Daniel Johnson
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“When people feel threatened, they resort to violence. That is why I absolutely associate myself with the minister’s words. We must all take responsibility for our words and reflect on the current circumstances and situations.”
“We could forgive the Reform members for being inexperienced, but they have made this debate about them, so let us talk about them. I do not think that they do themselves any favours whatsoever.”
“Daniel Johnson: Were it only about the terminology that Reform is using, it would be one thing, but it is not. Let us look at some of the words used by Reform politicians, both here and in other places: calling for “cold rage”, describing our justice system as being “two tier” and describing recent migrants as being of “fighting age”.”
“Malcolm Offord opened the debate by saying that, through its motion, Reform rejects the SNP’s version of mediocrity. What was clear from the rest of his speech was that that is because he has his own very special version of mediocrity. The whole of Reform’s approach to the debate is summed up by the motion.”
“Likewise, on energy—we need to talk about what a sensible mix looks like, but, if you wrap yourself up in climate denialism, you absolutely delegitimise your argument. We do need to talk about migration. Did my party get it right when we opened up so quickly to accession countries? That should be debated.”
“Are these the politics that you want to enable and represent? [Interruption.] Thomas Kerr is laughing. If he thinks that violence in this city is funny, I am outraged— deeply outraged. He should think very carefully, because people in this city were injured.”
The complete record
Every one of 684 lines we hold for Daniel Johnson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 14.
“Furthermore, if we want to look at why we have labour shortages in rural areas, we are not building enough housing—”
“Across the service sector, we see higher levels of investment driving higher levels of productivity, and workers in those same sectors—whether it is social care, hospitality or others—enjoy higher rates of pay than they do in this country. That is the issue that has been danced round in the debate. If we value work, we should pay for it. Pay and migration are not the only factors at play. There are a number of other things that the Scottish Government has in its control that would enable it to deal with labour shortages, yet it does not use them. Listening to the Scottish Government, we would think that migration is the only source of labour—the only way to attract it— and that simply is not true. We are now training enough doctors—we are just not employing them.”
“The care sector makes that point better than any other sector, because the skills that are needed to work in it are incredibly valuable, but they do not meet the pay threshold. My point is that the white paper equates skill with pay. I think that we should take a different approach—a sectoral and skills-based approach, not a pay-based approach. Daniel Johnson: If the work is valuable, we should pay for it at a commensurate rate. Kate Forbes: That is not what I am saying. Daniel Johnson: But it is! The Deputy First Minister is saying that those are valuable skills but those with them are not going to be highly paid. At the heart of the debate is the fact that we have relied for too long on a broad range of occupations in our society and economy having low levels of pay. Other economies have made different choices.”
“It is possible to attract people if we pay them a correct amount. Kate Forbes rose— Daniel Johnson: I see that the Deputy First Minister is getting to her feet—I will give way to her in a moment. We have been arguing for years that we need to increase that pay rate, and that we need to value, train and equip social care workers adequately if we wish to attract them to the sector, because pay is not the only issue. The terms and conditions of social care workers in this country are a scandal. Kate Forbes: What Jeremy Balfour highlights is that the approach in the immigration white paper equates high pay with skills. There are people with incredible skills who are not permitted to come to this country purely on account of the jobs that they could fill not reaching that level of pay.”
“I understand the worker shortages that occur there, and that is of deep concern. However, if we value social care workers so greatly, why is it that, at £12.60 an hour, the pay rate for social care workers is just 39p above the legal and statutory minimum wage? Jeremy Balfour: Is the member arguing that everybody in the care sector should be on £32,000 a year? That is the pay threshold that his party at Westminster is setting for people coming in. We must either increase wages dramatically or we must reduce that figure. We cannot do both. Daniel Johnson: I understand the member’s point, but I think that even he would accept that that is a false binary choice. It is not the case that the only possible source of people to carry out those roles are people who currently live elsewhere.”
