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 6 of 17.
“I have exercised my power under rule 9.8.4A(c) of standing orders to allow the debate on this group to continue beyond the limit in order to avoid the debate being unreasonably curtailed. Gillian Martin: On amendments 172 and 175, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, I start off by being absolutely clear that I understand and acknowledge the concerns that are raised by some communities when it comes to the cumulative impact of energy infrastructure. My view is that, for a fair transition to a net zero economy, it is vital that communities can have their say on proposed projects and see the benefits from developments.”
“Are they elected? Are they self-selected? I have no problem with increasing consultation with communities, because there is an issue, which I have raised at First Minister’s question time, with proliferation, and especially the cumulative impact of projects. However, we cannot put in legislation such general words— there is no specificity. Perhaps Rachael Hamilton will tell me who those regional energy convention groups are. What size are they? How many are there? Who are the people mentioned? Are they elected? I would like to know. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before I call the cabinet secretary, members will note that we have passed the agreed time for the debate on this group.”
“In the section that amendment 172 would insert, on the national energy convention, subsection (2)(b) says: “hear from the local community in the area affected by the proposed structure.” Subsection (3) says: “The Convention”— this is the key here— “must include members who are representative of all areas of Scotland.” I do not know who those people are. We have community councillors, local authority councillors and MSPs, but who are the people envisaged in the amendment? Are they elected? Are they self- selected? This is legislation—we cannot just slap in something so unspecific, which then becomes law. The section that amendment 175 would insert says: “Before the expiry of the period of one month beginning with the day after Royal Assent, the Scottish Ministers must meet with all regional energy convention groups”. Who are these groups?”
“Community councils are struggling to navigate complex applications, and people are living in cold homes, including the many in the northern isles and in the Highlands who are in abject fuel poverty. It is an absolute injustice that they are not getting the benefits of the clean energy that is generated on their doorsteps. The status quo is not an option, but I am afraid that the Scottish Conservative amendments are performative. Christine Grahame: I will certainly endeavour to be brief—I am weary.”
“If the Scottish Conservatives were serious about getting things done in the Parliament, where no party has a majority, they would share drafts, talk to other parties, build support and put in the effort needed to make sure that proposals were legally watertight. By not doing so, they have let down the communities that they claim to want to help. We must send a message to ministers that the status quo is not tenable. For example, the Scottish Government’s guidance on community benefit is entirely outdated. People ought to get much more when companies generate renewable power near to them. Those people do not feel as though they are being listened to right now.”
“We Scottish Liberal Democrats do the hard yards when it comes to representing our constituents and those whom we aspire to represent. We knock on doors, go to local meetings and listen to people. We absolutely know the anxiety and concern that exist around these issues. Sadly, at stage 2 the Scottish Conservatives failed to lodge amendments to allow the issues to be debated and the legislative proposals to be refined and finalised. At stage 3, there was no effort by Rachael Hamilton or any other Conservative member to engage with other parties to find workable solutions to the problems in those communities that she has identified, which we understand and recognise.”
“Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. We need to— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Cole- Hamilton, can you switch on your camera, please? Alex Cole-Hamilton: I am very sorry—I thought that that would be switched on for me. [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, members. Alex Cole-Hamilton: My apologies, Presiding Officer. I am speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats and will make a brief intervention on Rachael Hamilton’s amendments 172 to 175, which is simply to point out some hypocrisy here. After all, it was Rachael Hamilton’s colleagues in successive Conservative Governments who set the United Kingdom’s climate targets, and it is those targets that have driven the changes in how our country produces energy.”
“The First Minister: It is important that we have an active, visible and effective naval defence presence, to ensure that our infrastructure is being protected, given the significance of our dependence on that infrastructure. That reliance on that infrastructure is extensive and, therefore, it is important that the deployment of resources is undertaken in a way that ensures that that is the case. I do not think that that is the current arrangement in the deployment of naval resources. That issue requires to be addressed by the UK Government, which has reserved responsibility for matters in relation to all those questions, including for ensuring that naval resources are deployed in a way that meets the needs of the infrastructure of”
“I am slightly concerned by Ross Greer’s use of the term “piracy”. We should be in no doubt that the vessels of the Russian shadow fleet are evading sanctions and, by so doing, are assisting Putin’s war machine and extending the suffering of the people of Ukraine. They are fair game, and I and my party welcome their seizure. Oil tankers are not the only hostile agents operating in or near our waters. Subsea cables, particularly those supplying our northern isles, are potential targets for sabotage. What reassurance can the First Minister offer our constituents that both of our Governments are acting collaboratively to counter threats from hostile powers in our waters and under them?”
