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 7 of 17.
“It also threatens the support of several parties in Parliament that are proceeding in good faith and want to see the furtherance of children’s rights in the parliamentary time that remains in the session. There is also concern about the precedent that the bill sets in looking for these carve-outs and the implications that that might have for the future Scottish human rights bill that we have heard talked of for the next Parliament. I am concerned that the bill risks weakening the very architecture of the incorporation of the rights of the child. A range of human rights organisations, including the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, are aligned on that point and expressed their concerns in their stage 1 evidence, as we have heard several times today. Liberal Democrats will continue to champion children’s rights.”
“Martin Whitfield: In the policy memorandum, the cabinet secretary has certified, in accordance with section 23(1) of the 2024 act, that the bill complies with the UNCRC. Does the member struggle, as I do, to see that not contradicting what appears to exist in part 2? Alex Cole-Hamilton: Martin Whitfield makes the point that I was coming on to make. I cannot see how giving an opt-out from the UNCRC legislation that this Parliament has passed is in any way compatible with that same legislation. It almost disapplies it, in the most simple analysis. I am grateful to the member for raising that. I agree with the committee that it is not clear why these changes are needed or what problem they are intended to solve. The bill has been introduced with little clarity about its long-term implications.”
“It is in effect a release valve—a get-out clause, or a back door—that gives local authorities the means to not observe the rights that we have asked them to observe in respect of children and young people. In effect, it limits the legal obligation on authorities to uphold UNCRC standards in specific circumstances as underpinned by Scottish law. The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee has raised concerns about this part of the bill, including about the Government’s failure to make a robust case for the need for it. I do not think that I heard that in the remarks of the cabinet secretary. I am glad that she is closing for the Government as well— Martin Whitfield: Will the member take an intervention? Alex Cole-Hamilton: If I have time, I certainly will. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I will give you the time back.”
“It happens in all aspects of life, particularly at this time of year, as we approach the Christmas season. It is clear that the bill needs significant work at stage 2. The committee heard legitimate concerns about the conflation of religious observance and RME, which I mentioned, the potential conflict within families and how we assess capacity. In my view, those aspects need to be looked at. Part 2 of the bill sets out a new exemption from the compatibility duty. I have raised with the cabinet secretary my concern with that provision. It would allow public authorities to act in ways that would otherwise be incompatible with children’s rights when the authorities are compelled to do so by provisions in acts of the Scottish Parliament.”
“Together, (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights)—an organisation of which I was very proud to be convener—is clear that, when decisions profoundly affect a child’s values, their outlook or world view, their voice must be heard. It wants the bill to go further in that regard. In its view, “With the right amendments at Stage 2, this legislation could mark another important step” towards the full incorporation of the UNCRC into Scots law. I support some of the proposed changes that Maggie Chapman has articulated in that regard. We need to allow for children themselves to withdraw from religious observance. John Mason said that, if a family places a child in a Roman Catholic school, that is clearly a statement of intent, and that is what they should expect, but religious observance does not just start and end at Catholic education.”
“Article 12 of the UNCRC is one of the most fundamental pillars of the convention. A child has a right to express a view in all matters affecting them, and for that view to be “given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.” I need to clarify my intervention on the convener of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, as I do not think that I expressed myself well. Article 12 is elegant in its simplicity. It does not define the age of maturity—and nor should it, because that is a judgment call. On sensitive issues such as this, in discussion with parents and children, a view can be arrived at, but the views of the child should never be discounted if they can be delivered and articulated.”
“As Stephen Kerr will be aware, from the age of 12, someone can give consent to a medical procedure, irrespective of their parents’ views. That decision needs to come from the children. We already disaggregate those decision-making powers, and rightly so. Part 1 of the bill goes some way to addressing the deficiencies in our policy that the UN committee has identified. When a parent withdraws a child from religious observance or RME, the school must inform the child, give them space to express their views, engage with the parent and child where disagreement arises, and then, ultimately, respect the child’s wishes, where they have capacity. I agree that that does not go far enough, and it is confusing to conflate religious observance and RME. That should be disaggregated.”