“The reality is that, in mid-2023, net inward migration to the UK reached more than 900,000, and in Scotland it reached more than 60,000. That represents the highest-ever level of inward migration for both the UK and Scotland. It is incorrect to say that Scotland is not receiving inward migration— because it is—but it is absolutely accurate to say that Scotland’s proportion of that has reduced. I do not pretend to understand all the reasons for that, but, having had our share of inward migration fall from 14.5 per cent in 2020 to around 6 per cent in 2023, we need to ask what is going on. There has been conflation of issues in the debate. We need to take care about what it is that we claim to value. One of the employment areas that has become almost synonymous with migration is the care sector.”
“My mother’s family is of German derivation, and my grandparents were interned during the war. The Scots themselves—that ethnic group—were migrants from Ireland who settled in Scotland. Our country is actually named for migrants, and we should celebrate that in the face of rising intolerance around the world. However, in order to celebrate and embrace the economic and cultural benefits of migration, we need a migration system that is trusted, that works and that is fair. Graham Simpson made an excellent point in that regard. He juxtaposed very well the need to confront racism with the need for fairness in the system. I will carefully tread through that issue. One thing that we need to do, as Roz McCall pointed out, is to look at the facts.”
“It has been an interesting debate—calm and considered in the main, which is useful. As a number of members have pointed out, the debate occurs in a context, particularly a global context, that is worrying. We have seen three key facets to the debate. There has been a debate about the values around migration, a debate about the economics and a debate around the practicalities. It is worth considering each one with care. On values, it is important that we welcome migration, not only because of the values that it brings but because it is the human thing to do. A number of members have reflected on their family histories and talked about being descendants of migrants. Both of my Labour colleagues did, as have others across the chamber. My family on both sides is not originally Scottish.”
“Areas where people traditionally built their lives, businesses and connections are now struggling as families and workers move away to follow opportunities, leaving local services and businesses struggling and local economies weaker for it.”
“When that is abundant, businesses expand, new jobs are created and economic growth happens. Without that, plants struggle to survive and thrive. Our economy, like many others, depends on migration to sustain our public services, fill gaps in the workforce and drive our long-term prosperity. The food processing sector, for example, has calculated that nearly 45 per cent of its workforce comes from overseas—27 per cent are from the European Union and 17 per cent are more international. Most come to Scotland through a skilled worker visa. The sector has a strong retention record and is an important employer in many of our rural communities. Rural communities, especially, are facing challenges from population change.”
“Migration is predicted to be the sole driver of population growth for decades to come. Right now, we need people to come here to live and work, to bolster our working-age population. Our positive reputation helps, and we already see evidence of Scotland attracting people from all nationalities. In the year to mid-2023, net migration into Scotland was higher than in any other year in the past decade. Of the 61,581 people who moved here that year, the majority were of working age and probably therefore taxpayers, too. That is a great thing for Scotland. Migration to the economy is like adding rich compost to the soil. Just as that brings nutrients to plants, migration introduces fresh talent, skills and innovation, and it boosts productivity in our sectors.”
“For the cohort that needs healthcare intervention, in one sense, it is not on the employer to provide support, but where somebody is finding it difficult to access the labour market because of changes that an employer can make, Public Health Scotland is working with employers to make those changes. That is the high-level answer, but I would be more than happy to involve Daniel Johnson—and Liz Smith, as I see that she is nodding at me—and anyone else in some of the work that we are doing with Public Health Scotland. I find it a particularly fascinating piece of work because there is a lack of homogeneity in that cohort. The actions that I talked about are important, but they are not sufficient. It is no secret that our country is facing significant population challenges.”
