Ivan McKee
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“We understand that the SPSO assesses complaints to identify how they should be prioritised. The SPSO prioritises cases where a complainant is vulnerable or the matter is assessed as urgent and ongoing. The SPSO keeps people who are affected by delays informed. In 2024-25, the SPSO reduced the number of open cases by 15 per cent.”
“As part of our programme of public service reform, we are embedding openness, transparency and accountability into how services are designed, delivered and improved. Our next open Government action plan will set out an anti-corruption strategy and plans for improving public participation in decision making.”
“Will he agree to meet me and other members from across the chamber to discuss how we might work together to provide legal support for the Nolan principle of integrity in public life? Ivan McKee: I am very happy to meet the member to discuss that further. Such issues are hugely important to the Government.”
“How bad does the situation have to get before a full investigation is made? Ivan McKee: That would be a matter for the Parliament, not the Government. As an organisation, the ombudsman rightly sits separate from the Government.”
“More than £300 million has been saved through more efficient procurement in the past two years and we are projecting savings of more than £50 million through the rationalisation of estates—13 core Scottish Government buildings have been closed in the past three years and there are more to follow.”
“I am delighted to open this afternoon’s debate on public service reform, which I believe will be the defining task of this session of Parliament.”
The complete record
Every one of 658 lines we hold for Ivan McKee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 14.
“Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank the Finance and Public Administration Committee for its scrutiny of the bill and I welcome the evidence and insights that were provided by the Scottish Property Federation, Homes for Scotland and developers, both before and after the introduction of the bill. The committee’s stage 1 report made no recommendation on the bill. It recognised the need for further funding, while raising concerns about the potential for the levy to depress house-building figures and requiring a balance between revenue generation and impacts. To put that need for balance in context, it is helpful to set out the scale of the work that we are undertaking.”
“I hope that Liz Smith will support that commitment, and I ask her not to move amendments 9 and 18.”
“To that end, I intend to support amendment 15 as a vehicle to deliver that aim. Liz Smith’s amendments 9 and 18 seek to introduce an exemption for heritage buildings. As I set out when the amendments were lodged at stage 2, I am sympathetic to the aim of protecting conversions, but the Government is unable to support the amendments as drafted. However, I am happy to set out to Parliament my intention to consider a broader relief for conversions using the regulation-making powers in section 11. That will be in addition to the minimum 50 per cent brownfield relief that we have included in the bill. The Government will consult stakeholders on the scope and definition of relief for brownfield sites and conversions as a whole—not just listed buildings—before bringing regulations to Parliament in the next session.”
“The Government will therefore work with industry to consider the scope of any payment flexibilities and with Revenue Scotland to ensure that any increased risk to revenue can be managed with appropriate safeguards. Amendments 8 and 10 seek to introduce an exemption for property that is sold to first-time buyers, while amendment 15 seeks to deliver a similar effect via a relief for first-time buyers. As I set out at stage 2, those provisions would be complex to administer. There are also concerns about the drafting of amendments 8 and 10, and I was glad to hear that Michelle Thomson will not move them. However, following on from the engagement with her, the Government will work with partners to consider and test a mechanism for providing relief to first-time buyers.”
“That gives developers nearly two years’ advance certainty about their levy liabilities. My view is that that provides sufficient notice for them to plan their affairs accordingly. I have, however, received representations from the Scottish Property Federation that some of the flexibilities that we have built into the design of the tax will not affect developers of built-to-rent and purpose-built student accommodation in the same way that they will affect other parts of the tax base. Although I was unable to support Michelle Thomson’s amendments at stage 2 to put in place permanent payment flexibilities for those developer types, I am prepared to consider what payment flexibilities can be put in place during the first few years of the levy.”
