simple set of figures. We should be asking the obvious question, which we perhaps should ask more often: what difference has it made? Amendments 28 to 30 would strengthen transparency and public accountability.”
“Amendment 27 disagreed to. Before section 5A The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 5 is on reports and reviews by local authorities operating visitor levy schemes. Amendment 28, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is grouped with amendments 29 to 31. Stephen Kerr: All the amendments in the group are mine. This group is about something that is very simple but very important—public confidence. If a visitor levy is to command support over time, people must be able to see clearly what the money is being used for, what effect it is having and whether the scheme continues to make sense in practice. That is the thinking behind these amendments. The risk with any levy of this kind is that, over time, it simply becomes another tax.”
“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) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) 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) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) 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) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) 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) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) 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) (Ind) 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) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) 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) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) 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) 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) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) 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) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 27, Against 82, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 12 disagreed to. Amendment 27 moved—[Tim Eagle]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 27 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“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) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) 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) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) 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) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) 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) (Ind) 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) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) 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) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) 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) 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) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) 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) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 26, Against 81, Abstentions 0.”
“As we have heard, people who are coming to Scotland are booking overseas tours with tour operators. They are planning well in advance—sometimes a year or two years in advance—and the operators do not know the total cost that they will pass on to their clients. It is a major burden, and that is why industry is concerned. I press amendment 12. The Deputy Presiding Officer : The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer : There will be a division.”
“We should not introduce uncertainty at stage 3 by making abrupt changes to provisions that were agreed to by this Parliament and by doing so without the benefit of full consultation and engagement on them. 15:45 Murdo Fraser: There is a massive, gaping hole in the minister’s argument where he said that Parliament agreed the schemes and therefore we should stick with them. The reason that the bill is in front of us is that we accepted that the original legislation was deeply flawed and we had to bring it back to amend it, which is what we are trying to do. His logic fails him on that particular aspect. We have lodged the amendments in this group in response to requests from the industry, which sees this as a major challenge. People are booking in advance without realising what the final cost is going to be.”
“Third parties could seek to place block bookings for large numbers of rooms months, if not years, in advance, thus avoiding any levy liability and impacting levy revenues. I met representatives of industry and local government two weeks ago to hear their views, and I propose that any concerns will be best addressed by the statutory guidance published by VisitScotland. That guidance could bring out best practice where the levy is applied only to advance bookings that were made, for example, nine months before the start date of the scheme. Local government was willing to compromise on that, and I still consider that that is the best approach.”
“It is not clear whether the amendments are intended to apply retrospectively or only to new schemes that are agreed after the provisions are commenced. The City of Edinburgh Council has been applying the levy to bookings for almost six months, and Glasgow City Council could have around three months of advance bookings. If the amendments were to be applied retrospectively, any levies that had already been paid in relation to those bookings would need to be refunded. It would involve a considerable administrative burden on accommodation providers to check which bookings were eligible and then make those refunds. Preventing the levy from applying to advance bookings could also increase the risk of avoidance.”
“Parliament placed a limit on that power so that the levy may not be charged if the overnight stay is booked and paid for before the decision is made to introduce a scheme. It is right that local authorities should be allowed to charge for some pre-booked overnight stays if the stay takes place after a scheme goes live. Moreover, local authorities have taken a pragmatic approach to exercising their discretion to charge the levy on advance bookings, recognising that there is a need for accommodation providers to prepare and put systems in place. Under their schemes, Glasgow City Council and the City of Edinburgh Council have given providers more than nine months to prepare for the charging of the levy on bookings that are made in advance.”
“I understand that the amendments in the group seek to address concerns that were raised by industry representatives who believe that the transitional provisions in section 17 of the 2024 act run counter to section 14, which requires an implementation period of at least 18 months. However, this Parliament agreed to both provisions when the original bill was passed. They were not thought to be contradictory then and they are not contradictory now. Parliament agreed to give local authorities the power to apply the levy in respect of overnight stays that take place after a levy scheme comes into force, including in cases where the overnight stay was booked and paid for in advance.”
