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 2 of 14.
“Yesterday, we collectively determined who will convene those committees for this parliamentary session. The results of those elections were announced earlier today; I congratulate those, across all parties, who were elected to hold those offices. As parliamentarians, whether we are in government or otherwise, we should all desire strong and fair processes that enable those of us who are privileged to be elected to this place to contribute to effective governance. In Scotland, we are lucky to have independent institutions whose explicit purpose is to investigate criminal conduct, gather evidence, assess that evidence against the standard of law and bring prosecutions when the public interest demands it; Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service exist for precisely those purposes.”
“[Interruption.] I can hear—and I have heard several times— members saying, “That’s not what we are seeking to do.” That is precisely what they are seeking to achieve through this debate and through the motion. Let us not pretend otherwise. We are not daft—we know that that is what they are trying to do. We should be seeking to have a strong Parliament that uses its powers to hold the Scottish Government to account in relation to its governing activities. That is what serves the people of Scotland well. The suggested inquiry would divert and waste those powers on the internal governance of rival parties. Last week, the Parliament agreed a committee structure that will be at the heart of legislative scrutiny and of holding the Government to account.”
“Will the minister give way? Jamie Hepburn: I will give way one more time, to Mr Johnson. Daniel Johnson: Does Jamie Hepburn not recognise that that is a fundamental misinterpretation of the Nolan principles? Openness and transparency relate to all aspects of the life of an individual in public office, not just the narrow aspects that relate to their ministerial responsibilities. His interpretation is a misinterpretation, is it not? Jamie Hepburn: Of course I recognise that those principles stretch across all areas of public life. I question the appropriateness of a parliamentary committee inquiring into the activities and internal affairs of a political party.”
“It is hugely important to recognise the progress that we have made. As I said, we are always keen to make more progress and to look for opportunities to further expand the amount of procurement opportunities for SMEs, third sector organisations, supported businesses and others in our communities. We always need to look closely at subsidy control when we are taking decisions. This morning, I met procurement officials and talked about the work that they are undertaking with others across Government to understand where the restrictions apply and where we can take steps that do not fall foul of the regulations. We will continue to push the envelope as much as we can.”
“There is broad consensus in the chamber about the need to develop Scotland’s supply chains and to use public procurement to do so. However, especially in the Labour Party, we have felt that, in practice, there has been an overly cautious view, particularly in interpreting the Subsidy Control Act 2022. Will the cabinet secretary, in his new role, re-examine the Scottish Government’s interpretation of that? Will he look at how procurement processes and grant schemes can be redevised so that they do not fall foul of the 2022 act? Ivan McKee: First, I point the member to the numbers that I have gone through. It is hugely important to recognise that Scotland is absolutely leading the way, with more than 47 per cent of our public sector procurement going to SMEs, compared with only 20 per cent across the rest of the United Kingdom.”
“They are high-paid jobs that pay well above the median wage, and we have a challenge to replace them, regardless of our views on climate change. That is the reality of the”
“That £785 million could fund Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, South of Scotland Enterprise, the Scottish National Investment Bank and Skills Development Scotland combined. We need to address and confront that gap. We must also acknowledge Scotland’s relative economic performance. It is a fact that, between 2014 and 2024, Scotland’s economy grew by 8.4 per cent, compared with 14.3 per cent across the UK. Let us be clear—we need to be candid on all fronts—that that correlates with a significant decline in oil and gas extraction from the North Sea. Ultimately, we need to recognise the scale of the oil and gas sector and the fact that it is a declining sector, whether we like it or not, because of geology, and we must focus on how we replace those jobs.”
“In a sense, I do not envy the cabinet secretary his task, because it is complicated. It is a big portfolio, and he has a task ahead of him. It reminds me that I was once told by a former boss that, given the complexity of his job, he was not there to be liked but to be effective. I say to the cabinet secretary that he is halfway there already. If we are to confront this issue, we need a bit of frankness and candour as we look at the opportunities that are in front of us. First, I say to the Government that it needs to confront some of the economic context. Time after time, the Scottish Fiscal Commission has made the point that there is a £785 million fiscal performance gap, which it defines as Scotland’s wages growing more slowly than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Let us put that in context.”
“I am not sure whether I have had the chance before to welcome you to your place, Deputy Presiding Officer, but I do so now. I also welcome the cabinet secretary to his place. For a first speech, I thought that he did very well. I agree with Mr Flynn on the fundamental points of his premise. I believe that economic growth is important, because it is about the potential of this country, and that potential is measured in wages and jobs. We must all be focused on that, but it is complicated. I welcome that the cabinet secretary has added transport to his portfolio, because in previous parliamentary sessions, the economy has had a name check in the brief, but it has not necessarily had connections to the parts of policy that can directly impact economic growth.”
