Rona Mackay
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Màiri McAllan: I express the Government’s sympathy with those who are wrestling with dramatically increased oil prices, which will have come as a very unwelcome shock to households.”
“Our islands cost crisis emergency fund will continue into the 2026-27 financial year, with an additional £1 million allocation. This year, we have also invested a further £5.5 million in the Scottish welfare fund, which provides vital support in difficult times. Rona Mackay: I thank the cabinet secretary for that welcome response.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking through its fuel poverty programmes to support low-income rural and off- grid households that are unable to heat their homes due to the recent increase in heating oil prices.”
“I was pleased to see that the Scottish Prison Service has piloted non-pain-inducing control and restraint techniques that reduce the risk of injury to staff and prisoners. Can the First Minister assure me that the pilot approach will be rolled out across the prison estate, with staff being given the appropriate training?”
“The other two that I want to mention are the much-missed Christina McKelvie and Jeane Freeman. What a privilege to have known and worked with those freedom fighters. They fought for equality, fairness and, of course, independence. What a legacy they leave. I know that they will always be in our hearts.”
“I am pleased to speak in today’s important debate for many reasons. First, I want to acknowledge the legendary Christine Grahame and her passionate dedication to the cause of animal welfare. There are not many people we can call a legend, but I think that Christine qualifies.”
The complete record
Every one of 390 lines we hold for Rona Mackay, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“Màiri McAllan: I express the Government’s sympathy with those who are wrestling with dramatically increased oil prices, which will have come as a very unwelcome shock to households. Rona Mackay is absolutely right that the £4.6 million that the United Kingdom Government has allocated is absolutely inadequate, especially when one considers how much money has gone from Scotland’s North Sea to the UK Treasury since the 1970s. However, we have acted quickly to complement the fund with £5.4 million, bringing the total funding to £10 million—with £300 being offered to eligible households, which, we think, equates to about 200 litres of heating oil—to directly support those in need. That simple process is administered through trusted partners and is open to those in need. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Clare Adamson, who joins us remotely.”
“Our islands cost crisis emergency fund will continue into the 2026-27 financial year, with an additional £1 million allocation. This year, we have also invested a further £5.5 million in the Scottish welfare fund, which provides vital support in difficult times. Rona Mackay: I thank the cabinet secretary for that welcome response. One of my constituents has seen their heating oil bill triple overnight, has no savings and has been told to wait until April for support that amounts to pennies per household. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the £4.6 million that has been allocated to Scotland is wholly inadequate? Will she join me in calling on the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer to do far more to protect the off-grid households that Westminster’s energy price cap has left behind?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking through its fuel poverty programmes to support low-income rural and off- grid households that are unable to heat their homes due to the recent increase in heating oil prices. (S6O-05715) The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): Today, we have announced that the Scottish emergency heating oil scheme will be delivered by Advice Direct Scotland and will be open for applications from 1 April. The scheme will be available to users of both heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas. Low-income households and those at risk of self-rationing will be able to apply for support worth £300 towards their bills. That is in addition to our energy saving schemes, which already deliver average savings of £300 annually.”
“I was pleased to see that the Scottish Prison Service has piloted non-pain-inducing control and restraint techniques that reduce the risk of injury to staff and prisoners. Can the First Minister assure me that the pilot approach will be rolled out across the prison estate, with staff being given the appropriate training? The First Minister: Yes, it will be rolled out to the remainder of the estate. The Scottish Prison Service’s new approach to control and restraint is successfully running in three establishments. I am pleased to say that the Prison Officers Association Scotland has welcomed it, and we will take forward the approach that has been set out in the question. Immigrants and Minority Groups (Protests and Rhetoric) 7.”