“More recently, some of it has been driven by the experience of the pandemic—that is another element that economists and people in Public Health Scotland are pointing to. Where people left the job market during Covid, they have been slower to return to it. The third element is probably similar across the UK, and it relates to those who need to access healthcare support—either mental health support or other forms of support. My answer to Daniel Johnson is that the interventions required to help each of those cohorts are very different. People often lump together people who are economically inactive as one homogeneous group, but they really are not. Some fascinating work is going on with Public Health Scotland as well as with employers to find how we reach different cohorts.”
“The Deputy First Minister is absolutely right to focus on how we maximise people’s participation in the workforce. Has there been any analysis of why economic inactivity is higher in Scotland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom? Kate Forbes: It is an excellent question. The figures fluctuate considerably from month to month, and I am tracking them very closely. There are a number of elements to the drivers of economic inactivity. Some are historical, where particular demographics or communities have a significantly higher rate of economic inactivity rate and have done for many years. Some of that is quite stubborn, although it is difficult to use that word in relation to human beings.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the strategic defence review’s emphasis on a “whole society” approach to national security, what discussions it has had with the UK Government regarding work to contribute to a comprehensive national resilience strategy. (S6O-04790)”
“The Government will vote for our motion today because it got it wrong. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on planning. Business Motion 17:06”
“It is a bourach that was created by this Scottish Government, which has had 18 years to provide clarity in a planning system that enables the investment that we need in the future while protecting community interests. However, what we have in front of us—when it comes to both the materiality of the decision and the lack of clarity about why the Government has changed its mind—serves as a case in point about the problems that we have in our planning system overall. Ross Greer made an excellent contribution both on the technical point and on this: the planning proposal has gone on for years; tens of thousands of people have written; there have been hundreds of thousands of objections; and one reporter has overturned all of that, summing up on highly dubious grounds in his interpretation of what the Parliament had passed.”
“Indeed, the years to come will require even more difficult decisions. There is a real tension. This is where I am going to be complimentary about Bob Doris, as I thought that some of the most interesting points were raised by Jamie Greene and Bob Doris. We need a planning system that maintains community confidence and whose decisions, when they are made, are robust and thorough and are made in a clear and efficient manner. The reality is that, for many communities, the planning system feels like a war of attrition. On the flipside, we need investment. Jamie Greene raised that difficult balance. Of course, in order to get investment, we need a predictable planning system that produces clear results. This is a case study of a lack of such clarity, which does a disservice to communities and to the investment that we seek in our country.”
“Those are vital questions, and their answers would not prejudice the outcome of the decision. Transparency and integrity demand that the Government answer them, but we have had no answer at all from the Scottish Government. Finlay Carson: When it comes to planning, transparency and confidence in this Government are completely out the window. There was overwhelming public opposition to a power line upgrade in Dumfries and Galloway, and the reporter suggested that it should not go ahead, because of the damage to the environment—yet this Government overturned that decision. There is no transparency whatsoever in the position that the Scottish Government takes regarding planning. Daniel Johnson: Finlay Carson raises a good point. The issue is that we have to make some very difficult decisions.”
“The approach taken by the Scottish Government in tonight’s debate may raise far more questions for people watching than it has in any way answered. Daniel Johnson: Martin Whitfield is quite right. Planning decisions are important, and the minister has stood up and said that it is important that they have integrity and transparency—I believe that those are the words that he used. However, where is the transparency in what has just happened? What is the difference— Finlay Carson: Will the member give way? Daniel Johnson: I will complete this point. What has changed in the past two weeks? To repeat the point that my friend raised earlier, what test will the Scottish ministers apply now that they have called it in? Ultimately, who will make the decision? Which minister?”
“Believe me, you do not need to be local to know about the issues around the local roads. Many of us will have been stuck in traffic jams and gridlocks around Loch Lomond. The thought that we could install 100 additional lodges and the additional road requirement without batting an eyelid, with a couple of changes to a roundabout, is a nonsense. Then there is the loss of natural habitats and forests. This simply is not credible, and it should not have got this far before it was called into question. The thought that a reporter—one person—can overturn a decision that was made unanimously by the park authority is also not credible. A number of contributors made that point. Martin Whitfield: I also note that the reporter was appointed by the Scottish Government, which has now taken in this decision.”
