Ruth Maguire
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“As well as the casework that I receive from citizens who are not currently having their needs met by the health and social care services, I have direct experience of living with a diagnosis that will not be cured. My life will be shortened—I do not like saying that out loud, especially in front of you lot, but it is a fact.”
“I share that thought in the full knowledge that people in my situation are not a homogeneous group and because I want colleagues to consider, if it weighs so heavily on me, as someone in a position of financial privilege with a large, loving family who are able to care for each other— indeed, as someone whose job it has been for 10 years…”
“Are we really going to be a country where the state funds dying while hospice care relies on charity? Consent, choice, free will and autonomy are not experienced equally by all.”
“I start by sharing my respect for Liam McArthur; I find him to be a good parliamentarian and a good man. However, I must also say that it remains a fact that consent, choice, free will and autonomy are not being experienced equally by all.”
“I did not get into politics to talk about myself and my own feelings; this is certainly not a natural space for me to be in, arguing against something that I am fearful of rather than for something that I believe will bring about a positive change or protect people.”
“Furthermore, the substances to be used and whether any use would be unlicensed or off-label are still to be determined. It is possible that they could be substances that a pharmacist cannot supply—for example, a schedule 1 controlled drug—which could make that restrictive definition difficult.”
The complete record
Every one of 171 lines we hold for Ruth Maguire, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 4.
“There are no guarantees on what they will look like, and this Parliament will not be able to scrutinise or amend them. In voting against the bill today, I am just choosing to vote for the inherent dignity of life, and I urge colleagues to do the same. 20:42”
“Are we really going to be a country where the state funds dying while hospice care relies on charity? Consent, choice, free will and autonomy are not experienced equally by all. It is not a free choice if someone does not have access to good palliative care, it is not a free choice if someone has no family to support them and they are lonely and isolated, and it is not a free choice if they are grappling with poverty or other forms of inequality. If the bill is passed, institutions will not be able to make a choice to opt out, meaning that some valued hospices and care homes will close at a time when we really need them, and doctors will not have a choice to opt out. It is a fact that those protections have been stripped out of the bill.”
“I share that thought in the full knowledge that people in my situation are not a homogeneous group and because I want colleagues to consider, if it weighs so heavily on me, as someone in a position of financial privilege with a large, loving family who are able to care for each other— indeed, as someone whose job it has been for 10 years to have difficult conversations and debates and to have my views and beliefs challenged— how this all plays out for people who do not have the privilege that we have. In considering that, let us have our eyes open to the strain that our health and social care systems are under. Not everyone is receiving the care that they need. If the bill is passed, it will be funded from existing stretched budgets. What healthcare will we stop to fund this?”
“As well as the casework that I receive from citizens who are not currently having their needs met by the health and social care services, I have direct experience of living with a diagnosis that will not be cured. My life will be shortened—I do not like saying that out loud, especially in front of you lot, but it is a fact. I find it really hard to put into words the impact that the language of dignity and compassion being used to talk about ending life has had on me, as if, somehow, wishing to carry on but with help is undignified and burdensome and unfair to people who love me—and that is just in the context of us talking about it in Parliament. My blood runs cold thinking about sitting in a room in a hospital and having a doctor raise that with me as we weigh up treatment options.”
“I did not get into politics to talk about myself and my own feelings; this is certainly not a natural space for me to be in, arguing against something that I am fearful of rather than for something that I believe will bring about a positive change or protect people. In what will be my last speech in the Parliament, I am a little sad that my final contribution shares fear and not hope, but I am scared that, if the bill passes because of the perceived positive impact on the small number of people who wish to end their lives early, the negative and equally impactful experiences for many others and for our society as a whole will be immeasurable, and they will not be something that we can come back from.”