“To mark Christine’s amazing dedication to the cause of animal welfare, I am delighted to have been asked to present her with a gift from several animal charities, including Humane World for Animals, OneKind and the Scottish SPCA, to name but a few, and it will be my honour to do so after the debate. Parliament needs more dedicated, passionate elected members such as Christine Grahame, although I doubt that we will ever see her like again. 11:17”
“Animal suffering should not be tolerated at any level. We are an animal-loving, compassionate nation, and I know that animals are sentient beings who are entirely dependent on the human kindness and care that we should always give them. I have nothing but contempt for those who exploit animals for human entertainment or profit, be that puppy farming, greyhound racing— thankfully, since last week, that has been banned in Scotland—or any other form of exploitation. Christine has done a great job of highlighting all those issues and more in the cross-party group on animal welfare, which she has chaired for more than a decade. I am a member of the group— although, in truth, I have not been a very good attender.”
“The other two that I want to mention are the much-missed Christina McKelvie and Jeane Freeman. What a privilege to have known and worked with those freedom fighters. They fought for equality, fairness and, of course, independence. What a legacy they leave. I know that they will always be in our hearts. There is much more that I could say about my time here as an elected member, which has been so memorable. It has been an absolute privilege to represent the fantastic constituency of Strathkelvin and Bearsden and to work with my terrific constituency team. I turn now to Christine’s important motion. I totally agree with her that animal cruelty sentencing does not reflect the serious nature of such offences. There should be specific sentencing guidelines covering these offences and better awareness of the available powers. This is 2026.”
“I am pleased to speak in today’s important debate for many reasons. First, I want to acknowledge the legendary Christine Grahame and her passionate dedication to the cause of animal welfare. There are not many people we can call a legend, but I think that Christine qualifies. As this is my last speech in this place after 10 years, I want to thank Christine for being an incredible colleague who is full of wisdom and advice—even if you do not want it. She does not suffer fools gladly and, boy, don’t they know it. As chief whip for our party, I have to be honest and say that she has at times been a challenge, but you really cannot stay mad at Christine for long. Presiding Officer, Christine is just one of the incredible and inspirational women that I have worked with since being elected in 2016.”
“The status quo abandons people at the moment they most need compassion, safety and support. The most dangerous thing that the Parliament can do is nothing. In the name of humanity and for those who depend on us, I urge members to support the bill. 18:44”
“I said earlier that the bill is not about me or any other member at this time, so I want to give terminally ill people who have had all agency stripped from them by their illness a voice. One woman opened her heart and said: “Assisted dying would be a lifeline. It would let us live the rest of our lives in peace, making precious final memories with our loved ones, without the constant dread of how our lives will end … Voting against this Bill will not stop us from dying, but will deny us a lifeline to a safe, peaceful death surrounded by our loved ones.” Too many families are left traumatised by what they have witnessed at the end of a loved one’s life. Now is the opportunity to make things right for those who have died, so that no one has to suffer as they did.”
“We know that many terminally ill Scots face a bad death and are forced to contemplate a series of desperate, traumatic decisions that do not belong in a compassionate 21st century Scotland. International evidence proves that assisted dying is safe and compassionate and that it is a comfort blanket for those who are able to choose whether or not to use it. What makes Scotland so uniquely different that it could not be the same here? The most recent polling found that 81 per cent of people in Scotland want assisted dying to be introduced as an option for those who are diagnosed with a terminal illness. There is clear majority support for the bill across every constituency, so Scotland is not on the fence on assisted dying.”
“Who are we to deny them that choice and to put our values and preferences before theirs because we have the power to do so? If the bill is passed tonight—and I hope with all my heart that it will be—it will be the most heavily safeguarded bill in any jurisdiction. The respectful and collegiate way in which Liam McArthur and his hard-working team have brought the bill to this final stage is to be commended. No one has worked harder, and, after last week, no bill in any jurisdiction in the world with assisted dying will be more heavily safeguarded. The bill has always been about creating a compassionate, regulated, safe and legal option for terminally ill adults who choose to end their suffering.”
