Clare Haughey
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“I note that the Deputy First Minister has confirmed that vape shops will be excluded from eligibility for relief from 1 April 2027, and I welcome that commitment. How will that contribute to the Scottish Government’s public health commitments and build on the progress that has been made on reducing the harm that vapes can cause?”
“That is exactly why we are taking action to ensure that vape shops contribute to the high street, recognising the growth of the sector in recent years, and also to ensure that rates relief aligns with our public health commitments, to answer the member’s point.”
“In the 1970s, the then- Labour Glasgow City Council proposed demolishing the People’s Palace building to put in a motorway—a potential work of historical vandalism of epic proportions.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I hold a bank nurse contract with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. The Queen Elizabeth university hospital in Glasgow was recently ordered by Healthcare Improvement Scotland to make 26 improvements.”
“With that in mind, we always want to encourage women to access the care that they need. In my statement, I intimated that I quickly met the chief executive of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and, separately, Healthcare Improvement Scotland.”
“Being able to communicate your needs and have them be understood is fundamental to care. I also took the opportunity to engage with Healthcare Improvement Scotland, which confirmed the proactive leadership and ownership by the chief executive and the board.”
The complete record
Every one of 404 lines we hold for Clare Haughey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“Amendment 140 would ensure that people have the time and space that they need, and that they have access to experts who are used to supporting people in difficult situations to have the time to think about their decisions. The amendment would not exclude people, but it would recognise that a vulnerability attaches not to those with learning disabilities but to how they are often viewed and treated. Amendment 140 would also ensure that time and care are taken to ensure that the decision reflects the person’s choice. Amendment 141 would prevent eligibility where a request is influenced by “financial hardship”. Disability costs money—a lot of money—and, when a person is terminally ill, the costs can be overwhelming and seem impossible for them or their family to overcome.”
“If I were to be in the situation of seeking assisted dying, I would be happy to have a conversation with a social worker who would make sure that I had everything that I needed to make the right decision, to be confident in understanding the gravity and impact of that decision, and to understand what the other options were. This is not about making somebody pass a test or making it more difficult for them to access assisted dying. However, if a person has a learning disability or is neurodivergent, they are, in many ways, marginalised and vulnerable to coercion and pressure. It would be better to include more people than fewer as part of an extra safeguard of having a conversation.”
“I worry that that might encompass people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia and other cognitive conditions. Such a provision might compound the stigma that those people face or might require additional support to be put in place for people who do not really need it. Although I totally accept that people with the vulnerabilities that Ms Roddick outlined absolutely need support, I wonder whether amendment 140 is drawn a little too broadly. Emma Roddick: I would rather it be too broad than too narrow. An argument could probably be made that amendment 140 would capture me.”
“Should there be another pandemic at a time when assisted dying was legal, nobody should be in any doubt that people who were at risk back in 2020 would still be at risk then. In that case, the result could be pressure to end their lives early if we do not bake in protections now. Amendment 140 would require that time be taken to ensure that an individual—not just their carers, advisers and family—fully understands what they are signing up to and that they have all the multidisciplinary support that can be offered ahead of their taking such an important decision. Daniel Johnson: I am very supportive of the intent behind the amendments in this group that Ms Roddick has lodged. However, I have one concern about her framing of amendment 140, which includes developmental or cognitive conditions.”
“My amendment 140 seeks to introduce additional safeguards for people with learning disabilities. That is not in any way intended to prevent a person with such a disability from accessing assisted dying if it were available in Scotland. I want to be very clear that I have no wish—and would not support efforts—to remove autonomy from that community, or any group, based on diagnosis. My concerns stem from the way in which people with learning disabilities are often treated. The lessons that I have learned from those with lived experience have involved terrifying descriptions of individual rights and freedoms being belittled, ignored or even overridden during the Covid pandemic. We must legislate with the worst-case scenarios in mind.”
