Official Report 1269KB pdf
21:25
The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-21077, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees—
(a) the following programme of business—
Friday 13 March 2026
9.30 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions
9.30 am Stage 3 Proceedings: Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.00 pm Decision Time
(b) that, for the purposes of consideration of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, on 13 March 2026, Rule 2.2.3 of Standing Orders be varied to replace "09:30 and 12:30” with “from 09:30”.—[Graeme Dey]
I call Jeremy Balfour.
21:26
I rise to challenge the motion and to question whether this is the right way forward for the Parliament. I understand where we are and the issues that we have with timescales. However, as I said on a previous occasion, although the Parliament may genuinely seek to be a Parliament that wants those who have caring responsibilities or who need carers to be involved in proceedings, changing the timetable at this time of the week makes it very difficult for some individuals. I know that there are members who will not be able to be here on Friday because they have caring responsibilities or because they need carers.
I ask the bureau why, when it was looking at the timescales, it factored in a Friday morning? There are a number of us—in fact, I think that there are nine of us now—who are not part of the bureau discussions and who have had no input on the decision.
I look to the next parliamentary session and think that people will be looking at the situation and saying, “If this is going to happen, how will I cope, given my caring responsibilities?”
I largely agree with what Jeremy Balfour is saying, but we are where we are. Does he have a suggestion of when would be a better time for us to meet?
I appreciate that we have to meet, but notice is the key factor. Moving business to Monday would have given people more time to get the appropriate care in place. To expect people who have caring responsibilities or those who care for them—
Will the member give way?
I will finish this point, and then I will give way.
People need notice, because many people cannot change their arrangements at the drop of a hat. I am not sure that those who do not have those responsibilities fully understand where we are on that.
I have real sympathy with the argument that Jeremy Balfour lays out. Frankly, it was obvious at the start of the week that this was going to happen, and a decision should have been made earlier. However, if we move stage 3 proceedings to Monday, I do not believe that members will have sufficient time to consider the bill as amended before we debate it in its final form on Tuesday. I would certainly like more than just one night to consider the significant changes that are being made to the bill at this stage before we have that final debate.
I absolutely agree with Ross Greer. If we were to move stage 3 proceedings to Monday, we have the Tuesday the week after, when we are due to finish at 5 o’clock. That would give us seven days to consider the bill in its final form, and would allow those have caring responsibilities to have that notice. If we do not do that, we will exclude members who otherwise would want to be in the chamber on Friday. That is not an open Parliament, and I think that there are real concerns about the policy.
Does Jeremy Balfour agree that attendance is bound to be down on Friday, which makes a mockery of the whole process of what is a very important bill? Does he agree that that would be a bit of an insult to the member in charge, who, as he told us earlier, has spent four and a half years on the bill?
I cannot comment on what the attendance will or will not be. All I know is that there will be people who want to be here but cannot be here, because they either have a caring responsibility or need a carer to help them, and they will be excluded. That does not seem to me to be a democratically open way to go about things.
I understand what Mr Balfour is saying, but the reality is quite simply that there is no ideal time for some of us who have to travel further distances. That is difficult as it is, and rearranging things again and again is not easy, either.
I recognise that the issue presents Parliament with a dilemma, but we have a job to do here. There is the ability to attend virtually, which was not there before, whether folk like doing so or not, and there is also the ability, in circumstances where folk cannot change their caring responsibilities and cannot participate virtually, to use proxy votes. I recognise the dilemma, but we have a job to do.
I do not want to labour the point at half past 9, but I will respond to Mr Stewart by saying that there is a difference between someone having to travel a distance and someone being physically unable to get here because of their caring responsibilities. That is a fundamental difference.
I appreciate that there is no ideal solution to this, but I gently ask the Parliamentary Bureau whether stage 3 proceedings could happen on Monday instead of Friday, which would allow everyone to take part in the debate who wants to take part in it.
You must wind up, Mr Balfour.
I say to Mr Stewart that, yes, we have a job to do, but the trouble is that, if we decide tonight to deal with that business on Friday, we will prevent people from being able to do their jobs, and that is a really dangerous position for us to be in.
21:32
These are, of course, serious and substantial issues that we are being asked to consider. In my view, this is the most consequential member’s bill of the session—indeed, it is probably the most consequential bill since Parliament was established.