“This will be my final speech in this place before stepping down next week after 10 years. It is a short speech and, of course, it is not political. However, that is okay, because what we are debating is not about me. The debate and the days that we spent agreeing to amendments last week are for terminally ill people who are pleading with us to be given the choice to die a dignified, pain- free death of their choosing. I respect those members who do not share my views on the bill. I do not agree with their views, but they have a right to hold them. They have the choice to vote for or against the bill. That is the point. We, in this Parliament, have a choice. Terminally ill people who are terrified of what they might face at the end of their lives do not.”
“The chief constable has confirmed that the budget allocation will allow her to prioritise front-line services for our communities to ensure that police officer numbers remain at 16,500.”
“What steps is Police Scotland taking to ensure that there is a good recruitment pipeline into our national force? Can the cabinet secretary provide any reassurance that the Scottish Government’s record funding to Police Scotland will maintain police officer numbers? Angela Constance: Investment in policing has enabled Police Scotland to take on more recruits in the past financial year than at any time since 2013, and Scotland continues to have more officers per 10,000 members of the population than in England and Wales. Police Scotland has confirmed that it has a healthy recruitment pipeline and has welcomed more than 1,900 new officers since the beginning of 2024, including more than 70 new recruits on 9 March this year.”
“Is the member aware that people who are refused the choice to die with dignity often end up taking their own life anyway? There are multiple instances of that. Stephen Kerr: I think that Rona Mackay has made the case for my amendment. It is very important that, when people are presented with options, they are also given assurance that they will have the support, assistance and care that they deserve. That is what lies behind my amendment 248. With legislation that deals with matters that are as serious as life and death, the balance that I am proposing in the amendment is not unreasonable. It proposes a safeguard that we should insist on. The Presiding Officer: I call Liam McArthur to speak to amendment 52 and other amendments in the group.”
“Jackie Baillie: I will speak briefly only to amendment 49, which would simply update terminology so that reference to an “anticipatory” care plan would be replaced by reference to a “future” care plan. The amendment seems to enjoy the support of the bill’s sponsor, Liam McArthur, and the Scottish Government, so I trust that it will enjoy the support of all members.”
“When a young person raises the idea of ending their life, that is not a clinical request but a moment of vulnerability that calls for support and care. My amendments would simply ensure that the law responded to such moments in a way that a compassionate society would want, with young people being protected and guided away from harm. Deputy Presiding Officer, I appreciate that I have taken some time, and I am grateful for that time. I hope that members will accept my amendments, Mr Whittle’s amendments or Mr Johnson’s amendments, because, if we do not agree to any of those amendments, we will put some of the most vulnerable people in our society in a very dangerous position. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Jackie Baillie to speak to amendment 49 and other amendments in the group.”
“We are here to make the law, and the BMA will respond to that. I trust that it will do so appropriately. Jamie Hepburn: Will Mr Balfour give way? The Deputy Presiding Officer: To be fair, Mr Balfour has been extremely generous in taking interventions, and I think that we should allow him to conclude his remarks. Jeremy Balfour: I will try to conclude. Amendment 243 sets out what should happen if a person under 18 raised the subject. It sets out that they must be referred to “appropriate safeguarding and mental health services”, that the interaction must be recorded and that the parents or guardians must be informed, if that would be safe. To pick up on a point that was made earlier, I note that that would be where the conversation would come to an end.”
“To address the issue that was raised by Alasdair Allan and Jamie Hepburn, what I understand “end the conversation immediately” to mean—and what I think doctors would understand it to mean—is that the doctor would not simply stop the conversation and move on to the next subject, but they would not go into the subject in great detail and would not continue a conversation about it at that point. I think that doctors would understand that requirement and would be able to follow it. Stephen Kerr: Although many of us are sympathetic to what Jeremy Balfour is saying, I want to gently test something with him. What is his response to what Brian Whittle revealed about the BMA’s position with regard to doctors and their conduct with their patients? Jeremy Balfour: The BMA will have to respond to the law that is brought forward.”
