Alex Cole-Hamilton
Scottish Liberal Democrats · Scotland
“I am sure that all members will join me in expressing solidarity with Scotland’s Muslim community after the brutal and unprovoked attacks on the streets of Edinburgh last weekend. That community’s response to those attacks has not been one of violence or revenge; it has been to make a plea for tolerance and understanding.”
“All told, more than 1,400 inmates have been let out of prison since the early release scheme began, and that is because our prisons are bursting at the seams. However, that is not a strategy and it will not protect the public.”
“Let that sink in, because the language of displacement and othering is the antithesis of the cohesion that Lord Offord speaks about so regularly. Liberals believe in reform—of course we do. The Whig Government in 1832— Amanda Bland: Will the member take an intervention? Alex Cole-Hamilton: I will give way to Amanda Bland.”
“This was an opportunity for Reform to prove everybody wrong and to pepper the chamber this afternoon with speeches that were measured in tone and full of bright ideas to fix the things that are wrong in Scotland. We have heard none of that today.”
“I welcome the minister’s remarks about the Edinburgh attacks. Does he recognise, as do members on these benches, that as well as expressing solidarity with the Muslim community of Scotland, we owe them a debt of gratitude that there was no call for activism and action on the streets of Scotland by the Muslim community?”
“That is why the Government is prioritising an economy with a strength that is felt by people, businesses and communities across Scotland. Scotland is a great place and, collectively, we are making it even greater.”
The complete record
Every one of 814 lines we hold for Alex Cole-Hamilton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 17.
“The minister refers to practitioners who go above and beyond in the qualifications that they seek out and the measures that they put in place to safeguard the people in their care. They are still none the wiser as to whether the bill, when it is finally implemented, will put them out of business. I hope that the minister will clarify to members— either in her remarks now or in her closing remarks—the Government’s intention to work with the sector to find a way through all of this, so that, when the next Government implements the bill, it does not lead to the unnecessary loss of viable, high-quality businesses. Jenni Minto: I thank Alex Cole-Hamilton for his intervention and I note again my disappointment that he has not engaged on the bill with me prior to this stage.”
“To legislate without thinking about the consequences for them and seeking a remedy for them would be a very poor thing indeed. Jenni Minto: Ash Regan’s amendments seek to provide alternatives to the permitted premises that are currently described in the bill. The proposed alternatives would weaken public safety by removing the requirement for a healthcare professional to be involved in those settings. Due to time constraints, I will not repeat all the discussions that we held at stage 2, but this is a fundamental part of the bill, so there are points that I must make. We based our estimates on an estimated 1,500 businesses. I point out that this is a non-regulated sector, which is partly why we are bringing in the regulations. However, not all businesses will be impacted, as I will go on to explain.”
“I will speak briefly in support of Ash Regan’s amendments, which I think provide a remedy to some of the inflexibilities around the bill as drafted that I raised at stage 1. Ash Regan spoke of constituents coming to see her, and I have had constituents come to see me. I am sure that members across the chamber have businesses in their constituencies that would not only be affected by all the proposed changes in the bill but would be absolutely sunk without trace if those changes were to be brought in unamended. My anxiety is that, although we absolutely need to regulate for the bad actors in this field of procedure, there are a good number of people— largely women—who are well qualified and very focused on patient care, cleanliness, hygiene and all the other things that we would hope to see in the sector.”
“Scottish Liberal Democrats will certainly play our part in ensuring that we act on the recommendations and uphold the principles of fair and safe work, both for our staff and for the people who seek our help when they come to our offices. We are committed to that endeavour. Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 09:41”
“I expect, or at least hope, that every member in the chamber will always seek to reflect the better natures of the people who sent us here and who give us our instructions. It is clear that, although there is widespread good practice in the building, we are still falling short of that aspiration. I hope that the people who have come forward anonymously have found redress and support and, most importantly, have been believed. There are challenges in the report. It is embarrassing, but it is also a call to action. I sincerely hope that, although the report represents one of the last considerations of this session of Parliament, it will also represent one of the first considerations of the session to come.”