“This is Loch Lomond—a loch so bonnie that they created a song for it, and the place where we decided to create our first national park, in 2002. As to the thought that this is the place to create a theme park, Flamingo Land, with a private zoo operator and theme park operator, where they would create two hotels, 100 lodges and more than 300 parking places, in a national park designed to protect an area’s natural heritage and beauty—come on. We do not need to think about that for too long to realise that there are things to see here, which is why we have heard many contributions setting out the length of time that this has taken and the saga that this has been, and asking how on earth we have got here. My colleague Jackie Baillie set out in some detail the issues around flooding and road capacity.”
“If Bob Doris does not want to listen to me, maybe he should listen to one of his own esteemed colleagues: “This issue has been handled in the most cack handed way possible by the Scottish government and is seriously damaging its credibility.” Those are not my words, but the words of Alex Neil—a former Scottish National Party minister, who was responsible for planning for the Scottish Government. If he is saying that, perhaps we need to consider whether this has been cack-handed and has damaged the Government’s credibility. Let us take a moment and take a step back, because we do not need to be planning experts or intimately aware of the ins and outs of planning to wonder whether this is the right thing to do.”
“I was going to be very complimentary about him later on in my speech, so he might want to bear that in mind. Bob Doris: I thank Daniel Johnson for giving way. Crikey—he might want to hold on a minute there. Does Daniel Johnson not think that he has done a little bit of a disservice to the communities and campaigners who have fought against the application by overly politicising the issue? I am keen to hear from Daniel Johnson about the material considerations that will give the leverage for the matter to be dismissed by the Scottish Government and for the development not to proceed. I think that that is better than politicking. Daniel Johnson: This is not politicking.”
“We should not be surprised, because it comes from a Government that has brought us a few such phrases, including, “Ferries delivered on time and on budget”, “NHS recovery plan”, “Government transparency and data retention”, and “Delivering a national care service”. My current favourite phrase, which, if reports in the newspapers are to be believed, follows secretive meetings on Monday night and plots, is “John Swinney’s continued and stable leadership of the SNP”. That is a self-contradictory statement. The fact of the matter is that the Government’s decision is a panicked U-turn that has been forced on it because of imminent defeat in this Parliament. Bob Doris: Will Daniel Johnson give way? Daniel Johnson: I am happy to give way to Bob Doris.”
“Presiding Officer, I take it that I have a generous 12 minutes, thanks to the generosity of the minister. In a sense, what we have just heard says it all. We have had no commentary on what has changed or why what has happened has happened, or on why, just two weeks ago, the planning minister said that the application would not be called in, that there was nothing to see here and that the development was going to go ahead, yet now it is not. There was not even the suggestion of a commentary on the SNP’s own amendment—the minister did not mention it once. So, I will say only this. I do not know about you, Presiding Officer, but, to me, “SNP planning policy” sounds like an oxymoron right now.”
“Members will appreciate that, as the planning appeal remains live, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further so as not to prejudice the decision-making process and to maintain the integrity of the planning system. With that, I conclude. I move amendment S6M-17862.1, to insert at end: “, and that any subsequent decision on the planning application should be made in a fair and impartial way that takes into account all relevant legal requirements and maintains the integrity of the planning process.” 16:10”
“I remind members that appeals have an important role to play in our system, too, and ministers use their powers to call in applications and appeals very sparingly. As a matter of law, all planning applications must be determined on the planning merits of the case, taking full account of all submissions that are made by parties involved in the case, including representations from members of the local community. Once again, I recognise that members have spent a great deal of time considering the appeal and that their views are strongly held. It is, in fact, usual for the planning system to balance competing interests, and it is important that the Parliament recognises that the system is designed to deal with a wide range of views and issues in an objective manner.”
