Finlay Carson
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“Forestry does not operate to a political timescale but works over decades, yet as a consequence of uncertainty about funding and direction, fewer trees are being planted and there is less confidence across the sector. The decision to cut the forestry grant scheme by 40 per cent has had consequences.”
“That is not climate leadership; it is climate displacement, which involves exporting our emissions while importing food from elsewhere, often with higher carbon costs. Jim Fairlie: I am not quite sure what the member is talking about with regard to declining production in this country.”
“In responding to the climate change plan, witnesses warned that the right balance has not yet been struck between short-term emissions and long- term sustainable restoration.”
“We all recognise the reality and impacts of climate change. Emissions must fall, Scotland must improve climate resilience and we must protect our natural environment, so we support an affordable transition to net zero.”
“Our third Scottish national adaptation plan is our blueprint to build resilience to climate change in a way that is fair and equitable but which can also potentially save millions of pounds by preventing damage. Collaboration is at its heart, including collaboration with local government.”
“The problem is, we know that action needs to be taken but the Government keeps kicking the hard decisions into the long grass. There is no certainty, and there is a reducing budget. The same credibility gap that we have just heard from the minister’s response exists when it comes to technology and implementation.”
The complete record
Every one of 599 lines we hold for Finlay Carson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 12.
“Across Dumfries and Galloway, it brings together people of all ages—teenagers, pensioners, and everyone in between. Thanks to that community culture, we produce world-class curlers such as Grant Hardie, Hammy McMillan Jr, Bobby Lammie and Olympic champion Vicky Wright. There must be something in the water in Dumfries and Galloway—or, more likely, in the ice. We also have the brilliant Wigtownshire Ladies rugby team and the ever- dominant St Cuthbert’s walking football squad. Finally, it may be indulgent, but I would like to have my proud dad moment. Eleven years ago, after a reluctant visit—or should I say being dragged—to an ice hockey match at the Ice Bowl in Dumfries, my daughter Vicky got the ice hockey bug and, within weeks, donned skates and pads.”
“That includes fellow Twynholm lad, motor sport star David Coulthard. Right across the sporting spectrum, they all started somewhere: they started at a local club. David, for example, started at the Cults Kart Club just outside Stranraer. I have spoken before in the chamber about the enormous impact of community sports organisations such as Queen of the South’s Community Trust. Its work with young people, families and vulnerable groups is nothing short of outstanding. It is joined by Stranraer FC, St Cuthbert Wanderers and Threave Rovers, which are clubs that do more than simply field teams— they provide belonging, opportunity and purpose. In many communities, they are as essential as the village hall or the post office—just with better pies. Curling, meanwhile, might be the sport that best captures the spirit of rural Scotland.”
“I have watched novice politician Neil Richmond go from councillor to senator to TD to Minister of State, which clearly proves that playing regular matches against us Scots is the secret to career progression. If that really worked, in Holyrood, we would have a queue around the block to join the squad. Humour aside, nothing demonstrates the strength of that relationship more than the compassion that the Irish team showed when our friend and colleague David Hill tragically passed away during one of those fixtures. Their kindness in that moment will never be forgotten. It showed the true power of sport not only to unite, but to support and heal. I will turn to my constituency, where, thankfully, others are considerably more talented than I am. We continue to punch well above our weight.”
“Members from every party take to the pitch and, for 80 minutes, forget about divisions—albeit that is probably mainly because we are all too busy trying to remember which direction we are meant to run in. However, a few years ago, at the pre-match reception at the British embassy in Dublin, the British ambassador said that he believed that it was the first time that all the major parties of the island of Ireland had been in the same room at the same time. That was an example of rugby bringing people together—and it was quite something. Our annual fixture with our Irish parliamentary counterparts has forged genuine friendships over the years. I have donned their tie and I am wearing it as I speak.”
“It widens opportunity and brings people closer together, regardless of background, colour or creed. It can even help politicians to talk to one another like human beings, which is a miracle in itself. I have represented Scotland at rugby—yes, in an actual Scotland shirt. In fact, I am confident that my brief international career was the inspiration behind fellow Galloway lads and Scottish stars Stafford McDowall and Alex Craig reaching the heights that they have. Sadly, my own promising future was cut short due to a highly technical flaw: my severe and incurable lack of ability. For full disclosure, if members have not already guessed, my Scottish appearances were for the Scottish Parliament team. The Scottish Parliament rugby team is an example of the positives of sport.”