“I am merely responding to the direct question that was posed to me by Ms Forbes. I must correct Dr Allan as it is reasonable treatment options that must be discussed by a clinician. The question as to whether assisted dying would be deemed a reasonable treatment option is for colleagues to wrestle with. The Scottish Government has serious concerns that several of the amendments that are contained in this group raise issues of legislative competence.”
“Mr Doris’s family scenario—I am very sorry for what he has had to put on the record—outlines a case in which no reasonable treatment options were put on the table in that discussion. I hope that that assists the Parliament; I am attempting to provide as much information as I can so that MSPs can come to their own ethical judgments. Alasdair Allan: I see that the Government has not made comments about Daniel Johnson’s amendments 18 and 19, for instance. However, the cabinet secretary has referred to the duty of a medical professional to make all options known to the patient. Is his understanding that amendments 18 and 19 would impinge on that duty by—in my view, helpfully—avoiding the need to mention assisted dying? Neil Gray: I make no comment on those amendments, because those considerations are inherently ethical in nature.”
“I am afraid to say that, as drafted, amendment 243 would fail to meet the standard of protecting them, so I urge the Parliament to vote against it. Neil Gray: The majority of the amendments in the group, and the debate on them, have involved considerations that are inherently ethical in nature. I do not wish to comment on the amendments because of the Government’s neutral position. However, I have been asked a direct question by Ms Forbes, so I will clarify the duties on clinicians: all treatment options that, in their clinical opinion, are reasonable—and I stress the word “reasonable”—should be discussed. There is a question as to whether assisted dying would be deemed a reasonable treatment option.”
“Does Jamie Hepburn agree that it is very difficult to legislate for human interaction generally and that, when it comes to the holistic treatment of an individual—particularly someone in their late teens going through end-of-life care—it would be vital to have that kind of conversation, to give them agency and an understanding of the laws of the land, rather than just ceasing the conversation altogether? Jamie Hepburn: I broadly accept and understand that point. However, I will go back to the fundamental point that we are making the law here, and that law has to be readable and understandable, and it has to provide protection for everyone. Although we are talking about legislating for the rights of individual patients, we also have to think about the position of the clinicians, that is, the medical professionals.”
“In November, the Parliament backed a Scottish Liberal Democrat amendment that called for an independent review of maternity services in Caithness, giving hope to families in the area. Why is the SNP defying the wishes of this Parliament?”
“There is good news. A year after she was ready to leave hospital, and months after I first raised her case, Margaret MacGill finally got home yesterday—not because of anything that the Government did but because her family took control of the budget and hired carers themselves, because they were told that the alternative was for her to spend another year in hospital. Just down the road from Margaret, The Herald newspaper spoke to Elizabeth Jones, a mum in Caithness. Her first two kids were born in the local hospital but then, on the Scottish National Party’s watch, her local maternity services were downgraded. So, when her third child needed to be born by caesarean section, she had to travel 100 miles, alone, to Inverness on a bus.”
“This week, our hearts are with the people of Dunblane and, in particular, the families of the 16 children and their teacher who were lost to us that day. Thirty years on, many of those children might have been parents themselves by now, but the gunshots of a madman cut short the promise of those young lives. They brought a nation to grief and a Parliament to action, causing it to ban for ever the domestic ownership of handguns and, by so doing, prevent the likelihood of the repetition of such a tragedy. This year, and every year, we remember the trauma of Dunblane and the shadow that it still casts across our national story. First Minister’s Question Time 12:06 Glasgow Union Street Fire 1.”
“I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Dey. Your vote will be recorded.”
“For me, the uncertainties remain far too great, the safeguards remain far too unclear and the consequences remain far too profound. I urge colleagues across the chamber to think carefully as they vote on the amendments in this group. I press amendment 90. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 90 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed. The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not vote. I would have noted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms McAllan. Normally, when a member appears remotely, we would expect their camera to be on. Maybe that should be borne in mind. Your vote will be recorded. Graeme Dey: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app is not working.”
