Jeremy Balfour
Independent · Scotland
“Does the cabinet secretary agree that ADP helps people to get into and stay in employment? If ADP is cut, more people in Scotland will have to claim other benefits because they are not able to work. I remind members that I am in receipt of higher-rate ADP.”
“I, too, thank Fulton MacGregor not only for only bringing the debate to the chamber but for all the work that he has done as the convener of the cross-party group on social work. I have had the pleasure of being part of that group, which has been very much driven by him. I am grateful for his contribution.”
“As my friend Roz McCall said, there is still a lot to do and this is not the end of the journey. In my short contribution, I will make three simple points from personal experience and from picking up on what the report says.”
“I made my maiden speech in a members’ debate like this one, so it seems fitting for me to conclude in this debate. As I said in the debate last week on the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill, my wife and I have had personal experience of breakdown of adoption.”
“Given the size of our nation, there must be some way in which we can pull together good practice from across Scotland to do this. Secondly, again, as Martin Whitfield said, there is the financial cost, which is often ignored. It is looked at well in fostering but less so in adoption.”
“She has grown in her role as a leader, and she has taken the bill through in a way that many others could learn lessons from. With both the minister and the former First Minister leaving, and with who knows who being elected in May, my worry is this: who will pick up the challenge after the election?”
The complete record
Every one of 390 lines we hold for Jeremy Balfour, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 8.
“Once the review was completed, ministers would be required to lay a report before the Parliament, thereby allowing members to scrutinise the evidence. I believe that amendment 9 is a sensible and constructive amendment that would bring clarity to an area that is undergoing sufficient change. It would help to safeguard the interests of students who rely on support and to ensure that the Parliament has the information that it needs to oversee future decisions as things develop. I look forward to hearing what the minister and others have to say. I move amendment 1.”
“I hope that amendment 8 is seen as a constructive amendment that would strengthen accountability, support continuous improvement and help to ensure that funding for support needs is used in a way that truly benefits the students who rely on it. Finally, amendment 9 would require ministers to carry out a full review of student support funding within a year of the provision coming into force and to report the findings to Parliament. The review would look closely at how the system was supporting students with additional needs, how funding would be protected or improved as responsibilities moved between different bodies, and what the equality impacts were, both of the current arrangements and of the proposed changes.”
“Amendment 8 would require the Scottish ministers to commission an independent review of how funding for students with support needs was being used and how effective that funding was in improving access, retention and outcomes for disabled learners in further and higher education. It would ensure that Parliament would receive a robust and evidence-based assessment of whether current arrangements were delivering what they were supposed to deliver and whether the support provided was generally helping students to enter education, stay on their courses and achieve positive results at the end. Once the review was completed, ministers would be required to publish the findings and lay a report before the Parliament, thereby ensuring full transparency and allowing members to scrutinise the evidence.”
“Amendment 7 would require the Scottish ministers to publish guidance for post-16 education bodies on how to use funding effectively to support students with additional needs. It would ensure that colleges, training providers and other bodies had clear expectations about how the funding should be directed so that it generally benefits students. It is intended to help. The amendment would ensure that the guidance would cover how information about the support that is available is communicated to students and prospective students, so that no one misses out simply because they had not heard of it or did not realise that it existed. The amendment represents a practical and constructive step that would aid transparency; more importantly, it would help those students who need such support.”
“It proposes another important change that would improve the quality of decision making and that would help to ensure that future arrangements were generally inclusive. Amendment 6 would require the Scottish ministers to introduce regulations to ensure that anybody who is responsible for providing funding to support people with additional needs in further or higher education must report on how that funding is used. The amendment would create a straightforward but important layer of transparency that would allow Parliament and the public to see whether the support is actually reaching the students it is meant to reach. It is intended to help by including the relevant duty in regulations that would be subject to the affirmative procedure, thereby ensuring that Parliament could scrutinise and approve the measures.”