“I thank members for their engagement with and scrutiny of the bill so far; in particular, I thank those members who met me in advance to discuss their proposed amendments. I hope that, as we did at stage 2, we will be able to continue to engage constructively today. On group 1, I invite all members to support my technical amendment 5, which seeks to update provisions relating to the regulation-making powers on reliefs to reflect the position that was agreed at stage 2. Amendments 6 and 7 seek to delay implementation of the levy. As was the case when the amendments were lodged at stage 2, the Government cannot support them. I have already delayed commencement of the levy to April 2028, and I have committed to publishing indicative rates in June this year.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it the case that if it is not moved, it is not moved, regardless of how it is not moved? The Presiding Officer: That is very helpful. [Laughter.] However, it would be good if we could hear Mr Johnson, so let us bear with him for a moment, because I would like to be entirely clear. 14:45”
“Stuart McMillan: Sadly, I have been on the losing side of the two referendums that I campaigned in, but the concept of referendums is important. They are a valuable tool for democracy. Just because there is no long history of having them across these islands does not mean that they are a bad thing. They are a valuable tool. I look at different jurisdictions across the world that use them more regularly, whether it be the Republic of Ireland, states of the US or Switzerland, to name just three examples. The concept of utilising referendums gives the public a positive opportunity to engage on particular issues.”
“We have discussed a range of amendments. We are on day 3 and we are back in again tomorrow. Some amendments have strengthened the bill, while it could be argued that other amendments have weakened elements of it—I am thinking back to amendment 94, which was discussed earlier. Whatever stage we get to next Tuesday, if the Parliament votes to accept and pass the legislation, it will still be incomplete because of the section 104 order process. Brian Whittle: I have been involved in two referenda and neither of the two of them resolved the matter at all. There is still considerable consternation from the losing sides, and they tend to move. I wonder whether that is really the best way to resolve such an issue.”
“Alasdair Allan: I appreciate the frustration that Stuart McMillan has expressed, which is felt by people from various parties, about the situation relating to the section 104 order. He mentioned that this is a contentious issue, but does he accept that the Scottish Parliament deals with all sorts of contentious issues and that, in a representative democracy, it is normal for people’s elected representatives to sort them out, unless it is a rule- changing constitutional issue? 20:30 Stuart McMillan: Certainly. As we know, there is no written constitution across these islands. I would gently push back to Dr Allan that the constitution that applies in these islands is not really worth the paper that it is not written on. What I am proposing is to allow the public to have their say. Let the public decide.”
“Putting total trust in the UK Government is a pretty hard ask for a nationalist, so I understand the sentiment that underpins the amendment, although I disagree with the proposal on a referendum. Does he, as a fellow nationalist, appreciate where I am coming from? Stuart McMillan: I absolutely do. I understand that sentiment. I tried to keep the constitutional element out of my proposal. I wanted to focus on the section 104 order process, because constituents, irrespective of their constitutional view—there are those who have the same view as the Deputy First Minister and me on this Parliament, and there are those who have a different view—have been in touch with me to ask for a say on the final bill, if it is passed next week, following the section 104 order process.”
“However, this issue is of fundamental importance in the eyes of the many people in my constituency who have been in touch with me and of many folk across the country. This is a very contentious issue—there are people who support the proposal, and there are people who are very much against it. Kate Forbes: On Stuart McMillan’s point, there are, of course, differences of opinion in the chamber on the core bill, but we all agree that it should be scrutinised and made in Scotland. Although I am afraid to say that I do not support amendment 112, which would provide for a referendum on assisted dying, I am struck by the member’s argument that a section 104 order, in essence, allows for no scrutiny at all by any of us here on the employment rights of our doctors and nurses.”
“Ultimately, amendment 112 would allow the Scottish electorate to have their say on what would be complete legislation once the section 104 order process had been concluded. That would mean that the public knew exactly what the bill entailed. People would be able to scrutinise all aspects of the bill, and they would know what every aspect of it involved. Jamie Hepburn: I have no problem with the notion of putting things to the people per se, but I wonder what the practical effect of amendment 112 would be. The amendment says that there would be a referendum, but it does not specify what would happen, depending on the outcome of it. Stuart McMillan: The amendment is about the general aspect of having a referendum. I absolutely appreciate and accept that, afterwards, further dialogue and discussion would be needed.”