“The fact that so many questions remain unsolved at this late stage should give every member pause for thought. I would like to know whether Mr McArthur agrees with the statement in the medical advisory group’s report that the doctor should be present to ensure that the patient dies peacefully, because we have heard about some rather unpeaceful deaths. There are still too many what-ifs surrounding the bill. If Mr McArthur believes that raising such concerns amounts to hunting for reasons to oppose the bill, he is mistaken. These are legitimate and necessary questions that must be answered, given that we are dealing with a bill that would fundamentally change the role of the state, the medical profession and our approach to end of life.”
“In a case in Oregon, a drug failed to kill the patient, and that patient never repeated the attempt. That might suggest that, if the procedure fails, the doctor should try to preserve life. However, someone might want to ask a doctor not to intervene if they were experiencing seizures or vomiting and their life was in the balance. I am making the point that this is a grey area. I am not saying that the bill will set out clinical practice, but we must acknowledge that this is really complicated and complex—we are not talking about a simple procedure. Sue Webber: I thank Ruth Maguire for that intervention, because these are not theoretical concerns, as we have heard time and again. There are fundamental questions about responsibility, legality and patient safety.”
“I have not been satisfied with what I have heard in response to such concerns. What would a health professional do when they were in someone’s home and something went wrong? Would they revive the individual or euthanise them? We have not been given satisfactory answers to such questions. We have to ask serious questions about the role of the assisting physician. What would happen if things did not go as expected? What would happen if the process failed? What would doctors be permitted or required to do if something went wrong? Ruth Maguire: I take Alex Cole-Hamilton’s point that we are not clinicians and would not spell out clinical practice in the bill. However, I want to share an example that speaks to the complexity of the issue and shows why we need to talk through all these things.”
“It is our responsibility to legislate for the most vulnerable—those who are not empowered and who cannot seek out information on substances or the steps that might be best for them in their dire state of health. We are here to make responsible law, for once. As I said at stage 1—I make no apology for repeating it—one mistake in legislation such as this is one mistake too many. The stark reality of the process of dying has been highlighted. Colleagues across the chamber have spoken candidly about the difference between the rhetoric of a so-called dignified death and the complex and often unpredictable reality of administering life-ending drugs. Ruth Maguire and Audrey Nicoll presented horrific and harrowing examples. Evidence from other jurisdictions shows that such deaths are not immediate, straightforward and without complication.”
“Does Sue Webber recognise that, with a few honourable exceptions, very few of us in the Parliament are clinicians and that, as other members have said, it would be wholly inappropriate for us to hypothesise regarding all the circumstances relating to the administration and preparation that would be required to end one’s life and to legislate for a route in those cases? Sue Webber: I am quite glad that we are not all clinicians, because I would be upset if we were not out there actually seeing patients, perhaps in a GP surgery or an out-patient clinic, which might make more of an impact on waiting lists. I know that that is perhaps a slight on your remarks, Mr Cole- Hamilton, but we are not all clinicians. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Sue Webber: I apologise, Presiding Officer.”
“The key learning around the importance of inspection and the role of HIS has been taken on board, and it is subsequently leading to actions that will be implemented—namely, through the inspections by HIS taking place.”
“Tom Arthur: I recognise the importance of the independent assurance that is provided through inspection, and I agree with Alex Cole-Hamilton on that. As he will appreciate, both the Mental Welfare Commission and HIS operate independently, and it is for them to take those decisions. However, given the significance of the events that have taken place, a joint inspection report has been undertaken by the Mental Welfare Commission and HIS. The Mental Welfare Commission will continue to undertake its duties. However, to provide assurance, we are engaging with HIS on the commencement of an on-going programme of inspections of such facilities. As I touched on earlier in my remarks, that is forecast to commence in the second half of this year.”
“We have an inspection regime for a reason—to pick up on deficiencies in practice and care—yet there were no inspections at Skye house between 2017 and 2024. That is an absolute scandal. During that time, teenagers in deep crisis were subject to cruelty and restraint with excessive force, and they were humiliated. Although the national specification that the minister has announced today will go some way to preventing that from happening again, I am still not clear as to why the facility was not inspected for so long. That raises a question, which I will put to the minister. Are there any other facilities currently going so long between inspections for vulnerable people in their care, where such things might be happening again?”