I acknowledge that timetabling has been difficult. We have consistently underestimated the amount of time that has been required. I appreciate all of that, but the process feels slightly chaotic and I do not think that it shows the Parliament in a terribly good light. I know that the Government’s legislative programme has been full, but it feels as if it is being rushed through and squeezed into the final few weeks of the session, and I do not think that that is a sensible way for us to legislate.
I appreciate that people have caring responsibilities. I also appreciate that many of us, particularly constituency members but also list MSPs, consider Fridays to be protected days for constituency work. Members already have plans, including surgeries and meetings with constituents and external organisations, and cancelling them at short notice causes difficulties.
However, I am also told that there is a strong possibility that we may be required to meet next Friday in order to deal with other legislation. I am worried that, in our dash to get to the end of the legislative programme in this parliamentary session, we will squeeze everything in and not consider it properly.
I absolutely accept the need to get through the amendments to the bill, but I ask that the Parliamentary Bureau consider its decision again. I am conscious that some committees have concluded their business and are no longer meeting, so it may be that some mornings might be available when members would be on the parliamentary estate anyway. Similarly, it may be that there are some slots when we could meet in the evening.
However, for all sorts of sensible legislative reasons, never mind being inclusive in the Parliament, I ask the Parliamentary Bureau to consider withdrawing its motion and looking at it again overnight. If there is no alternative but Friday, I think that members would more readily accept that. I am asking the Parliamentary Bureau to be flexible and to explore opportunities.
This is a difficult problem for the Parliamentary Bureau to wrestle with. I will not be clever and try to suggest all sorts of answers. However, one thing that is clear to me from my short time—10 years—in the Parliament is that, when we sit late towards midnight, we tend not to give legislation the due care and attention that we should be giving it. Does Jackie Baillie agree that, although Friday might not be the perfect solution, nor is sitting until 12 o’clock at night?
I agree, but I have not suggested that we do that. There are some evenings when we are not sitting until 10 o’clock that are part of the normal parliamentary timetable. There are also mornings when committees are not meeting, and there is perhaps an opportunity to use those slots. All that I am asking for is that the bureau looks at this again and is flexible, in the interests of not only members but good legislation.
21:36
I understand and respect the points made by Jeremy Balfour and others. I want to make a few points myself.
First, in some of the interventions on Mr Balfour, members said that there is no alternative. There may be no alternative now, but there was a big alternative. Liam McArthur never hid that he was introducing this bill. We have known about it for years. At some point, the Government or the Parliament will have to reflect on the fact that we have left such an emotive and important bill to our final weeks in this session. We cannot get away from that.
The reason why I requested to speak is that, right now, we are considering a motion to sit for an additional day when we have not even reached the time limit within which we were supposed to debate the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill tonight. That is what I am troubled with. Group 9 had only six amendments in it. Although we will have to sit for further days than scheduled, we should use the maximum time that is allocated on the days when we are due to speak about the bill. I am seriously concerned that, if we agree to the business motion today, we will have further scenarios in which we will stop early, which I do not think is acceptable.
I was more than willing and prepared to debate amendments to the bill until 10 o’clock and then get into the further procedures that we have to do today. I am unsure who took the decision, or why it was taken, not to start group 9, because I believe that it could have been finished. If it could not, we could have followed up to the amendments that had been debated and then restarted tomorrow. If we are not even going to be flexible around those issues, we might not even complete the business on the additional day on Friday.
Mr Ross said that we were due to debate the bill until 10 o’clock this evening. My understanding is that an hour had already been allocated for multiple Scottish statutory instruments. That was always part of the planned business this evening.
I do not have the business bulletin in front of me, but my understanding is that that was to take place after we reached the 10 o’clock deadline for decision time; that is, that we should start those SSIs at 10 o’clock.
We have taken up a large amount of that time discussing this, but we stopped the debate on amendments on the bill before half past 9. That could have been an extra 30 or 40 minutes, within which I believe that we could have got through group 9. We would certainly have made progress, and I would like that to be considered. I do not know whether the minister can say anything.
Finally, I will respond to the point that Jackie Baillie made about committee meetings. I say this as a committee member, not as a committee convener, because I cannot speak on behalf of the committee—although I try to sometimes. We have scheduled meetings over the next two weeks; we have invited witnesses, and witnesses have agreed to come.
It would have to be a case of no committees at all, but I know that my education committee and Edward Mountain’s net zero committee have scheduled sessions, and I do not think that they can be cancelled at this stage, despite the heavy pressures on us to get legislation through.