“Crucially, if the bill were to be passed next week, it would be incomplete, because the section 104 order process would still have to be undertaken. As such, we would be asking the UK Government to act on the wishes of the Scottish Parliament, and we cannot guarantee that those wishes would be delivered accordingly. Given the subject matter and Liam McArthur’s engagement with members across the chamber, I believe that the UK Government would deliver something in accordance with the wishes and views of the Scottish Parliament—I genuinely believe that it would try to honour the will of this Parliament. However, we would be basing that on trust. We would give the UK Government the power to undertake the work on the section 104 order, and we would have no role thereafter.”
“Amendment 240 agreed to. Amendments 48 and 241 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to. After section 20A The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 15 is on referendum and reviews of act. Amendment 112, in the name of Stuart McMillan, is grouped with amendments 251 to 255, 117 to 119, 297 to 299, 313 and 314. Stuart McMillan: I will focus my comments on amendment 112, because it is distinct from the other amendments in the group. Amendment 112 would provide for a referendum on the bill to be held no later than 7 November 2028. I chose that date to allow the section 104 order process to be completed, which ordinarily can take up to 18 months, although, as we now know, that would not be the case for this bill.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. For 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) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Abstentions Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 110, Against 9, Abstentions 3.”
“That said, I will not detain members for much longer—there is no need to add anything substantial to my original comments. I am struck by the fact that, while some of the amendments are technical and enjoy the support of the cabinet secretary, some are about operational and delivery issues. It worries me that we have not alighted on a clear model of delivery. It is clear that, if the bill passes, there is more work to do on that. If it is to be successful, good law requires thought from those legislating to consider implementation and delivery. It would have been helpful to do more work in that regard and I am sure that, if the bill passes, more will be done. I press amendment 240. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 240 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.”
“On amendment 292, I note that setting up an assisted dying registrar would have financial implications, although the amendment provides that those could be lessened by nominating an existing body to carry out the functions. The only comment that I can make on Miles Briggs’s amendment 293 is that the establishment and running of a review panel, as provided for by the amendment, would be likely to have major financial implications. I have no comment to make about the timescales. For the remaining amendments in the group, the Scottish Government has no comment other than technical points to be found in its commentary. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Jackie Baillie to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 240. Jackie Baillie: For the record, I would never, ever describe Daniel Johnson as “silly”.”
“I hope that the Parliament will support the more flexible approach that is set out in my amendments. Neil Gray: Amendment 48 is a necessary technical amendment—I think that that is two in a row that Jackie Baillie and I are agreeing on— which assists Jackie Baillie to correct the name of the Care Inspectorate in section 20A. On amendment 250, setting up individual specialist services in each health board area would have major financial implications and, given the small numbers of people who are expected to request an assisted death, particularly in the early years of implementation, it seems likely that many of those local services would receive no, or very few, requests.”
“What does the member think that the bill can do to ensure that that is improved? I do not think that section 27, which proposes a review after five years, offers a strong enough process. The minister may touch on that in his remarks—he is shaking his head, so maybe not. It is important for medical professionals so that they would have confidence that reviews would take place and so that the learning can be taken forward. Liam McArthur: That is a valid point to make and concern to raise. Review and peer support for the medical professionals that would be involved in this will be important for overall governance. I would anticipate that being taken forward— probably by the professional bodies themselves— subsequent to the act being put in place. Certainly, that is the model that applies in other jurisdictions.”