“Douglas Ross: I have never personally experienced suicidal thoughts, but I do not think that they would end at a specific period in my life, so if I tried to put a time bar in the amendment—”
“Will the member give way? Douglas Ross: I will give way to Maggie Chapman. Maggie Chapman: I am curious about the second half of amendment 139, which refers to people not having previously been screened or treated for suicidal thoughts or self-harm. There is no timescale for that, so somebody who might have had suicidal ideation as a young person and be seeking assisted dying much later in life might be ruled ineligible for that. I am wondering why there has not been some kind of time limitation on that, because those might be completely separate incidents—there might be a whole life lived in between—and yet there is no acknowledgment or understanding of that.”
“That will improve the teacher’s job prospects and will ensure that pupils have the teachers and the subject choice that they fundamentally deserve. It is a scandal that three out of four newly qualified teachers are forced on to demoralising temporary zero-hours contracts. They are ready to shape young minds, and they have grafted for their qualifications. Why is the SNP Government forcing them to move abroad to find work or to spend years in jobs where they cannot pay their bills and rack up thousands of pounds of debt? It did not use to be like that. We will end that scandal—and it is a scandal. It is part of our plan to fix the mess that the SNP has made of this country’s education. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on judging the Scottish Government on its education record. Ferries”
“We will create a young carers lead in every school to help young carers balance education and caring for a loved one. We will use youth work as a means of reaching young people who are not successfully engaged in formal education. We will legislate to make classrooms mobile phone free, so that children can learn and teachers can teach. We need that legislation in order to make the cultural change required. It is just not fair to leave it up to headteachers and ministerial guidance. We will also open up a new route for qualified primary school teachers who are stuck in precarious work to quickly gain the right to teach in our secondary schools—some of which are crying out for teachers. If someone needs to be able to teach an additional subject, we will help them, too.”
“Every week, without exception, I meet families—as I am sure you do, Presiding Officer—who are worried that their child’s additional support needs are not being met or that their teenager is frequently absent from school, toiling under that long shadow of lockdown, or they are worried about the violence in their schools, which is captured on phones and spreads across social media like wildfire. Children, parents and teachers all deserve better than that. Education is the best investment that we can make in our children’s potential and in our country’s future. Here is the optimism that the cabinet secretary was looking for in this debate. Here is the Scottish Liberal Democrat plan for how we would do things differently. We will invest in pupil support assistants and specialist support, such as speech and language therapists.”
“Remember what John Swinney and the SNP said that they would do? Paul O’Kane ably reflected on that: a free laptop for every pupil, free school lunches up to primary 7, teachers spending fewer hours in front of class and more time preparing, smaller class sizes, closing the poverty- related attainment gap, and 3,500 more teachers. None of that has been delivered—not one bit of it. The impact, after 19 years of the SNP, is that Scottish education is just not what it used to be. People feel let down.”
“In every one of those debates, she has lifted the standard of public debate and the ambitions of the Scottish Parliament. I fundamentally agree with the excellent tribute that was paid to her by Martin Whitfield. Her voice will be such a loss to the chamber when she steps down in May. [Applause.] When the Liberal Democrats last left government in 2007, Scottish education was among the best in the world. Only a handful of countries ranked above us in maths, but now, under the SNP, Scottish education is just average. Our maths scores in the international rankings are the lowest that they have ever been—that is not doing down teachers; it is a statement of fact. It is the same for reading and science—now, under the SNP, we have the worst ever scores. That theme was picked up well by Roz McCall.”
“That cognitive dissonance was also taken up by Karen Adam. I was disappointed in her. She usually speaks incredibly well but leant into the lazy SNP tactic of suggesting that, by having the temerity to raise the topic in Opposition time, we are somehow doing down teachers or pupils. Ms Adam would do well to remember that teachers are growing tired of the Scottish Government and its back benchers using them as human shields in that way. Those teaching unions and pupils would be over the moon to have just one afternoon of Government time devoted to the problems in the education system that the SNP has presided over. I was so glad to be present to hear Liz Smith’s last contribution on the education topic. She has brought so much light and expertise to the chamber since her entry to the Scottish Parliament in 2007.”