21:39
Rather than talk about the Parliamentary Bureau and the Government, every single one of us needs to look at ourselves with regard to what we might have done to cause this situation in the first place.
Meeting on Friday, for the reasons that Jeremy Balfour and others have said, would be difficult, but a defining aspect of the job that we were elected to do is to legislate. If that is the day that it must be, then it must be that day.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will just finish the point that I want to make. Friday is the 30th anniversary of the Dunblane tragedy, which is in my constituency. It is odd, of course, that we would be having a debate on assisted dying at that time. Rather than what is happening tonight, we should make sure that, if we do meet on Friday, we conduct ourselves in a way that is cognisant of the background of that day 30 years ago.
To make a shameless plug, I also have a member’s motion on Dunblane’s 30th anniversary. If members want to show respect for the people of Dunblane, they could perhaps sign that motion.
I will give way to Jeremy Balfour.
Again, I do not want to labour this point—well, I am labouring it—but can Keith Brown not see that it is different when someone wants to do their job but is excluded from doing so? I appreciate that it puts difficulties on diaries when people need to travel and have meetings, but if somebody has caring responsibilities or needs a carer who cannot be there, the Parliament will not be inclusive and we will be excluding people from employment.
We must draw a distinction between members who need to travel and attend meetings and those who cannot get to the Parliament because they cannot physically get dressed to do so.
I have already conceded the point that I recognise the difficulties that Jeremy Balfour and other members have pointed out, and it is unfortunate that meetings will fall unevenly on different members of the Parliament. However, the situation that we are in requires us to finish this bill and the legislative programme. If it must be on Friday, I will certainly be here, although it may be easier for me to get to the Parliament than it will be for others.
21:41
I am a bit bewildered about the issue of caring responsibilities. I regard Friday as a working day, just as being in the Parliament today and tomorrow are working days.
I do not have the obligations that Keith Brown has, which are much more important than mine, and so all that I have been required to do is cancel my surgeries and rearranged meetings that would have followed on from them. Because Friday is a working day, I always have arrangements to be in my constituency and to be about, as many of us do. Therefore, I do not understand the distinction between Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and Friday, which is just another working day for me.
We have a responsibility in this Parliament. We have had very—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will just finish this point, Mr O’Kane. We have had lengthy debates on some amendments, some of which went over and over the same subjects, which made a mockery of the amendment timings that were decided by the Parliamentary Bureau. We all know that.
Before I finish, I will take Mr O’Kane’s intervention.
I recognise that Friday is a working day, and I think that colleagues would all recognise that they work on Fridays. However, people were planning to do something different on Friday and had made arrangements based on that. Part of my day on Friday involved caring for my son. I will now not be able to do that, because it would preclude me from doing my job here. The arrangements that I have in my region would be different because I would be closer to home.
The point that Jeremy Balfour and other colleagues have made is that they have made arrangements in relation to their caring responsibilities that keep them more local. Coming to Edinburgh is different from those arrangements, and I ask Christine Grahame to reflect on that.
I hear Mr O’Kane’s point. Obviously, I do not know about everybody’s domestic circumstances, but members may be able to consider whether they can work remotely, which was not available in previous sessions of the Parliament.
I appreciate that it might be easy to misunderstand the point about a member being able to get home tonight or after business finishes tomorrow, but that is not the case for everyone. In order to vote and take part in business remotely, a member would need to travel home, which will not be possible for all members between 10 o’clock one night and 9 o’clock the next morning.
As I said, I cannot respond to every individual case in the Parliament. I go back to my point that my broad understanding is that Friday is a working day. We have needed to tweak the schedule. I have been inconvenienced over and over in the past few days, and I accept that. [Interruption.]
Let us hear one another.
I have had to cancel meetings. I had to cancel my final surgery in Peebles, which meant a lot to me after 27 years, but that is nothing.
The other issue that I want to raise is that we cannot arrange this so that we are reprinting the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill as amended a few days or even a day before we debate it. There must be sufficient time for members to consider the bill as amended, because there are lots of amendments coming from different places. I do not know what the bill will look like at the final stage. I would certainly like to have time to reflect on and consider it before I am involved in voting on the bill as amended.
21:45
First, I share the frustration that has already been expressed that, while we are debating this, we could have been making more progress with the assisted dying legislation.