“I return to the question that Mr Hepburn asked about why your amendment 243 contains a phrase about stopping the conversation instantly. Why would that be helpful? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Jeremy Balfour: Amendment 244 seeks to complement the proposed protections by removing “under the age of 18” from section 20B. Safeguarding professional accountability should not be age limited. Young adults face vulnerabilities that are similar to those that are faced by minors. It is ethically and clinically necessary that all patients are afforded the same standards of oversight and protection. Removing that arbitrary boundary would ensure consistent application of professional duties and patient safeguards.”
“My amendments in this group seek to clarify what would constitute a breach of the act and would enforce statutory responsibility. I am seeking not to punish honest mistakes but to guarantee that serious lapses that put patients or children at risk would be met with proportionate and transparent consequences. As I said, I believe that the public must be able to trust that the safeguards in the bill are absolute if it is to be passed. I will take Mr Allan’s intervention. Alasdair Allan: I thank Jeremy Balfour for his generosity in taking interventions. I hope that the concerns that Ms Forbes has raised might be addressed in some of the amendments that we are discussing today, not least Mr Johnson’s amendments.”
“He was a pretty scary individual but, as soon as the consultant said something, he would accept that that was the decision. My father—an educated individual— listened to the doctor. I do not think that members who have not had hands-on experience of receiving lots of medical advice have a clear understanding of the extent to which people take as gospel what the doctor tells them. Alasdair Allan: Will Jeremy Balfour give way? Jeremy Balfour: I will come back to Mr Allan after I have made a wee bit of progress. I want to cover the situation of younger people as well. My amendment 245 would provide that, under section 20B, a doctor or health professional may face disciplinary action ranging from a warning or censure to temporary suspension.”
“Would Mr Balfour’s amendments change the long- established position whereby a doctor must offer all options? If assisted dying becomes law, that position would mean that a doctor would be under an obligation to offer assisted dying at the point at which a patient was most in shock and was feeling most vulnerable. Jeremy Balfour: I will leave it to the cabinet secretary to answer Ms Forbes’s second question. Brian Whittle and the Deputy First Minister have raised interesting issues. When I went to hospital appointments—which I did on numerous occasions—as a young child, and even when I was a teenager, my father would often go with me. I do not think that many members met my father, who was a senior partner in a legal firm.”
“For me, this goes to the absolute heart of a concern that constituents have raised with me frequently, which is that assisted death would be offered at the point where a patient was feeling most in shock or stunned about their diagnosis— and perhaps, considering how we have amended the bill, about their prognosis. For a doctor to offer assisted death as one option of many interventions seems to me to be an extremely difficult thing. I have heard from a number of individuals who have had cancer diagnoses, and they are concerned that assisted death would be offered at the precise moment when the person is feeling most vulnerable. My second question is for the health secretary, if he is able to respond to it. I understand that doctors are under an obligation to provide all options at the point of diagnosis.”
“Brian Whittle: I am sorry to labour the point, but a “Do not resuscitate” order is different from someone saying, “I want to access assisted dying.” People have conversations about “Do not resuscitate” orders when they are going into complex medical procedures that might leave them incapacitated and where, unless they are resuscitated, they will die. We are talking about a person requesting an assisted death. Those are two completely separate things. Kate Forbes rose— Jeremy Balfour: I want to make some progress, but I will take a final intervention from the Deputy First Minister. Kate Forbes: Presiding Officer, forgive me for talking, through Jeremy Balfour, to the general point.”
“During Covid, many constituents contacted me about the matter and I was deeply worried by the stories that I heard about the absolute desire of doctors to put people on such orders without any discussion. We need to look at that, but on another day. On assisted dying, I still think that it would be unnecessary for the doctor to start the conversation. DNRs are different. I think that, where somebody wants to start that conversation, they will do so. I do not think that we need the doctor to do it.”