“That small but important change would help to ensure that future policy is shaped by the people who understand those challenges best, which I hope will result in decisions being more inclusive and better informed. Amendment 5 would ensure that, when ministers consult under section 10, they must also include those who represent students with support needs. That is a straightforward but, again, important addition to the bill, which would help to guarantee that the voices of students who often face the greatest barriers would be heard before decisions are taken for or about them. By explicitly requiring their inclusion in the consultation process, amendment 5 would strengthen the bill’s commitment to fairness and would ensure that policy would be shaped by a proper understanding of the challenges that such students face.”
“Although amendment 3 proposes a modest addition, it is one that would improve the quality and legitimacy of future consultations and that would help to safeguard the interests of students who rely on support. Amendment 4 would ensure that, when ministers consult on matters relating to apprenticeships, they must also hear from those who represent apprentices and prospective apprentices with support needs. I believe that it would strengthen the bill by making sure that the experience of disabled apprentices and others who require additional support would be properly taken into account before decisions are made. Too often, such learners face barriers that are not always visible in the headline data, and their perspectives can be missed unless they are explicitly included in the consultation process.”
“By backing it, members would ensure that students with support needs would not be left behind and that the system would remain accountable and responsive. Amendment 3 would add a simple but important requirement to the consultation process that is set out in section 2E of the bill. It would ensure that, when decisions are made about a body’s functions, ministers must consult those who represent students with support needs. That would strengthen the bill by making sure that the voices of students who often face the greatest barriers are not overlooked. It would bring their lived experience directly into the decision-making process and would help to ensure that any changes that are made would be fair, inclusive and properly informed.”
“It also asks ministers to set out clear eligibility criteria for support, so that students and institutions would know exactly how decisions were made. To keep the system transparent, the SFC would publish an annual assessment that would show the impact of funding decisions, the level of unmet need and how support was being used. Before any regulations were introduced, ministers would have to consult those who represent students with support needs to ensure that lived experience informed the process. The use of the affirmative procedure would ensure that Parliament would retain proper oversight. Amendment 1 is a sensible and proportionate amendment that would protect existing commitments, improve transparency and reflect the Parliament’s long-standing commitment to fairness and inclusion.”
“I, too, start by thanking the minister for his constructive engagement, particularly as I came to the party quite late. My amendments are the result of a number of discussions that I had with charities— especially charities for the disabled—that wanted to engage on the bill. Amendment 1 would place a clear duty on the Scottish ministers and the Scottish Funding Council to maintain funding for students with support needs by adding proposed new section 4A to the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005. The intention is simply to ensure that the support that students rely on is properly funded and that it cannot be chipped away by inflation or a shifting budget. Amendment 1 would secure funding at no less than the real-terms level of 2025-26, which would protect vulnerable students from rising costs.”
“My door has been open but, unfortunately, Craig Hoy and his colleagues have not come through it with any constructive suggestions whatsoever. Jeremy Balfour made a compelling case that funding should not only continue for our changing places toilet programme but be spread over multiyear periods to allow for planning and delivery of the schemes. As a result, we will provide an additional £10 million of funding over three years, starting with £3 million of investment in 2026-27. Those facilities, which have been championed by Jeremy Balfour, will provide greater freedom to people with profound disabilities and complex needs, enabling them to access community resources more easily. The Presiding Officer: Concise questions and responses would be appreciated.”
“I am grateful for the cabinet secretary’s engagement on the budget. Unlike my former Conservative colleagues in Lothian, I am glad that I have been able to negotiate money for disabled charities, changing places toilets and the King’s theatre. Does the cabinet secretary agree that not only are changing places toilets good for individuals and families but the economic benefit that they bring to groups, charities and organisations is good for Scotland and for the local economy? Shona Robison: I thank Jeremy Balfour for his constructive and pragmatic engagement ahead of the budget. What a contrast to his former colleagues, as he said. He has been getting things done and working with others to get things for local communities.”
“Presiding Officer, I wish you and other members a very happy Christmas. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will confirm that it will not allocate any further funding to the extension of the tram network in Edinburgh. (S6O-05311)”
“If agreed to, amendment 10 will give a strong further signal across the Government and the Parliament to ensure that inclusion and equality sit at the heart of Liz Smith’s bill. I encourage members to vote for it.”