“Moving on to violence in our schools, as a former youth worker who will never do down young people, I recognise that violence is a product of the environment in which young people have been brought up and the impact of the pandemic. However, we cannot ignore it. Some 40,000-plus violent incidents were reported in 2023-24. In Glasgow alone, 2,500 violent incidents were reported in one year. The cabinet secretary sought to kill Willie Rennie with kindness in her opening remarks, but there was a cognitive dissonance in those remarks. I am sure that the 400 newly qualified teachers I spoke of who left the profession last year will be reconsidering their life choices and reaching to phone the education authority now that they have learned about the Government’s working group to look at the problem. Stop the press—it is all going to be fine.”
“At that pace, we will all be long dead before we achieve the lofty goal that Nicola Sturgeon set us and herself all those years ago. Teacher recruitment is in crisis. Record numbers of early career teachers are quitting. Scot Lib Dem figures show that more than 400 recently trained teachers left the profession last year alone, and newly qualified teachers cannot get stable jobs. Only 23 per cent of newly qualified teachers report being able to secure a full-time teaching job in their profession of choice, down from 56.5 per cent. Since 2018, thousands of teachers have left the register within five years of starting, and supply lists are swelling.”
“I hope that she finds time in it to explain and apologise for her record of failure. The reality is that the SNP has given up on closing the poverty-related attainment gap. That theme was eloquently taken up by Miles Briggs. The reality is that the gap between school leavers from the most deprived areas of our country and those from the least deprived areas has worsened or barely changed over the past decade since Nicola Sturgeon made those remarks. Paul McLennan said that he did not want to trade statistics and then gave a slew of statistics, so let me reply to him. The SNP’s pledge to close the gap within 10 years lies in tatters. At the current rate, it will take 133 years to close the primary school numeracy gap and 57 years to close the primary school literacy gap. I could go on.”
“I remind members that my wife is a primary school teacher. I will start with the words of the former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon: “My aim—to put it bluntly—is to close the attainment gap completely. It will not be done overnight—I accept that. But it must be done.” That was said in 2015. Willie Rennie was quite right to point to the fact that the former First Minister made a promise to the poorest children in Scotland—a promise that she has singularly failed to keep. It is very dispiriting and disappointing that she is not in the chamber to defend her record, even though she is on the estate. Presiding Officer, you could have a coffee with her in the garden lobby and ask her why she is not here. Perhaps she is working on the last chunky chapter of her book.”
“Yes, the Government should be challenged, but we should hear ideas for improvement and radical solutions to unlock potential for the benefit of Scotland’s children and young people. I move amendment S6M-20956.3, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert: “welcomes the passing of the 2026-27 Budget, following a deal reached with the Scottish Liberal Democrats, which will deliver over £4.8 billion investment for Scottish education, including up to £200 million to close the poverty- related attainment gap, building on December 2025’s Achievement of Curriculum for Excellence Levels (ACEL) data, which demonstrated record levels of literacy and numeracy in Scotland’s primary schools and data from February 2026, which recorded the joint second highest level of school leavers going on to positive destinations on record; recognises that the Budget will further expand the provision of free breakfast clubs and free school meals to reduce the poverty-related attainment gap, building on the 2025-26 Budget deal reached with the Scottish Green Party to expand free school meals in secondary schools; welcomes the continuation of extra funding for pupils with additional support needs (ASN) within the 2026-27 Budget, and looks forward to the publication of the cross-party commissioned-ASN review early in March 2026, and believes fundamentally that Scotland’s teachers, pupil support staff, parents, carers and pupils deserve the gratitude of the Parliament for their hard work and dedication every day." 15:05”
“It was important that last year’s budget made extra funding available to councils to ensure that they could create more permanent posts, which is why I am pleased that, for the first time since 2022, we have seen an increase in teacher numbers. I am mindful of time, Presiding Officer. This afternoon’s debate is about our children. I saw the importance of the issues that we are discussing when I visited Kinross high school last week. I know that colleagues across the chamber will regularly experience what I experienced on Friday, but I think that we all carry a responsibility in this place to be solution oriented. Therefore, I will close by encouraging more positive behaviour this afternoon.”