“I start by sharing my respect for Liam McArthur; I find him to be a good parliamentarian and a good man. However, I must also say that it remains a fact that consent, choice, free will and autonomy are not being experienced equally by all. My fear remains that, for the estimated one in three women who are living with domestic abuse, the bill, even with the modest amendments that have been made around coercion, could become another lethal tool to be wielded by an abusive partner. The danger is real. The deadly consequences for those women would be final. I normally relish debate, even when it looks like I am going to lose, but today I feel really uncomfortable. This legislation frightens me, and I am not someone who scares easily.”
“My final point is that for reasons that I do not understand—I apologise if there are good reasons—a decision has been taken to end business in the final week on the Wednesday and to not utilise the Thursday of that week. There is a day that could be utilised. A revised plan that takes an overview is badly needed, and that is my plea. 21:47”
“I will be brief. Jeremy Balfour has, in a very dignified and eloquent manner, tried to explain to members the difficulties that a number of our colleagues who require carers to help them to get to work face. It is very easy to talk about being an inclusive Parliament, but if we do not listen to our colleagues, the stuff that we have written on paper is worth nothing. Nicola Sturgeon: Ruth Maguire makes a very fair point. I accept, although I accept that others disagree, that sitting on Friday might be unavoidable. I go back to my plea that the bureau takes an overview of the remaining business in the remainder of this session and comes back with a revised plan that utilises all available time. There is Monday and, as Jackie Baillie said, there might be some mornings.”
“I therefore push back gently and say that it is not the Scottish Government that has introduced the bill or determined what is reserved under the Scotland Act 1998. Brian Whittle: I push back gently to say that the bill has been on the statute books for years. We have been discussing the issue for years. [Interruption.] I apologise—it has not been on the statute books; the bill has been in the offing for a long time. Through the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, we have been desperately trying, through stage 2 and stage 3—”
“It is becoming quite apparent that the Government is putting barriers in place. I am quite disappointed by the lack of interaction from the Government throughout stages 2 and 3. Kate Forbes: I know that this is a free vote, and I speak on a personal basis rather than on behalf of the Government, but I will push back gently on the idea that the Government has not engaged on this. The issues that we are talking about are reserved to the UK Government under the Scotland Act 1998. When the bill was introduced, it was not made clear, but the regulation of drugs and employment rights are reserved matters. Therefore, there were elements of the bill that would always be legally incompetent, and that is what we are all trying to grapple with.”
“Therefore, although I agree that there might be benefit in the development of protocols in this area, and I am confident that they will be developed, I urge Bob Doris not to move—and I urge members not to support—amendments 44 and 70. Brian Whittle: Amendments 221, 214, 210 and 208 have arisen following concerns from the pharmacy profession. Between stages 2 and 3, I sought feedback on the amendments, which had been narrowly turned down, that were meant to future proof the role of a pharmacist in the NHS as that role evolved. However, the only feedback that I received was that the amendment that was agreed to at stage 2 will need to be removed due to reasons of competence. There has been no conversation about how section 15(1A) could be amended at stage 3 to deal with the competence issue, which has given rise to amendment 208.”
“Amendments 44 and 70, in the name of Bob Doris, would require ministers to make regulations about the management of cases when the person seeking an assisted death has not died within the timeframe that the attending doctor would have expected. As I have noted throughout the bill’s passage, and as the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee heard at stage 1, recent international evidence shows that the number of instances in which complications arise is extremely small. In those rare instances, however, the attending health professional would be expected to respond in a manner that is consistent with their skills, training, qualification and experience, and to provide necessary care to that person. That sits alongside the Government’s concern that amendment 44 might raise legislative competence issues.”
“I have no objection to amendment 220— although I note the Government’s view that it contains a technical error—but I cannot support amendments 218 and 219. Regarding Miles Briggs’s amendment 223, I note that the bill in its current form requires ministers to “consult such persons as they consider appropriate” before making regulations regarding the training, qualifications and experience required of authorised health professionals. I have no doubt that ministers would consult the chief medical officer and the chief nursing officer under this process and, as such, I have no issue with the amendment in principle. However, I note the Government’s view that reference to training and so on might raise competence concerns; therefore, reluctantly, I cannot support amendment 223.”