“Amendment 10 will require the statutory guidance to make provision about “the steps that education authorities and the managers of grant-aided schools should take to support participation in residential outdoor education by pupils” and, in particular “pupils with additional support needs”. That will be a welcome addition in providing schools with practical advice on how to make those often complex considerations. My hesitation regarding guidance is well documented. However, I am reassured that the amendment will support existing provisions in the bill that will require courses of residential outdoor education to be suitable for pupils’ age, ability, aptitude and any additional support needs.”
“I raised these issues in amendments at stage 2, and I welcome the fact that my concerns were shared and that these important matters have been given due consideration by the member in charge and the minister, as they promised. I welcome the comments that were made by the minister a few moments ago, particularly on young carers. I remain concerned that, not next year or the year after but in years to come, young carers will still not feel that they are able to go away due to the support that they give a family member or somebody else. We must ensure that they are protected from that. My amendment 10 represents the outcome of our considerations.”
“I congratulate Liz Smith on getting this far with the bill, and I am pleased that it has cross-party support. I thank the minister for the constructive dialogue that we have had over the past weeks and months. As Liz Smith and the minister have acknowledged, my priority in engaging with the bill process has been to ensure that the provision of residential outdoor education is made available to all pupils in Scotland. I take this opportunity to emphasise my view that no child or young person should miss out on residential outdoor education because they have an additional support need or a disability, are a young carer or need support from a carer or carers to be able to participate equitably in the scheme.”
“I acknowledge and appreciate the point that Mr Balfour has put to me, because that represents a live and present threat and it can result in changes in behaviours and in actions that can have catastrophic implications in our society. It is important and essential that all of us—including the technology companies—are vigilant about the material that is posted online, to provide as much protection as possible from the changes in behaviour that can result in the kind of atrocity that happened at Bondi beach. National Speed Limits 2.”
“I, too, associate myself with the First Minister’s remarks. I am sure that all of us in the chamber stand with the Jewish community in Scotland and beyond. Does the First Minister agree that words matter, that what people put on social media can sometimes lead to the type of event that happened on Sunday, and that all of us who have influence should be careful about what we post, particularly with regard to faith communities? The First Minister: I had a briefing yesterday from the chief constable of Police Scotland, which concentrated significantly on the dangers to which individuals in our society are exposed by online activity. The detail of that briefing was truly chilling.”
“Would the member like to outline which devolved benefits he would take away and how he would do that? Alexander Stewart: We need to have a discussion about universality in benefits. We have already spoken about the SNP’s light touch when it comes to keeping records on benefits, and that is a vitally important matter. We want to see the economy grow and we want to get people off benefits and into the job market, so that they can prosper and move forward. The amount spent on adult disability payment is the largest of all the devolved benefits and is the biggest contributor to the SNP’s overspend in that area. By 2029-30, ADP alone will cost Scottish taxpayers £770 million more than the equivalent UK benefit would have.”
“However, this Parliament decided that a disability commissioner was one commissioner too many—a decision that was made just weeks after passing legislation to create a commissioner for victims and witnesses. That decision captures the attitude that I think exists across the chamber. Parties are very good at talking the talk, but when it comes to action, disabled people are too often sidelined in favour of other priorities. I do not think that that is good enough. Disabled people deserve better. Although I welcome the Parliament’s marking the international day of persons with disabilities, I am afraid that it rings hollow with many disabled people while parties continue to ignore us and ignore the chance to bring about real change in our society. 17:37”
“The last time that it was updated with anything on social security was in September 2021. That is how seriously the Scottish Conservatives take social security. From my time in the party, I can say that they have no real understanding of how social security works, and they have no policies coming forward for disabled people. My final point is that, earlier this year, this Parliament chose to deny disabled people the champion that they deserve. A disability commissioner would have helped to reverse decades of neglect, and it would have driven meaningful change—change that would have transformed the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.”
“I ask the minister: will that happen before this session of Parliament comes to an end in the spring of next year, or was the commitment simply words on a bit of paper? To Scottish Labour members, I say gently—or maybe not so gently—that they need to speak to their colleagues down south. We all know that the health element of universal credit is still in the pipeline and that it will make life harder for disabled people. It is easy to come up with something that will make for a cheap headline, as Labour did last week in relation to the motability scheme in a move that saved not one penny of taxpayers’ money but was simply designed to mimic Reform policies. I say to my former colleagues on the left of me—their position in the chamber is the only thing about them that is to the left of me—that they should look at their website.”