“Emma Roddick: Colleagues who have heard my arguments throughout the bill’s progress will know that, despite wishing that I could feel comfortable with the proposal and knowing that there are many situations in which I would want people to have the choice, my concerns about health inequalities, societal pressure and expectations on disabled people have led me to conclude that I cannot support it. I am concerned that it would remove more choice than it would offer. I associate myself with comments made by Pam Duncan-Glancy and Jeremy Balfour about the pervasive negative attitudes that exist towards disabled people. I do not think that folk realise how common it is for someone regularly to hear everything from, “How do you cope?” to “I would have killed myself,” when they lead a life that some people will readily describe as undignified.”
“People will be forced into a choice of taking their life early because the palliative care that they should have is not available, due to the cost, the general availability of people employed in that care or the fact that many of our constituencies do not even have a hospice within their boundaries. People could be forced to move far away from home if they sought that support. On that point, it is absolutely our ultimate aim to have that availability and accessibility of palliative care for everyone who needs it. The fact that we do not have that in Scotland in 2026 is a shame on all of us. I have outlined my points on the amendments in group 2.”
“I will take Mr Kerr’s intervention now. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please be brief, Mr Kerr, because Mr Ross has been very generous in taking interventions on his amendments. Liam Kerr: He has. I will take Mr Ross back to amendment 138. It occurs to me that amendment 138 requires that, to be eligible for assisted death, someone would have to have access to “a fully costed palliative care pathway”. Does he not think that that risks making eligibility dependent on the service provision rather than on the person’s illness? Douglas Ross: I believe that that service should be available to every single person who needs it in every part of Scotland. The fact that it is not available is one of the concerns that I have about the bill.”
“Douglas Ross: I think that Daniel Johnson, in accepting what I am trying to do with the amendment, has got the point that there is a deficiency in the bill as it is currently drafted and that, if we do not have amendments that try to address it and at least have a debate about the issue, the bill will be deficient in that area. That is what I am seeking to do specifically with amendment 139. If the bill is to be about compassion and genuine choice, it must guarantee that both palliative care and mental health support are fully accessible and properly understood before any decision about assisted death is made. Liam Kerr: Will the member take an intervention? Douglas Ross: I will in one moment. Failing to do so risks pushing people into an irreversible choice simply because care is either too expensive or unavailable.”
“We may wish to use different terminology, but there is, in a sense, a real danger that we are talking about good contemplation of the end of life and bad contemplation, and stigmatising one form and one context as opposed to another. I understand what the member is trying to get at in his amendment 139. We do not want the bill to be used by people other than those it is meant to cover. However, he is trying to create a distinction that might make it incredibly difficult for practitioners in the moment to delineate between someone who is contemplating assisted dying within the terms of the bill and somebody who is contemplating suicide. I think that that might be quite difficult to do.”
“Trying to do that in legislation would, I think, meet with the exact same opposition that I am hearing at the moment. Members will take a different view on this, but I hope that we can have a respectful debate in which members articulate what other members actually say instead of jumping to conclusions about what was meant. Sorry—I will go back to Daniel Johnson, who wanted to intervene. Daniel Johnson: Further to Clare Haughey’s point, we are dealing with extending the possibility of ending an individual’s life. By definition, therefore, we are dealing with people who are contemplating ending their own life, so I fear that Douglas Ross is blundering into a tautology here.”
“To try to use that to prevent people from accessing assisted dying at a time when they are suffering from a terminal illness—I make this point as someone who does not support the bill—is absolutely discriminatory. [Applause.] Douglas Ross: I listened carefully to what Clare Haughey said in her role as the convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, which scrutinised the bill, and in her previous Government role as Minister for Mental Health. My point is that there is a difference between someone having suicidal thoughts at the moment and someone having had them in the past. I did not say—I would never say—that those thoughts could then never be cleared. What I said to Maggie Chapman was that I cannot put a one-year, one- week or one-month—or a 10-year or 20-year— time limit on that.”