“It is my belief and that of my party, as well as the settled will of the Parliament, that they should. We have legislation that incorporates the UNCRC into Scots law, yet concluding observation after concluding observation of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is the guarantor of that convention, has said that Scotland is out of step with the intent of the convention on these issues. Stephen Kerr: Alex Cole-Hamilton said very clearly that he believes in the rights of a child, but what about the rights of parents? He will have probably noticed that that is a theme of my contribution this afternoon. We are talking a lot about the rights of children, but what about the rights of their parents and their legal duty of care for their children? Alex Cole-Hamilton: Both have rights, and neither of them should be mutually exclusive.”
“As I told the cabinet secretary, the Liberal Democrats will support the general principles of the bill. However, our support is finely balanced, and we do so only because the bill represents the last opportunity to extend children’s rights in this session of Parliament. The legislation is very much like the curate’s egg—it is good in part, but there are massive deficiencies, and I agree with much of what has been said in critique of it so far. Presiding Officer, as you know, before politics, I was a youth worker. Fighting for the rights and wellbeing of children is in my political and spiritual DNA. The bill presents us with the question that we keep coming back to in this Parliament: do we believe that children and their rights should be taken seriously and that they should have a voice in the decisions that shape their lives?”
“The committee has heard divergent views on the topic and, given that plurality of views, the Government’s approach is to chart a middle course: to strengthen children’s rights while balancing the three key considerations of parental rights, the recognition of stakeholder views and the practical implications for schools.”
“Part 1 proposes to change that to provide a legal right for a child to be consulted where a parent has made a request to withdraw him or her from religious observance. That would provide certainty in the law that children and young people’s views should be considered when parents are exercising their withdrawal right. It does not introduce an independent right to withdraw for the child, nor does it alter the parent’s right to request a withdrawal. In practice, it also gives the child the ability to opt back in. Without those changes, pupils might be denied those aspects of their education against their wishes, and their rights under the UNCRC might not be upheld.”
“However, I want to assure stakeholders and children and young people themselves that the bill does not mark the end of our efforts to strengthen and improve children’s rights. Religious observance and religious and moral education are two distinct but important aspects of school education in Scotland. Sections 8 and 9 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 provide for the long-standing parental right to withdraw a pupil from religious observance and/or religious and moral education. Guidance on religious observance notes that pupils’ views should be considered in the withdrawal process. Currently, however, there is no requirement in legislation to consider them, and the decision rests entirely with the parent.”
“The bill serves two main purposes: first, to strengthen children’s rights in decisions about religious observance and religious and moral education; and, secondly, to clarify the legal duties of public authorities under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 in situations where provisions in acts of the Scottish Parliament conflict with UNCRC obligations. The bill is technical in nature, dealing with those two separate but related objectives, as is set out in parts 1 and 2, respectively. As such, the bill has been drafted very narrowly, and deliberately so, as it is intended to address those specific points within the current parliamentary session.”
“Liberal Democrats will support the bill tonight, but we share the considerable concerns of stakeholders in the chamber and beyond it about part 2 and the Government’s failure to make the case for what seems to be a dilution of our commitment to incorporating the UNCRC. Jenny Gilruth: I will come on to talk about part 2 later, but I recognise that there are a number of different views, particularly about part 2 and on stakeholders’ views. I will continue to listen as the bill makes its way through the Parliament.”
“Does the Deputy First Minister accept that that reality crucially undermined democratic oversight and any suggestion of openness by her Government and, in turn, that it has robbed families of answers and of evidence about the innermost calculations behind the decisions under which we lived and under which, sadly, too many of us died? Kate Forbes: I can respond quite clearly to Alex Cole-Hamilton that the primary decision-making forum in the Scottish Government is the Cabinet. That remained the case during the pandemic and it remains the case today.”
“In the pages of the report, we learn that our entire pandemic response was dictated by those in a small clique at the heart of the Scottish National Party Government, none of whom are in the chamber this afternoon. That clique had a damaging distrust when it came to working with others and no strategy at key moments. The inquiry rejects Nicola Sturgeon’s assertion that meetings of gold command were not decision- making meetings; it says that the group “diminished the role of the ... Cabinet” and reduced the transparency of decision making as a result.”