“It has done almost nothing to deal with the disability employment gap. We hear lots of warm words about how we need to close the gap—we have heard that from speakers already tonight—but we know that the figure has not moved at all. We must ask the Scottish Government and the UK Government what they are doing to close the gap, rather than talking about it. The Scottish Government has dragged its feet on the changing places toilets fund. It has taken almost the full session of Parliament for that fund to come forward. Last week, I held a meeting with about 15 disability charities and asked them what one thing they would like to happen. The answer was that they want to see the Government deliver a manifesto commitment, because it still has not abolished non-residential social care charges.”
“Like others, I congratulate Pam Duncan-Glancy on securing the debate. I also thank her for highlighting the summit that will take place in February. It was a pleasure this afternoon to meet some of the young people who are in the gallery, and I am sure that the day will be a success. I found Pam Duncan-Glancy’s speech quite uplifting. Perhaps it will be the other side of the coin to what I want to say tonight, because, although this Parliament often talks about disability and accessibility, the reality is that, often, there are warm words but very little action coming out of those discussions. Let us look at what the political parties are doing, or are not doing, on issues affecting disabled people. One party is not even here to speak in the debate, so I will turn to the Scottish National Party, which forms the Scottish Government.”
“As we are all aware, local authorities the length and breadth of the country are short of money and are struggling to provide the most basic services that we require. It would be unjust and unfair for such an authority to have to pick up a bill for something that was not its fault. In fact, if it were not for a local authority pointing out the mistake in August, we would be no further forward today.”
“I lodged amendment 1 only at stage 3 because, I must confess, I thought that another member would have lodged it at stage 2. I apologise to the minister for the lateness of its lodging. However, it became clear to me yesterday that there was still some confusion about what local authorities might have to face financially as a result of the Parliament’s previous decision and of the bill becoming an act in a few weeks’ time. I am concerned that there might be legal challenges to the bill, the costs of which would have to be met by the Scottish Government. However, there might then be consequential challenges from one of the 32 local authorities, which would mean that resources from that council would be used either on those challenges or on other aspects of the bill’s administration.”
“I do not know whether I want to give the name of the council; I will not do that at this stage, because it is up to the council to do that.”
“Will the minister give way? Craig Hoy: Will the minister give way? Ivan McKee: Ministers agreed that the introduction of legislation be explored, and officials have worked at pace to develop the bill and secure a parliamentary slot since then, taking into account the three-week period that is required for the laying of legislation. I am happy to take interventions. Craig Hoy: The minister has, in part, answered my question about the party that has challenged the legislation. Since 23 June, have further parties come forward? Is he able to say to which local authority area the case pertains? Ivan McKee: No other party has come forward on the issue, because it was not known about. Only one council has come forward.”
“Motion, as amended, agreed to, That the Scottish Parliament affirms the importance of a just transition, which supports workers in the oil and gas industry, as the useful life of developments comes to an end, and believes that new developments must only proceed if they contribute to energy security, meet a rigorous climate compatibility assessment and are compatible with Scotland’s journey to net zero. The Presiding Officer: I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Jim Fairlie is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Claire Baker will fall. The next question is, that amendment S6M-19632.3, in the name of Jim Fairlie, which seeks to amend motion S6M-19632, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on better bus services, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“For 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) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) 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) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) 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) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) 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) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Maggie Chapman] Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Abstentions Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on motion S6M-19637, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on Rosebank, as amended, is: For 80, Against 36, Abstentions 1.”
“Amendment agreed to. The Presiding Officer: Therefore, the amendments in the name of Douglas Lumsden and Sarah Boyack have fallen. The next question is, that motion S6M-19637, in the name of Patrick Harvie, on Rosebank, as amended, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am not sure whether my vote was recorded. I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: I can confirm that your vote was recorded, Mr Balfour. For 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) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) 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) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) 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, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) 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) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (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) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Abstentions Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) 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) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on amendment S6M-19637.4, in the name of Richard Lochhead, is: For 62, Against 36, Abstentions 19.”