“He anticipated what I was going to say about the evidence that the Crown Office gave to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, which pointed to the Scottish fatalities investigation unit’s responsibilities in that area. I observe the Scottish Government’s view at stage 2 that the proposed review panel would play a similar role as that provided for in section 27 of the bill. On that basis, I cannot support amendment 293. Like Jackie Baillie, I thank all members for offering the Parliament a suite of options on which to reflect and vote. Miles Briggs: It feels as though there is a gap for medical professionals who would undertake this work in different parts of the country, in terms of understanding how learning and reviews will be implemented across Scotland.”
“There would be an option for parliamentary oversight through the subsequent approval of the regulations, and parliamentary oversight would be provided on the back of the work that would be carried out by ministers in consultation with the sector. I will not reflect on Daniel Johnson’s amendments and will draw a diplomatic veil over them. I turn to Miles Briggs’s amendment 293, which proposes that an assisted dying review panel be set up. As I said at stage 2, I understand the rationale—which he set out very clearly—but I am concerned that such a panel would duplicate existing rules and processes, which involve detailed reporting requirements throughout, not simply for a five‑year review, but for on-going annual reviews.”
“Pam Duncan-Glancy: I hope that I am not testing Liam McArthur’s or other members’ patience by intervening. The member would probably agree with me that, given some of the changes that might be necessary to create an assisted dying service within the NHS, his amendment 74 has the potential to make significant structural changes to the NHS—in its functions, its estate and in a number of other areas. Would a parliamentary process be attached to those regulations? Does the member think that enough scrutiny would be applied to what is being proposed? Liam McArthur: Pam Duncan-Glancy makes a fair point. That is why it needs to be done sensitively and in consultation with those who would be directly affected.”
“The member said that the service would be provided for patients within the NHS, but I am conscious that, once some patients access palliative care services or a hospice, they may no longer be funded through the NHS. Has the member given any consideration as to how that might affect those who are administering assisted dying for a patient or those who may not want to take part in the process? Liam McArthur: The point that Clare Adamson makes highlights the need to ensure that the service is taken forward in consultation with the sector. It speaks to the points that I made earlier in response to Ross Greer’s question. Helpfully, Jackie Baillie’s amendments at stage 2 set out standards and parameters for the delivery by the public sector. The set of amendments that I am proposing in this group would provide flexibility.”
“As section 20A stands, that would be something that regulations may include. I think that the provision as it stands is more pragmatic and provides flexibility for ministers, but I have no objections to Ms Baillie’s amendments in that regard. Fulton MacGregor’s amendments 250 and 309, which would establish local services, would enable equitable access to dying people who wish to choose the end-of-life option. A similar system operates in some Australian states. However, as I said at stage 2, it should be for the sector to determine how to manage the assisted dying process within the parameters of the bill. Therefore, my sense is that it would be for the sector to determine whether each health board should or should be free to set up a specialist service. 20:15 Clare Adamson: I seek clarification.”
“I believe that my amendments in the group are the best route to ensuring that legally assisted dying can be safely, securely and appropriately delivered through existing NHS services. I support Jackie Baillie’s amendment 48, which would ensure that the correct term, “Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland”, is used in section 20A. I also support her amendments 66 and 69, which would provide that regulations under section 20A(1) are subject to the negative procedure—except for the first regulations made under that section, which would be subject to the affirmative procedure. That would correct an omission that was made after stage 2. Ms Baillie’s amendments 240 and 241 would adjust section 20A to require ministers to specify in regulations “any settings or services where assistance must not be provided” outwith the NHS.”
“That would help to address the issues that Fulton MacGregor aims to address with his amendments—which I will come on to in a second—particularly access issues, which he rightly indicates can be problematic in more rural and island areas. The model that he describes exists in places such as Queensland and reflects the rurality of such places. That option needs to remain available, but it is not the only option. As I said, the approach that I am seeking to take here is to allow the Scottish ministers, along with the sector and other relevant stakeholders, to develop that structure. Amendment 74 would create a consultation requirement to ensure that stakeholder views inform regulations that are made under the provision. The affirmative procedure would apply, giving the Scottish Parliament the final say on implementation.”