“Whether at events that I attended last week, when visiting campuses or when engaging with Universities Scotland, over the nearly two months that I have been in this post, I have sought to engage with university principals as much as possible. In my capacity as a constituency MSP, I have had engagement with the principal of the University of Edinburgh for many years. As is appropriate, I will engage with him going forward.”
“Ben Macpherson: On the latter point, I spoke in a previous answer about the work that is going on to scope and shape the framework for the future sustainability of the sector—work that the Scottish Government is taking forward with Universities Scotland. I would be pleased to have engagement from the Liberal Democrats in that process. As I said, we are seeking to have representatives from MSPs across parties. I will update Parliament on that work in due course, as soon as possible. That work will be important to ensure that, collectively, we embrace the challenge of having a university sector and wider tertiary system that is well positioned to respond over the next 20 years to demographics, the needs of students and the changes in the economy that will occur throughout the next quarter of the century.”
“The minister will recall that I invited Sir Peter Mathieson here to meet a group of Edinburgh MSPs in the early summer. He suggested that the University of Edinburgh would be out of breach of covenant within three years, irrespective of voluntary or mandatory redundancies. What meetings has the minister had with the principal? Secondly, given the volatility that Martin Whitfield described in relation to the international student cohort that we depend on, does the minister recognise that his predecessor, Graeme Dey, told the Parliament that the funding system for higher education is fundamentally broken? What plans does the minister have to fix it?”
“Nevertheless, if any member of this Parliament were to be barred from working with a child or a vulnerable adult, it would make it fundamentally impossible for them to do their job, given the nature of our role. I will, therefore, work with the member in charge and, indeed, with the Government, if it will give me the time to explore amendments relating to that issue, because I believe that the case for inclusion of members of this Parliament in the protection of vulnerable groups scheme is now unanswerable. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. I advise members that we have no time in hand. Any interventions, therefore, should be absorbed within the relevant member’s agreed speaking time, which is up to six minutes. 15:58”
“It is no longer tenable for this Parliament to say that we are exempt from what we ask of scout leaders, other youth workers and people who work with other vulnerable individuals. Jackson Carlaw: I make the point that some people are not able to work with certain categories of individuals not necessarily because of any malicious or criminal circumstance but because of, for example, reasons relating to their own mental wellbeing. Is the member suggesting that people in that category should also be disbarred from standing or being allowed to be members of this Parliament? Alex Cole-Hamilton: Jackson Carlaw makes a good point, and that is one of the aspects that I would like to explore.”
“I believe that one threshold or trigger for a recall petition should be whether a member becomes barred from working with children or vulnerable adults. We will only know that an MSP has been barred from working with vulnerable adults if we include Scottish parliamentarians in the protection of vulnerable groups scheme. Every time that I talk about that, people in the media and the watching public are astonished that we are not included in that scheme already. I put it to members that, given a lot of the work that we do, our role could be considered to be a regulated childcare position. The very nature of our constituency casework puts us in close proximity to some of the most vulnerable adults in our society, some of whom will explicitly ask to see us in private because of sensitivities around the issues that we are dealing with.”
“It is not a Government reasoned amendment; it is my reasoned amendment. Alex Cole-Hamilton: My apologies; I correct the record on that point. We have only 10 weeks left in this session after the Christmas recess, and 19 late-sitting evenings have already been slated. I am anxious about our capacity to deal with the bill and the possibility that it will slide off the schedule as we run out of parliamentary time. Recently we have had cause to understand why we need to clean up our politics. A mechanism for recall is a very important aspect of that. However, we have been talking about thresholds and triggers and, in my intervention on the minister, I talked a little about my intention to explore amendments in that regard.”
“Fundamentally, as we have had recent cause to recognise, parties can change their stripes mid- term. To create a trigger mechanism whereby a member who defects to another political party from a regional list would be automatically recalled would have the effect of shackling them to that party from the first day that the Parliament convenes. No constituency member would be encumbered in such a way, so it would not be fair. It would almost create two tiers of MSP, and Liberal Democrats cannot support that. We will not support the Government’s reasoned amendment tonight. That said, should the amendment be agreed to we will vote in favour of the amended motion, because we feel that the bill must go forward. Kevin Stewart: I was going to be nice to the member in my summing-up speech, but I will rethink that now.”