“I thank my friend and colleague Brian Whittle for bringing the debate to the chamber. The motion highlights something that most of us know instinctively, which is that sport and physical activity are about not only fitness, but also connection, confidence and community cohesion. We all know about the health benefits of sport: stronger bodies, better mental health and reduced risk of serious illness. The United Kingdom chief medical officers even called physical activity the closest thing that we have to “a miracle cure”, which is spectacular news for the NHS. It is therefore disappointing that this Government, year after year, has failed to spend to save on the NHS; it has failed to save money and to save lives. Health aside, sport also builds leadership, resilience and teamwork.”
“We have heard, and have seen in debates and votes over the past few weeks, including the stage 3 debate that we have just had, that there should perhaps be room for more separation between the party or Government and individuals. I am confident that the changes that have been proposed will allow such separation for MSPs who remember who sent them to the Scottish Parliament and who their responsibility is to.”
“Members will see that, under the proposed rules, where there is only one proposed candidate from a party that holds the convenership pen for that committee, there would be an election only if somebody put their hand up and said, “I object.” The other important element is that there are very few secret votes in the Scottish Parliament. The Presiding Officer and the deputy presiding officers have the privilege of being appointed in an anonymous vote. The process for electing conveners of committees would be the same. That approach was deliberately chosen to reflect what the evidence showed happens in other Assemblies and Parliaments—it removes the party’s ability to dictate the vote unless the individual who is voting wants to accept that.”
“Does Martin Whitfield appreciate that, although we all expect the best from our parliamentarians, the proposed model might allow for majority-holding parties to veto candidates until they come up with one that they want? If such a rule had been in place for this session, we might not have seen the award-winning convener Douglas Ross being appointed. Martin Whitfield: We spent a great deal of time listening to evidence—not necessarily specifically about any award-winning convener but about the challenges of such a process potentially being open to manipulation.”
“A future Government must grab the bull by the horns and develop a proper consolidation bill that brings together the patchwork of existing legislation into a coherent, modern framework that truly improves outcomes for animals and the people who are responsible for their care. Instead, today, we debate a bill that does none of that. It contributes nothing to welfare and simply reinforces the impression that the Parliament has, to be frank, gone to the dogs, given that such a measure takes precedence over legislation that might make life better for man and beast in Scotland. For those reasons, we will vote against it. 15:13”
“The evidence has been contested throughout, and the Government has produced nothing new to justify its U-turn from calling a ban “disproportionate” to now supporting it. Meanwhile, we read reports of a possible legal challenge to similar legislation in Wales before the ink is even dry. That should alarm anyone who cares about good governance and legislative competence. However, what worries me most is that the bill is portrayed as advancing animal welfare while delivering absolutely nothing in practice. It is gesture politics and virtue-signalling legislation that is designed to look busy rather than make a difference. All the while, genuinely needed reforms languish. Scotland’s animal welfare law is spread across numerous dated and disjointed acts.”
“I recognise the commitment of any member who brings forward a member’s bill, and the significant time and resources that that takes. However, without any disrespect to Mark Ruskell, with whom I have worked on many occasions over the past 10 years, it has to be recognised that it is hard to conclude anything other than that this process has been a waste of precious parliamentary time, given that it will not improve the welfare of a single greyhound in Scotland. There is no active track nor on-going racing, yet we are being asked to pass a total ban without ever exploring the very thing that has improved welfare in England and Wales, which is licensing, robust regulation and proper oversight.”
“Amendment 226 disagreed to. Amendment 227 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 227 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) 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) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) 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) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (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) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) 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) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) 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) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) 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) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) 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) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Abstentions Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For, 16, Against 99, Abstentions 6.”
“Amendment 47 agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Amendment 225 will not be called because of the pre-emption. Section 18—Conscientious objection Amendment 226 moved—[Pauline McNeill]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 226 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed. Brian Whittle: On a point of order, Presiding Officer, my voting app would not connect. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Whittle. Your vote will be recorded.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer, I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Carson. Your vote will be recorded. For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) 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) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) 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) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kerr, Liam (North East 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, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) 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) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) 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) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Abstentions Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For, 98, Against 19, Abstentions 3.”
“However, they cannot resolve the deeper challenge that, when societal pressures, unmet care needs and personal vulnerability intersect, it becomes extremely difficult to be certain that a decision has been made entirely free from influence. For that reason, I remain deeply concerned that no set of procedural safeguards could fully eliminate the risk of coercion under legislation of this kind.”