“I know that he will go on to talk about the other safeguards in the bill. As someone who opposes the bill, I question some of those safeguards. Daniel Johnson rose— Clare Haughey rose— Douglas Ross: I will give way to Clare Haughey, who sought to come in earlier. Clare Haughey: I am quite astounded by that characterisation of people who have thoughts of self-harm or suicidal thoughts—that they can never get over that and never recover. I am absolutely astonished at the stigmatisation of those people who express themselves in the most difficult moments of their life, or in the depths of mental illness, by saying that they cannot then get on with their lives.”
“Alex Cole-Hamilton: We—all of us—have moments of profound mental crisis in our lives, and some of us may have had suicidal ideation. We may have shared that with a relative or even a clinician. The point is that we all have the capacity to get well, recover and move on with our lives. I understand the intent of Douglas Ross’s amendment 139, but I do not think that we can legislate for a stigma that will then follow somebody for the rest of their life when they are as far as it is possible to be from that dark period in their life. I ask the member to reflect on that. Douglas Ross: I do reflect on that, but I also say that, without this amendment, people who currently have suicidal thoughts here and now would, if the bill goes through, use the legislation to end their life. I do not think that the member is looking at that.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Douglas Ross: I will give way in a moment. If I tried to put in a time bar, Maggie Chapman would rightly ask why it was just 10 years and not 15, why it was 15 years and not 30, or why it was one year and not one month. There would be complexity in putting a time bar or time limit in the amendment. It would suggest that, somehow, someone who has had suicidal thoughts would suddenly, at some point in their life, stop having those thoughts and reset, when actually many people who have who have suicidal thoughts will continue to have such thoughts but will just not take them forward— 15:45 Maggie Chapman rose— Alex Cole-Hamilton: Will the member give way? Douglas Ross: I know that Alex Cole-Hamilton wants to come in. I will then give way to Clare Haughey.”
“However, more can be done to make those links more explicit, and I hope that members in future sessions will continue to pursue the same level of cross-portfolio working throughout the scrutiny process to ensure that the final plan delivers on all its intended outcomes. 15:06”
“Although I am conscious of the fact that that issue is not explicitly explored in the plan, the committee highlights the concerns that it raised in its report on the proposed national good food nation plan about the risks of taking a siloed approach, and it reiterates its call for the Scottish Government to set out more clearly how it will work to foster improved cross-sectoral and cross-portfolio collaboration to further strengthen the NHS, as well as wider approaches to sustainable procurement and minimisation of food waste. It is clear that the draft climate change plan is incredibly broad in scope. The committee commends the plan, in so far as it recognises the health benefits associated with policies that reduce climate emissions across sectors.”
“Those indicators should reflect place-based variation, and public health expertise should be embedded in their design and interpretation, so that co-benefits and risks are properly captured and used to inform appraisal and budget decisions. Finally, the committee notes the complex role of food in meeting climate and health objectives.”
“The issue of air quality and the impact on it of certain pollutants was raised extensively in evidence, and the committee echoes calls from witnesses for improved monitoring frameworks and action in those areas. Any changes to monitoring should track indoor and outdoor air quality outcomes to ensure that improvements in buildings and transport deliver improvements for, and do not risk undermining, health and wellbeing. More specifically, the committee notes a lack of quantifiable metrics in that area, which could lead to difficulties in tracking delivery and outcomes. We therefore call for clear indicators of health, wellbeing and equity impacts, alongside the metrics on emissions outcomes.”
“The committee echoes calls from Public Health Scotland for a “health in all policies” approach, in which climate measures are designed and delivered to reduce emissions while maximising health gains, thereby contributing to improved life expectancy and reducing health inequalities. The disproportionate effects of climate change on disabled people, those with long-term conditions, unpaid carers and lower-income households have long been established. In that context, the committee highlights the importance of designing mitigation measures to avoid widening existing health inequalities. It is also vital that the role of social care is recognised within that wider prevention agenda.”
