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 3 of 14.
“In his intervention earlier, Patrick Harvie said that he did not believe that there was any evidence to support the basis of the housing industry’s interventions, so perhaps this will provide him with some data and evidence on which he can base his opinions. I will not repeat much of what I said in group 1 about the fragility of Scotland’s house-building market. It is well known to many of us and, indeed, to many of our constituents, and not least to the more than 10,000 children in temporary accommodation, without a home to call their own. At stage 2, the minister took exception to the language around “independent and competent expert” in a previous version of the amendment, which has been updated in my amendment 11 to allay his concerns.”
“Amendment 9 disagreed to. Section 6—Power to modify types of buildings which may be taxable Amendment 10 not moved. After section 8 The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 2 is on assessments and reporting. Amendment 11, in the name of Michael Marra, is grouped with amendments 14, 16, 17, 20 and 21. Michael Marra: My amendments in this group would require the Scottish Government to arrange for an independent sensitivity analysis to be conducted prior to the publication of indicative rates. That is in line with the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s recommendation in its stage 1 report, which followed extensive engagement with the house-building sector in Scotland. The sector is rightly concerned about what the levy could do to an already fragile market.”
“For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 49, Against 66, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 7 disagreed to. Amendment 8 not moved. Amendment 9 moved—[Liz Smith]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not refresh in time. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Johnson. I will make sure that that is recorded. For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 49, Against 67, Abstentions 0.”
“There might also be equalities considerations if specific guidance were put in place for those aged under 25, so having such guidance would need to be justifiable. I will give way to Pam Duncan-Glancy briefly, before I read out my last sentence.”
“On amendment 265, the Scottish Government notes that it is unusual to specify in primary legislation a role for the Lord Advocate in the preparation of guidance. The Scottish Government’s view is that amendment 266 might give rise to issues of legislative competence, in view of the G2 reservation, on regulation of the health professions, insofar as it touches on training provisions. On amendments 266, 268 and 269, I note that it is unusual for guidance to be laid before the Scottish Parliament. On amendment 274, I reiterate the comments that the Scottish Government raised at stage 2— namely, that it is possible that a chief medical officer could conscientiously object to providing guidance on the act. As such, it seems preferable for guidance on the issue to be prepared by the Scottish ministers rather than the chief medical officer.”
“On amendment 259, as I have noted before, there remains a lack of clarity around how any advocacy services would be funded or monitored in practice. The Scottish Government’s view on amendments 261 and 264, which would add provision on mandatory training and related matters into guidance, is that those may give rise to issues of legislative competence, in view of the G2 reservation in the Scotland Act 1998, which is on regulation of health professions. Amendment 263 would add to section 23 provision on guidance in relation to how assistance under the act is to be arranged by health boards. However, health boards have no existing functions in relation to provision of assisted dying services.”
“Neil Gray: Amendment 54 would add to the detail in section 23 to require the guidance to cover “identification and consideration of indirect pressures”. As I noted in my comments on group 4, professional guidance already supports clinicians to assess capacity and voluntariness. Embedding requirements in statute could increase the complexity and length of assessments, with potential implications for training, consistency of practice and practitioner confidence. It would also require any guidance to be carefully developed to avoid creating expectations that all forms of indirect pressure can be identified or mitigated in a uniform way. Amendment 56 is a necessary technical amendment to remove section 23(3A), given that it refers to a subsection that does not exist.”
“Liz Smith’s proposals are very sensible; indeed, I would say that they are the bare minimum that we require for Parliament to maintain oversight over what will be incredibly sensitive guidance. Jamie Greene made the relevant point that we cannot bind our successors, and we do not know what they will do. However, equally, no legislation is immutable. There is no telling what future Parliaments might do to the legislation. All that they need to do to undo any of the elements that we have considered is to find a simple majority. Notwithstanding that, we have to legislate in good faith and assume that our successors will make the right judgments, just as we are attempting to make the right judgments today. I urge members to support Liz Smith’s sensible and necessary amendments.”