“Not only is that difficult, as we have heard members across the chamber say, but many people do not have the skills, or the time, to do it. It would also be asking a lot for health professionals to have the necessary understanding of the deep-seated inequality that every single disabled person faces, and the everyday ableism that they experience, to the extent necessary for those professionals to be assured that the person is acting with autonomy, within the terms of a bill such as this, and in making such a decision. Taken together, the amendments in the group reflect a genuine effort to strengthen safeguards against coercion. I recognise that.”
“Many people in Scotland have no choice or autonomy in their own lives. Some disabled people do not get to choose who enters their home to care for them, who helps them to put their clothes on and take them off, or what they have for their dinner. The absence of choice in all other aspects of life could make assisted dying attractive; indeed, it could be the only choice that some people have. The everyday ableism, and the constant barriers that accumulate and can make life intolerable, can encourage—and, indeed, coerce—people to end their lives. We have seen it happen in other jurisdictions, and we have to protect against it. However, simply asking someone to say that they are exercising choice and autonomy is not protecting against it, and neither is asking a professional to make that judgment.”
“These fears are real. As I have said, even in a highly regulated environment, disabled people's experience of coercion and abuse goes undetected. We cannot detect it now, and we would be unlikely to detect it afterwards if the bill were to pass. If you are told every day that your life is of less value, you learn to believe it. When everything in this world says that you do not belong, you learn to believe it. You internalise it, just as many people internalise the negative attitudes that people have towards them. For many reasons, people mask such feelings— the feelings of inadequacy and shame that they have come to believe. They can be impossible to detect, and people often do not tell you about them. Some people do not even detect such feelings in themselves until they see others living well.”
“I see these things every day. It is hard to believe that your way of life is acceptable when so many people tell you that it is not; that changes to make something accessible to you are too expensive; that there are not enough care funds to go around, so you should have lower expectations of the life that you want to live; or that surely a woman in your condition will not want a family. Those are the very real beliefs that many disabled people face every single day. We saw that at its extreme during the Covid pandemic, when the lives of many groups of people were considered to be of less value and “Do not resuscitate” orders were placed on them without their consent. At that time, my husband and I were so scared of the value that society placed on our lives that we wrote to each other to say that we wanted to be resuscitated.”
“There are many amendments on coercion, financial abuse, encouragement to choose assisted suicide et cetera that seek to remove the possibility of improper motives influencing the process. The reality is that disabled people’s experience is so deeply oppressed that seeking to remove those things simply by amending one bill is unrealistic. It would take sweeping change across all areas of public policy and all areas of life to protect disabled people from the internalised everyday ableism that they experience. The subtle pressure faced by disabled people and those who live with dependency or live differently from others stems from cultural attitudes. We know that when it comes to people experiencing ill health, disabled people or people who have lost function in some way, those attitudes are not yet what we would all hope them to be.”
“This is a group of people who have a lot of contact with a lot of professionals in their lives, yet abuse and coercion towards them still go undetected. That goes to the heart of what members across the chamber, and in particular my colleague Paul O’Kane, have spoken of in relation to social workers’ concerns about the bill. There is another angle of risk to highlight. When structural inequalities and dependency are present, as they often are for people at the end of their lives—or, for some, throughout their lives— no safeguards can fight the tide of internalised coercion or ableism. Such coercion is subtle, but it is deeply internalised and extremely difficult to detect.”
“Despite being a group of people who have contact with the state more often than many others, disabled people, and especially disabled women, are still more likely to experience domestic violence and abuse than others. In fact, they are twice as likely as non-disabled women to experience abuse. They are also more likely than non-disabled people to experience abuse from an adult family member. One in 10 domestic violence abuse cases is perpetrated by someone with a caring responsibility. I am talking about some of the most regulated people in society. I say this not flippantly, but as an example: it is difficult for a disabled person to even get on a train without having to give their full name and phone number for staff to check whether they have booked assistance.”
“Does she recognise that Social Work Scotland and the Scottish Association of Social Work have said that the provisions that were agreed to at stage 2 are not sufficient and will not go to where they need to be on the issue of coercion? Pam Duncan-Glancy: I was about to say that social workers have contacted us ahead of today’s debate to say that they are deeply worried about the bill as it stands, including, specifically, the amendments that were agreed to at stage 2. I and colleagues around the chamber— including, I am sure, my colleague Paul O’Kane— believe that we must listen to social workers. They are often asked to protect people. To do so against the background of legally ending someone’s life would be a big ask, and we should listen to them when they raise concerns.”