“One of the core themes of both the oral and the written evidence that we received was the significant health impact associated with emissions and the scale of potential co-benefits from mitigating them. However, the committee also heard from witnesses and respondents that health and inequality outcomes should be made explicit in the plan and that those co-benefits should be integral to policy appraisal and budget decisions, instead of being treated as secondary considerations. The CCP cuts across the building blocks of health and the measures in the plan should be more explicitly treated as a public health intervention.”
“In that context, the committee welcomes evidence that a growing number of health boards are implementing sustainable travel schemes for patients and staff, and encourages further sharing of best practice in that area. The committee also notes that “health boards should maintain momentum in collaborating with other authorities and providers to ensure that large hospitals are treated as sustainable, connected transport hubs for people attending appointments as well as visitors.” The draft CCP identifies several health benefits from policies and proposals to reduce emissions in other sectors, including those in relation to cleaner air, warmer homes, healthier food, health- promoting natural and built environments, high- quality public services and fair work.”
“The draft plan is presented as being necessitated by, and having the purpose of addressing, the health risks associated with climate change. Under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, as amended, the plan must set out policies and proposals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions across all major sectors of the economy. Although health and social care is not one of the sectors that the plan is required to cover, some elements of health and social care emissions will be nested within the residential and public buildings sector and the transport sector, which the legislation requires to be covered. I also remind members that the population health framework, which was published in June 2025, states that “a just transition to net zero” is among Public Health Scotland’s commitments to support health and wellbeing.”
“I thank the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee for its innovative approach to scrutiny, in particular, which has enabled contributions to be made from across portfolios. The need for greater cross-committee working is something that we have talked about at length in this chamber, and I am grateful to all the committees that have taken the time to contribute to the plan’s overall scrutiny. I look forward to more scrutiny work being done on the same basis, and I commend the example that has been set across the chamber and in the committees. Turning to the health committee’s report, I begin by saying that, as part of its scrutiny, the committee held three evidence-taking sessions with a focus on the potential co-benefits of emissions reductions for health, and on the draft plan’s potential impact on health and social care services.”
“Thanks for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. First, I offer my sincere thanks to all the stakeholders who engaged with the committee throughout its scrutiny of the draft climate change plan. As it is likely that this will be the last time that I speak in the chamber as convener of that committee in this session, I want to put on record my thanks to the committee clerks. Given the scope of the plan and its cross-cutting nature as it relates to health outcomes, what was paramount was our ability to draw on a solid evidence base. I am pleased to say that the level of oral and written evidence that we received allowed us to produce what I believe to be a comprehensive report in relation to the health remit.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with the banking industry about maintaining access to face-to-face banking services on high streets. (S6O-05595)”
“To ask the Scottish Government what support it provides to local authorities to enable them to explore partnership or franchise approaches to public transport. (S6O-05503)”
“I also welcome the involvement of Sir Lewis Ritchie in the safety and public confidence oversight group, which will look at specific issues, including in relation to the built environment and validation. Let us pause for a second to remember that the independent public inquiry, which I am confident will provide the answers, reassurances and recommendations that we are all looking for, is still under way. While that is the case, it would be completely inappropriate for ministers to pre-empt its findings or final recommendations or otherwise direct its business.”
“As a nurse with 30 years’ experience, I have spoken previously in the Parliament about how important trust is to patients’ and families’ experiences of healthcare, and about how patient experience and reassurance are related to recovery and patient outcomes. The Government’s amendment to today’s motion agrees that whistleblowers in Scotland’s NHS must be protected and supported; notes that NHS Assure was created in 2021 to improve risk management and safety in Scotland’s NHS estate; and acknowledges notes that both Healthcare Improvement Scotland and independent experts have commented on the procedures now in place to ensure the safety of hospital for patients and staff.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that I hold a bank nurse contract with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. I begin as I did when I spoke on the subject two weeks ago, which is to express my deepest sympathies to all of those who are grieving the loss of a loved one in the circumstances that we are discussing today. In 2019, the Scottish Government decided to establish a public inquiry to get to the truth. It did so precisely because the families’ pain was being compounded by having to tenaciously chase the truth themselves. An independent inquiry, with comprehensive statutory powers granted to it, is how we will get the level of open scrutiny and truth that families and patients deserve. That is what we all want to see.”