“Secondly, he should read Alan Milburn’s report, because it calls for Government intervention to bridge the structural gap that gets in the way of so many young people in the world of work. Above all, shoehorning in a racist, dog-whistle claim about two-tiered justice in the light of what has happened in Southampton is outrageous and irresponsible. Malcolm Offord: [Made a request to intervene.] Daniel Johnson: No, I will not take an intervention from the member. If he thinks that second-rate racism such as that will stand in the Parliament, he is sorely mistaken, and he can sit down. Malcolm Offord: [Made a request to intervene.] Daniel Johnson: I say again, he can sit down. It is a shame, because we have to have this important debate on how we can develop —”
“I welcome the Deputy Presiding Officer to her position and I welcome the Deputy First Minister to hers, too. I look forward to working with her in the constructive way that we did in the previous session of Parliament. Above all else, I congratulate all the members who have spoken for the first time in the debate. There have been a few too many to name check, but I say to Katie Hagmann that, given the quality of contributions from the new members, I think that it is returning members, not the new ones, who should be nervous. I have to begin with something that I do not want to do, which is to confront some of the comments that were made by Malcolm Offord. Frankly, they were ridiculous. First, it should come as no surprise that Labour believes in creating opportunity through better work and better pay.”
“Notwithstanding the SNP’s pledge to deliver free school bags for all primary children and a culture payment for all 18-year-olds, the Deputy First Minister has her head in the sand when it comes to the biggest problem of all—cutting the SNP’s benefits bill. By the end of this decade, that bill will reach £10 billion, and I have heard nothing from the SNP, the Greens, Labour or Reform that signals a commitment to reducing it. We, on the other hand, have been crystal clear: we would reintroduce the two-child benefit cap, apply it to the Scottish child payment and significantly overhaul the adult disability payment to ensure that it fairly promotes work. I will also address the issue of wealth taxes.”
“Those people are now in receipt of benefits. What I am suggesting will unlock the money to improve roads in constituencies such as Dumfriesshire, as we all want to do. To those who say that cutting tax is inherently bad, I say: let us think about that for a moment. There is no contradiction between being fiscally conservative and pro-business, and wanting better public services and being modern and compassionate. I now want to address head-on the size of the deficit that the Government faces and to address its causes. Ministers face a £5 billion deficit by the end of the decade, but let us be clear: that is down to overspending, not a lack of tax receipts. I welcome ministers’ desire to cut the size of the state, but I question their ability to do that and their commitment to achieving it.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Craig Hoy: I do not have time, I am afraid—or I will take it, if I can get the time back. Daniel Johnson: I agree on the need for fiscal competence, but all that we are hearing from those on that side of the chamber is about cuts. The member mentioned potholes. Does he recognise that some public expenditure—on transport infrastructure, for example—is vital for economic growth? Does he not recognise the need for fiscal responsibility and public expenditure to deliver growth in that sense? Craig Hoy: Absolutely, but the best way to generate tax receipts is to keep people in employment. The member’s party fatally underestimated that when it increased the national insurance tax attached to jobs, which forced people who were contributing to the economy out of work and out of the labour market.”
“That is because of UK policy—driven by contracts for difference and by renewables obligations before that—which has driven investment and lowered costs by those bills being underwritten through strike prices. That has cost the average UK bill payer £39 annually. Is the Scottish National Party saying that that £39 should be spread only across UK bill payers? That would surely be worth hundreds of pounds per person, per year.”
“It is important to talk about energy and we need to have a grown-up and rational conversation, because energy is at the heart of our economy and of this country’s future prosperity, but the motion does not auger well. “It’s Scotland’s Energy” might make for a somewhat adequate T-shirt slogan, but it is an incoherent title for a parliamentary motion and an entirely empty basis for policy. I gently point out to Mr Gethins that his speech was rather heavy on rhetoric but rather light on actual analysis. The reality is that we have seen a huge investment of £150 billion in renewables in Scotland since 2014. Of the 45GW of renewables capacity in this country, 25 per cent is in Scotland, with 80 per cent of the UK’s wind generation capacity being in Scotland.”