“I will speak briefly in support of Liz Smith’s amendments in the group. At stage 2, I proposed amendments that would have created a commission—a cross-party body—to oversee the guidance. My reason for doing that is that I believe strongly that much of what we are talking about, including the fundamental issues, will boil down to matters of practice, professional procedure and the culture that will develop surrounding the legislation. Therefore, it is absolutely vital that the guidance that is developed is not treated like guidance in other areas on which we legislate. It should continue to have on-going parliamentary oversight so that Parliament can continue to monitor it and input into its development.”
“That is when the patient is at their most vulnerable. However, in my view, there are no circumstances in which assisted dying can be brought up by healthcare professionals. In answer to the first question, it concerns me that the British Medical Association is against my amendments and thinks that it should be left to healthcare professionals to decide whether to raise the subject.”
“Amendment 233 would remove the section that allows registered medical practitioners to initiate a discussion of assisted dying with a terminally ill patient. Amendment 234 clarifies that healthcare professionals may participate in discussions on assisted dying only when a terminally ill adult initiates that conversation. Kate Forbes: I am very sympathetic to Brian Whittle’s amendments. I have two questions. First, in conversations with medical professionals, what did he hear from them about the burden on them to determine when to offer assisted dying alongside other medical options? Secondly, does he have concerns about what an offer of assisted dying being given at the point of diagnosis, for example, when someone is feeling most vulnerable, would do to them? Brian Whittle: I will take the second question first.”
“The relationship between a doctor and a patient is unique and involves complete trust. It is my moral view that there is no situation in which a doctor should discuss assisted dying with a patient unless the patient has first brought it up as an option that they would like to consider. If we agree that the decision is the patient’s alone and that we want to avoid any coercion, however inadvertent, no one can introduce assisted dying into a conversation without the possibility of coercion, however unintended, becoming part of that. If we do not agree to my amendments 233 and 234, we are saying that it is okay for the healthcare profession to offer the option of palliative care and social care and then say that the person can also consider assisted dying. There are no circumstances in which that can be allowed.”
“Section 18A(1) would be amended to say that “No registered medical practitioner may raise the subject of the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act with a person” and section 18A(2) would go on to say that “nothing in subsection (1) would prevent a registered medical practitioner from discussing the matter with a person when the matter is raised by that person.” That would make it clear that this is about ensuring that the matter is discussed only when an individual chooses to raise it, that it is not proactively offered and that it does not become the norm or part of medical practice—it is by exception and requires clear intent from the patient. I move amendment 18. Brian Whittle: Daniel Johnson and I are in complete agreement on this issue.”
“At the start of stage 3 proceedings, I set out that the Parliament has a choice about whether it wants an expansive bill that permits certain acts, or a restrictive bill that puts in place safeguards and allows those acts to be taken only by exception. My amendments in this group are critical to that and follow on from similar amendments that were lodged at stage 2. Whether the matter of assisted dying is raised as a matter of course in dialogue with one’s doctor, or raised only when an individual brings it up first, is a critical issue. I note that the amendments in the names of Brian Whittle and Jeremy Balfour have similar intent and effect. Amendments 18 and 19 would make two simple, straightforward changes to section 18A.”
“Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees that the National Bus Travel Concession Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026 [draft] be approved.—[Graeme Dey] The Presiding Officer: I call Sue Webber. 22:19”
“The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-21037, on approval of an SSI. I ask the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion. Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees that the Council Tax (Variation for Unoccupied Dwellings) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.— [Graeme Dey] The Presiding Officer: The question on the motion will be put at decision time. The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-21038, on approval of an SSI. I ask the minister, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion.”
“I will end by saying that women and girls experience disproportionately high levels of harassment, abuse and threatening behaviour simply because they are women and girls. That behaviour is motivated by prejudice relating to our sex. I urge members to vote for the motion that the regulations be approved, to ensure that women and girls have legal protections through the existing hate crime framework. The Presiding Officer: You must conclude, cabinet secretary. Angela Constance: Of course. If Parliament agrees to the motion, that will mean that those legal protections are passed into law in this parliamentary session. Thank you for your indulgence, Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer: The question on the motion will be put at decision time.”
“Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Angela Constance: No, thank you—I am just about finished. [Interruption.] I took Ms Chapman’s intervention because the Green Party is not represented on the Criminal Justice Committee, whereas the Labour Party and the Conservative Party are. When I gave evidence to that committee, it explored all these matters in great detail, quite correctly and properly, and it unanimously recommended that the SSI be approved by the Parliament as a whole. Daniel Johnson: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Angela Constance: No, thank you. The Presiding Officer: I ask you to conclude, cabinet secretary. Angela Constance: I wish to make an important point about criminal law: provisions in criminal law need to be robust and unequivocal.”
“15:37 On resuming— The Deputy Presiding Officer: We will now proceed with the division on amendment 149. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed.”
“As Daniel Johnson rightly highlighted, we sometimes struggle to talk about what we want going forward, and the advance care directive is a means of discussing with healthcare professionals what someone wants in a certain eventuality. It is not legally binding, but it sets out what the patient wants, and that is of paramount importance when we are talking about assisted dying. It is not about what everybody else wants; it is about what the patient wants. I press amendment 149. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 149 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. As this is the first division today in the stage 3 amendment stage, I will suspend the meeting for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system. 15:31 Meeting suspended.”
“Does Brian Whittle agree that this is not just about the particular circumstances that we are debating today? It is a good idea for us all to discuss with our loved ones potential health matters that might arise further down the line and what care and treatment options we might want. It is my understanding that Brian Whittle is seeking to establish good practice, regardless of whether we are talking in the context of assisted dying or generally about healthcare contingencies that might be required later in our lives. Brian Whittle: I absolutely agree with that. There is nothing contentious about offering an advance care directive in such situations.”
“That is why, in amendment 1, I seek to provide expanded definitions that would provide greater clarity. However, over and above that, I believe that simply having a terminal and progressive condition that is likely to shorten someone’s life is not a sufficient condition for the possibility of an assisted death to be extended to them. In addition, they must be approaching the end of their life—I will deal with that in the next grouping, which is on being within six months of death—and the condition that they find themselves in must be intolerable, without the possibility of improvement.”
“Do we want it to be simply about enabling an act—making the act of assisted dying as straightforward as possible, which is an absolutely valid view—or do we want it to provide a dispensation in very particular and precise circumstances? 14:30 At stage 2, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee undertook its work diligently, but its view of the bill seemed to be that it was much more about the former rather than the latter. As someone who voted for the bill at stage 1 because I believed in the principle, I am very much of the view that, if we are to progress, we must progress with caution, which is why we need clarification, particularly around what is meant by “terminal” and “progressive”. In my view, as the bill stands, it is open to interpretation.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is with a great deal of trepidation that I rise to speak to and move the first amendment. I begin by paying tribute to Liam McArthur for the way in which he has stewarded the bill through the Parliament. It is not an easy topic, but it is one that everyone in the chamber has considered with a great deal of care. That is why I have lodged amendments 136 and 1 on the definition of “terminal illness”, with a view to tightening the definitions, improving the clarity of their scope and providing clarification. The provisions that are proposed by amendments 136 and 1 are very much in addition to the existing provisions on the definition, rather than being alternatives to them, because I believe that the Parliament has a choice about the kind of bill that it wants Liam McArthur’s bill to be.”
“Finally, I would like to highlight that we need to look very carefully at the per-person, per-night approach, because it might well fall foul of the efficiency and practicality reasons for supporting the bill, and I ask whether that might not add its own complexity to passing the legislation. 15:46”
“I think that the point about third-party charging is right, and a flat fee will definitely be easier to levy and collect. I also want to reflect on a couple of other points. Alasdair Allan is absolutely right to raise the prevalence of cruise ships and camper vans, which are a big issue for many parts of the country. However, above all else, I agree with a great deal of what Willie Rennie said, which needs to be heeded. We cannot have people trying to add lots of bells and whistles to this process. Let us do a serious job and pass the bit of legislation that we are being asked to.”