“Stephen Kerr’s amendment 220 is similar, but it provides that the medical practitioner must stay with the patient until they have died, or until such time as the practitioner has monitored the patient for a clinically appropriate time and is satisfied that “the adult is no longer at risk of harm from incomplete or failed ingestion” and that they “must monitor the adult for signs of distress, complications, or adverse reactions” and take clinically appropriate steps during that period. I believe that Mr Whittle and Mr Kerr are attempting to achieve broadly the same thing with their amendments, but, on balance, I feel that Mr Kerr’s proposed approach is slightly less restrictive and more proportionate.”
“Brian Whittle’s amendments 218 and 219 require that the co-ordinating medical practitioner or authorised health professional must remain in the same room as the patient until they have died. It was agreed at stage 2 that, to balance individual safety and privacy, the medical practitioner would stay in the same room as the person while they take the substance, but then they would have the option of leaving the room but staying on the premises until the person has died. That was included to allow the person and their family privacy should they wish, but to ensure that the attending medical professional is still nearby.”
“Equally, Mr Whittle’s amendment 221, the rationale for which I entirely understand, risks adding confusion. Moreover, if my amendment 98, which would remove section 15(1A), were agreed to, amendment 221 would be rendered unnecessary. Although I consider that their terms are covered in existing provisions, I have no objection to amendments 215 and 216, which provide that the doctor may “provide information or instructions about the use of the substance or … medical device” before they are provided. However, Ms Webber’s amendment 217 is not necessary, as subsection (3A) and other provisions make it clear that the substance must be self-administered and not administered by any other person. I worked with Jackie Baillie on amendments 10 and 11, which tidy up and improve drafting of the bill.”
“Guidance developed under section 23 would provide the necessary clarification and details in this area. Amendment 213 is, therefore, unnecessary. On Brian Whittle’s amendment 214, I am cautious about creating confusion in any of the provisions in section 15 about who can provide and, if necessary, remove the substance and carry out other functions, as set out in that section. Section 15 outlines steps, including confirmation of capacity and voluntariness and proper completion of the necessary paperwork. Those are vital safeguards and should not be delegated to accompanying health professionals, who, unlike the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner or the authorised health professional, would not have undergone the required training. I am therefore not inclined to support the amendment.”
“However, the bill already includes clear and strong safeguards to ensure voluntariness and capacity, with two independent medical assessments and specific checks for coercion in referrals to psychiatrists and others if there are any doubts about a person’s capacity. It is important to recognise that that day would be of profound significance to the person and their loved ones, so introducing a new clinician at that time might be unduly disruptive without adding any meaningful safeguard. On Sue Webber’s amendment 213, I wholly support the requirement that the final act must be done by the dying person. However, as it is drafted, amendment 213 risks creating unintended barriers to the support that the attending clinician is legitimately able to provide, such as stirring the substance or moving a device to improve the patient’s comfort.”
“Regarding Douglas Ross’s amendment 211, the final in-person assessment of a person’s capacity and intent, as well as the presence of the medical practitioner at the time when the substance is provided, are important safeguards in the bill. Although I am sympathetic to the intention underlying amendment 211, its wording— particularly on structured assessments and the balance of probabilities—is not consistent with that in the rest of the bill. It is therefore preferable that regulations and clinical protocols should address practice in that area, so I cannot support amendment 211. For many of the same reasons, I do not support Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 212. Protecting vulnerable adults is of the utmost importance.”
“Amendments 12 to 16 would remove the narrower subsection (7B), while requiring the co-ordinating doctor or authorised health professional to “ensure that” such information is added to a person’s medical records, and bring subsection (7A) in line with recording requirements provided for under the bill. The Government has made it clear that those changes will also allow systems to be designed in consultation with Public Health Scotland during implementation, and I am happy to support them on that basis. As a result of my amendment 98, which would remove section 15(1A), I cannot support Brian Whittle’s amendments 208 to 210, Stephen Kerr’s amendment 222 or Audrey Nicoll’s amendment 224.”