“The cabinet secretary talks about increased teacher numbers, but does she realise that three quarters of newly qualified teachers are struggling to find permanent employment and are stuck on supply lists? Jenny Gilruth: I very much recognise that point, and I know that Mr Cole-Hamilton recently raised it at First Minister’s question time. To give him some assurance, I note that we have convened a national working group on the issue, involving the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the teaching trade unions and our initial teacher education institutions, to identify and target the issues that pertain to permanence.”
“Parliament, in partnership with local government, should have the confidence and vision to ensure that the spirit of local government and local determination is revitalised. The extent to which Parliament can rise to the challenge of reforming local government finance and revitalising local democracy should be a measure of its success in the next quarter century, if not earlier.” In the lines and pages of the bill that we will pass this afternoon, we are, in some way, reaching for the challenge that Jim Wallace described. That is why the Liberal Democrats will support the bill. 16:37”
“That matters, because another referral would only prolong uncertainty for our local government partners and for the communities that they serve. Crucially, the bill still represents meaningful progress, as it embeds the principles of the European Charter of Local Self-Government into Scots law and strengthens the expectations of that partnership and of mutual respect and shared responsibility between national and local government. Good relationships cannot rely on good will alone. Clear statutory principles help to shape culture, clarify responsibilities and reinforce accountability. Later in his words to our conference, Jim Wallace said: “A new balance between the Scottish Parliament and local government and local communities needs to be struck.”
“Local government has too often been treated less as a democratic partner and more as a delivery arm for the will of this national Government. That imbalance has not served our communities well. The bill seeks to strengthen that relationship. Parliament originally passed the legislation with strong cross-party support, of which we have heard something this afternoon. Following the Supreme Court judgment, we have had to revisit certain provisions to ensure that the bill sits clearly within our competence. The amendments that have been agreed to during reconsideration respond directly and proportionately to that judgment. Although the scope is narrower than first envisaged, the legislation that is now before us is legally robust and capable of moving forward without further delay.”
“Local government funding has been squeezed further than overall Holyrood expenditure, thus limiting the scope for local initiative. As someone who believes in decentralised decision-making, this is very troubling.” That is why I am pleased to confirm that the Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the bill at the final vote on its reconsideration. I was proud to be a signatory to Andy Wightman’s bill in the previous session of Parliament. At its heart, the legislation is grounded in a straightforward principle that was encapsulated in the words of Jim Wallace that we just heard: namely, that decisions that affect communities should be taken as close to those communities as possible. For too long, power in Scotland has become increasingly centralised.”
“Addressing our conference on the 25th anniversary of devolution, the dear departed Jim Wallace said: “The Constitutional Convention, whose final report is peppered with references to the European Charter of Local Self Government, concluded that in any future review of local government, ‘the aim of the Parliament should be, firstly, to safeguard and where possible increase the area of discretion available at the level of the local authority.’ The story of the Scottish Parliament under SNP administrations, however, has been one of increasing centralisation. Local taxation again is dictated by central government. Police and fire services have been centralised in a way which hasn’t exactly covered the idea in glory. Local courts have been closed.”
“There were three funerals there on the morning of our arrival. On this fourth anniversary, I am particularly thinking of our student guide, Sasha, who has since been drafted and is now serving on the eastern front, and of Father Taras, whom we met in Yavoriv army base. An army veteran of 10 years, he has never carried a gun but serves on the front line. As we were approaching holy week, I asked him whether the soldiers came to his services. He said, “No. Mostly, they just want me to hear their confessions, because they think they are going to die.” They are fighting for all of us. Glory to Ukraine. Glory to the heroes. [Applause.] First Minister’s Question Time 12:08 Social Security (Cost) 1.”