“Will the minister give way? Tom Arthur: I am afraid that I am restricting my comments in the debate to my prepared remarks, given that the matter concerns a live planning application. It remains the case that all planning applications and appeals should be determined in accordance with the development plan for the area affected, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. There have been significant reforms to the Scottish planning system in recent years. The statutory development plan includes the national planning framework 4 and the relevant local development plan. The primary responsibility for determining planning applications rests with the relevant local authority in the first instance.”
“I move amendment S6M-17785.2, to insert at end: “; believes that Scottish businesses across sectors have not had adequate support from the Scottish Government to break down barriers to innovation, and that support must extend beyond start-up stage to provide advice and investment for scaling up; notes that the proportion of businesses in Scotland that are innovating, that is those introducing or developing a new product, service or process, has fallen from 50% in 2012-14 to just 32% in 2020-22, and calls on the Scottish Government to reform Scotland’s economic agencies to better support entrepreneurs and innovation in sectors across Scotland, including capital intensive sectors like life sciences and advanced manufacturing.” 15:52”
“As John Tsoukalas’s report on Scotland’s productivity challenge sets out, 90 per cent of Scottish businesses have seen no growth during the past two decades. We must develop approaches that help all businesses to invest and grow and help all businesses of all sizes to reach their potential. With that, I need to close.”
“In those areas, capital equipment and plant are more expensive than they are for technology firms. The barriers between the different stages of the pipeline, as set out in the Scottish technology ecosystem report, are much higher for those sorts of capital-intensive businesses, and we need a renewed focus on how we help them to thrive. I point out that the contrast that the Deputy First Minister made between small and medium-sized enterprises and high-growth start-ups is interesting. There are two ways of looking at that. There is a lot of value in high-growth technology start-ups, but the other way of looking at those figures is that we have an issue with growth across the broad range of SMEs. As well as looking at high-growth start-ups, we must look at ways in which we can help all small and medium- sized enterprises to grow.”
“There are still issues for innovation in that area, and it is good that the Deputy First Minister addressed that. However, there are still too many barriers, including that many higher education institutions are simply taking too high an equity stake in spin-outs, and those equity stakes are simply getting in the way of companies that are going for series A investment and so on. We also need to look beyond technology start- ups. It was interesting that, again, we have had a presentation from the Deputy First Minister that has focused on that. It is absolutely right that we focus on technology start-ups, but they are not the only type of start-up. Critically, other areas where we seek to develop high-growth businesses, such as advanced manufacturing, life sciences, and food and drink, are more capital intensive.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Daniel Johnson, I will give you the time back for both interventions. Daniel Johnson: I will allow Mr Fraser to defend his numbers; I was just providing some other context. We should look at the measure that the Deputy First Minister presented, but it is just one measure. All that I am asking for is a more holistic view. The Scottish technology ecosystem report— STER—was very useful and important, but I ask the Government to question whether we are implementing every element of it as much as we could. There are a number of areas where we could go further, not least of which is ensuring that we embed the right skills in the education system and that we are delivering more computing science teachers. We have already touched on the interfaces with higher education.”
“We have success stories and we must celebrate them, but there is an awful lot more work to do. Kate Forbes: On data, it is important that we measure the right things. One of the data points that Murdo Fraser referred to was the TEA rate. He said that Scotland is lagging. The top three countries for the TEA rate are Ecuador, Guatemala and Chile. The TEA rate is irrelevant to high-growth enterprise, and those countries are not hotbeds of high-growth enterprise. I encourage us to refer to figures that will be relevant to the discussion about entrepreneurship and what we are trying to achieve. I made the point that RSM Consulting has illustrated that Scotland is the UK’s fastest-growing territory for the incorporation of new tech businesses. Surely, that is what we are trying to achieve.”