“However, I am pleased that the Labour Party has seen sense and withdrawn its motion—or, to use another phrase, made a U- turn. I agree that Labour colleagues should explain to groups with lived experience—those who use social care, unpaid carers and third sector organisations—why they sought to annul the extension of voting rights on IJBs. It is for Labour to explain that. The Government is determined to ensure that those who access and support community health and social care services have an equal say in shaping the decisions that affect their communities. That is why we have moved to deliver the extension of voting rights on IJBs, despite the Labour Party’s trying to block that. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Carol Mochan has a brief supplementary question.”
“I fear that Mr Bibby is unaware of the irony with which his question is tainted. Just last week, his own colleagues quietly submitted a motion to annul an order giving disabled people and unpaid carers on IJBs such as Renfrewshire’s the voting rights to decide how the funding that he has referenced would be spent. Will the minister join me in calling out Scottish Labour for once again politicising our health and social care services, and will he outline how all IJBs will be funded in a way that best meets the needs of all service users over the next financial year? Tom Arthur: I thank Clare Haughey for her supplementary question. I was somewhat surprised, perplexed and, frankly, appalled that a motion was submitted by the Labour Party to annul an order that would extend voting rights to lived- experience members.”
“Part 2 of the bill, which is entirely unrelated to part 1, concerns processes for certification of death and authorisation of cremation. The committee supports the proposed changes to those processes that are set out in the bill. Our view is that they will improve the processes by which medical certificates of cause of death are reviewed in Scotland, making them fairer and more efficient. Subject to the recommended improvements that I have outlined, the committee strongly supports the bill’s provisions and has recommended that the general principles of the bill be agreed to. I look forward to hearing the contributions to this afternoon’s debate and to considering the bill further should the Parliament vote to approve its general principles. 15:58”
“The bill will provide an opportunity to improve data gathering on non-surgical procedures, particularly concerning the rate of procedures that are carried out successfully versus those that involve a complication or adverse reaction. More systematic data gathering will allow the bill’s implementation to be monitored and evaluated over time to determine its impact on patient safety. Our scrutiny suggests that there is not a good level of awareness among the general public about the potential risks that are associated with such procedures or how to make a properly informed choice when accessing them. Our report therefore calls for a public awareness campaign as part of the implementation of the legislation to ensure that people have the confidence and knowledge to make informed choices should they wish to undergo a procedure.”
“We heard concerns about the extent to which HIS will have sufficient resources, capacity and training to be able to carry out its enforcement role effectively from the outset. To address those concerns, we call on the Scottish Government to publish an implementation route map to ensure that suitable processes, systems and resources are put in place by the date on which regulations will come into force. Evidence that was submitted to the committee further highlighted that the penalties for offences that are created by the bill may not be sufficient to deter the bad actors who are willing to provide non- surgical procedures illegally. We therefore call for stronger penalties for offences that are committed under the terms of the bill.”
“During the scrutiny process, we heard concerns from many independent aesthetic practitioners that their businesses would be negatively impacted by the proposed approach to the regulation of non-surgical procedures that is set out in the bill. To alleviate those concerns, our report calls for appropriate guidance and support to be provided to help responsible practitioners to make a successful transition to the new regulatory framework. We also support a staged approach to enforcement that will give responsible practitioners suitable time and resource to adjust to the new regime. As part of its scrutiny, the committee took evidence from Healthcare Improvement Scotland, which will have new powers of enforcement under the bill.”
“Nonetheless, we urge the Scottish Government to work with the UK Government to ensure that all those who carry out such procedures are suitably qualified to do so. Our inquiry identified a number of other areas where the Scottish Government will need to work with the UK Government to resolve certain related issues. They include improved classification and regulation of certain devices and substances that are used in non-surgical procedures, regulation of irresponsible advertising of non-surgical procedures, and action to address the potential risk that regulation of the sector will result in an increase in cosmetic tourism.”