“I congratulate you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and welcome you to your position. I begin on a friendly note by welcoming Stephen Gethins to his position. I have known him for a number of years and hope that I will not embarrass him by observing that we first met when we were student politicians. Let us hope that we have raised the standard of debate a little since then. Indeed, I wonder whether this Government will become a tale of two Stephens. We can see why the First Minister appointed Stephen Gethins, because he brings a mature approach and can be collegiate and work on a cross-party basis. I will let others decide what the analysis of the other Stephen might be.”
“I, Daniel Johnson, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law.”
“Therefore, although it is clear that the guidance is making a difference and bringing about improvements, the data shows us that we still need to go much further and that we need to pass the bill to ensure that we make progress. In my closing speech, I will touch on some of the concerns that have been raised, particularly by trade unions, which I thank for their contributions. I also thank members around the chamber, including the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the Government more broadly, because the engagement that has brought us to this point has been productive. I look forward to hearing everyone’s speeches. Most importantly, it is a great pleasure to move the motion in my name. I move, That the Parliament agrees that the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill be passed. 15:06”
“It requires clear recording and reporting standards. Above all else, it requires training standards, so that when professionals in the classroom use such techniques, they do so in line with the highest possible standards. I am pleased that the Government has today published its initial data on the use of the existing guidance, which tells us two clear things. First, it tells us that the overwhelming majority of local authorities and staff in the classroom say that the guidance has been helpful. Secondly, the data highlights the gaps. Only 30 of the 32 Scottish local authorities responded, while two did not. One local authority was unable to provide the data and almost half are not fully reporting data in a way that is compliant with the guidance.”
“[Applause.] We also need to pay tribute to Kate Sanger, who has absolutely been Beth’s partner and stalwart, standing alongside her. She has her own experiences with her daughter, Laura, and is an innovator, with the communication passport concept for children with additional support needs. We must pay tribute to such tireless campaigning, because that is something that we need more of. We should all be thinking about how we can support campaigners, making sure that their issues become real and become law, and that we see the change that we all want. The bill that is in front of us does four critical things. It puts guidance on a statutory footing, ensuring that we have compliance with the standards that we expect. It contains requirements to inform parents so that, when such circumstances arise, parents are told as quickly as possible.”
“After that incident in 2010, Beth lodged a petition and she lobbied. It was not just those processes, however. We all need to recognise Beth’s absolutely winning personality: people cannot say no to her, whether through her perseverance in conversations with all of us in this Parliament, through her sending in all those submissions whenever a committee was looking at anything connected with the topic, and through her tireless work with the press. That is a huge amount of work. I fundamentally believe that this Parliament is about bringing power closer to people, and she stands as testament to the ability to do that. I hope that we will pass the bill this evening and, in so doing, bring about Calum’s law, but we all need to recognise that, although this may be Calum’s law, it is also definitely Beth’s bill.”
“Sometimes, they eventually find out that it was the adults who were charged with looking after their children who caused those injuries through the use of inappropriate restraint. We have to accept that the use of restraint and seclusion will at times be necessary, but, when it is, we have to have the highest possible standards—not only in how it is applied and how those children are treated, but in informing parents. That is what the bill will do and what Parliament will have the opportunity to decide on. It is a huge privilege to stand here as the member who introduced it. Above all else, we need to recognise Beth Morrison and her tireless campaigning. Her journey started when her son came home in 2010 with bruises. That started a campaign that culminates, I hope, today—this evening—with Parliament passing the bill.”
“I feel strongly that it is a basic human response that, when a child is in distress, hurt or injured, we want to help and protect them. That is one of the most fundamental human reactions. For a parent, that becomes amplified. When we see that our child is hurt, a knot forms in our stomach, we want to act immediately and we fundamentally feel guilty about not having prevented that harm. Just imagine what it must be like when someone’s child returns home from school with bruises, and it takes days, weeks or months to find out where those bruises came from. That is what is at the heart of the bill and what motivated me to introduce it to Parliament. Too many parents, whose children often have additional support needs and are often non-verbal, are simply unable to find out what happened.”
“There will be a short pause to allow front-bench teams to change position. Business Motion 15:00”
“Amendment 4 agreed to. Amendment 5 moved—[Jenny Gilruth]—and agreed to. Section 6—Interpretation Amendment 6 moved—[Jenny Gilruth]—and agreed to. Section 6B—Ancillary provision Amendment 7 moved—[Jenny Gilruth]—and agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That ends consideration of amendments. I advise members that, as they will be aware, the Presiding Officer is required under standing orders to decide whether, in her view, any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the Presiding Officer’s view, no provision of the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.”