“However, I worry that those changes, and many others proposed in amendments that we are considering, are not and will not be enough. I associate myself with the comments on that aspect made so far, and in particular with those of Ruth Maguire. As we have heard from various members, social workers—and others who regularly make determinations on people’s lives—have raised concerns about the societal and institutional pressures, including pervasive narratives about being a burden, the cost of care, or the emotional and financial toll on families, and how those can shape a person’s decision in ways that are profound and deeply difficult to detect. Paul O’Kane: Pam Duncan-Glancy referenced the stage 2 amendments and the role of social workers, which, along with colleagues, I have been commenting on.”
“To be clear, and in response to Mr Marra’s earlier point, these amendments are intended to ensure consistency with the Scottish Sentencing Council’s guidelines and approach to maximum and minimum sentencing for summary offences. I also note that the provisions on indictment remain the same, carrying a sentence of up to 14 years in prison and an unlimited fine. Pam Duncan-Glancy: The National Council on Disability reported that social and family pressure has influenced some disabled people to consider assisted death, and that such pressure is often rooted in their perceptions of being a burden. The bill states that the person seeking assistance must declare that they have not been coerced. Changes at stage 2 required inquiries on that issue from professionals, as we have just heard from my colleague Liam McArthur.”
“Safeguards should remain robust but should allow clinicians to exercise clinical judgment rather than prescribing highly detailed assessment processes in legislation. Finally, my amendments 50 and 51 in this group are intended to ensure consistency with the general approach to summary penalties and to reflect standard drafting practice. Section 21(2)(a) sets out the penalties that are applicable on summary conviction for offences under that section. Amendment 50 substitutes a reference to 2 years with 12 months, and amendment 51 substitutes a reference to “level 5 on the standard scale” with “the statutory maximum”, updating the description of the maximum fine that may be imposed on summary conviction.”
“An indication of the journey that I have been on with this bill is that that is reflected in the bill in a way that it was not at the outset. I think that what Mr O’Kane refers to is very clearly the case in relation to not just coercion but capacity. Social work professionals also make a fairly legitimate case that the understanding of the range of options that are available to an individual, to ensure that the choice that they are making is an informed one, is likely to come from the expertise that social work professionals have. However, I still do not believe that having a mandated referral to social work in each and every instance is a proportionate way of addressing the risk that I absolutely accept exists.”
“Paul O’Kane: If Liam McArthur is not willing to accept that GPs struggle to spot coercion, does he accept my point about social workers being highly trained professionals who identify patterns of coercion and systematic abuse? Does he understand how serious it is when the Scottish Association of Social Work and Social Work Scotland say “Scotland’s most vulnerable people cannot be an afterthought in a Bill designed to serve them”? 20:15 Liam McArthur: I certainly accept the point, as I indicated in my intervention on Mr O’Kane, which is why the bill was amended at stage 2 to ensure that social work and social care were far better and more clearly reflected in the referral pathways that were set out in the bill.”
“Our understanding of coercive control and behaviour might mean that the way that medical professionals engage with the process, and the interactions that they have with patients, would develop over time, and that will provide far more of a safeguard than what is in place at the moment, given that such conversations simply are not happening. It is not that I do not accept that there is a risk—the prevalence of coercion is potentially more extensive than we understand it to be—but the process that is proposed in the bill would introduce protections that do not exist at the moment. Amendment 93 also contains subjective concepts, such as indirect coercion and dependency, which risk creating uncertainty for healthcare professionals and are difficult to apply consistently.”
“The amendment would introduce an overly prescriptive assessment that duplicates safeguards that are already in the bill. Ruth Maguire: Rona Mackay mentioned that no coercion had been detected anywhere else in the world. Why does Liam McArthur think that that is the case? Are women safe everywhere, or is something perhaps lacking in doctors’ training when it comes to spotting coercion? How would he address that issue? Liam McArthur: I would reflect that what Rona Mackay said is certainly true. The evidence that we see—in all the reporting and in all the jurisdictions that I am aware of—is that the issue of coercion has not been raised.”
“A thorough, detailed and honest conversation that is undertaken by two separate clinicians, exploring the person’s concerns and motivations, would go hand in hand with a discussion of alternative care options. That would help to establish eligibility for an assisted death in a far more person-centred way than Jeremy Balfour’s amendments would allow. I similarly question the purpose of the further assessment that is proposed by Ruth Maguire’s amendment 93. The co-ordinating registered medical professional and authorised health professional must be satisfied at the time that the substance is provided that the adult is requesting assistance voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by any other person into doing so.”