“I invite Emma Harper to move such a motion. Motion moved, That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Emma Harper] Motion agreed to. 18:02”
“It is not just about data; it is about dignity and treatment. People who are living with secondary breast cancer deserve to be recognised, counted and properly cared for. We should have confidence that decisions about their treatment are built on real understanding, not on guesswork or gaps in information. We need to make sure that those who are living bravely with secondary breast cancer, like my constituent and many others across Scotland, are no longer invisible to the system. It should be there for them and we should know who they are. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I am conscious that a couple of colleagues still want to participate in the debate. In order to have sufficient time to allow them to do so, I am minded to accept a motion under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes.”
“They are not reflected in official numbers, NHS Scotland does not plan consistently for them and, without being properly counted, they cannot receive the care and support that they need and deserve. Almost 10 years ago, the Scottish Government committed to changing that. That commitment was renewed in the cancer action plan for 2023 to 2026. However, here we are, nearing the end of that plan period and the promise remains unfulfilled. As other members have done tonight, I therefore ask the minister to give us more information on that. Without comprehensive data, we cannot plan services, target resources or make fair and informed decisions about access to treatment. As Rhoda rightly pointed out, how can we decide which new cancer drugs to fund or negotiate fair prices with the companies if we do not even know how many people might benefit?”
“Despite her courage and determination, Rhoda told me that what troubles her most is not her illness but the lack of progress in recording how many people in Scotland are living with advanced breast cancer. She asked me how we can plan cancer services when we do not even know how many people are affected. It is a simple but profound question, which gets to the heart of the debate. As others have mentioned, we do not know how many people in Scotland are living with secondary breast cancer. Although new diagnoses are recorded, cases where breast cancer has returned or spread are not consistently tracked or published. As a result, thousands of people such as Rhoda are in effect missing from our health data.”
“I, too, thank Emma Harper for securing this important debate and for acknowledging the powerful work of Make 2nds Count and Breast Cancer Now in giving a voice to those who live with incurable secondary breast cancer. Behind every statistic, there are real people— mothers, daughters, sisters and friends. There are people such as Rhoda, one of my constituents, who bravely shared her story with me by email. Rhoda was first diagnosed with secondary breast cancer back in 2012. She told me that, by the time she had found the lump, the cancer had already spread to her lymph nodes and bones. With surgery, radiotherapy and on-going hormone treatment, she was stable for many years and was able to continue to work full time and volunteer in her community. However, earlier this year, sadly, her cancer recurred and spread further.”
“The true measure of a compassionate society is found in how it treats those who have the least, especially when they have the least time left. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I invite the minister, Tom Arthur, to respond to the debate. 17:37”
“I want to live, as I am sure we all do, in a Scotland that values life not based on productivity alone but on its inherent worth. Because I am human, I have inherent worth. When someone reaches the end of their life, our collective responsibility is clear. We must deliver dignity and care without the burden of bureaucracy or delay. That is why I am so pleased that this Parliament was the first in the UK to introduce the six-month rule for social security benefits, which has made a big difference. I am also thankful for the work of the Marie Curie and St Columba’s hospices in this city. Like others, I call on members to unite behind the simple moral goal that no one in Scotland should die in poverty.”
“Every person, no matter their circumstances, has equal dignity, worth and purpose. Our duty as parliamentarians is to care for one another, and especially for the most vulnerable. Organisations such as Marie Curie have shown that there is a better way. Its research with Loughborough University has highlighted both the scale of the problem and, as Mr Doris pointed out, the practical steps that can be taken, including support from the Scottish Government, Social Security Scotland and local authorities to ensure the maximum uptake of disability benefits through a values-first approach that removes any stigma from receiving those benefits. That is not simply a matter of numbers or budgets; it actually defines what sort of country we are and what sort of nation we want to be.”