“That could result in stays on the same night being treated differently, with a stay that was booked in advance of the scheme coming into effect not being liable but a stay that was booked after that being liable. The amendment would prevent the levy from being charged on all overnight stays that take place after a scheme comes into force, which would reduce the revenue generated by the levy. Amendment 27 seeks to amend section 17 of the 2024 act to prevent a local authority from charging the levy on advance bookings that were paid for during a period of 15 months after the date of its decision to introduce the scheme. The levy could be applied to stays that were booked and paid for after the expiry of that 15-month period.”
“Ivan McKee: Murdo Fraser’s amendment 12 and Tim Eagle’s amendment 27 seek to, either completely or to some extent, prevent the visitor levy from being charged on bookings that were made in advance of a visitor levy scheme coming into force. Section 17(1) of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 prevents the levy from being charged on bookings that were paid for before the authority decided to introduce a visitor levy scheme, while section 17(2) allows the levy to be charged on bookings that were paid for between the date of the decision and the levy scheme coming into force if the visitor takes entry to the accommodation after the scheme comes into force. Amendment 12 seeks to amend section 17 of the 2024 act so that the levy may be charged on overnight stays only if they were booked and paid for after the scheme had gone live.”
“In the meantime, I am pleased to move amendment 12. Tim Eagle: I could just say “Ditto” to what Murdo Fraser said, as my amendment 27 is almost exactly the same as his amendment 12, with just a wee difference. We need to consider the real effect of the liability on destination management companies and businesses that have booked way in advance a package of hotel rooms or whatever at a fixed price that cannot be changed for legal reasons. The visitor levy will have a consequence for such businesses. If the minister is not inclined to accept a period of 18 months, perhaps he will accept my amendment 27, which would reduce that to 15 months after the decision to introduce a scheme. There you go—that is compromise for you, Presiding Officer.”
“Would the member accept that lots of things can change after somebody books a holiday? Beer duty often goes up overnight. People buy things, and a few pounds here or there will not make a difference. Murdo Fraser: I am afraid that Mr Mason is being unduly optimistic in talking about “a few pounds here or there”. We could be talking about substantial sums. Edinburgh’s visitor levy is 5 per cent plus VAT, which is 6 per cent, and other councils have even higher charges. The total could be hundreds of pounds for a family holiday when people are staying for a couple of weeks. Mr Mason is being far too blasé in his approach to the issues, perhaps in customary fashion. Tim Eagle’s amendment 27 addresses the same issue but takes a slightly different approach. I am sure that he will explain that in more detail when he speaks.”
“If, in future, activity that is genuinely routine is still being mistakenly treated as restraint or seclusion, an adjustment can be made to the definition in section 1. That should ensure that the framework always remains practical and proportionate. Together, those provisions respond directly to the committee’s concerns and should create a balanced, workable system that protects children, while supporting the professionals who care for them. I move amendment 1.”
“Statutory guidance will provide clarity about the difference between action that significantly restricts a child’s movement and something that is simply day-to-day support. That should mean that we can clearly say that holding a child’s hand or other ordinary interactions are not restraint and are not covered by the bill. Restriction of movement, such as with equipment that is used as part of a child’s agreed support plan, might still fall within the definition of restraint in section 1, but regulations made under section 4(4A), which was added at stage 2, will be able to specify that such actions are types of restraint that do not need to be recorded or reported. Amendment 1 will ensure that the definitions in the bill remain appropriate and workable.”
“I will set out why I consider that amendment 1 matters, and how the bill now offers a clearer and more practical approach to restraint and seclusion in schools. At stage 1, we in the Education, Children and Young People Committee had reasonable concerns that the bill might accidentally pull in routine and harmless interactions, such as guiding a child by the hand across the road or offering physical support as part of a child’s everyday care. The committee wanted to ensure that the system would be workable for staff, without unnecessary paperwork or confusion. A number of changes that directly addressed those points were introduced into the bill at stage 2. The bill now includes clear definitions of restraint and seclusion.”