“However, we need to reflect on not just the numbers that Murdo Fraser set out, but those of high-growth businesses. There has been an increase in the proportion of Scottish businesses that are high growth; it is up from 3 per cent to 3.2 per cent. However, when it comes to the number of high-growth businesses, we are 11th among the UK’s nations and regions. Kate Forbes: Will the member take an intervention? Daniel Johnson: I want to make just a touch of progress. Likewise, the business innovation rate has fallen from 50 per cent to 32 per cent in recent years. In business-related research and development, Scotland is in the third quartile of regions and nations. As I pointed out in an intervention, the number of our patent applications has again been falling.”
“It was a little disappointing earlier to hear the Deputy First Minister dodge the point about defence spending, for example, because, ultimately, we need coherence. The strategic defence review— [Interruption.] No, engineers is just one component. We need a balanced immigration policy. That is what the UK Government has sought to set out in terms of attracting people with the skills that we need. We need balance and coherence, which is what industrial strategy delivers. Stephen Kerr: Will the member give way on that point? Daniel Johnson: I will make a little bit of progress. In order to have a debate such as this, we need context and realism about where we currently sit. Success stories are welcome, and I share the Deputy First Minister’s congratulations and the celebration of the success that we have had.”
“That is why I welcome the debate, and I thank the Government for bringing it, because it is useful to talk about the type of economy that we need and the strategic issues that we want— Michelle Thomson (Falkirk East) (SNP) rose— Daniel Johnson: Already, clearly, I have attracted an intervention from Michelle Thomson. Michelle Thomson: We have been talking a great deal about Sir Tom Hunter’s report, but Oxford Economics, which did the research, also made it clear that Singapore’s success rested to a large extent on higher-value manufacturing such as electronics and precision engineering. To that end, what commentary does Daniel Johnson have for the planned cut in the immigration of engineers? That is surely a worry. Daniel Johnson: That was quite a leap. What we need is a coherent industrial strategy.”
“The reception that I hosted last night on behalf of the CBI has been referenced. A key point that I made at that was that, in order to deliver growth, we very much need a shared agenda between businesses and the private sector and Government and politicians. It is in everyone’s interests both in driving the tax revenues that we need and in delivering the public service that, ultimately, businesses depend on. Critical to that is making sure that we have high-growth, innovative countries—sorry. I meant companies, not countries; there has been too much talk of Singapore.”
“The fact that the risk capital market has bucked UK-wide trends is remarkable; although there has been a decline across the UK, there has been an increase in Scotland. That is because of the quality of the businesses. A stand-out example is the Edinburgh-based gaming firm Build a Rocket Boy, which raised more than £86 million in a single investment round. It already employs 450 people, with further growth expected. Just yesterday, Wordsmith AI, a Techscaler member, announced a $25 million series A investment achieving $100 million valuation in a record-breaking 18 months. Those are remarkable success stories.”
“I agree that we should champion success but, to truly succeed, we also need to acknowledge that there are issues. The Deputy First Minister might quote those figures, but we know, too, that the value of Scottish deals at £10 million and above actually fell by 69 per cent in 2022-23. Likewise, we know that other measures, such as the number of patents, have been falling. Does the Deputy First Minister not need to recognise the whole picture, not just the bits that show success? We need to show the weaknesses, too. Kate Forbes: It is precisely because we needed to confront some of the challenges four years ago that we embarked on this journey to support Scottish entrepreneurs.”
“Your party voted against the money at Westminster. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please continue, cabinet secretary. Jenny Gilruth: I am done. Online Bullying (Schools) 7.”
“It is about a balance of competing but equally strong and compelling arguments. Ultimately, I take the view that death in itself is not a harm but that the nature of death can be. Our decision tonight is about whether we can improve those circumstances and people’s situation as their life comes to an end. I know that colleagues will make the right decision based on their conscience. 15:08”
“Above all else, we must be alive to the possibility of social effects. All of those aspects can be looked at throughout the parliamentary process. They need to be resolved. I am not saying that any of those conditions would necessarily be sufficient, but those are the areas that need to be looked at most closely. We need to look at the definition. Another issue is the timing. It is also important that, in making a declaration, clinicians are clear that the person is free of coercion or pressure. Above all else, it is vitally important that the no- detriment principle applies to individuals and organisations that opt out. In the end, death is an inevitability for all of us. The bill is about providing options and control in a situation in which those are being removed from people because of life itself.”