“That has been reflected in some of the changes that I have made to the bill since its introduction. I have also recognised that the service will look different in my part of the world compared with the part of the world that Pam Duncan-Glancy represents. That reflects the delivery of health and care as things stand, and I think that it is the only way of making this work. As I will come on to explain, part of the purpose of my amendments in this group is to give the Scottish ministers the power, by way of regulations and following consultation with the sector and with individual health boards, where appropriate, to set out how they envisage the delivery of the service.”
“However, for the sake of completeness, and in recognition of the breadth of health legislation and the need for the Government to put in place a comprehensive system that addresses all aspects of the delivery of the service, I consider that amendment 74 and the consequential amendments to it are necessary to allow for that flexible approach. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I have read the detail of amendment 74 and listened carefully to what Liam McArthur has just said. Is his vision or understanding that parts of the NHS would sit side by side, so that, for example, something that is already part of an NHS estate could be remodelled to include an assisted dying service? Is that the sort of thing that he thinks could be done through the regulations? Liam McArthur: I have said from the outset that I envisage assisted dying to be an opt-in service.”
“I am wondering what it is that is lacking in section 31, which gives the Government ancillary provision powers, and, indeed, in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, which underpins a lot of this. Both of those already give Government pretty broad powers in this area. What is the member envisaging that may be necessary that would not be covered, particularly by the section 31 powers in the bill? I am sure that he is coming at the issue from a position of good faith and I am minded to support him, but I have an instinctive concern about any provision of more Henry VIII powers to any Government. Liam McArthur: In a general sense, I share the concerns that Ross Greer has identified. He is right that the provisions in section 31 already accommodate quite a bit of what I have set out.”
“The power that amendment 74 would provide to the Scottish ministers is, by necessity, a wide one, given the need for flexibility due to the complexities of Scottish health legislation, while still being tailored to the purpose that I have already mentioned. In other words, it would enable modification across the range of existing health legislation to allow for the necessary changes to be made to integrate assisted dying services with the existing services that are provided under the NHS. Ross Greer: I have an instinctive hesitation about providing the Government with more Henry VIII powers, so I wonder whether the member can help me out.”
“Its purpose is to give the Scottish ministers appropriate powers to ensure that the process for lawful assistance to end life as set out in the bill’s provisions can be integrated into existing NHS services and existing legislation regulating the provision of health and medical services can be modified as necessary to integrate lawful assisted dying. The amendment is intended to operate in tandem with section 20A of the bill—inserted by Jackie Baillie at stage 2—which helpfully deals with the provision of assistance outwith the NHS. Section 74(1) would allow arrangements to be made “for the provision of an assisted dying service” made lawful through the bill. Amendment 73 would ensure that the definition of “assisted dying service” is closely tied to the provision of assistance under the bill.”
“It would also enable our medical professionals to come together to review and discuss cases and make sure that everything that we have discussed, after sitting for a number of days now, is being looked at properly, that best practice is being provided and that we are learning as the bill is taken forward. If we do not have the opportunity to put in place the panel, as I said, we will not have all that, so I urge MSPs to vote for my amendment 293. Liam McArthur: I offer a word of consolation to Daniel Johnson, if I may—you have not really cut your parliamentary teeth until you have had to stand up and speak against your own amendment because you have only belatedly realised that it would do the exact opposite of what you had intended it to do. I will speak first to my own amendments. Amendment 74 would insert a new provision into the bill.”
“My understanding is that the review under section 27 would take place only every five years—it is not a panel to look at reviewing the detail of any death that does occur— so I do not think that the two provisions are comparable. To try to answer the question, the establishment of the panel under my amendment would also then be reportable to the chief medical officer, which is where the Government would have a role in ensuring that that information is made available to ministers and to the wider public. To conclude, I hope that the need for the establishment of the panel is clear. It is important, if the bill proceeds, that we understand the information and have it all made centrally available, in order for us to know how the bill is operating and to ensure that there is consistency.”