“Likewise, Murdo Fraser, who is not in the chamber right now, was right to reflect that we are a relatively high-cost destination. Without wishing to get into too much economic theory, I would also ask whether the visitor accommodation sector in this country is a price setter or a price taker. We kid ourselves that people will come here if we charge whatever we like. There will be a point at the margins where a particular tourist or visitor will choose not to come here and to go somewhere else instead, and we need to bear that in mind. We should reflect on the fact that the levy reflects a more fundamental dysfunction in that economic growth and success in an area does not feed through to local councils. I approve of the variation powers—it is important that the Government can be flexible.”
“Does he agree that a bit of post-legislative scrutiny is a good thing? We have not done much of it in this session of Parliament. Would Mr Johnson agree that this could be the fastest example on record of post-legislative scrutiny, because the Government got it so wrong the first time around? Daniel Johnson: I agree with that, but I will leave it to members to decide whether that is in a good way or a bad way. Above all, it is worth remembering a couple of fundamental points. First, when the original bill was going through Parliament, a lot of members highlighted the fact that a tourist levy happens in other countries. We have to remember that VAT will be charged on top of the levy. In many of those other jurisdictions, either VAT has been reduced or no VAT is charged on accommodation. We need to remember the context.”
“Indeed, when the minister proposed introducing the bill, I said to him that I would welcome it, but that I would also have to say, “I told you so.” On the principle of taxation, the policy memorandum talks about efficiency. The problem with a percentage-based model is that it is inherently more complicated, both for those on whom it is levied and for those who seek to collect it. We have only to look at VAT to see an example of that. As anyone who has ever had to fill out a VAT return will know, doing so is inherently complicated. The minister might know that from direct experience, as do I. Stephen Kerr: Daniel Johnson is quite right to say things like, “I told you so,” although we need to consider Labour’s record in response to the progress of the bill through Parliament.”
“I, too, welcome the bill and, indeed, the dialogue that the Government has had with stakeholders and members across the chamber, because there was a real issue with the previous legislation. I will continue my glass-half-full approach for a moment or two. It is a good thing for Parliament to consider legislation that is short and focused and has an explicit purpose. I am glad that Parliament does not consider that bills should always be lengthy. Sometimes, a focused bill is the right solution. That said, the Government needs to think carefully about how it arrived at this position, because the issues were flagged previously.”
“There are lessons to be learned from everyone’s point of view. However, it is testament to the processes that we have that, where such things occur and where there is consensus—across stakeholders and members in the chamber—that things need to change, we are able to bring forward the changes that are required expeditiously.”
“The minister is right to say that the bill is about responding to need and that it affords additional possibilities. However, he has not acknowledged the fundamental point that the bill is intended to amend another piece of legislation that was recently passed. What reflections does the Government have about how it constructs such measures before it legislates? Could consideration be given to that? I am trying to raise that in as diplomatic a way as I can. Ivan McKee: That is a very fair point. The Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee asked why more of those issues were not picked up at stage 2 of the previous bill, and, in my engagement with the sector, I asked that question. The sector reflected and said that parts of it did not fully understand the implications for them of some of the proposed measures.”
“In this case, a significant step in process had taken place, because an independent prosecutor had decided that the indictment should be served. Therefore, in order to protect the process and the integrity of the proceedings, the information of the significant development was notified to the First Minister in the terms that are set out in the minute. It was reminding the Government to restrict commentary on what was a highly sensitive case. We know that because that is why we are here today. It is a highly sensitive case that requires to be prosecuted independently and fairly, and I am seeking to ensure that that is exactly what is delivered in such an important case.”
“The Lord Advocate: I have explained today that I can provide those details, and I will do so in writing after this evening. I do not have that information today. Because of the fundamental importance of protecting on-going live proceedings, it is critical for consideration to be applied appropriately to the information and, thereafter, for the information to be shared. I have not said that I am unable to provide the information or that I am refusing to provide it. I am simply saying that, at this stage, standing here, I cannot give a full answer, but I will provide it in writing afterwards. The member also asked how I characterise a significant development in a case. I characterise that as one that relates to a significant step in process.”