“Over last year’s Easter recess, Paul Sweeney and I joined the Mighty Convoy charity in delivering seven ambulances overland to armed forces in Ukraine for immediate use on the front line. What struck us both was the proximity, because the front line is just three tanks of diesel away from here. What also struck us was that the country is trying, and succeeding, to live as normal a life as possible. There is no rationing and the burrito shacks are still offering happy hour. However, we were also given an air‑attack briefing and we saw the graves. The cemeteries around the Greek Orthodox churches of western Ukraine are swollen with the corpses of the glorious defenders. In central Lviv, a garden not unlike Princes Street gardens is given over for use as a war cemetery, where flags of the glorious defenders fly as far as the eye can see.”
“On hearing the news of her passing, I reached for the last exchanges that we shared by text message. It speaks to the affection and respect that I had for her that one of the last messages that I sent her, which followed her decision to step down from the Parliament, reads as follows: “Genuinely sorry to learn of your news re stepping down. You have always been one of the brightest, nicest and best.” I will keep her reply personal to me, but it was steeped in the warmth and grace that defined her, and I will treasure it. On behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, I wish Susan, Jeane’s family and all her friends love, light, laughter and the promise of better days ahead. 14:22”
“Jeane was the first to strip away the artifice of political division and invite me and other health spokespeople into the very heart of Government decision making and thinking behind the response to the coronavirus emergency. The weight of the responsibility and the ferocious pace of decision making must have been immense for her, but she always found time to respond to every text message, question and suggestion that I sent her, sometimes daily. When my daughter fell sick in the first wave of the pandemic, she asked me for updates every day. That was a measure of her humanity and decency as a person. She worked tirelessly and with a singular sense of purpose throughout the darkest days of that national emergency. She carried us with her and never showed any sign of the terror that gripped so many of us in those early days.”
“We crossed swords—of course we did—but, although she never shirked from joining battle, she never lost the state of grace or decency with which she always conducted herself. I remember one time when, on social media, she refused to be drawn on to the field of battle after I had posted a viral photograph of a cremated omelette that had been served to a patient in an Edinburgh hospital, but she had the matter dealt with quietly and with purpose. That was in a simpler time before any of us had heard of Wuhan in China or Covid-19. I cannot remember a time in my life when I was more frightened than I was in those early days of the pandemic. We knew that the virus and lockdown were coming, but we did not know what any of it would mean for our nation or our people.”
“Occasions such as this remind us of the common humanity that we all share and the fundamental values that drive us in public service. However, there have been too many such motions in the course of this session of Parliament—too many towering and substantial giants of our politics and our Parliament have been taken from us far too soon, and Jeane’s passing in particular is a terrible blow. I did not find it hard to reach for the words of this tribute. They came freely, because the news of her passing left me and my party with a profound sense of sadness. Although she was certainly our opponent and adversary, she always conducted herself with grace and purpose. She was a class act. We knew to trust her at her word and to never doubt the depth of the intellect that underpinned all the decisions to which she was party.”
“There is no question but that, ultimately, in the fullness of time, such an omission will lead to an exploitation of the reach, power, influence and opportunity that we, as parliamentarians, are offered through the privilege that we have in this role. Reflecting on that in the tea room with Jeremy Balfour, I realised that we need to do more than just ensure that parliamentarians are subject to the disclosure process; that would, in large part, be closing the barn door after the horse had bolted. Instead, we need to provide that, in the vetting process for candidates, parties are expected to ensure that disclosure regimes are applied to those who would seek high office. As Liberal Democrats, we are happy to support this very democratic bill. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 17:57”
“I want to reflect on the fact that my amendment 35 was perhaps the first amendment that I have lodged in my entire parliamentary career of 10 years to have been unanimously agreed to by the Parliament. I am grateful for that and for the chorus of interventions that explored the issue that the amendment raised. I look forward to picking up on the amendment’s provisions in the next parliamentary session. When I tried to introduce them in the previous session, the amendment crashed to utter defeat—by something like 125 votes to four. We have drawn an important line in the sand. The Parliament recognised that we are omitting to check that the people who stand for election are of the right calibre and probity to work with protected groups, whether that be vulnerable adults or children. We cannot go on like that.”