“The Government commentary says—and it is clear in the amendment itself—that, while the bill stipulates that there are regulation-making powers, the member’s amendment is silent on whether those should be taken forward through the negative or the affirmative procedure, or whatever. Why is that? Miles Briggs: Is the member referring to section 27 as it currently appears in the bill? I am trying to work out which part of the bill— Jamie Hepburn: It says here that section 28 sets out “Regulation-making powers”. Miles Briggs: I do not have those notes in front of me, so I am not quite sure what the Government has said in relation to where the provision would sit. As things stand, the review function sits only within section 27, and it is important that we look at expanding that.”
“In evidence at stage 1, COPFS said “it is likely” that the Lord Advocate would require all assisted deaths to be reported to COPFS, but there is no certainty about that at this stage. At stage 1, the Crown Office also said that it would expect its involvement in investigating assisted deaths to be relatively short and unlikely to uncover concerns. Section 27 is a retrospective review— Jamie Hepburn: Will the member provide some clarification? I should say that I was initially not persuaded of the case for a review panel; the member is starting to persuade me, but I am unclear on this point.”
“It was suggested at stage 2 that amendments to create a review panel were unnecessary and repetitious, because of the role of the Scottish fatalities investigation unit, which sits within the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, or because of the review that would be required under section 27 of the bill. However, neither of those options would provide the information, oversight or learning opportunities that would be presented by an assisted dying review panel, as I am proposing. It is currently the case that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service investigates all sudden, suspicious, accidental or unexplained deaths in Scotland, but none of those terms apply to deaths under the provisions of the bill.”
“Having a system for the routine monitoring and review of individual cases is important for those who provide assisted dying and for patients who might want to access it; it is also important in maintaining public trust and confidence in any system that is established. In a healthcare system, it is normal to discuss cases, to take on best practice and to learn from experience. An assisted dying service, if one comes into being through the bill, should be no different. It is difficult to see how that could happen when, under the current proposals in the bill, only a copy of the documentation would be kept and individual medical records would be spread across the whole country, with no way of bringing the information together for formal audit or review.”
“The panel would review the documentation from each assisted death to ensure that the correct process had been followed and to make recommendations for how the process and service could be improved, including—but not only—from a medical perspective. It would ensure that the documentation from each case was brought together centrally and analysed to ensure the compassionate, safe and practical operation of the act. Review committees are common in other jurisdictions where assisted dying is provided, and they are included in legislation that was recently passed in the Isle of Man and in Jersey. The Isle of Man recently confirmed that a compulsory post- death review will be mandated in every case, and that reviews will scrutinise statutory declarations, medical records and compliance with all the safeguards that will be put in place.”
“My concern is that, across the bill, we would be creating general or corporate responsibilities, but some of those areas need the direct accountability of an office-holder. Unfortunately, the drafting of the amendment is not good enough, so, when Jackie Baillie suggested that some of the other members speaking to this grouping might be being silly, in my case, she was being quite accurate. [Laughter.] I will not move the amendment. Miles Briggs: I worked with BMA Scotland on the proposal for amendment 293. The purpose of the amendment is to establish a formal process for the review of all assisted deaths as they occur, through an assisted dying review panel.”
“Fulton MacGregor: I was quite open and honest in my answer to Jeremy Balfour about that: I have not done any costings personally. I worked with the organisations that I have outlined to draft the amendment, but that work did not include costings. I urge members from across the chamber to support amendment 250. The Presiding Officer: Before we move on, I wish to make members aware that we have passed the agreed time limit for the debate on this group to finish. I exercise my power under rule 9.8.4A(c) to allow debate on this group to continue beyond the limit in order to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed. Daniel Johnson: The intent of amendment 292 is to provide direct accountability through oversight of data.”