“His argument that we should follow Wales on a regional poll for the removal of a member on the additional member system list is compelling, because it answers the challenge of giving the member the right to submit themselves to their electorate and stand for re- election in that capacity, while still answering the need to give the final decision back to the region’s constituents. I have listened with great interest to the discussion about members who switch parties. I cannot accept that doing so should be a trigger for a recall, not least because we know— [Interruption.] I might be speaking with as much self-interest as the Conservatives in their proposal for such an amendment. Patrick Harvie rose— Alex Cole-Hamilton: I need to make some progress.”
“Although there might be grounds for a member’s suspension or the removal of their pass, they should be able to participate in other ways. That is worthy of further discussion. There is a democratic imperative that we follow the example that has been shown by Westminster and, latterly, the Welsh Parliament in their efforts to afford constituents the right to remove or recall parliamentarians. It is long overdue. If our Parliament was simply made up of constituencies, with members elected by either the first-past-the- post system or a single transferable vote, the process would be much easier. I congratulate the member in charge of the bill for the work that he has done to get to this point.”
“Neither can we expect our constituents to want to seek their help, and we cannot believe anything other than the reality that their presence would diminish the standing of the building and the institution that it represents. Craig Hoy: We know that, in Scotland, sometimes the wheels of justice turn very slowly. What should happen to MSPs who have been charged but await trial? We have that situation in the Parliament at the precise moment. Alex Cole-Hamilton: I do not think that the Parliament can presume to trump the justice system. The principle of being innocent until proven guilty is significant. As such, I do not think that someone should be subject to expulsion from the Parliament until the justice process is complete.”
“It is a privilege to serve in chambers such as this, and it is also a massive responsibility. Members should take a moment to think about the tens of thousands of people whom they represent if they are a constituency MSP, or the hundreds of thousands of constituents whom they represent as a regional MSP. Our constituents send us to the Parliament with our instructions but, often, they also seek our help. They do so sometimes at times of extreme frailty or fragility, when they are at their most vulnerable. If people are found guilty of heinous offences—we know of recent examples of such offences that are currently being investigated—we cannot expect parliamentary staff to serve alongside them.”
“To that end, I also accept that introducing a change in the length of prison sentence that is required to lead to a member’s automatic removal from the Parliament might not carry the overall support of the Parliament. If those provisions were removed, the recall process would still kick in for members who received a prison sentence of less than 12 months. I am interested to hear the views of members from across the chamber. I move, That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Scottish Parliament (Recall and Removal of Members) Bill. 15:07”
“Will the member take an intervention? Graham Simpson: I am afraid not, Mr Cole- Hamilton—perhaps I will be able to give way during my closing speech. It could be that that element of the bill will be removed during stage 2, which would be a shame. I will support Kevin Stewart’s interesting amendment. I do not see it as a wrecking amendment, as some have suggested. I will listen with interest to Mr Stewart, as I always do, and I look forward to his contribution at stage 2—if we get there. The most important element of the bill is recall, and I am absolutely determined to see a recall process being introduced during this parliamentary session.”
“That is why, as I said in my statement, I have allocated additional resources for social care.”
“Later this morning, I set out to the Royal College of Midwives my gratitude to staff for the work that they are doing. I want to address the challenges that staff raised and celebrate the remarkable contribution that they deliver. Too often, their contributions and individual innovation and service delivery go unnoticed, to the detriment of their work, in favour of people outlining only the challenges in the system. The best way that we can address moral harm and injury is by improving access to our health service and reducing waiting times. We are turning a corner in that regard, thanks to the investment in the budget that Mr Cole-Hamilton supported, as well as the incredible endeavours of our staff. I agree with him on the situation regarding delayed discharge and social care.”