“I recognise that the issue is covered in the policy memorandum, but is what is in the bill sufficiently strong? Likewise, the definition of “terminal illness” is incredibly important. We have seen the expansion of similar legislation in other countries. It is important that it is about the acceleration of a process that is inevitable for the individual. It is important that it is not about providing death where death is not there. The definition is critical to avoid dangerous social outcomes and to meet those changed expectations. I worry that the bill as currently framed allows for the possibility of expansion, that the curtailment-of-life requirement is not sufficiently clear and that those with long- term chronic conditions with reduced life expectancies could meet the definition. The definition needs to be tightened up.”
“I believe that there are provisions in the bill that address some of those issues, but it could perhaps go further. For me—this is an important point—it is about ensuring an autonomous act. The final act is one that the individual would need to take for themselves. I could not have voted for the previous bills because that would not have been the case under them. That is important for clinical relationships, which would be fundamentally altered if the final act were to be delivered by a clinician. Most importantly, it is about consent—the ability to remove one’s consent and to withdraw it at that final moment can be achieved only if it is an autonomous act. However, I have concerns about whether that element of the bill is robust.”
“That is not to say that that choice needs to be made, but should it be available? In facing these matters, I also think about the harm principle, which is that the only purpose for which people can be prevented from doing things is to prevent causing harm to others. In that basic act, I do not see the harm, which is why I think that Parliament needs to fully consider these matters. It must expose all the detail through stage 2 in order to challenge whether the bill can meet the concerns that I think are there. There are wider harms that we must consider, such as the pressure on the individual and the potential for changed relationships with family members and professionals, particularly clinicians. We must also consider, in terms of social outcomes, the changed expectations that people might have at the end of life.”
“That is why I will vote for the bill at stage 1; however, I will reserve my position because I have a number of concerns, which I will set out. When I have observed friends and family members facing their final moments of life, I have found myself reflecting: should they have this option? I have thought to myself, as I have seen them face the end of their life: what would I want? Should we be giving people the choice, while capacity, capability and opportunity are being removed from them? Should we be giving them this final piece of control and final element of decision making over their lives? My answer to that basic fundamental principle is yes. We can call that bodily autonomy and decision making of the individual, but, fundamentally, it boils down to that question. Would you want that choice? Would you want that choice for others?”
“It is a great privilege to follow Edward Mountain’s speech. I address my first remarks to my constituents. This is a debate unlike any other. It is a free vote, but given the importance of the debate, I say to my constituents that I take my responsibilities very seriously. My position reflects both the views that have been communicated to me over my time as an MSP, since 2016, which have broadly been in favour, and the views that have been more critical. In particular, it reflects the balance of views that I have heard in recent weeks, including at the event that I held last week in my constituency. I believe that society’s views have changed. This is an important issue for the Parliament to discuss, and we should try, as best we can, to form a settled view. Above all else, we must do so on the basis of principles.”
“That is what the people who were involved sought to do with the creation of structures such as the Council of Europe, the United Nations and the Bretton Woods system. It is also what was sought when we undertook, as Paul O’Kane mentioned, the effort of house building and building the welfare state in the UK. Although it is true at international level, it is also true at national level: everyone must have a stake and everyone must have a fair share. As we pass the 80-year mark, and as the war passes out of living memory, we must, as many members have said, continue to remember what needs to be done. Institutions matter, equality matters and equity matters. Ultimately, we need countries around the world to continue to work together and not to forget the lessons of world war two. 16:41”