“Amendment 1 will provide a regulation-making power to amend the definitions of restraint and seclusion in section 1 at a future date, where ministers consider it necessary to do so. I understand that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills is keen on such an amendment and I think that it makes a lot of sense. The regulation-making power will be able to be exercised where necessary to prevent the current definitions capturing actions that do not carry a significant risk of harm and, on the other hand, it will allow the definitions to capture additional actions that do carry a significant risk of harm. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which will provide Parliament with an opportunity for scrutiny.”
“The SPPA Committee has not been able to undertake a further, fuller review in this session, but it is expected to do so early in the next parliamentary session. That is the point at which the next corporate body would be engaged in relation to the SPCB’s role in providing the staffing and resources that are required for the lobbying register. John Mason: I thank the member for that answer, but does she agree that the lobbying register is a complete waste of money and that it serves no valuable purpose at all? Christine Grahame: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I thank members for their helpful co-operation. That concludes Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body question time. Portfolio Question Time Climate Action and Energy, and Transport 14:18”
“To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, regarding its role in staffing and resourcing the lobbying register, what assessment it has made of the effectiveness of the register in its current form. (S6O-05644) Christine Grahame (Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): The Lobbying (Scotland) Act 2016 was passed without division in this Parliament 10 years ago last week. In 2021, the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee took evidence and provided a report on the operation of the 2016 act. Between March and September 2023, at the request of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, the Scottish Parliament information centre undertook a further partial evaluation of the act, which was published in October 2023.”
“That just goes to show how woefully we can be out of touch with the priorities of people across Scotland. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. Sue Webber: Criminals forfeit their right to vote when they break the law. The SNP Government needs to focus on punishing criminals, not trying to win their support at the ballot box. I urge the Parliament not to approve the instrument. 21:04”
“Is the answer not to consider compulsory voting, so that prisoners would have to vote along with the rest of the population? Sue Webber: No, Mr Mason, the Scottish Conservatives could not condone or endorse that—as I think you knew before you put it to me— because it is totally mad, to be frank. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. Sue Webber: I cannot possibly comment on why the minister is so keen to give mentally ill criminals the right to vote before the elections in May, but I will say—I am trying not to smile—that everyone outside the Holyrood bubble will think that it is ridiculous. The SNP and Labour both supported the instrument at committee, and I dare say that other parts of the Holyrood consensus will support it again today.”
“We all have so much to learn from people who are older than us and also to give to people who are younger than us. So, please, colleagues, let us not undermine the older people, their value and what they still have to contribute. They are valuable, and I think that we are duty bound to oppose this bill. 21:16”
“We all want to reduce suffering as much as we can, whether we have religious belief or not, so I absolutely support the many calls for better palliative care and encourage the provision of more resources for the hospice movement, as others have said. At the end of the day, no one really wants declining health or a death, yet they are part of the human condition. One big difference for those of us with a Christian belief is that we are promised life after death, so however hard our lives might have been—and, for that matter, however hard our deaths might have been—there is something better available to look forward to. Perhaps not surprisingly, I am currently reading a book about retirement, and it makes the point that older people have so much to offer.”
“I should say, to be fair, that not all Christian believers oppose assisted dying; just on Sunday, one of my friends at church told me that he supports it. What about the question of suffering? Surely a loving God would not allow suffering, would he? That is a question that folk often ask and have asked for many years of people of faith. There is not exactly an easy answer to that question, but, yes, actually, God does allow suffering. We believe that, because human beings chose to go their own way rather than following God’s way, suffering came into what God had made to be a perfect world. Suffering is happening all over the world, and there can be suffering with a natural death and with an assisted death.”