“This morning, the cabinet secretary and I attended a conference that was organised by the RCN for nurse activists. He will remember the moral injury that was etched into the faces of the nurses at that conference—caused by things such as corridor care and not being able to provide timeous support to patients, some of whom have been languishing on waiting lists, along with 800,000 of our fellow Scots. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, for as long as 2,000 Scots are stuck in hospital, well enough to go home but too frail to do so without investment in social care in our communities— without either a care bed to receive them or a care package to bring them home—the problem will only get worse as the winter months draw in? Neil Gray: I accept the premise of Alex Cole- Hamilton’s question, as I did at the RCN conference this morning.”
“I declare an interest in that my wife is a primary school teacher and a member of the Educational Institute of Scotland. When John Swinney was Cabinet Secretary for Education, the Scottish National Party made a manifesto commitment to cut teachers’ class contact time. The SNP promised to deliver an hour and a half less of time in front of classes each week so that there would be more time to do lesson prep, marking and all the other things that teaching involves. Now, nearly five years on, that has not happened, and teachers are so angry about it that they could strike by the end of January. Why has the First Minister not delivered on the SNP’s manifesto commitment to our teachers?”
“There is a groundswell of keenness to consider a safer drug consumption facility in Edinburgh, and local representatives have identified a couple of potential sites. However, there is no quick fix, because we have not had a change to the 1971 act, so there is no straightforward process to achieve what the member is asking for. The Presiding Officer: That concludes topical question time. Wildfire Summit”
“Alex Cole-Hamilton: With that weight of evidence, why can we not extend that pilot to other parts of the country that are equally struggling with the scourge of drug deaths? [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. Maree Todd: Members will understand the challenges that are associated with the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which were such a barrier to the introduction of the Thistle in the early stages. We have overcome those challenges for the Thistle with the support of the Lord Advocate and her prosecution policy, but that is not scalable or movable to other areas. That work process has to be gone through for every area that is considering such a centre. Representing an area in Edinburgh, Alex Cole- Hamilton will be aware that work is on-going in the local community, with Government support.”
“This is an area that the Liberal Democrats want the Government to succeed in. People are dying. I remember the widespread acclaim that accompanied the appointment of Dr Matheson to lead the task force. It is very dispiriting, then, to hear the concerns that she has raised about the Government’s approach. We want evidence-based solutions. I visited the Thistle centre in the early morning one day in the October recess. Since that facility opened in January, it has prevented or reversed 60 overdose events through its pharmaceutical interventions. That is 60 people who are alive today who very likely would not be if they had been on the street, so I utterly reject Annie Wells’s assertion that the Thistle is not working. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another.”
“There was also a newborn who suffered brain damage in October 2022 as a direct result of the three-hour journey that it took to get the mum to Raigmore. That is a concrete example of an adverse neonatal outcome if ever there was one.”
“Every day, from that day to this day, my party has stood with community campaigners—in particular, the Caithness Health Action Team—in support of restoring those services. That decision to downgrade denies expectant mums fast access to obstetric expertise and care in the event of rare or serious issues. It demands arduous travel and delay, heightening risk and stress on what is perhaps the most vulnerable day in that person’s life. It is a situation that has commanded the attention of the United Nations, which regards the situation as an abject failure of the right to health for mums in rural parts of the country. That denial of human rights is measured in near misses and negative health outcomes. We have heard from Jackie Baillie and Rhoda Grant about the split-site twins who were born at either end of the northernmost leg of the A9.”
“I am very grateful to the Labour Party for giving its time to this important debate this afternoon. I rise in support of the amendment in the name of Willie Rennie. It speaks to one of the most geographically punishing health inequalities in the British Isles. The maternity services at Caithness general hospital were downgraded in 2016—the year that I, and many others, entered the Parliament for the first time. That decision has forced pregnant mums, who are sometimes in active labour, down the arduous and treacherous stretch of the A9— the 100 miles that it takes them to get to Raigmore—sometimes through the snow or the dark, and sometimes dealing with deer on the road and attendant concerns about vehicular crashes.”