“Does Fulton MacGregor agree that setting up the service that he describes might be more cost effective than having the costs spread across a range of GPs throughout the country, who would have to absorb that service into their work and incur costs as a consequence? People are asking about the cost, but his proposal might be a less expensive way to go about things than the alternative. Fulton MacGregor: I thank Ivan McKee for that helpful intervention. That was raised by some of the organisations that I have just outlined. The answer is unknown just now, but that approach might indeed be less expensive. 20:00 Jackie Baillie: I wonder whether you have managed to do any costings, or whether the Government has. The Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair.”
“Bearing in mind that the overall quantum was confirmed when the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill was passed by Parliament, Opposition members should note that, as the cabinet secretary pointed out, failure to approve the order would result in Scotland’s local authorities and, as a consequence, all our local communities being deprived of additional funding in this financial year and next year. Conservative members should bear that in mind when they decide how to vote this evening. I encourage the Parliament to unanimously support the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2026. Point of Order 17:31”
“The Government certainly recognises the fiscal constraints and will continue to work with COSLA and others to implement our public service reform strategy, focusing on a shift to prevention and integration of service delivery at a local level while driving further efficiency. However, we heard Craig Hoy clutching at straws and calling for changes to the funding formula, which is, of course, agreed with COSLA on behalf of all 32 local authorities. The Scottish Government is always open to proposals to change the formula, but they must come through COSLA first.”
“It said that the 2026-27 local government revenue settlement “sees a real terms increase of … 2.9%”. Likewise, the Accounts Commission said that the revenue funding of around £15 billion represents a real-terms increase of 3 per cent. The Scottish Government has listened to the requests made by COSLA and others and has acknowledged that a council’s decision on tax provides important financial and administrative accountability to the local electorate. As well as accounting for local needs, we expect councils to consider the impact of council tax rises on local people and their household finances. We heard some interesting contributions to the debate. From Ariane Burgess and Jamie Greene, we heard some considered thinking about the challenges that we face and what the future might hold in addressing them.”
“The Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2026, which is before us for parliamentary approval today, means that, next year, the Scottish Government will provide local authorities with a total funding package that is worth more than £15.7 billion, delivering a real- terms increase despite the challenging circumstances that were outlined in the cabinet secretary’s opening statement. There is also further Scottish Government support of more than £795 million outwith the local government finance settlement. That figure includes the attainment Scotland fund, the schools for the future programme, area-based schemes, regeneration programmes and city deal funds that are paid to local authorities, which bring the Scottish Government’s total investment to almost £16.5 billion. SPICe articulated that very clearly.”
“Published in Edinburgh by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP All documents are available on the Scottish Parliament website at: www.parliament.scot Information on non-endorsed print suppliers is available here: www.parliament.scot/documents For information on the Scottish Parliament contact Public Information on: Telephone: 0131 348 5000 Textphone: 0800 092 7100 Email: sp.info@parliament.scot”
“At col 24, para 4— Original text— The responses to the consultation on a cruise ship levy, which included a scoping question on a potential point of entry levy, will be published next week alongside the analysis report. Corrected text— The responses to the consultation on a cruise ship levy, which included a scoping question on a potential point of entry levy, will be published on 10 March 2026 alongside the analysis report. This is the final edition of the Official Report of this meeting. It is part of the Scottish Parliament Official Report archive and has been sent for legal deposit.”
“The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill at stage 3. Urgent Questions 18:12”
“The Government will continue our work to shift spend to areas of prevention, to deliver efficiencies, to join up and further integrate services and to transform the service delivery landscape, taking forward work in our public service reform strategy. In short, the Government will be bold. Despite the challenging fiscal context, we are proud that we have protected the social contract and have gone further in delivering our priorities. We are proud to have taken forward a process that pursues consensus over division, and we are proud to bring forward a budget that will ultimately improve the lives of individuals in Scotland. We look forward—if I may be permitted to say this—to continuing to bring forward budgets that deliver on the priorities of the people of Scotland in future years.”