“Sure, we are talking right now about giving people more choice—of empowering them and using words such as that. However, we need to look further ahead at what could happen and at what—I think—is likely to happen. We have discussed how difficult it is to stop coercion or pressure on someone to end their life prematurely, especially when that pressure could be very subtle. How much more could that be the case when financial incentives are added in? What about the angle from a Christian perspective? At its core, our belief is that God gives life and God decides when life should end. Clearly, there are also human reasons for both birth and death, but we believe that, behind all that, God is guiding and directing.”
“Clearly, if someone chose to die just a few days before their natural death, that would not make much difference to cost. However, if someone had a life expectancy of six months but could perhaps go on for a year, the savings could be considerable. That is not to mention the fact that, for a family who have a well-off elderly relative, getting their hands on the estate more speedily could be very attractive. We know that power of attorney is abused by some families and that it is not well policed. Therefore, it seems likely that a range of players could potentially benefit financially if assisted dying became an option. That is why last week I deliberately chose to talk about “encouraging” rather than just “allowing” an early death, which was the phrasing that Lorna Slater objected to.”
“One of my colleagues suggested to me that he would rather that religious people be up front and say that they oppose the bill because of their belief in God. As that is one of my reasons, I am happy to say a little from that angle. However, I have other reasons for opposing the bill, including reasons from a financial perspective, given my background as an accountant. On the financial front, when we debated amendments to the bill last week, Michael Marra questioned whether the financial memorandum fully covered the estimated costs. However, another angle that relates to finances is whether there is an opportunity to save money if someone chooses an early death. It seems to me that the public purse has the potential to save on hospital places, on care home fees, on pensions and, perhaps, on other costs if assisted dying becomes an option.”
“Stakeholders welcomed the Scottish Government’s decision to delay the implementation of the levy, but pointed out that that will not solve the entire issue of uncertainty. No one wants to pay more tax, least of all the building sector. Conservative members continue to have concerns that the behavioural change that is likely to result from the levy will be harmful to a key sector that is tasked with infrastructure development and therefore with stimulating economic growth. We acknowledge that the minister listened to the committee’s concerns at stage 1 and lodged some helpful amendments at stage 2, but the Conservatives still have deep- seated concerns. 17:48”
“Liz Smith: As I indicated earlier, I was pleased with the amendments that we agreed at stage 2, but there remains a percentage of developments in very rural settings that will be affected and the evidence that we took causes considerable concern. I am greatly worried by the rural dimension. We had extensive engagement on the bill. The Finance and Public Administration Committee found that a high percentage of the stakeholders who gave evidence to us were concerned. What bothers me most is that they pointed to the fact that the levy could have a detrimental impact on an already troubled housing market. Many of them pointed to the issue of uncertainty. The purchase of land for development often happens years in advance and the uncertainty about the effects of the bill is making things much more difficult.”
“As we know, rural house prices are often particularly high in proportion to local incomes and there is a shortage of housing that is suitable for families, which means that, sadly, many families choose to move away. The fact that that is combined with infrastructure issues is a matter of considerable concern. There is likely to be a disproportionate effect on smaller developers and I do not think that anything will convince me otherwise. Ivan McKee: More than 85 per cent of developers will not pay any levy at all and 89 per cent of development in rural areas will be exempt from the levy. How does the member square that with what she has just said?”
“I think that it was the member’s Conservative Government that actually brought in equivalent legislation in England, where I presume it will have a similar effect. Would it not have been better to charge a bit more in corporation tax? Liz Smith: The member is correct that it was the Conservative Government, but the housing markets are completely different north and south of the border. As I said earlier, we must look at the particular levy being proposed, rather than at what has happened elsewhere. There are different but nonetheless related issues about the potential effects on rural Scotland, where depopulation has already caused significant problems. I was satisfied by the minister’s work to address some of those concerns via amendments at stage 2, but a number of factors still remain because rural housing is a complex issue.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. As this is the first division of stage 3, I will suspend proceedings for around five minutes, to allow members to access the digital voting system. 16:53 Meeting suspended. 16:58 On resuming— The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the division on amendment 6. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed.”