“The least that the Government owes them is transparency, accountability and a commitment to change, so that something like this is never, ever allowed to happen again.”
“The families are not asking for sympathy or kind words; they are demanding real accountability and change, and they are right to do so. We must learn from those failures so that they are never repeated. There must be independent oversight of hospital safety and design, and lines of accountability. There must be a culture in which whistleblowers and families are listened to and in which their concerns are treated with the respect and seriousness that they deserve, and then acted upon. It should go without saying that patient safety must always come before political reputation. The families who have been affected by the failures at the hospital have shown extraordinary courage in their pursuit of the truth.”
“If communications were withheld, delayed or managed to control fallout, that must also be examined. If decisions were shaped by the optics of the situation rather than by patient safety, the Parliament and the public deserve to know why. No Government should ever be allowed to hide behind the process when lives have been lost— not ever. Transparency is not optional; it is a moral obligation. That is why the Government must commit now to full disclosure of all communications and documents connected to the events at the hospital. Families should not have to fight through freedom of information requests and overcome legal barriers to get the truth about the events that resulted in the deaths of their loved ones.”
“Too often, the instinct was to manage reputational risk rather than confront uncomfortable truths and own up to where mistakes were made. The inquiry has raised serious concerns about how information flowed, or failed to flow, among health boards, officials and ministers. Key questions still remain unanswered. Who knew? What did they know? Why was the hospital opened prematurely, despite the manifest safety concerns that we have all heard about today? Why have families had to fight for years for answers that they should have been given within days? Those are not administrative questions; they are political ones. It is right that questions are asked of those who wielded power at the time, and that they are brought to account. If political pressure influenced the premature opening of the hospital, that must be examined.”
“We know that senior doctors at the hospital raised concerns about risks to patient safety, but they all fell on deaf ears. As a result, people died, including 10-year-old Milly Main, whose mother has since campaigned tirelessly for justice and answers. Today’s motion rightly condemns the culture of secrecy and cover-up that has characterised this scandal and too many other NHS scandals that have taken place under this Government. Time and again, families were kept in the dark, concerns were minimised and, crucially, warnings were not acted on. At the weekend, John Swinney admitted that, “It does look like” patients who acquired infections while being treated at the hospital, and their families, were lied to.”
“Vulnerable children were exposed to avoidable risk—some lost their lives; others suffered harm that could and should have been prevented. The Scottish hospitals inquiry has revealed not just a single failure but a catalogue of failures in the design of the hospital and in its construction, and in relation to infection control, governance and oversight. There were grave errors in decision making and then a failure—an abject failure—by the Government to take accountability. There are serious questions to be answered here. As far back as March 2018, three children were being treated for infections that were likely linked to problems with the water supply at the hospital. In September that same year, child cancer patients were moved to a different ward— again, due to water supply problems.”
“Not only have they had to endure incredible trauma and heartbreaking loss, but they have been forced to endure years of unanswered questions. They have had to fight not only for the truth but simply to be listened to, and they have been forced to campaign while grieving deaths that should never have happened. We must also thank the staff whose bravery has been manifest today in the whistleblowing that we have heard about. We must recognise that they, too, have suffered ill effects due to the contaminated water supply at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. When it opened in 2015, the hospital was intended to be a flagship: a symbol of modern, world-class care and the jewel in the crown of our health service. Instead, it became the site of contaminated water systems, inadequate ventilation and fatal infections.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I am also grateful to Anas Sarwar for making Opposition time available for the debate. However, it should not be left to Opposition parties to make time for it. As we have heard, the scandal has rumbled on for more than seven years. At every point and at every development, the Government should have recognised that it should bring the issues to Parliament and explain the decisions that were taken and the developments that resulted, and that it should give reassurance to patients and staff with regard to their safety. Like everyone else, I want to begin by addressing the issue of the families who have been affected by this awful situation. They trusted our health system and rightly expected their loved ones to be treated with care in a safe environment.”