“I am conscious of the business that we have scheduled for later this afternoon and this evening. Therefore, although I have been able to give the cabinet secretary some time back for the many interventions that he has taken, it will be difficult to sustain that through the remainder of the debate unless we are to run seriously over time, which I am keen to avoid if at all possible. 15:25”
“I move amendment S6M-19512.3, to leave out from “, and calls” to end and insert: “; agrees that a national investigation into the design and delivery of maternity services should take place if Scotland’s new Maternity and Neonatal Taskforce recommends it, and that it should give full consideration to staff and patient welfare; notes that the taskforce will review the findings of Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s inspections into all maternity units in Scotland; recognises that no neonatal unit in Scotland is closing, and notes that the new model of neonatal intensive care in Scotland was recommended by the Best Start 2017 report, following robust clinical evidence on the safest and best possible model for the sickest babies.” The Deputy Presiding Officer: As I have alerted members, we have exhausted all our time and gone beyond the time that we had available.”
“She said: “Many of the solutions are there in the recommendations of the Ministerial Nursing and Midwifery Taskforce”. I assure members that the programme for implementing those recommendations is under way. There is a huge amount to do to implement the full range of actions for improvement, and for the full value of the changes to be taken account of throughout the process. It is right that, as I have outlined today and last week, I assure the Parliament that the Government and I are committed to driving forward improvements across maternity services. I am keen to work collaboratively with colleagues across the chamber to do just that to bring about the improvements that are needed, and I remain open and willing to listen to the views of members on what more can be done.”
“Approximately 18 weeks after the publication of the inspection report, the board is expected to submit a progress report to HIS and, at that point, HIS will determine whether any further follow-up action is required— The Deputy Presiding Officer: You need to conclude. Neil Gray: Healthcare Improvement Scotland will also use the themes that emerge from the findings in its inspections to identify and implement national improvements. Furthermore, we have commissioned HIS to develop national standards for maternity care. The standards are currently open for a public consultation, which closes on Friday. Those standards will be published early in 2026. As I draw my remarks to a conclusion, I note the comments last week from Jaki Lambert, the director of the RCM in Scotland, in response to the BBC’s “Disclosure” programme.”
“The programme of independent, unannounced inspections is working exactly as it was intended. The inspections have identified where improvements are needed and are holding services and boards to account. The inspections are intelligence led and identify issues on the ground to drive improvements in real time. Healthcare Improvement Scotland works with each board to address the requirements and recommendations, providing improvement support and robust follow-up findings. That process might include engagement with the board, the offer of coaching and mentoring, and support with quality improvement tools and resources.”
“Healthcare Improvement Scotland took the decision to commence inspections of maternity services in Scotland following recommendations from the neonatal mortality review. That decision was fully supported by the Government. Following the NHS Tayside and NHS Lothian inspections, three further inspections have now taken place, and the reports will be published in due course. Healthcare Improvement Scotland has confirmed that it will complete its inspection programme of the remaining 10 obstetric maternity units from April 2026. Once all 18 acute obstetric maternity inspections are complete, HIS will carry out a thematic assessment and analysis and publish an overview report. That will support national learning and build on our continuous improvement over the coming months.”
“Will the cabinet secretary give way? Neil Gray: I will need to conclude—my apologies to Mr Cole-Hamilton. My colleagues Maree Todd and Emma Roddick have raised their own concerns about the views of women in Caithness; that is why the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health met local campaigners in the summer. I am happy to confirm that I will ask the task force to review specifically the issues in Caithness and in other rural communities, including Stranraer, and that is why the Government will support the amendment from Willie Rennie today. We recognise that we must maintain focus on timely and continuous improvement to ensure that mothers and their babies can receive the best possible care. That is why, in Scotland, we have chosen to act now, rather than wait on a lengthy review process. I turn back to my amendment.”
“Amendment 202 disagreed to. Amendment 310 not moved. After section 6 The Presiding Officer: Group 14 is on taxation and rates to be paid on land. Amendment 311, in the name of Ross Greer, is grouped with amendments 314 to 316.”
“For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) 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) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond 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) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Patrick Harvie] 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) 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) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Maggie Chapman] Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] 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) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 52, Against 67, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 309 disagreed to. Amendment 202 moved—[Tim Eagle]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 202 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”