“What is in no doubt is the importance of the separation of legal proceedings from the Government and politics. The importance of the independence of the Lord Advocate’s position is certainly clear. However, the Lord Advocate, if she was intimating the details on the basis that they were, in her words, “significant”, needs to explain how she defines that significance. That is critical to why it was relevant for the First Minister to know that information. If this is a routine process that happens as a matter of course, the Lord Advocate appears, from her answers so far, to be indicating that she is unable to provide information on how many times it has occurred. Is that the case? Most critically, will she at least say when the last occasion was that she intimated the details of an indictment on a similar basis?”
“I move amendment S6M-20820.2, to insert at end: “welcomes the convening of a joint taskforce between Fife Council, the UK Government and Scottish Government, trade unions, Fife College, Fife businesses and local community organisations to support the workforce and the wider area, and further welcomes the commitment that workers will be guaranteed interviews at the UK Government-backed Grangemouth cracker; recognises that the taskforce is working on a plan for the site, and considers that this should inform any funding and economic support provided.” 16:23”
“Indeed, other firms are closing ethylene plants in other parts of Europe, including in Germany and Belgium. The global context is that there is overproduction and a correction is taking place. I say to the Conservatives that, frankly, making accusations that this is a left-wing conspiracy does not engage with the issue seriously. At the end of the day, the UK continental shelf is a mature basin. The majority of the extractable resource has been extracted. If we are going to talk seriously, we need to acknowledge that fact, because transition would be a necessity whether net zero was a thing or not. To bandy about reckless language such as that does a disservice to the issue and discredits Conservative members.”
“I have to say that it is a source of frustration to hear the dialogue that Mark Ruskell had with ExxonMobil prior to that. Essentially, people were being told that everything was fine, but that was the point at which dialogue should have commenced. That is deeply frustrating, which is why I intervened. The UK Government has engaged the Department for Work and Pensions rapid response team to support the workforce and, as acknowledged by the Deputy First Minister, it has guaranteed that workers will get interviews at the UK Government-backed hydrocracker at Grangemouth. Those are important practical steps. We need to recognise the global context in which this is happening. ExxonMobil is closing ethylene plants in France; that cannot be laid at the door of UK policy.”
“Between 15 per cent and a third—I have heard that it can be up to 45 per cent—of a barrel of oil can be used for non- energy purposes, and we need a plan for that. We must take seriously the decision in November 2025 and the closure in February 2026. A task force has been established, which is to be welcomed. It is important that the task force is convened by Fife Council and supported by Fife College. They must sit at its heart, because those organisations have the people on the ground who will deliver the solutions for the workforce. That should be acknowledged. I want to put on the record what the UK Government has done to date. It engaged with ExxonMobil for more than six months prior to the announcement. It discussed in detail the possibility of plans, but no practical plan was forthcoming.”
“Mark Ruskell was absolutely right to express his frustration that this is being framed as a just transition. We cannot continue to adopt a position in which we discover the need to make a just transition after the event—after decisions are made, after disinvestment happens and after jobs are at risk. We must ensure that we have detailed and practical plans ahead of time. The other point is to do with the nature of Mossmorran. The just transition is not just about the energy sector per se. When we are talking about transition, we must recognise that hydrocarbons have significance beyond energy use. For example, ethylene production here is used for a broad range of products, including dyes, plastics and pharmaceuticals. We must have a plan for how to transition the sector as a whole, including those industrial uses.”
“I will come to Alexander Stewart’s scripted put- downs and confected ire in a moment, but first I congratulate Mark Ruskell on bringing this important debate to the chamber. The title of the motion is right—this is about a just transition for Mossmorran—but there are multiple layers to what we need to discuss today. First and foremost, we need to ensure that there is a just transition for the 400 workers who are impacted by the decision. We must be in the mode of looking at all the practical solutions, so I welcome what the Scottish Government has brought forward. I am not in the business today of saying that what the UK Government has done is a full stop and finite; I am absolutely up for discussing what further steps can be taken and for making those representations. However, we need to go further.”