“We must know whether those who applied pressure and the ministers to whom the board was accountable had any indication of patient safety concerns.”
“Who made the decision to ignore it? On what basis was the risk to life deemed acceptable? Who applied political pressure to get the hospital opened? Again, I invite the health secretary to give a response. Yet again, he demonstrates that he is useless in office by sitting there looking blankly. Last week, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde said that pressure was applied for the hospital to open before it was ready. Five days later, late on Saturday night, it retracted that statement, knowing that the First Minister was to appear on television the next morning. That leaves me intrigued. Who applied the pressure for that statement to be retracted? Was it the same people who applied the pressure for the hospital to open too early?”
“If he has, when and how many times has he been notified? The health secretary is not answering. That is yet another abdication of responsibility from a health secretary who is paid by the public to keep them safe and run our national health service. I go back to the opening of the hospital. A process exists. Jeane Freeman saw a report on the Edinburgh sick kids hospital and refused to allow it to open because she did not believe that it was safe. Why did Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney and Shona Robison not do the same for the hospital in Glasgow? We now know that an internal report that was issued just weeks before the children’s hospital in Glasgow opened warned of a high risk of infection and therefore a high risk to life for immunocompromised patients, but that report was ignored and the hospital opened regardless.”
“The health secretary is still not answering. It is utterly shameful that the Government is refusing to say to people across the country whether the hospital, and every ward and every unit in it, have been validated and are therefore safe. We are getting no response. Last week, John Swinney said that the Government first became aware of issues at the hospital in March 2018. That is simply not true. Under infection control procedures, when a healthcare infection incident assessment tool— HIIAT—red warning is issued, the health minister must be informed. A red warning was issued in June 2017. Was the then health secretary informed in June 2017—yes or no? The cabinet secretary is not answering. Has Neil Gray, as health secretary, been notified of any HIIAT red warnings since he has been health secretary?”
“Has any validation had independent verification? Why has that report, if it exists, not been shared with those doctors? Again, I ask whether the validation has been completed— yes or no? If it has, will the full validation of every ward and unit across the Queen Elizabeth university hospital be published? The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care surely knows the answer. Wow. The health secretary gives no response. That is utterly shameful and an abdication of the responsibility of the Government and the health secretary. There has been a separate report specifically on the safety of the ventilation system—the so-called AECOM report—as poor ventilation is a risk not only to children but also to adults. Has the Government seen that report? Will it publish it, and will it allow that, too, to have independent verification?”
“Everything that they have warned about in the past 10 years has proven to be true, and everything that ministers and officials have said to refute it has proven to be untrue. Yet, today, we are again being asked to believe the same people who have lied to us for years and ignored those who have fought for the truth. Those doctors are raising two urgent issues. First, we still do not have confirmation that the hospital has been fully validated—that means a deep and comprehensive check of every ward and unit to ensure that they meet the standards that patients and families have every right to expect. I therefore ask the health secretary a direct question. Has every ward and unit of the hospital been fully validated—yes or no? If those doctors still do not know whether that hospital validation has taken place, it raises serious questions.”
“Not only do colleagues and families owe those doctors a debt of gratitude, I believe that this nation does too. For nearly 10 years, those women have been bullied and dismissed by the very organisation that they were proud to serve. Had they been listened to, we would not be in the situation in which we are today. Even now, no chief executive or chair has met them—the only minister who met them was Jeane Freeman. Crucially, the information that those doctors need to be assured that real change is taking place is still not being shared with them. With regard to their immediate concerns about the safety of that hospital, I clearly say that if they are not satisfied, I am not satisfied, and nobody in the Parliament and across the country should be satisfied either.”