“With regard to Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 177 and 180, the bill would already require assessing doctors to state that they are satisfied that the person seeking an assisted death is a terminally ill adult who has made their declaration voluntarily, without pressure or coercion. The bill would also provide for steps to be taken should the assessing doctor consider that the person is not terminally ill or if they have doubts about the person’s capacity. Amendments 177 and 180 are therefore unnecessary. The reasons and motivations that are set out in the amendments are subjective, numerous and varied. The bill already contains strong safeguards to ensure that a person is eligible, has capacity and is acting voluntarily.”
“Liam McArthur: I have accepted a number of amendments that will tighten up the safeguards that are related to coercion as well as other interests in relation to capacity. The bill is heavily safeguarded in that respect. More can and would be done, not only through secondary legislation, but through the guidance. The point made by Ruth Maguire and Michael Marra was that the level of understanding of coercive and controlling behaviour is more recent and developing. Therefore, that would need to be reflected in training, not only in this instance but more widely in the health and judicial sectors.”
“Liam McArthur: I accept Brian Whittle’s argument—we had a discussion about that at stage 2 and in the intervening months since then. I do not accept that the process that is proposed in the bill does not provide a way to deal with the concerns that he has raised. As I said, I do not ignore such concerns at all, but introducing an assessor would not be a proportionate way to address them. As such, I am not inclined to support his amendments. Kate Forbes: I am conscious that members at large have concerns about coercion, which is why there are so many different amendments in this group, and that Liam McArthur has shifted on the six-month prognosis issue because of pressure from colleagues. Is he willing to concede any ground on the question of coercion?”
“If we do not agree to them, it will be possible to scupper somebody’s accessing of assisted dying simply by suggesting that there might be coercion. The police would then have to carry out an investigation, which would stop the whole assisted dying process. If we do not have a process for handling the assessment within a certain period of time, the whole thing is put in peril. Medical professionals have said before that, in the cases of people who decided not to take any more medical help or treatment towards the end of their life, if other people wanted to go against that decision, the medical professionals had to accept that. If we do not agree to these amendments, we risk the same thing happening to those who are trying to access assisted dying.”
“I turn to Brian Whittle’s amendments 174, 305, 182, 187, 189 and 209. As I said at stage 2, given that the assessing doctors will already be assessing for risk of coercion, I question whether a further assessment by an independent assessor is necessary. I would be concerned that that may create undue delays and prolong the suffering of the person who is seeking an assisted death, particularly given that a period of 10 working days may pass following the assessment before the report is produced. I note also the Scottish Government’s view at stage 2 that introducing independent assessors may present significant deliverability challenges. Brian Whittle: Those amendments were not just brought out of a thought.”
“However, I believe that retaining the need for coercion or pressure to be an act that is done by another person, supported by the offences in the bill and the ability for other health, social care and social work professionals to input into the assessment process, is the best way to proceed. I am therefore not persuaded to support the amendments that would change that, but I am prepared to accept those relating to the removal of references to “by any other person”, which are amendments 24, 25, 35, 36, 41, 76, 77, 80, 82 and 84. Likewise, I will accept amendment 33. Amendments 27 and 160 seem to me to go further than is necessary, helpful and desirable in terms of seeking to define “indirect pressure”. It will be for Parliament to decide whether it wishes to support those. Bob Doris has set out the arguments for them very clearly.”
“I am concerned that defining coercion and pressure in the way that I just described risks introducing new definitions of legal terms, thus creating confusion and making the detection of coercion or pressure and the prosecution of the offences under the bill more difficult. From the stage 2 debates and the conversations that Bob Doris and I have had over many months, I certainly understand the intent behind his amendments and accept that various factors may express a person’s vulnerable status and situation, which would potentially make them prone to influence and could affect their decision making.”
“Bob Doris: I thank Liam McArthur for commenting on my amendments. However, he lumped together my amendments 27, 160 and 33 with all the other amendments on coercion “by any other person”. I drew a distinction between them. Amendment 27 in particular, with amendments 160 and 33 supporting it, enables the conversation between the co-ordinating medical practitioner and the individual to discuss what indirect pressures might be impacting on the individual. Surely that is a positive thing, given our exchange in Parliament this evening. Liam McArthur: I thank Bob Doris for that intervention. I lumped those amendments together but I will break them apart later in my remarks. I acknowledge the point that he is making.”