“However, the bill already requires that the co- ordinating RMP must record complications and adverse reactions in the patient’s medical records and share an anonymised report with Public Health Scotland. The detail that Sue Webber’s amendment sets out is better suited to clinical protocols than primary legislation, while amendment 106 also raises legislative competence issues. Nor do I support amendment 100, which would remove subsections (7A) and (7B) from the bill. I worked with Stuart McMillan on lodging amendments 12 to 16, which are technical and arise from changes that were made at stage 2. Sections 15(7A) and (7B) address similar matters relating to complications, adverse reactions and so on arising from the use of an approved substance.”
“However, amendment 90 as drafted is prescriptive and may unduly interfere with communication between doctors and individuals. I note that the BMA has warned against placing “the weight of legislation behind”—[Official Report, House of Commons, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c 42.] those conversations. Ms Webber’s amendment 96 would require that such information is recorded in the person’s medical record, while amendment 106 would provide for a report to be produced and published by Public Health Scotland, including information on potential “complications, adverse reactions or unintended effects”.”
“Those are existing and fairly well-established provisions. I turn to other amendments in the group. Sue Webber’s amendments 90, 96, 100, 106, 124, 134 and 135 relate to the issue of potential side-effects and unintended consequences of using an approved substance. I absolutely support the principle of ensuring that people can make informed decisions and, in the bill as drafted, discussions about the assisted dying substance would take place as part of standard practice. Section 7 requires the registered medical practitioner to “explain … the nature of the substance that might be provided … (including how it will bring about death)”. GMC guidance and professional standards already place a duty on doctors to discuss the potential outcome of different options in order to help people make informed decisions.”
“Stephen Kerr: I want to ask Liam McArthur a related question, which arises in the realm of the other amendments. In a situation in which a healthcare professional is present in the home of someone who has approval to take their own life but the process goes wrong in some way, can Liam McArthur say what he would expect the healthcare professional in situ to do? Would he expect them to revive or help the patient or, in effect, euthanise them? Liam McArthur: I will certainly turn to that in speaking to the amendments that touch on those points—which, if memory serves, are amendments that Stephen Kerr himself has lodged. In answer to his question, though, I would expect the medical professionals to exercise their judgment and use the training that they have to make the patient comfortable.”
“Amendment 42 would insert reference to an “authorised health professional” into section 15(4A) of the bill to provide consistency with section 15(1), recognising that a “coordinating registered medical practitioner or an authorised health professional may … provide a terminally ill adult with an approved substance”. My amendment 43 would remove section 15(4C) due to duplication. New sections 15(3A) and (4A), which were both agreed to at stage 2, duplicate each other, and I consider that, of the two, subsection (3A) is preferable as it is wider, as its states: “For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in” section 15 of the bill “authorises any person to administer an approved substance to the adult on their behalf with the intention of” causing their death. Amendment 43 would, therefore, remove subsection (4C).”
“Further, the Scottish Government has confirmed that, in its view, section 15(1A) would appear “to relate to the J4 medicines reservation” of the Scotland Act 1998. Regulation of medicines includes regulation of the supply chain, and those matters are provided for under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, powers under which are reserved. As such, the Government is of the view that that subsection “should be removed from the Bill” because of both practical and competence issues. Although I am strongly in favour of the role of registered pharmacists as the predominant supply route for approved substances, I accept that subsection (1A) may be unduly restrictive, so I urge members to support amendment 98.”
“Although we do not know what substance would be approved, it has become clear that section 15(1A), which is explicit, does not—as the cabinet secretary said—reflect all the potential supply routes for substances that may be used, including specials manufacturers. Section 15(1A) would also not allow for supply under the supervision of a pharmacist—for example, by a pharmacy technician preparing, dispensing and assembling a medicinal product. 19:00 It is also possible that the substance or substances could be something that a pharmacist cannot supply—for example, a controlled drug under schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001—which could make that restrictive definition difficult.”