“Anas Sarwar is absolutely right to pay tribute to the hard-working staff at the QEUH. Does he recognise that several staff members have been affected by compromised water supplies and that staff sickness is a factor, too? Anas Sarwar: I recognise that. I actually want to start by focusing on the staff and recognising the people who are often only described as the whistleblowers. They are, in fact, three inspiring and courageous women, who risked their careers and reputations to speak up and were met with bullying and attempts to silence them. Let me put on record, for the first time in the Parliament, my gratitude to Dr Penelope Redding, Dr Teresa Inkster and Dr Christine Peters. Let me say clearly and directly to them: thank you. You are owed an apology. They are actually owed more than that.”
“What is missing are the carers and the staff that she needs to drop by to help her, so Margaret is still in hospital. Margaret’s husband, Cathal, told me this morning that she is a positive and vibrant woman, but she is struggling. She just wants to get out of hospital. First Minister, what will it take to get Margaret home?”
“The First Minister is playing down the problem of delayed discharge, but he should tell that to everyone who is waiting for an ambulance or in a corridor or who has had their operation cancelled this morning, because our hospitals are full. In November 2024, 62-year-old Margaret MacGill was rushed to hospital. She had become paralysed from the waist down with cauda equina, which is a rare spinal condition. It is thought that it was caused by lifting her disabled son and the patients in her care as an auxiliary nurse and then as a social care worker. Margaret has been in hospital—first in Raigmore and now in Wick—for more than 400 days. The family home was adapted and ready for her last April. Ramps were installed, doors were widened and a whole extension was built.”
“Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3. Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill”
“As we are reaching the end of the amendments stage, I put on record my thanks to everybody who has lodged different amendments and for their considerable engagement throughout the process. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the minister to wind up. Natalie Don-Innes: I recommend that members support amendment 9. Amendment 9 agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes stage 3 consideration of amendments. Members will be aware that the Presiding Officer is required, under standing orders, to decide whether, in her view, any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the Presiding Officer’s view, no provision of the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter.”
“Amendment 11 disagreed to. Section 3—Ancillary Provision The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 5 is on ancillary provision. Amendment 9, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group. Natalie Don-Innes: Amendment 9 makes a procedural change to align the scope of the power in section 3 to make ancillary regulations with that of the power to make such provision in commencement regulations. The amendment creates internal consistency throughout the bill. It makes no substantive changes to the intention or the meaning of the bill; rather, it ensures clarity and consistency. I move amendment 9 and recommend that the chamber support it. Liz Smith: I have very little to add to what the minister has just said, because it is an important if technical amendment.”
“For Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) 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) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) 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) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (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) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) 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) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) 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) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) 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) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Abstentions Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 1, Against 95, Abstentions 18.”
“[Inaudible.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: If I could have a little less noise in the chamber, I may have a chance of hearing. [Interruption.] Members, you are now heckling me. Alex Cole-Hamilton: I hope that you can hear me now, Presiding Officer—[Inaudible.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Could you please repeat that, Mr Cole-Hamilton? Alex Cole-Hamilton: [Inaudible.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: I am afraid that the audio was not sufficient to record that, Mr Cole-Hamilton.”
“Those accords are now viewed around the world as seminal agreements that are about bringing faiths together and promoting the understanding and tolerance that are necessary in our society, and I give Mr Cole-Hamilton an assurance that the Government will sustain its interest and attention in that work.”
“It is an example of light among all the darkness as a result of the service and the sacrifice that individuals are prepared to undertake. As I set out in my earlier answers, the Scottish Government actively works to support interfaith dialogue and community cohesion in Scotland. Some of the materials for the St Andrew’s day campaign that I talked about were designed to have the exact purpose of bringing communities together, reflecting our diversity but also our togetherness as a consequence. The Government has been closely involved in— and I have taken a personal interest and been involved in—the Drumlanrig accords, which have been supported to encourage greater dialogue between the Muslim and Jewish communities.”