“The matter of how it is resourced will need to be taken forward by the Scottish Government on the back of the Parliament passing the bill. Accommodation to ensure that there is sufficient time to allow the assessments to be carried out and that, where appropriate, there is input from experts—whether medical experts, social workers or others—is allowed for. All those aspects are integral to making sure that the safeguards work as intended. For those reasons, as I said at stage 2, I am wary about widening the understanding of coercion and pressure from being a form of illegitimate influence that is brought to bear by another person to one that is done by the person themselves, by societal expectations, by the health and social care system—as opposed to individuals within that system—or by the state.”
“Audrey Nicoll: I flag the recent commentary by the Royal College of General Practitioners that assessing coercion is beyond the capacity of its members, and that it does not believe that that work can or should be incorporated into an already very busy and stressful professional role. Does Liam McArthur recognise that, whether or not we require training on the issue of coercion and its identification, that is not seen as feasible by some in the medical profession? Liam McArthur: I certainly acknowledge those concerns, which the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and others have expressed to me directly. The way in which assessment is rolled out, as I have said before, will look different in different parts of the country.”
“Both doctors and the professional who provides the substance at a later stage in the process must, among other things, be satisfied that the person is making the decision of their own free and settled will, without having been coerced or pressured—not forced, nor subjected to psychological and/or moral pressure. The bill further contains a specific offence of coercion, for which a person can be punished. That is intentional and aligns with the bill’s construction that coercion is an act that is done by one person to another, which is consistent with established principles under Scots law.”
“On amendments 24, 25, 27, 33, 35, 36, 41, 76, 77, 80, 82, 84 and 160, which were lodged by Bob Doris, it is important that the bill provides appropriate and proportionate safeguards while allowing those who wish to have assistance to access it in a reasonable timeframe and an appropriate framework. It is fundamental that a terminally ill adult makes the choice about requesting assistance without coercion or pressure by another person. The bill is expressly premised on the act’s being voluntary for the person who seeks assisted dying.”
“Guidance and training already exist in that area and will be updated as appropriate, should the bill be passed. The bill provides clarity that the safeguard is intended to protect individuals from pressure and coercion. The amendments risk creating uncertainty by replacing the word “coercion” with “explicit or implicit” “undue influence”, which is hard to define and to apply consistently. As was debated at length at stage 2, there are also risks from seeking to put in the bill ever more detail about what constitutes coercion, rather than ensuring that such assessments are always made in line with relevant, up-to-date guidance. Confusion and inconsistency will only increase risk and reduce safeguard. From my conversations with Mr O’Kane, I know that he would wish to avoid that.”
“Paul O’Kane’s amendments 151, 152, 158, 172, 175, 178, 315 and 320 seek to replace the assessment that is made by the assessing doctors, and relevant statements in relation to coercion and pressure, with a wider provision that would seek to confirm that the terminally ill adult had not made the declaration as a result of undue influence, whether explicit or implicit, including pressure that had arisen from dependency, family or caring responsibilities, financial circumstances, care arrangements or the perception of being a burden on others. Again, I do not believe that such amendments are necessary. As was clearly evidenced during stage 1, medical professionals have an understanding, an awareness and experience of detecting coercion.”
“The bill puts in place a process that robustly safeguards access to other individuals beyond the co-ordinating medical professional and independent medical professional, drawing on the expertise of social work, social care, and other relevant medical experts, to fully assess the terminal nature of the illness, the capacity of the individual and whether there are any signs of pressure or coercion.”
“Michael Marra: What would Liam McArthur say to Dr Anni Donaldson, given her evidence to MSPs in the past week that an on-going relationship with an individual is required in order to best understand whether they have been the victim of coercion or abuse, and that a 20-minute conversation—which could, as the bill is drafted, perhaps even be conducted online via a Zoom call—is not a sufficient means of understanding that individual and determining whether they are facing the circumstances that have been described? Liam McArthur: When it comes to individuals accessing particular treatments, protections are largely non-existent at the moment. The example that Michael Marra quoted shows the consequences of that.”
“In a sense, the process puts in place safeguards that are not there at present, which means that the individuals’ vulnerabilities are not picked up. 20:00 On Michael Marra’s amendment 181, stage 1 evidence brought out clearly the fact that doctors are well trained and capable of making capacity and coercion assessments. The process already requires two doctors to make those assessments independently of each other and with reference to other relevant medical experts and professionals if and where appropriate. Only if both doctors are satisfied that all criteria are met can a person move to a second declaration. Introducing another layer in the form of a panel of experts at that stage would simply add another hurdle for the sake of it, rather than provide a safeguard to address a risk.”