“Miles Briggs: I note that Jeremy Balfour referenced the conversation that Finlay Carson mentioned previously. Medics have conversations with patients—often very ill patients—about “Do not resuscitate” orders, especially before they have surgery, if they might have to be resuscitated by medical professionals. Would Jeremy Balfour also not want those conversations to be able to take place? That would be concerning. We need to allow medical professionals to exercise their judgment, and I support people making sure that their views are known, as is currently the case, in relation to “Do not resuscitate” orders. I am not sure what his view is on those processes, which we already have in place, for medical professionals and patients. Jeremy Balfour: We could spend the next however many hours discussing “Do not resuscitate” orders.”
“Jamie Hepburn: I am very sympathetic to the arguments that have been deployed by Mr Johnson, Mr Whittle and, to an extent, Mr Balfour. However, I am slightly confused, or conflicted— that is probably a better term—by amendment 243, whereby a medical practitioner would have to “end the conversation immediately” if a young person under the age of 18 raised the subject of assistance to end their life. What would that mean in practice? Presumably, such a young person would be very vulnerable and in circumstances of distress. The notion that a medical practitioner would have to “end the conversation immediately”, if taken at its literal face value, does not sit well with me. Jeremy Balfour: If the member will let me progress a wee bit further, I will cover that. However, I will take Mr Briggs’s intervention first.”
“It is about who initiates the conversation. Amendment 235 would provide clarity for medical practitioners on compliance and accountability, and it would align with the concerns that the royal colleges and other professional bodies have raised in correspondence that we have all seen. Ending a life is the most serious decision that we can imagine and we need safeguards around it. Amendments 245 and 246 focus on— 17:45 Jamie Hepburn: Will the member take an intervention? Miles Briggs: Will the member take an intervention? Jeremy Balfour: I will just finish my sentence and I will then give way to both gentlemen. Amendments 245 and 246 focus on professional accountability in relation to child safeguarding and end-of-life care.”
“I would argue that giving people access to information is not coercion. Similar restrictions were initially introduced in New Zealand and Australia, but they are now looking to reverse those restrictions because they severely prohibit patients’ access to information. It seems very unfair that they should not be given that choice. Jeremy Balfour: I am not against patients getting information. The point that I am trying to make is about who starts the conversation about getting the information. That is the subtle difference. Brian Whittle: Does Jeremy Balfour agree that there is no intention to restrict access to information and that what matters is how that information is initially initiated, if that is a phrase? The information would be there, if the patient requested it. Jeremy Balfour: That is the key point.”
“The 14-month House of Commons inquiry found no evidence “of palliative and end-of-life care deteriorating … following the introduction of” assisted dying in other jurisdictions. Indeed, the inquiry observed that it had often acted as a catalyst for improvement. Stephen Kerr: Well, there is a perfect illustration of the issue. We had an intervention from Sue Webber, who quoted academic research that suggests that there is such evidence, and then we had an intervention to say that there is not. That highlights the issue that is at the heart of some of the assumptions and generalisations, which we should beware of.”
“As I mentioned earlier, I have met several young people who were in Skye house and their families, and I repeat my gratitude to them for speaking so openly about their experiences. I again reassure those young people and their families that their voices have been heard and that they will shape change.”
“Apologies, Presiding Officer. It is crucial that anyone who enters Skye house, and their family, have confidence in their care and support. How does the minister anticipate that measures such as the introduction of a care manager role as the key point of contact will help to improve trust and relationships with families and carers? Tom Arthur: The introduction of a dedicated care manager role at Skye house will give each family a clear, consistent point of contact throughout admission. The care manager will also be able to co-ordinate care more broadly. I am pleased to note the positive feedback from families in that regard in the inspection. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has reported that a substantial amount of work has been done to obtain feedback from parents and carers at Skye house to drive further improvements.”
“Bob Doris: I am certain that, when we make such a substantive change to legislation, we should build in safeguards, in case there might be coercion. I cannot imagine, in the world that we live in, that we should simply assume that there will not be coercion or indirect pressures, and therefore not ascertain whether they exist. That is why amendments 27, 160 and 33 are important for the operability of the bill and for ensuring that there are safeguards in place.”