I have great sympathy with the points that have been made by Jeremy Balfour and others about Friday, although I accept that there is probably no alternative to sitting on Friday. The plea that I want to make to the bureau is that it takes the time overnight or tomorrow morning to take an overview of the remainder of this session and the business that has to be got through.
A week today, there is a substantial stage 3 with more than 200 amendments. I really fear that, a week tonight, we will be in exactly the same position, having exactly the same debate.
I will be brief. Jeremy Balfour has, in a very dignified and eloquent manner, tried to explain to members the difficulties that a number of our colleagues who require carers to help them to get to work face. It is very easy to talk about being an inclusive Parliament, but if we do not listen to our colleagues, the stuff that we have written on paper is worth nothing.
Ruth Maguire makes a very fair point. I accept, although I accept that others disagree, that sitting on Friday might be unavoidable. I go back to my plea that the bureau takes an overview of the remaining business in the remainder of this session and comes back with a revised plan that utilises all available time. There is Monday and, as Jackie Baillie said, there might be some mornings.
My final point is that for reasons that I do not understand—I apologise if there are good reasons—a decision has been taken to end business in the final week on the Wednesday and to not utilise the Thursday of that week. There is a day that could be utilised. A revised plan that takes an overview is badly needed, and that is my plea.
21:47
I want to speak in support of what Jackie Baillie said earlier and what Nicola Sturgeon has just said.
It would seem sensible to have a look at this. I will make a plea, and Ruth Maguire is right to do the same. We were almost going to get into a bidding war about who could and could not attend and for what reasons. We are all dedicated, no matter what party we are from and no matter the reason why we came here. As Kevin Stewart said, we all travel from different parts of the country, we all have personal circumstances, and we all have constituents to look after.
Let us not ever get into this situation again and let us put on the record that, in future parliamentary sessions, we must resolve matters so that there is enough time to deal with all the legislation that we want to pass.
We did not think that we would be here, and let us be honest that the situation is unprecedented. I have served in five parliamentary sessions; Jackie Baillie has served in more, as has Nicola Sturgeon. We cannot face this situation again, so let us try to deal with it sensibly and keep as many people on board as we can. We do have options.
My final plea is that we stop the bidding war when it comes to the reasons why people will have problems attending on Friday. We are all dedicated to taking whatever position we want to take on the bill, and we must all do our best to ensure that we reach the end of the process and that members are satisfied that they can make a decision that they are comfortable with.
I call the minister to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau.
21:49
It is late at night, but I hope that I can respond to all the points that have been made.
Nicola Sturgeon talked about the bureau needing to take an overview of the remaining business, and that is precisely what the business managers have been attempting to do. Earlier, a comment was made by a colleague—I forget who it was—about there being ample opportunity in the remaining weeks because of early finishes and that we could do things differently. Let me outline to colleagues that, as things stand, we are looking at finishes of circa 10 pm, 10 pm and 9 pm on the three days that the Parliament is planning to sit next week. Business managers have been discussing a reordering—let me put it that way—on the Tuesday of the following week in order to facilitate a separation. We have explored the option of holding the amending stages of three bills next week and holding the stage 3 debates the following week. We are conscious, among many other things, that stakeholders who have an interest in those bills would be deeply concerned if we were to push back the stage 3 proceedings in their entirety to the final week, because there would be a fear that the bills would fall. Therefore, business managers have to take a lot of things into account.
I will share with colleagues that—
Will the minister take an intervention?
I will make some progress and then come back to Mr Balfour.
A few weeks ago, the bureau was approached by a colleague who asked that we reorder business to accommodate a childcare issue. We took that on board. An hour later, we were criticised by another colleague for making that change, because it had impacted their childcare. I relay that story not to give a “woe are we” message from those on the bureau but to show the kind of issues that we try to balance.
Two broader issues were raised. Mr Balfour made valid points about his situation. Some colleagues would prefer that we sit on Monday, not on Friday—I absolutely get that—but sitting on Monday would be a problem for other colleagues.
In relation to Ross Greer’s point, which Christine Grahame echoed, the bureau took the view that, given the importance of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, we would pause after the amending stage so that members could have time to critique the bill before making a considered decision. That is why the proceedings have been separated in that way. Even if we sit on Friday, there will already be challenges regarding creating that critique and giving members time to consider the bill in time for the debate next week.