“Now that ExxonMobil has pulled the plug, it is time for both Governments to step up, work together, open up funding streams and build confidence for workers and communities now that Fife has a strong future. I move, That the Parliament agrees that the UK Government and Scottish Government must urgently deliver targeted just transition funding for workers and communities following the early closure of the ExxonMobil Fife Ethylene Plant at Mossmorran. 16:08”
“I also want to mention the elephant in the room—Shell—whose neighbouring plant was linked to the ethylene plant, providing much of its feedstock. The boat was missed to put in place a just transition plan for the ethylene plant and the natural gas liquids plant, but it is not too late to consider how Shell’s plant could survive into the future with investment to decarbonise. Given the increasing vulnerability of the Acorn carbon capture and storage project, with Mossmorran and the Grangemouth refinery now out of the Acorn business plan, the Scottish Government needs to lead a conversation urgently if it still believes that CCS has a future. The Scottish Greens have worked with the unions and communities for years to address the problems at Mossmorran and to map out what a future for the site looks like.”
“The Ore Valley Housing Association’s wind turbine delivers big investment for social housing and local charities. Options for genuine community wealth building must be built into the master plan for the site; the days of accepting crumbs off the table have passed. The skills legacy must also be real. Fife’s industrial future looks bright. The ingredients are all there, from Rosyth to Methil. There needs to be an industrial strategy for Fife that links opportunities from schools right through to colleges, apprenticeships and universities. A training excellence centre could form part of that legacy. It is time for ExxonMobil to step up, with the UK Government and the Scottish Government, and work with the colleges, unions and Fife Council to deliver that.”
“Sleep was impossible at times, houses shook with vibration and community councils even campaigned for rates reduction as compensation in the 1980s. It is therefore right that the community should shape the legacy alongside the generations of workers who served at the site. The legacy should be a complete reset for the Mossmorran site and an opportunity for the communities to help to choose their own future. With an excellent grid connection and water supply, Mossmorran could have a fresh industrial future. The Grangemouth task force drew up dozens of potential industrial projects, some of which might be more suitable for Mossmorran, but communities need to be able to steer their future. Simply replacing ExxonMobil with A N Other could miss the opportunity for community investment. We have seen the power of local community enterprise.”
“There has been ample time to come forward with an initial package. A first step is needed—not a cap on the UK Government’s funding but a contribution to what is needed right now in communities. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been invested into Grangemouth by the UK Government. The workers and communities at Mossmorran deserve a similar commitment. As a minimum, the UK Government needs to step up and at least match the £9 million that has been committed by the Scottish Government at this very early stage. The ExxonMobil site has closed and no targeted funding for a just transition is available or in place. The cycle of too little, too late must stop. A proper legacy must be built now. Over the decades, the community has made huge sacrifices. The disruption caused by flaring caused misery for decades.”
“The £9 million, three-year funding package that has been promised by the Scottish Government is warmly welcomed, but it is not enough to support a proper just transition. A commitment from ExxonMobil is needed to deliver a real legacy. Funding from the United Kingdom Government is also needed, and that funding needs to hit the ground running. I will listen carefully to the Deputy First Minister’s speech for detail about when the funding streams will be open, what conditions she will place on funding recipients and how that money will directly support individual workers and the wider communities. Although the Prime Minister stated that workers at the Fife plant were going through a hard time, we still do not have any targeted funding package from the UK Minister for Industry, Chris McDonald.”
“Responses to freedom of information requests revealed that the Scottish Government has not undertaken any work to develop a just transition plan for Mossmorran, despite committing to delivering that work in April 2024. Although the UK Government was in touch with ExxonMobil from April last year about threats to the site, nothing was ready for delivery when the site finally closed. Over past years, in the absence of a site-specific plan, I have commissioned research. I have held summits with Unite the Union, the GMB, Fife Council, the Scottish Government, Fife College and others to plan for the future. Both plant operators declined to attend. Only after the closure announcement were formal, Government-led task forces hurriedly convened.”