“How does Bob Doris respond to the fact that international evidence from other jurisdictions shows that there is no evidence of coercion— absolutely none? Lorna Slater’s point is absolutely correct: the evidence is often the other way around, in that it shows that people try to talk people out of assisted dying. A clinician in California has written to us, saying: “I’ve never, in the many hundreds of cases that I have been part of, seen anything resembling family or friends attempting to coerce a dying person into receiving an assisted death.” You seem so certain that there is coercion, but there is no international evidence of it. I wonder how you would respond to that. The Deputy Presiding Officer : Always speak through the chair, please.”
“It has been linked to reduced drug-related deaths post-release, emphasising its importance in treatment. I conclude by stressing the support that is needed after release from prison. The first few weeks are critical. Many individuals face homelessness, which increases the risk of relapse. Effective throughcare planning is essential to ensure successful reintegration into the community. The Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that that happens and to constantly monitoring the issue of drug misuse in prisons. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. I call Maggie Chapman to close on behalf of the Scottish Greens. 16:30”
“The fact is, however, that the stigma that surrounds substance use and imprisonment can create barriers to seeking support. Peer-led support is essential for fostering a recovery culture in prisons. Harm reduction measures, including education and naloxone provision, are also essential for public health in prisons. However, the implementation of the MAT standards can be inconsistent across prisons. As the convener of the Criminal Justice Committee mentioned, dual diagnosis of addiction and mental health issues needs to be addressed. Funding and resources are critical for effective adherence to MAT standards. A lack of clarity on how they apply in prison settings can complicate their implementation. Quick access to medication, especially opioid substitution therapy, is vital on admission to prison.”
“Synthetic cannabinoids and benzodiazepines are the most detected substances, and they can be fatal due to the inability to gauge their quality or strength. Psychoactive drugs cause terror among staff and inmates due to the aggression and erratic behaviour that they cause. As we have heard, during our prison visits, we saw a variety of items that are used to smuggle drugs into prisons. The use of drones is becoming increasingly common. Technology is struggling to keep pace with the inventive ways in which criminals are getting access to drugs. Despite the extreme challenge that is being faced by prison and healthcare staff, work is being done to help prisoners to battle addiction. Recovery hubs and peer-led activities are emerging in prisons, but availability can vary due to staffing and operational pressures.”
“Serious offenders who are at risk to others should, of course, be incarcerated, but too many people, including women who are suffering from trauma and health issues or who are victims of domestic abuse, are being locked up for minor offences. That must stop. Prison wrecks families, blights children’s lives and rarely acts as a deterrent to offending. The excellent organisation Families Outside is a godsend to families who are trying to cope with the multiple effects of imprisonment. Families face emotional and financial strain due to a loved one’s substance use and imprisonment. Lack of information and often lack of communication from the prison exacerbates family distress and complicates relationships. The committee also learned about the drug supply and the entry of drugs into prisons.”
“In the prison environment—a setting in which people are forced to live together 24 hours a day with multiple mental health and trauma issues—it can be catastrophic. Boredom and trauma are significant factors that drive substance use in prisons. The current overcrowding means that structured activities such as education and exercise, which help to reduce boredom, are unable to take place. Many prisoners report limited access to those activities and are unable to leave their cells for hours due to a lack of programming or staff who are available to supervise. Questions must be asked about the number of short-term sentences that are being issued and, in fact, about the whole purpose of prison.”