“Through the bill, high-risk procedures will be allowed to take place only in permitted premises, including in Healthcare Improvement Scotland- registered clinics, and under the supervision of authorised medical practitioners. Meanwhile, lower-risk procedures will be regulated through secondary legislation under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which the committee has also recently scrutinised. At the same time, the committee concluded in its report that the bill currently lacks important detail on the specifics of clinical supervision and training requirements for those who will be allowed to undertake and supervise procedures. The committee acknowledges the impact that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 has had on the Scottish Government’s ability to legislate in the area.”
“We have heard evidence of great variance in standards adhered to by practitioners who carry out non-surgical procedures. Therefore, robust regulation is necessary to ensure that people who want to access those procedures can do so safely and in a properly informed manner. We fully support the provisions in the bill that will make it illegal to carry out non-surgical procedures on people under the age of 18. That is a welcome step towards protecting young people, who can be particularly vulnerable to influences about beauty standards from social media. The committee supports the Scottish Government’s two-tier approach to regulation.”
“As convener, I am pleased to open the stage 1 debate on the Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill on behalf of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. I thank everyone who contributed to the committee’s stage 1 scrutiny of the bill by providing written or oral evidence and place on record my thanks to the committee clerks for their work at stage 1. During its scrutiny, the committee heard extensive evidence that non-surgical procedures such as Botox, fillers, strong chemical peels and some microneedling—many of which are provided for cosmetic purposes—can carry significant risks if not carried out in appropriate settings and by suitably trained practitioners. Our committee has concluded that patient safety has to be the overriding priority when considering regulation in the area.”
“If members are in the right place at the right time, they might even bump into Rutherglen 900’s official mascot, Dougie the pigeon, which was designed by Emma from St Anthony’s primary school. Whether you call it Rutherglen, Ruglen or Ruggie, there is a lot happening in our town this year, as always, and there is much to celebrate about her people and organisations, who make it such a great place to live and work in. I am thoroughly looking forward to all the opportunities that we will have over the next year to celebrate, to reminisce and to look to our town’s future. Rutherglen is ready to welcome all who would like to join us. 12:57”
“Our town will host walking and vintage bus tours that will highlight local landmarks and explore Rutherglen’s radical history of social activism, and there will be a community picnic; a sing-along event; multiple talks and exhibitions; sporting events; a live comedy, dance and music event, including the town’s very first mela; and an inaugural book festival. There is also a packed schools programme, with events for children and young people in every month this year. It was an absolute treat to hear the debut performance of “Song of Rutherglen” at the Rutherglen 900 launch event in the town hall last Friday, which was beautifully sung by pupils from each local school.”
“I thank that large community network, which includes Healthy n Happy Community Development Trust, CamGlen Radio, heritage organisations, schools, artists, sports groups and local residents who are keen to give back to their community. I am delighted to have the opportunity to thank each and every person who has given up their time to organise the wonderful programme of events that will mark our town’s milestone year. I thank them for all their efforts—not just this year, but every year and, indeed, every day—to support local residents. I urge anyone listening to the debate to visit the Rutherglen 900 website to see the depth and breadth of the programme that they have put together. There truly is something for everyone.”
“There is a wheen of sports people from Rutherglen, from Steve Archibald, who went from Fernhill Athletic Football Club to Barcelona, to Sadie Smith, Rutherglen Ladies FC’s captain, who battled against the odds even to play at a time when women’s football was banned in England and was deemed quite unsuitable in Scotland. Again, that could be a very long list. Ruglonians have truly made their mark on the world. When the 900th anniversary of our town’s burgh status was approaching, a real desire grew to mark the occasion—to take the chance to reflect on who we are, where we have come from and where we are going. Rutherglen 900 was born as a community-led initiative that was built on collaboration between local people, organisations, schools, community groups and volunteers.”