“Many more members of Sydney’s Jewish community might have perished had it not been for the unbelievably selfless and brave actions of 43- year-old Muslim man Ahmed al-Ahmed—a moving reminder of the common humanity that is shared by so many across all the religions of our world. Hatred exists only in the minds and hearts of a tiny minority, yet those small few may have the capacity for sudden and devastating acts of violence, as we saw in Manchester. Incredible work is taking place across the lines of faith in our communities to combat hate and intolerance. What will the First Minister’s Government do to support those cross-community endeavours? The First Minister: Mr Cole-Hamilton puts to me the extraordinary example of Mr al-Ahmed and the heroism that he deployed to save lives.”
“She was left alone in a corridor for six hours— remember, her heart had only just been restarted. When she was eventually seen by a doctor, it was obvious that that crucial information had been overlooked. If someone can turn up at accident and emergency after having stopped breathing for minutes and not be seen for hours, what does that say about the state of our NHS?”
“I am sorry to say that the First Minister has had his head completely in the sand about the crisis in our NHS. Everybody knows somebody who has been let down. Anas Sarwar rightly talks about the human cost; let me tell the First Minister what that looks like. Isobel and Martyn Knights were travelling down the dual carriageway near Aberdeen when Isobel had a violent seizure and stopped breathing. With nowhere to pull over, Martyn had to use every ounce of his police training to get her heart going again while the car was still moving. The car screeched to a halt at the front door of the accident and emergency department and Martyn explained to staff what had happened. However, after moving their car, Martyn was not allowed to return to Isobel’s side; A and E was just too busy.”
“The crisis in our health service is not caused by a deficiency in emergency care or in orthopaedic surgery; it is caused by the fact that, on any given night in Scotland, 2,000 of our fellow Scots are trapped in hospital, well enough to go home but too frail to do so without a care package for them to receive at home or a care bed in a local care home. That reality causes an interruption in flow throughout our whole health sector. This week, it was revealed that that is not the case just in our hospitals.”
“I am grateful to Labour for making time to discuss this important issue. As we convene in the chamber this afternoon, any number of our constituents might be waiting for an ambulance, either in their home or, worse still, in the street; any number of our constituents might be in an ambulance waiting to get into an accident and emergency department or trying to leave an accident and emergency department to get into the wider hospital; and any number of our constituents might be receiving a dispiriting telephone call to say that the elective orthopaedic surgery that they were expecting to have tomorrow has now been cancelled. That is all for want of capacity in our hospitals.”
“It is barbaric that so many women and children are still forced to flee the place where they should feel the safest. If someone chooses violence, they, not the person whom they harmed, should lose their home. This is not a women’s issue or a party-political issue; it is a national issue and a human issue, and it is one that demands every ounce of our collective political will. Scottish Liberal Democrats stand ready to work with every party in the chamber to stamp out gendered violence, wherever it occurs and whatever form it takes. Women and girls across Scotland deserve nothing less. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 15:33”
“We need to address abuse in our criminal justice system and train lawyers and judges to understand when legal abuse and coercion through the courts are taking place. We will all have casework examples from our constituencies in which an abusive partner who has declared bankruptcy and qualifies for legal aid will use that reality to try to ruin their victim financially. We must also ensure that every housing officer and front-line worker is trained to identify domestic abuse and respond properly to survivors. Front- line staff are often the first people to see what is happening behind closed doors, and they must be equipped to act. Finally, we must adopt a presumption that, in cases of domestic violence, the perpetrator and not the victim is the one to leave the shared home.”
“Reports of sexual harassment, coercion and assault among pupils have grown significantly in number, but guidance for schools and local authorities is inconsistent. Girls deserve to learn without fear, and teachers deserve clarity and support—we must ensure that they get both. We must make it easier for survivors to report abuse and find help. Currently, too many women are forced to retell their traumatic experience to a revolving door of agencies and departments. That is why we propose establishing a single point of contact on abuse in every local authority, so that survivors have to tell their story only once and can be guided through the system with dignity and without retraumatisation.”
“My party believes that the Government must take the following actions to address the emergency. It must finally commence part 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Act 2021. The emergency protections that it contains could be shielding women from danger right now; instead, they have sat on the shelf for years. Every delay has consequences, and survivors cannot wait any longer. We must swiftly add sex as a protected characteristic under the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. In the next session of Parliament, we should review whether a separate piece of legislation, such as the approach that was recommended by Baroness Helena Kennedy, is needed to properly tackle misogynistic harassment and hate. We must protect girls in our schools.”