“Together, the amendments strengthen the workability and legal precision of the bill. I move amendment 4. Daniel Johnson: To echo the cabinet secretary’s comments, amendments 4, 5 and 7 are technical amendments that enable the Government to introduce secondary legislation to ensure that the bill is workable and implementable. I note the cabinet secretary’s comments about ensuring that they are focused on the bill’s intent and purpose. I always like to encourage that approach from the Government, rather than it taking sweeping powers. I very much welcome the fact that the Government has lodged amendments that have that focused scope and urge members to support amendments 4, 5 and 7. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Does the cabinet secretary have anything to add by way of winding up? Jenny Gilruth: I have nothing further to add.”
“Section 4—Duty to record and report on use of restraint and seclusion The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 3 is on regulation-making powers. Amendment 4, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 5 and 7. Jenny Gilruth: Amendment 4 removes a provision that is now unnecessary because the same provision was made in another amendment that was agreed to at stage 2. Amendments 5 and 7 add a power to modify enactments to two of the regulation-making powers in the bill where that is necessary to ensure that the bill operates as intended. I have been careful to ensure that those are not broad or open- ended powers. They are targeted to ensure that the bill’s provisions, such as the regulation-making power that enables more frequent reporting to a national body in the future, can work as intended.”
“It provides ministers with flexibility on that matter and will benefit the Government’s engagement with stakeholders, including our school staff, teaching unions, families and children and young people, whose input will be critical to the successful design and implementation of the guidance. Therefore, I invite members to support the amendment. I move amendment 2. Daniel Johnson: Amendment 2 is sensible. In essence, it allows the Government to get on with it and do the consultation ahead of the bill coming into force. It is sensible and practical and I support it. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Does the cabinet secretary have anything to add by way of winding up? Jenny Gilruth: I have nothing further to add. Amendment 2 agreed to. Section 3—Duty to inform parents of use of restraint or seclusion Amendment 3 moved—[Jenny Gilruth]—agreed to.”
“I accept that the commissioner’s job is to be on the cautious side. That is absolutely fine, but I suggest that amendment 1 gets the balance roughly right. Amendment 1 agreed to. Section 2—Guidance on restraint and seclusion in schools The Deputy Presiding Officer: We turn to group 2, which is on consultation. Amendment 2, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is the only amendment in the group. Jenny Gilruth: Amendment 2 is a minor amendment to allow consultation on the first set of statutory guidance to begin before relevant sections in the bill are brought into force.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call John Mason to wind up, and press or withdraw amendment 1. John Mason: I welcome both Daniel Johnson’s and Willie Rennie’s comments, as well as those of the cabinet secretary. Willie Rennie used the word “ambiguity”; other people would use the word “flexibility”. I fully accept that there is a balance to be struck. If we are too rigid, something might be caught that is not meant to be; if we are too relaxed, it is the other way round. The example that we frequently heard in the committee was that, if a child runs across the road, you want to grab them—in any way that you can, frankly—to prevent their being run over. That is why we need a degree of flexibility. I understand the unions’ point of view and that of the children’s commissioner.”
“The regulations would be subject to consultation and to the affirmative procedure. Therefore, the Government would have to make a case for alterations, and Parliament would have the final say as to whether they proceed. I believe that that makes the provision proportionate and safe. It is important that we are able to adjust the reporting requirements in line with changes to the definition, so I welcome amendment 3. Likewise, on amendment 6, we can all understand that the nature of looking after nursery school children is very different from that of looking after primary school children—it is literally a hands-on activity. Therefore, it is really important that we exclude nursery classes and classrooms and nursery children from the bill, because it is a complex area. I very much welcome amendment 6.”
“I note that it addresses the issues that have been raised by the teaching unions. I thank Willie Rennie not only for raising those real concerns, as it is important to have them on the record, but for going through all the unions’ acronyms and sparing me from having to do the same thing. Including provisions to adjust the definitions through secondary legislation is a better way of addressing those concerns than having explicit exclusions in the bill, because it means that we can take a more nuanced approach to the definitions. I note the concerns raised by the Children and Young People’s Commissioner, who urges members not to support amendment 1. I understand those concerns, particularly the one about altering the definition of seclusion, but there are important safeguards.”
“As the member in charge of the bill, I will support all three amendments in the group and all the amendments that have been lodged this afternoon. I thank the Government for giving me early sight of its amendments. Indeed, there was some discussion about whether I would lodge amendments. Many of the amendments are about operability, so it is important to hear from the Government. I thank John Mason for lodging amendment 1 and for his interest throughout the bill process. He is absolutely right that it is important that we do not inadvertently capture types of physical contact that we would expect and encourage in our schools, especially for primary school children. Amendment 1 is proportionate and provides a safeguard against the inadvertent capturing of such behaviours.”