“I also remember Mr Hepburn mentioning the legendary broadcaster Magnus Magnusson. He married the journalist Mamie Baird in Wardlawhill parish church before living in Calderwood Road for many years. After growing up in the town, their daughter Sally became a renowned broadcaster and she set her novel “Music in the Dark” in a Rutherglen tenement. In a list of notable Ruglonians, I could also include actors Robbie Coltrane, Janet Brown, Scott Kyle and Stan Laurel, the poet Edwin Morgan, fashion designer Jonathan Saunders and musicians such as Midge Ure and Audrey Tait. John Logie Baird lived a few hundred yards from where Cee Cee TV Security Solutions now displays a beautiful vintage television in its shop window. Infamously, he once fused all the lights in the town, which hastened his departure from his job at the local power station.”
“I could spend all afternoon talking about Rutherglen’s history—from Gallowflat tumulus, a second century Roman burial site, to the coracles that travelled up and down the Clyde to and from Rutherglen in the 12th century, or the steamships that were built there in the 19th century, or how James Watt designed a bridge for the town before his tinkering with steam engines allowed its steel, chemical and textile industries to flourish. The historic areas near the centre, such as Bankhead, Burnhill and Gallowflat, have changed hugely over the years and the village of Burnside has expanded greatly. Post-war developments on farms and estates in Blairbeth, Cathkin, Eastfield, Fernhill, Spittal and Springhall are now well- established communities. Each place has its own distinct identity but is firmly and proudly part of Rutherglen’s story.”
“Behind my office runs King Street, where Rutherglen castle sat at the junction with Castle Street. Built in the 13th century, the castle’s 5-feet- thick walls made it a crucial stronghold during the wars of independence, during which it was besieged several times by Robert the Bruce. I remember our colleague Jamie Hepburn speaking about his home town of Cumbernauld during a members’ business debate and joking about how many towns claim to have links to Mary, Queen of Scots. Not wishing to disappoint in that regard, I can say that Mary led a march to Rutherglen castle in 1568 to round up her supporters before her journey west. A year later, the castle was burned to the ground by the Earl of Moray, to punish the Hamilton family for supporting Mary at the battle of Langside.”
“A few steps from my office is Rutherglen old parish church, which has been a site of Christian worship for at least 1,400 years and is believed to have been a site of druid worship before that. John Menteith betrayed William Wallace there in 1305, and the Parliament of Scotland also sat there. In its boundary walls is a statue of Dr James Gorman, who treated Ruglonians long before the national health service was established, often for little or no charge, and during some of Lanarkshire’s worst mining disasters. A few more steps take you to the town hall, which was completed in 1862. Civic leaders decided that a new one was needed after significant population expansion. Near the town hall is the mercat cross, a 100-year-old replica of the original to which the covenanters nailed their 1679 declaration of Rutherglen.”
“I am delighted to have secured this debate to mark the 900th anniversary of Rutherglen’s being granted royal burgh status by King David I, which gave it special trading rights and underlined its importance in medieval Scotland. I have the tremendous honour of representing Rutherglen, my home town, where I was brought up, where I brought up my own family and where I still live. I could say a great deal about our town but fear that I will only be able to scratch the surface in the time that is available to me. Rutherglen is one of those places where, everywhere that you turn, you see something of its fascinating history. My constituency office is situated on Rutherglen’s Main Street. It is a particularly wide street because it was the place to be to trade horses from the 1600s onwards. As time passed, fairs were held there 12 times a year.”
“I remind members that I am a practising NHS nurse. This week, the United Kingdom Labour Government admitted that it does not know how many NHS staff will be affected by its proposed changes to immigration rules. Once again, the Labour Party is harming our health service in its blind pursuit of Reform policies. Does the First Minister agree that people deserve answers from Anas Sarwar on whether he supports Keir Starmer’s plans to slam the door in the face of the workers who are keeping our hospitals and care homes running, and can he confirm that his Scottish National Party Government will oppose those Labour plans and stand up for our valued NHS staff? The Presiding Officer: Questions should be on devolved matters.”