“The Criminal Justice Committee’s inquiry into substance abuse in prisons was at times harrowing, often emotional when the committee met affected prisoners and, ultimately, extremely concerning on many levels. It is a fact that our prisons, along with those in the rest of the UK, are overcrowded and that substance abuse is rife in them. Unsurprisingly, that has an impact on prisoners, overworked staff and the families of offenders. Our inquiry highlighted the need for early intervention and an emphasis on tackling the wider societal issues around the root cause of substance misuse before imprisonment. Substance use leads to severe health risks, including overdoses and mental health deterioration.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made towards the establishment of a pathway for free dyslexia assessments at the point of contact for adults. (S6O-05567)”
“The establishment of a Scottish truth project will allow survivors the opportunity to share their experiences, inform policy changes and, importantly, access support. I am mindful that, when we talk about such issues in the chamber, it can be retraumatising for victims, so we need to be careful about the way in which we conduct ourselves and talk about such issues. That is why the truth project, which John O’Brien will lead, is so important. Mr O’Brien was secretary to the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales. He also led the development of the truth project, which ran alongside it. We will learn from his extensive experience to the benefit of survivors in”
“I am delighted to hear about the establishment of the truth project and the inquiry. Will the cabinet secretary provide further detail about how the truth project and the inquiry will interact and work alongside each other to ensure that survivors’ voices feed into the inquiry, which you have rightly said is a priority? Jenny Gilruth: As I said, the remit of the truth project will be developed, and part of that will involve consideration of its interaction with the inquiry. Members who attended this morning’s Education, Children and Young People Committee meeting heard more from Alexis Jay on the detail of the truth project. It is not necessary for a truth project to run alongside a statutory inquiry, but, as I know from John O’Brien, if they do so, that can provide valuable information from survivors.”
“The review may bring about changes to the consideration and delivery of sanctions to deal with any concerns or perceived concerns about the independence and impartiality of the process in the future. Although the SNP supports, in principle, the introduction of a form of recall in the Scottish Parliament, it is for all the reasons that I and others have outlined that we cannot support the bill at stage 3. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Christine Grahame. You have up to four minutes. 18:01”
“To progress how we believe the process should take place, we are recommending that the next Parliament should set up a committee at pace to consider the matter, just as it did successfully last year to consider Scotland’s commissioner landscape. As was mentioned, Graham Simpson’s bill rests on a system of sanctions that is currently under review, so it is not the right time to introduce a bill of such magnitude and complexity. Graham Simpson: Will the member take an intervention? Rona Mackay: I am sorry—I have only a wee bit more to say and I am running out of time. We must ensure that the processes work smoothly and are sufficiently clear to command public confidence, should they need to be used.”
“We have said throughout the consideration of the bill that matters relevant to the conduct and recall of members are for the Scottish Parliament to lead on, not the Government of the day or Scottish ministers. The Government’s overriding concern, as set out during stage 2 and during this debate, is that the bill is for Parliament to progress. It is only right that an independent, fair complaints and sanctions process, with guidance, is developed ahead of a recall process being established and agreed. The sanctions process is crucial and at the heart of the matter. Fairness and proportionality must be at the heart of it.”
“As a member who is standing down from the Parliament this year, I want there to be a fair, democratic and transparent system that is fit for the future. However, the bill rests on a system of parliamentary sanctions that is currently under review. The SNP believes that an independent and fair complaints and sanctions process with guidance is needed ahead of a recall process being established and agreed to. That is particularly the case with regard to how such a recall system would work for regional MSPs, as we have heard today. There must be parity between constituency and regional MSPs in our democratic system. If the bill were to pass today, MSPs would be agreeing to a bill that is based on a purely unknown process. That uncertainty would present risks, particularly in relation to how such a recall system would work for regional MSPs.”
“I want to make it clear, as the minister has done, that the Scottish Government and the Scottish National Party support the introduction of a fair and independent recall process in the Scottish Parliament to improve democratic accountability and to strengthen trust in our political system. I thank Graham Simpson for the work that he has done on the issue and for shining a light on what needs to be done in the next parliamentary session. His member’s bill has opened up a conversation on and a necessary study of the measures that are needed to hold MSPs to account and restore trust in this institution. As MSPs, we are in a privileged position and our responsibilities to our constituents—the people who voted for us—cannot be underestimated.”