Douglas Ross made the point that we have known for a long time that the bill was coming and that there would be a great deal of interest in it. I accept that point but, until the bureau knew the number of stage 3 amendments that had been lodged, it was difficult to determine the exact nature of the time that would be required.
I have two questions that I would like the minister to address. The first follows on from Nicola Sturgeon’s remark about the Thursday of the final week still being available to us.
Secondly—I say this with respect to all members of the bureau, because I understand that they have a difficult job—there was no consultation with those who might be affected. The decision was taken by four or five individuals with no consultation. I should say that I will be here on Friday at 9 o’clock, so I am not speaking on my behalf—I am speaking on behalf of others who have these issues. However, I gently say to the minister that there was no consultation with those who might face the greatest issues.
In relation to Ruth Maguire’s point about the Parliament being inclusive on paper, three Saturdays ago, every seat in here was filled by disabled people, and the Parliament—from the Presiding Officer down to the minister—gave the message that the Parliament is open to them all. However, we are now saying that, actually, it is not open to them all and we will not even consult them. I think that there is a problem there.
On that point, Jeremy Balfour says that we should consult people who are affected, but there will be people affected by any decision that is taken.
I gently point out that, at the conclusion of business last night, the Presiding Officer pointed out that we were way behind where we needed to be at that stage. She indicated that the bureau would have to consider how that would be addressed. The bureau has been anxious to make members aware of the challenge that we face and the solution that will be required. I want to pick up on how we got here.
The former First Minister made a really important point. We have three weeks, and there are three smaller bills to come before the Parliament. The Government has a debate time slot on the last Tuesday before the recess, which it could sacrifice for those three bills. If they were put into that time, it would create the opportunity for the two significant bills to be properly debated over the next two weeks.
I have breaking news for Mr Briggs: the Government has sacrificed that time for that very purpose. That is the kind of challenge that we are facing. The proposal that we are considering, to be confirmed by the Parliamentary Bureau and brought back to Parliament, would be to sacrifice that debating time and use it for the final debates on three bills. I hope that that illustrates to colleagues the pressure that the Parliament is under.
We have some very important legislation to consider next week. I think that it was Douglas Ross who made the point that we do not want to be in this situation again next week. That is what the bureau has been trying to avoid. We have scheduled a lot of time for the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill this week, and extensive work was done by Parliament staff and business managers to arrive at the original scheduling for stage 3—but that was entirely predicated on progress being made in line with what might be reasonably predicted.
Disposal of the amendments has not proceeded at the anticipated pace. I can give members a flavour of that. We had predicted that it would take around 21 hours and 40 minutes to get through the amendments. At this stage, we are now looking at 26 hours. I may be out by a few minutes, but I hope that that gives colleagues an idea. As a result of that, we require to find additional and exceptional time in order to complete the process. That is why the business has been scheduled for Friday from 9.30 am to 5.00 pm. How much time will actually be needed? On Friday, self-evidently, that will be determined by the pace of progress from then on in.
I apologise to colleagues if I have not covered some of the points that they have made, but I go back to my central point: whatever the bureau did, members would be inconvenienced. I absolutely accept that. However, I ask members to proceed on that basis and support the motion. If we can conclude our consideration on Friday, it will alleviate the need for pressure to be pushed down the line.
I think that it was Nicola Sturgeon who asked why we do not sit on the additional Thursday. We could do that and we could make a change to business, but that approach that pushes everything back is one of the reasons why we have got here. We have to tackle the problems as they arise, deal with business as it arises and, frankly, crack on with it.
Although I recognise all that I have heard, I ask Parliament to support the business motion.
The question is, that motion S6M-21077 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.
Thank you. We will ensure that that is recorded.
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)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
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)
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)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
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)
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)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (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)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (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)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Against
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
Abstentions
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind)
The result of the division is: For 101, Against 19, Abstentions 3.
Motion agreed to,
That the Parliament agrees—
(a) the following programme of business—
Friday 13 March 2026
9.30 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions
9.30 am Stage 3 Proceedings: Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.00 pm Decision Time
(b) that, for the purposes of consideration of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, on 13 March 2026, Rule 2.2.3 of Standing Orders be varied to replace “09:30 and 12:30” with “from 09:30”.