“That subsection currently provides that “An approved substance must only be supplied to a coordinating registered medical practitioner or an authorised health professional by a registered pharmacist, in accordance with the directions of the coordinating registered medical practitioner.” As members will know, the bill does not provide for the use of specific substances to assist a person’s death. If the Government’s amendment 110 is agreed to today, it will provide that the Scottish ministers may, by regulations and with the agreement of the secretary of state, “identify substances and devices for use in assisting terminally ill adults to voluntarily end their own lives”.”
“As we see opposition campaign groups fundraising to bring legal challenges against similar legislation that has already been passed in Jersey and the Isle of Man, it is safe to assume that the same will happen to any bill that is passed by this Parliament. There are enough sensitive and complex issues tied up with legislation of this type without seeking to use it to stress the boundaries of the constitutional settlement. Again, I pay tribute to both the Scottish and UK Governments. On that basis, I urge members to support amendments 101, 104 and 105. Amendment 98 would remove section 15(1A), which was inserted at stage 2.”
“Given the competence concerns that the Government had raised about provisions relating to training, qualifications and experience, amendments 101, 104 and 105 seek to remove relevant regulation-making powers from section 15. As we discussed last night, those matters would be dealt with by way of the section 104 order. I repeat my commitment to ensuring that only health professionals with the appropriate level of professional training, qualification and experience should participate in any assisted dying service that is authorised through my bill. Due to the competence concerns, the best—indeed, the only legally defensible—way of ensuring the robust provisions that members, quite rightly, wish to see is by allowing the process agreed between the Scottish and UK Governments to be followed.”
“Amendments 12 to 15, 42 and 43 are all necessary technical amendments. On the remaining amendments in the group, the Scottish Government has no comment other than the technical points that are to be found in the commentary. The Presiding Officer: I call Liam McArthur to speak to amendment 98 and other amendments in the group. Liam McArthur: Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am conscious of your comments earlier about the need to eat into colleagues’ Fridays. I offer an apology as, again, my contribution on this group will be lengthy, given the number of amendments in it. I will try to be as brief as I can. In that spirit, I simply acknowledge what the cabinet secretary has said on the amendments relating to the section 30 order. I welcome them and urge members to support them. I turn to my amendments 98, 42, 43, 101, 104 and 105.”
“Likewise, amendment 217 may be too prescriptive and stand in the way of clinical judgment, particularly if it meant that a clinician could not intervene should a person be in distress, as they would not be able to touch the medical device. Amendment 223 seeks to specify who the Scottish ministers would consult ahead of making regulations, as is set out in section 15(9). The regulations in question are those that are provided for in section 15(8), specifying the training, qualifications and experience of authorised health professionals and specifying the approved substance. As I have already set out, those regulation-making powers are being recommended for removal from the bill due to issues with legislative competence, to be replaced, in the case of the approved substance, by amendment 110.”
“Amending the test to be “on the balance of probabilities” would not enhance that or provide any additional safeguard and may, indeed, weaken it. Amendment 212 would have significant cost implications in terms of clinician time. I have already noted our concerns about the deliverability of requirements for nurses to be accompanied. Introducing an independent registered medical practitioner into the process would further impact on resourcing and the financial implications of provision. On amendment 213, the Scottish Government notes that, as the approved substance and medical device are not yet known, it may be too prescriptive to prevent a health professional from providing physical assistance to the person.”
“It is the Scottish Government’s view that amendment 106 may raise issues of legislative competence relating to the J4 reservation of medicines, medical supplies and poisons in the Scotland Act 1998, in so far as it would require Public Health Scotland to monitor the safety and risks of the approved substance. There is a lack of clarity around the requirement in amendment 211. It appears to seek to ensure that the assessment is made just before the substance is given and that the person has a face- to-face consultation with the individual. However, it is not clear what a structured review would mean in practice. A medical practitioner would make an assessment using their knowledge of the person and their clinical expertise.”