“That is mothers, fathers, grandparents, neighbours, friends and, sadly, sometimes children, whose final months are overshadowed not only by illness but by financial hardship and anxiety. Instead of dignity, too many experience cold homes, empty cupboards and mounting bills. For those who face the end of life, every moment should matter, yet poverty steals away that precious time and replaces it with fear, exhaustion and indignity. I fully accept that the UK and Scottish Governments are trying to deal with those issues and that there are tireless campaigns on end-of- life poverty but, as we have heard from others, the dial is not moving and, in some communities in Edinburgh and the Lothians, things have become even worse. That is a shame, because it is not inevitable. Poverty at the end of life is a policy failure, not a personal one.”
“Like others, I thank Paul Sweeney for securing the debate. Just over two years ago, my father died of a terminal illness. It was a really hard time for my mother and for us as a family. We were fortunate: my father was in his own home, well off and able to have the care that he required. I find it almost impossible to imagine going through such circumstances when there is financial poverty in the family as well. It has been said that the moral test of any society is how it ”treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in shadows of life,” people who live with disability or long-term illness. Today, we have heard a sobering truth: that in Scotland, each year, more than 6,500 people living with a terminal illness die in poverty. That is not simply a number.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My phone would not link. I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Balfour. I will make sure that that is recorded.”
“I advise that there is no time in hand and that any interventions should be absorbed within the member’s agreed speaking time. With that, I call Maggie Chapman to close on behalf of the Scottish Greens for up to four minutes. 15:30”
“That is because legal aid is underfunded and lawyers are simply walking away from it. That is not justice but a failure to protect the most vulnerable. Only the Scottish Government can be held liable for that. We owe it to every woman who has to pack a bag in the night and run to make sure that she finds a system that is ready to protect her, not one that makes her live through her trauma over and over again. It is time for the Scottish Government to act, not just talk, and to provide real housing, real support and a justice system that truly stands with survivors, ensuring that equally safe becomes a living reality, not just some fantasy that the Scottish Government has dreamt up. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We now move to closing speeches.”
“As Maggie Chapman pointed out, the Scottish Parliament has for 10 years had the power to establish split payments in Scottish benefits, but the Scottish Government has done nothing about that. Words are easy, but action is lacking in that area. Bob Doris: Will Jeremy Balfour give way? Jeremy Balfour: I am afraid that I do not have time. Let us be clear. The SNP Government has had its powers over social security and housing for years, yet women’s refuges are closing, councils remain overwhelmed and the promise of safety remains just a promise. Even when women seek justice, they find another wall in front of them. As many speakers have pointed out, the legal system works only if there are enough lawyers to do the work—and there are simply not enough lawyers in Scotland doing that type of work right now.”
“As a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, I add my thanks to those who gave evidence—in particular, those who gave their personal experience from their own lives. The report paints a bleak picture of where we are as a country. Nowhere is that more evident than in how we treat women—as others have said, it is mostly women—who are trying to rebuild their lives after abuse. Every week, women across Scotland make the incredibly brave decision to leave their abusive partners; however, too often, that courage is met not with safety or support but with financial barriers, bureaucracy and a lack of somewhere safe to go. We talk about fairness and dignity in social security, but what dignity is there when a woman who is fleeing violence has to wait weeks for financial help?”
“We need to find ways of enabling people to receive an earlier diagnosis, and we need to find an effective treatment for dealing with a horrible disease. As other members have said, bile duct cancer is a cancer that affects more people who are perhaps older, but it is becoming more common in younger people. I fully understand that there are budgetary pressures on every Government and that, in almost every members’ business debate, members will ask the Government to find more money to fund the issue that has been raised, but I genuinely ask, on behalf of my constituent and all those who have gone through the same thing, for money to be found to put into specialised research, so that we can give hope to people who will face the condition in the future. 17:33”
“The worst thing was being told that there was absolutely nothing they could do, despite symptoms only showing a few days before. From here, things escalated at a terrifying pace. Mum passed away just 33 days after her diagnosis aged just 63. I went from everything being fine, to planning a funeral for my Mum at the age of 25 only 33 days later.” I am sure that everyone would want to pass on their best regards and sympathy to my constituent. Sadly, my constituent’s story is not unique. It is a story that other people have told me since hearing about the debate. As other members have said, cholangiocarcinoma is very difficult to diagnose and, even when it is diagnosed, it is very difficult to treat. I think that we all agree that it is a cancer on which specialised research needs to be undertaken.”