The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-21035, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees—
(a) the following programme of business—
Tuesday 17 March 2026
2.00 pm Time for Reflection
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
followed by Topical Questions
followed by Ministerial Statement: A Year of Progress in Bringing Down Long Waits - Driving Continued Improvement and Building a Stronger NHS
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill
followed by Committee Announcements
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
10.00 pm Decision Time
Wednesday 18 March 2026
2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Deputy First Minister Responsibilities, Economy and Gaelic; Finance and Local Government
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
10.00 pm Decision Time
Thursday 19 March 2026
11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions
11.40 am General Questions
12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions
followed by Members’ Business
2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.00 pm Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Questions
2.15 pm Portfolio Questions: Climate Action and Energy, and Transport
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill
followed by Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Motion: Amendments to the Scottish Parliament Salaries Scheme
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
9.05 pm Decision Time
Tuesday 24 March 2026
10.00 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions
followed by Members’ Business
followed by Members’ Business
2.00 pm Time for Reflection
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
followed by Topical Questions
followed by Scottish Government Business
followed by Committee Announcements
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.00 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
followed by Members’ Business
Wednesday 25 March 2026
11.40 am General Questions
12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions
followed by Members’ Business
followed by Members’ Business
3.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
3.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands; Health and Social Care; Social Justice and Housing
followed by Motion of Thanks
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
4.45 pm Decision Time
(b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 16 March 2026, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.—[Graeme Dey.]
I call Alexander Burnett to speak to and move amendment S6M-21035.1.
22:00
My apologies to colleagues for taking additional time at this late hour, but I hope for some understanding when they hear the seriousness of the issue that has led to my amendment. The amendment seeks to add a statement on the urgent situation regarding the Baird family hospital and the Aberdeen and north centre for haematology, oncology and radiotherapy, which is known as the ANCHOR centre, and I hope that there will be cross-party support for it.
I put my request through the proper channels at the bureau, which was denied. Although I welcome the offer to meet Neil Gray, I am afraid that, given that we are at the end of this session of Parliament, the seriousness of the issue and the possible opening of the ANCHOR centre in July mean that greater scrutiny is required, because what is at stake here is a repeat of the tragedy that occurred in the Queen Elizabeth university hospital.
For context, the Baird family hospital and the ANCHOR centre are now six years behind schedule and more than £330 million over budget. Some of these costs are inflationary, but some are due to contractors ripping out newly installed works because designs were not approved, materials were not protected and clinical sign-off was not obtained. The financial waste itself would normally necessitate a ministerial statement—the overrun is five times NHS Grampian’s deficit, and the board is in special measures due to serious financial issues.
However, more worrying than financial incompetence is the serious health and safety concerns that are not being shared with the public, which have come to light in a whistleblower’s report, of which I have a shortened version with me.
The report on NHS Grampian, which was commissioned by NHS Highland, reveals a host of failures in the design and construction of these sites in Aberdeen. There are concerns from expert eyewitnesses about a catalogue of mistakes around ventilation, mould and flood risk at facilities where children and cancer patients will soon go to get better.
The report upholds complaints relating to ventilation and water cleanliness during critical parts of the Baird family hospital and ANCHOR design and construction phases. That includes that the healthcare associated infection system for controlling risk in the built environment—HIA-SCRIBE—guidance was not followed; that the infection prevention control team was not listened to; that public money has been wasted due to HIA-SCRIBE guidance and internal infection prevention and control warnings not being followed; and that patient safety and staff wellbeing have been negatively impacted.
However, this report was denied to me by the chief executive of NHS Grampian. NHS Grampian told me that sharing the report with me would compromise the whistleblower, despite my submitting a consent form from the whistleblower themselves.
The independent national whistleblowing officer has now taken the step of having to extract the full report from NHS Grampian, which will not even release the details to the person who made the complaints and compiled all the evidence. They were told during the process that information contained in the report could never leave the top tiers of NHS Grampian—the insinuation being that that would create some kind of tidal wave of job losses.
The whistleblowing officer, in a departure from their usual process, has contacted NHS Grampian with urgent questions to be answered by this Friday. That departure from normal procedure follows a meeting to discuss the high risks—the imminent opening of the buildings, the on-going failure to address infection prevention and control risks in the Baird family hospital and the ANCHOR centre, and the on-going water safety concerns.
The whistleblowing officer has also been in contact with Healthcare Improvement Scotland and NHS Scotland Assure about their concerns. The whistleblower met the chief executive and director of improvement at NHS Grampian last week, who apologised for what has happened and acknowledged that concerns were not listened to. They assured the whistleblower that they plan to change the culture and improve governance.