“I also say to John Mason that the housing market in Scotland is different from that in other parts of the UK. I would have thought that he would wish to recognise that, as he seeks autonomy in almost every respect at every moment. That difference must be recognised. Michelle Thomson: As a point of accuracy, surely Michael Marra recognises that it is complete nonsense to use population share to arrive at a figure of £30 million. Michael Marra: Michelle Thomson is correct that the Government has pursued the matter on a completely nonsensical basis. The £30 million is the Scottish Government’s figure. Nobody else has insisted on the realisation of a quantum of £30 million annually, which will accumulate. It is absolutely clear that that is the Government’s approach. I press amendment 6.”
“Does Michael Marra accept that the Parliament has been put into a bit of a corner by Westminster and that we have had to have such a bill, which might not have been ideal? Michael Marra: No, I do not really accept that. At the moment, the limiting factor on the rate of our delivery of cladding improvements in Scotland is not the availability of money. The sum of £100 million in Barnett consequentials came to the Scottish Government, and only a tiny fraction of that has been spent. Other issues are perhaps preventing the Government from making progress. The reality is that it has sought to realise a certain amount of money as an equivalent to what has been raised in the rest of the United Kingdom. That did not have to be its approach.”
“Our hospice and care sectors are already facing major challenges in that they are short of funds, have recruitment challenges and are struggling to meet our country’s growing care needs. Without including an institutional opt-out, we risk forcing care homes and hospices to choose between their conscience and their continued existence, potentially decimating the whole sector.”
“Most hospices are small and intimate settings. Requiring them to permit assisted dying on their premises not only would affect staff but could have a profound effect on patients, many of whom would not want to live in a place where assisted dying was being carried out yet could find themselves next to a room in which someone was taking lethal drugs. For vulnerable people, that could be a terrifying experience. I am not yet a vulnerable person, but I would not want to be forced to witness the person in the next room taking their own life. It would be deeply alarming if we were asked to vote for a bill that was stripped of its conscience provisions and expected to put our full trust in Westminster to make that right.”
“In Switzerland, the Salvation Army was threatened with defunding for not allowing assisted dying on its premises. In Canada, the Irene Thomas hospice was forced to close after losing 1.5 million Canadian dollars in funding for refusing to offer assisted dying. Hospice UK has warned that palliative care doctors could be forced out of the hospice sector if they are unable to distance themselves from assisted dying that takes place in their workplaces. In fact, seven in 10 palliative care doctors say that they would consider resigning if their organisation were to offer assisted dying. We must protect the organisations that those doctors work for. Whatever we think about assisted dying, can we really risk forcing a significant number of our most skilled palliative care specialists out of the sector?”
“I am happy to support Douglas Ross’s amendment 256. Amendment 257 would introduce an institutional opt-out, which is an essential safeguard to ensure that no hospice, palliative care provider or other health or social care organisation is forced to participate in or facilitate assisted dying or assisted suicide, depending on which term members prefer. The amendment recognises that there are organisations for which providing assisted dying would violate their founding ethos and the religious or ethical values on which their care is based. My amendment would also ensure that hospices and care homes that choose not to participate would not suffer any detriment as a result, including regulatory sanction or loss of Government funding. In jurisdictions that have legalised assisted dying, we have seen why that protection matters.”
“For legislation that deals with matters of life and death, that is a responsibility that we should accept.”
“This Parliament has a responsibility to consider not only the principle before us but the wider consequences of the decisions that we take. If the legal landscape on how life may end is altered, we must be vigilant in protecting the care that supports people as they approach the end of life. Amendment 298 is about that responsibility. It would require us to look carefully at the real-world effects of the legislation. It would safeguard the sustainability of palliative care provision and would ensure that people who need compassion and support at the end of life would not be left vulnerable to unintended consequences. That must be the watchword for every piece of legislation that we put through the Parliament, but it must be the watchword especially for the bill before us.”