“The most recent crime figures show a 22 per cent increase in reported domestic abuse in the past year alone. Reported rape and attempted rape have risen by 11 per cent. That is outrageous, and it is an indictment of our ability to grapple with the issue. Behind every statistic is a woman who was victimised when she picked up the phone and asked for help. Far too many still feel that they cannot do so. I pay tribute to my colleague Beatrice Wishart, who has been a tireless and compassionate champion for women and girls, especially through her work as deputy convener of the cross-party group on men’s violence against women and children. Her leadership is invaluable, but Beatrice will be the first to say that leadership across the chamber must be collective—it must involve men, too. This is an issue on which we must all speak with one voice.”
“The digital sphere has become a deeply damaging front line in this age-old problem. We have heard something of that today. I was reflecting on the fact that the first time that I spoke in a debate on this issue, on the eve of the 16 days of activism, was nine years ago. At that time, AI was barely an academic concept. Now, the systems that are in the phones in our pockets, in our computers and in our laptops allow people to track someone’s location without their knowledge. AI can be weaponised to create intimate images that were never even photographs. Women are being harassed, threatened and manipulated from behind anonymous accounts. This crisis is evolving faster than we can pass laws that are meant to protect women. Violence is not just moving online—tragically, it is rising everywhere.”
“It is one that is deeply rooted in misogyny and the patriarchy, enabled by silence and worsened by systems that still fall far below our expectations and fail survivors far too often. Today’s debate gives us the chance to speak with one voice in this chamber in condemning it. Violence against women and girls has no place in our country, in our homes or society, or in our workplaces or classrooms. However, just saying that is not enough. We have to act, and we must do so with the seriousness that the emergency demands of us. The United Nations’ 16 days of activism campaign begins this week, and it shines a light on something that every woman in this country already knows—that the abuse and harassment that they have faced for far too long has now shifted into new venues and frontiers.”
“I am very glad to be opening for the Liberal Democrats in this important debate. Before I go any further, I thank Maggie Chapman for her typically excellent contribution. I salute her indefatigability in sharing with us appalling examples of the online abuse that she has received. I am aware that many female colleagues in the chamber will have received similar abuse, and I stand with them in friendship and solidarity and give them my support. Such abuse only underlines the reach of the challenge that is before us. I am also grateful for the tone that the Government has sought to foster on the issue and for the tone of Shirley-Anne Somerville’s motion. Violence against women and girls is a national emergency.”
“I was the beneficiary of that, growing up in Orkney, with volunteers supporting local football clubs, athletics clubs, rugby clubs, swimming clubs, badminton and octopush. The array of sports that I was able to access as a result of volunteers where I grew up is the reason why I attempted to emulate Mr Whittle’s achievements in the way that I did. As I said in response to Mr Bibby and Mr Whittle, we can look to the sport budget and ensure that we are providing the best support that we can. I know that Mr Cole-Hamilton will engage constructively in the budget process to ensure that we maximise the opportunity to give people in all parts of the country the same exposure and similar experience that you, Presiding Officer, have helped to support in the past in your work with athletics clubs.”
“During London 2012, I took Humza Yousaf out on a detached youth work shift in Govan. We entered Elder park to find 50 of the most excluded and marginalised young people in Glasgow playing an impromptu game of volleyball. My point is that high-profile sporting events can inspire young lives, but that only matters and can only be capitalised on if we have youth work interventions such as that one. With the erosion of youth work over the past couple of decades, what are the Government’s plans to use some of the revenue that will be brought in by the games, and some of its own resources, to invest in youth work opportunities so that young people can really feel the benefit of the games? Neil Gray: On the economic aspect, I agree with Alex Cole-Hamilton on the need to ensure that we support and facilitate people to be able to enjoy sport.”
“We will move forward in good faith on the bill, but our patience is finite. Until the Government can tell us why part 2 is needed, we cannot envisage supporting it at stage 3 in the final analysis of the bill. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 15:17”