“It is true that we have increased the number of things that we are going to ask medical practitioners to take into consideration, but it ultimately boils down to two doctors’ opinions— doctors who can make mistakes or errors of judgment. They may make referrals, but no amount of referral will stop those errors or mistakes. Very often when we legislate in this place, “good enough” is good enough. Legislation by necessity has to be a matter of compromise, but this is not an area where we can afford compromise—“good enough” is not good enough. If members are seeking solace from the statements of members in the chamber that the bill has more safeguards than any comparable legislation, they are mistaken. If they do not believe that those safeguards are in place, they should not vote for the bill. 20:13”
“Even in those that do not, every single Australian jurisdiction has two forms of external oversight, including a tribunal, by which individual requests can be escalated and assessed by the individual themselves, the medical practitioners or those who have immediate concern for the individual, such as family members. Each and every jurisdiction has an oversight board that oversees the implementation, assesses individual requests, can make referrals to other authorities, including the police, can provide advice to Government and provides on-going statutory review and recommendation. We have neither of those oversight or safety mechanisms in the bill whatsoever. We have a narrow bill.”
“The Royal College of General Practitioners said in one of its principles that there is a lack of an independent and transparent system of oversight, monitoring and regulation. That is what the bill lacks. A great number of members have said that the bill has more safeguards than any comparable piece of legislation. That is simply not true. If you look at the Australian legislation and at where such legislation has already been passed, you will see that virtually all of them have three external safeguards. Half of the Australian jurisdictions have a permit-based system, whereby every request has to be externally approved.”
“Yes, we have introduced many additional standards, considerations and procedures but, ultimately, what the bill boils down to is a decision that will be afforded to people on the basis of two medical practitioners’ judgments—yes, those judgments will be based on experience and training, but they will be the judgments of two people. That is why I think that the section 104 order is problematic. It is not because we will not have a say—we will—but the detail of that is so critical and we will not be able to scrutinise it or challenge it. We will be given a binary choice. Further, there is no external check on those two doctors’ judgments; there is no point of escalation and there is no oversight. When we listen to the external royal colleges, we must listen to the detail. It is not only about the protections for conscientious objection.”
“They make decisions in the context of community, society and family. Ultimately, when we legislate, we create expectations and norms. We create expectations of how people will behave in certain ways. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves whether we have the safeguards and protections that that needs, and we have to ask ourselves what kind of bill we have. I asked at the beginning of the stage 3 amendments, is this a permissive bill or is it a precautionary one? Is it one that enables people to do things, or does it provide people with an option in extenuating circumstances with safeguards? Unfortunately, in my view, we have arrived at a bill that is the former.”
“If one thing is clear, it is that the whole Parliament is united in—frankly, almost nauseating—tribute to Liam McArthur. However, the tribute is deserved. On a very personal level, and thinking back to our most recent conversation about the bill, I just wish that disagreeing with people was always so agreeable. That is a genuine personal tribute. This is a bill that I have found difficult; indeed, I was opposed to the previous legislation that came before the Parliament. However, when I examined the matter from first principles and asked myself whether I would want to exercise this option if I were terminally ill, I concluded that I would. Should people have an option, and would they have autonomy? I think so. However, I do not believe that people make decisions in isolation.”
“Please think of me as you cast your vote.” Presiding Officer, I urge members to listen to Lisa and the many, many like her who desperately need us to give dying Scots more choice, more dignity and more compassion. I move, That the Parliament agrees that the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill be passed. 18:36”
“I can legally choose to hasten my death by voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, literally starving myself to death. Doctors can already administer doses of morphine and other palliative medicines that would hasten my death as long as their motive is to alleviate my pain. Legalising assisted dying would not change my relationship to my doctor—it would allow me to be open and honest about what I want and ensure I wouldn't be forced to suffer against my wishes. I fight every day to live a little longer. But every day I have, contains fear over how I will die. If I knew I had the choice of an assisted death at the end, I could live the rest of my life without that fear.”
“To help with that, I will conclude with the words of Lisa Fleming, who visited Parliament recently to share her experience of living with secondary breast cancer for the past nine years. Lisa explains: “Sadly, choosing not to support this Bill is a vote for continuing the well-established risks and dangers present in the status quo. As with many things there is a cost of inaction. In this instance, the price of MSPs’ uncertainty would be mine to pay. Voting down this Bill is not risk free. The consequences are not hypothetical. They are lived every day. To the concern this would lead to an enormous change in healthcare, I disagree. I can already choose to refuse treatment whenever I wish, even if that treatment would save my life.”