“It is the Scottish Government’s view that amendment 99 could raise issues of legislative competence, particularly where the substance that was provided was a controlled drug—I note that, at this point, we do not know which substances might be approved. From a delivery perspective, the immediate removal of the substance might not be possible alongside providing necessary patient care. On amendments 101, 104 and 105, I refer members to my comments on group 5 about the need to remove training provisions from the bill and for that matter to be dealt with by way of a section 104 order, should the bill be agreed to.”
“From a technical perspective, it is not clear what is meant by the “management of cases” and whether that is a reference to clinical management or to some other form of handling, such as a reporting process. From a delivery perspective, if it is the case that that is a reference to clinical management, it would be unusual to set that out in legislation. The level of prescription that is proposed in amendment 90 might reduce the flexibility for professional judgment and could have implications for deliverability, including the increased time and resource demands that are associated with assessments. It is also not clear what would constitute “adequate time” for a person to “consider” and “ask questions” on the information that is provided.”
“I will turn to other amendments in the group. On amendment 11, I reiterate the concerns that we raised at stage 2. It is likely that requiring a registered nurse to be accompanied would be costly and resource intensive. Furthermore, it might set a precedent of health and care professionals being accompanied when they need to attend to people in their homes to deliver other services, which would have wider resource implications. Amendment 44 raises several concerns. From a legal perspective, to the extent that provision about the management of cases relates to clinical judgment and handling by medical professionals, the Scottish Government’s view is that the amendment might raise issues of legislative competence in so far as it relates to the regulation of health professionals.”
“Furthermore, the substances to be used and whether any use would be unlicensed or off-label are still to be determined. It is possible that they could be substances that a pharmacist cannot supply—for example, a schedule 1 controlled drug—which could make that restrictive definition difficult. In addition, the Scottish Government’s view is that section 15(1A) might raise issues of legislative competence, because it could relate to the reservations in section J4 on medicines, medical supplies and poisons of the Scotland Act 1998 Amendment 208 seeks to amend section 15(1A), but the Scottish Government’s view is that section 15(1A) needs to be removed from the bill due to the operational issues and legislative competence concerns that I have just detailed. That would be done through amendment 98, on which I have worked with Mr McArthur.”
“However, bearing in mind all that I have set out with regard to the bill and the need to bring it within the legislative competence of this Parliament, I strongly urge members to vote in favour of the amendments in my name. Amendments 98 and 208 relate to section 15(1A) of the bill, which we have previously raised concerns about. From a practical perspective, the section is explicit about a registered pharmacist being the only supply route for the approved substance. As such, it does not reflect all potential supply routes. In particular, specials manufacturers could be another potential supply route. The current provisions seem not to allow for supply under the supervision of a pharmacist—for example, by a pharmacy technician who prepares, dispenses or assembles a medicinal product.”
“It is our view that, without those amendments, as well as the amendments that Mr McArthur lodged to remove provisions that would be dealt with by a section 104 order, the bill would not be within the legislative competence of this Parliament and, if it was agreed to, it might be referred to the Supreme Court or be otherwise legally challenged. The Scottish Government wishes to avoid that outcome—as I am sure all members do—particularly as it would be the Scottish Government that would bear the costs of such a challenge, and not the Parliament. Ultimately, it remains for the Parliament to decide whether to agree to the amendments.”
“If Scottish ministers identified devices in those regulations, amendment 97 would enable them to make regulations that would require the use of those devices in specified circumstances. The requirements that would be set by regulations that were made under amendment 97 would be comparable to the existing provision in the bill that an approved substance must be used in assisted death in accordance with the act. Amendment 111 would make provision for the secretary of state to regulate such substances and devices. Amendments 102 and 103 would remove from section 15 the existing provision that relates to approval of the substance. Amendments 126 to 128 would amend section 28 to provide a procedure for the regulations under amendments 97 and 110. Amendments 130 and 131 would make appropriate amendments to section 29, on interpretation.”