The powers that be have apologised to the whistleblower, who was a respected practitioner in the national health service for many years, because they could see NHS Scotland Assure making exactly the same mistakes that it was set up to avoid—mistakes that made children ill in 2017 and resulted in the deaths of children and adults, with repercussions that are still being felt years later.
If NHS Grampian can see that change is needed, and if the independent national whistleblowing officer is concerned enough to depart from normal processes, should the health secretary not explain to the Parliament his knowledge of the issue; whether he can provide a cast-iron guarantee that all infection control measures have been resolved; and whether Lord Brodie’s recommendations will be 100 per cent acted on? We need to know that the Government’s mistakes have been learned from and that the hospital will be the very best hospital that it can be for decades to come, and will save thousands of lives without harming a single one.
I ask members to back my amendment and ensure that the tragedy of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital will not be repeated.
I move amendment S6M-21035.1, to insert after second “followed by Topical Questions”:
“followed by Ministerial Statement: Update on Baird Family Hospital and ANCHOR Centre”.
I call the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau.
22:05
Members will be aware that the position regarding the Baird family hospital and ANCHOR centre continues to evolve. Commercial discussions between NHS Grampian and the contractor are still active, and those negotiations require space to conclude before any further Government update can appropriately be given. As we have heard, NHS Grampian has very recently provided a detailed public update, including revised target dates for the project’s delivery. That statement reflects the current factual position and remains the most accurate information that is available at this time.
From what was articulated in the earlier submission on the state of affairs, the issue seems far more serious than people were perhaps aware of when the initial request was made. I understand that information will, we hope, be provided on Friday. If it is not provided, would that not alter whether a statement should be given, on the basis of what we have heard in the chamber this evening?
The Government can, of course, reflect on that. An offer was made at the bureau. Let us remember that, a few moments ago, we discussed in great detail the pressures on parliamentary business. I know that a number of members across the chamber would ideally want to ask for ministerial statements in the closing 14 days or so of this session of Parliament, but they recognise that their aspirations cannot reasonably be met.
I do not in any way downplay the points that Alexander Burnett has made. The position that we articulated was that Neil Gray, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, would be more than willing to meet any members who have an interest in the issue, and that offer still stands. However, we will reflect further on the timetable that Martin Whitfield has identified. In the meantime, I ask Parliament to approve the business motion.
The question is, that amendment S6M-21035.1, in the name of Alexander Burnett, which seeks to amend motion S6M-21035, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
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)
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)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con)
Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform)
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)
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)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind)
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) (Ind)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind)
Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP)
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)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (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)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Abstentions
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind)
The result of the division on amendment S6M-21035.1, in the name of Alexander Burnett, is: For 31, Against 89, Abstentions 1.
Amendment disagreed to.
The next question is, that motion S6M-21035, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to,
That the Parliament agrees—
(a) the following programme of business—
Tuesday 17 March 2026
2.00 pm Time for Reflection
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
followed by Topical Questions
followed by Ministerial Statement: A Year of Progress in Bringing Down Long Waits - Driving Continued Improvement and Building a Stronger NHS
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Bill
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill
followed by Committee Announcements
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
10.00 pm Decision Time
Wednesday 18 March 2026
2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Deputy First Minister Responsibilities, Economy and Gaelic; Finance and Local Government
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
10.00 pm Decision Time
Thursday 19 March 2026
11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions
11.40 am General Questions
12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions
followed by Members’ Business
2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.00 pm Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Questions
2.15 pm Portfolio Questions: Climate Action and Energy, and Transport
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill
followed by Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body Motion: Amendments to the Scottish Parliament Salaries Scheme
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
9.05 pm Decision Time
Tuesday 24 March 2026
10.00 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions
followed by Members’ Business
followed by Members’ Business
2.00 pm Time for Reflection
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
followed by Topical Questions
followed by Scottish Government Business
followed by Committee Announcements
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.00 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
followed by Members’ Business
Wednesday 25 March 2026
11.40 am General Questions
12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions
followed by Members’ Business
followed by Members’ Business
3.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
3.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands; Health and Social Care; Social Justice and Housing
followed by Motion of Thanks
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
4.45 pm Decision Time
(b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 16 March 2026, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.
The rest of this Official Report will be published progressively as soon as the text is available.