“The change in the law on assisted dying meant we can now deliver a fuller range of choices to dying people in a more transparent and regulated manner. The integration of voluntary assisted dying into our existing health system has meant that end-of-life care is now safer and fairer than ever before.” I do not underestimate how difficult a decision this is for colleagues, even for some who are very clear about how they are going to vote and why. However, we must recognise that not passing the bill would have consequences. The issue will not go away; indeed, the numbers affected will only rise. All that we will do by putting off changing the law is push decisions overseas and behind closed doors. As I did at stage 1, I urge MSPs to have the voices of dying Scots at the front of their minds when they come to vote.”
“In her letter, Dr Bendrups writes: “It’s been notable that the arguments being made against a change in the law are in fact the same arguments that were made over many years in Australia and New Zealand. None of the fears raised have been realised in practice— eligibility criteria have not been expanded; proper assessments to confirm capacity and the absence of coercion have meant not all applicants are found eligible; and palliative care has flourished. Regular scrutiny and oversight show these laws are safe and are fulfilling their aims.” Addressing concerns about doctor-patient relationships, Dr Bendrups goes on to say: “As clinicians we know how helpless we can sometimes feel when palliative care has reached its limits and when our patients ask for help that we cannot offer.”
“However, what we are doing is not breaking new ground and we are not doing anything that legislators around the world have not already done. I accept that every assisted dying law is different and that each must be tailored to meet the circumstances of its own jurisdiction. However, I do not accept the assertion that, were the bill to be passed and the choice of assisted dying made available in Scotland to those who meet the strict criteria, it would operate at odds with what we see in states and countries that have similar models based on terminal illness and mental capacity. Dr Andrea Bendrups, the president of Voluntary Assisted Dying Australia and New Zealand, a body representing health professionals, wrote to MSPs last week. Many VADANZ members have trained, or worked in, the UK, so our debate is being watched closely there.”
“Neil Gray is the MSP I have known longest, a good friend and someone I respect enormously. It has not been easy for him to navigate the path that he has taken on the bill, given the differing views around the Cabinet table and across Government, but he has discharged those responsibilities unwaveringly. I hope that he will now feel able to vote—like every other member in the chamber—according to his conscience. To expect him to do otherwise would be unfair, unreasonable and unjust. I said earlier that this is a significant moment for this Parliament—probably the most significant. I know how conflicted many colleagues feel and know that some may even still be unsure about how they are going to vote later.”
“In a sense, I agree with what Liam McArthur says about section 104 orders coming back to Parliament. However, does he agree that much of the detail about how the bill will work in practice will rest in the guidance and that Parliament is being given a yes or no option when many here might want to be able to scrutinise that detail? Liam McArthur: I understand Daniel Johnson’s point. I worked closely with the British Medical Association on the amendments that I lodged after stage 1 to provide reassurance on the section 104 order. On the point about guidance, any guidance or secondary legislation will have to be taken forward in consultation with the sector, which I fully expect will happen. Parliament should have confidence in that process. I pay personal tribute to the cabinet secretary and wish him a speedy recovery.”
“Without that analysis, we cannot be confident that the policy will not have unintended consequences. The housing market is complex, but it is also one of the most heavily analysed sectors in the country, and the Government regularly draws on such analysis in other areas of housing policy. That is why Mark Griffin’s amendments link these assessments directly to the housing emergency and the all- tenure housing target. Their purpose is simple: to ensure that measures to fund remediation do not inadvertently undermine the delivery of new homes at a time when Scotland urgently needs them. I urge all members to support all the amendments in this group. I move amendment 11. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Mark Griffin to speak to amendment 16 and other amendments in the group.”
“I hope that members will see fit to support what I think is an eminently sensible amendment, based on the work of the Finance and Public Administration Committee. I also support Mark Griffin’s amendments, which would require the Government to assess and publish the likely impact of the levy on the housing emergency and on housing supply before it is implemented. Mark Griffin met the minister recently to discuss those amendments. The Government argues that such assessments would be too complex, given the fast-moving nature of the housing market. Although we appreciate the Government’s engagement, we do not accept the argument. If we are introducing a levy that may affect the delivery of new homes, we must understand its potential impact on housing supply during a housing emergency.”