“We have engaged with the UK Government to address that. That has resulted in a section 30 order that modifies schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 to allow the Scottish Parliament to legislate on the identification and regulation of substances and devices for use in assisted dying. That order was approved by this Parliament on 4 February and, following the agreement of the Privy Council on 10 March, it has now become law. The Scottish Government lodged amendments 97, 102, 103, 110, 111, 126 to 128, 130 and 131 in consequence of that section 30 order. Amendment 110 would enable the Scottish ministers to make regulations that identified the substances and devices for use in assisted dying.”
“Will the member give way? Sue Webber: I am sorry. I would have taken an intervention if the member had jumped in a wee bit earlier. I move amendment 90. The Presiding Officer: I advise the chamber that the Parliamentary Bureau met recently and a motion will be lodged at the end of business tonight to allow the Parliament to sit on Friday to conclude consideration of amendments. I call the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to speak to amendment 97 and other amendments in the group. Neil Gray: I will address my amendments in the group first, and then Liam McArthur’s amendment 98. All the amendments relate to legislative competence. As I have said, the Scottish Government’s view is that, in its current form, the bill is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.”
“Official Report Email: official.report@parliament.scot Room T2.20 Telephone: 0131 348 5447 Scottish Parliament Edinburgh EH99 1SP The deadline for corrections to this edition is 20 working days after the date of publication. Published in Edinburgh by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP All documents are available on the Scottish Parliament website at: www.parliament.scot Information on non-endorsed print suppliers is available here: www.parliament.scot/documents For information on the Scottish Parliament contact Public Information on: Telephone: 0131 348 5000 Textphone: 0800 092 7100 Email: sp.info@parliament.scot”
“As a committee, we wish to draw the attention of members to the fact that the SPCB is considering the issue. We hope that positive progress will be reported soon. Decision Time 22:00 The Presiding Officer: As there are no questions to be put at decision time, I close the meeting. Meeting closed at 22:00. This is a draft Official Report and is subject to correction between publication and archiving, which will take place no later than 35 working days after the date of the meeting. The most up-to-date version is available here: https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report Members and other meeting participants who wish to suggest corrections to their contributions should contact the Official Report.”
“The committee has advised the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body that the current telephone support line is wholly inadequate for the circumstances in which a member might find themselves when subject to a complaint. The Ethical Standards Commissioner’s evidence to the committee last week was both powerful and unambiguous: members navigating a complaints process require robust, professional and trauma- informed support, and the present arrangements fall substantially short of that standard. Crucially, the commissioner confirmed that he raised those concerns directly with the SPCB earlier in this parliamentary session. The failure to respond meaningfully to those warnings represents a clear and troubling gap in the Parliament’s duty of care to its own members.”
“The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee wishes to draw members’ attention to a matter relating to when an MSP is subject to a complaint. As MSPs, we are office-holders rather than employees of the Parliament. However, there might be times when it would be appropriate for MSPs to have access to the pastoral support that any organisation should provide for its workers. Depending on the terms of a complaint, it might not be appropriate for a member to share information about a complaint or to seek support from those to whom they would ordinarily turn, such as individual colleagues, or from party structures. We understand that, when they are subject to a complaint, they might not find support from those usual structures.”
“Amendment 141 disagreed to. After section 3 17:00 The Presiding Officer: We move to group 3, which is on participation in carrying out functions of the act. Amendment 142, in the name of Miles Briggs, is grouped with amendments 148, 7, 8, 226 to 228, 107, 17, 229 to 232, 302, 20, 21, 308 and 133. I call Miles Briggs to move amendment 142 and speak to other amendments in the group.”
“For Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) 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) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) 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) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) 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) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Abstentions Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 51, Against 65, Abstentions 5.”
“Amendment 140 disagreed to. Amendment 141 moved—[Emma Roddick]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 141 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”