Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 14 November 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 2264 contributions

|

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 4 November 2025

Pam Duncan-Glancy

I understand Sandesh Gulhane’s background in the area, so I know that he will be aware of all the significant research that shows that non-disabled people’s opinion on disabled people’s quality of life differs hugely from disabled people’s opinion on their own quality of life, and that that difference means that the bill could pose a risk.

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 4 November 2025

Pam Duncan-Glancy

I recognise the member’s commitment to and support for the bill. If there was no time limit, what would be the difference between a person living as a disabled person and a terminally ill person?

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 4 November 2025

Pam Duncan-Glancy

If I had not thought—wrongly—that Bob Doris’s amendments 139 and 140 were in another group, I would have said at the outset that I think that they are incredibly important. Together with Stuart McMillan’s amendments 216 and 217, they get to the heart of some of the concerns that disabled people have about the internalised ableism in society. I have to say that a rejection of them, a rejection of any definition of coercion and a rejection of any other process to determine that coercion is taking place, including that in Brian Whittle’s amendments, would be quite concerning. I hope that the committee will therefore support some of the amendments on that.

I draw the committee’s attention to the evidence from the Royal College of General Practitioners Scotland, which challenged the assumption that discussions about assisted dying could take place at regular GP appointments. It said:

“This is a complex process, morally and emotionally, involving considerable time for technical assessment of capacity and coercion which can be challenging. We do not believe that this work can or should be incorporated into an already very busy and stressed service, without potential detriment to patient care”

That is an important reflection from front-line professionals for us to bear in mind. When we are considering the definition of coercion, the clearer we can be in the legislation, the better.

The committee is grappling with two aspects. One is the definition of coercion. There are several options available to the committee in the amendments. Some of them include the broader aspects, which I think are essential to include, and some of them are more narrow but nonetheless still define coercion. Given what the Royal College of General Practitioners said about the ability of professionals to reach such a difficult decision without clarity in legislation, I would like to think that committee members will support the amendments.

I will comment briefly on the point that amendment 13 might not be moved at this stage because of concern about training health professionals and the cost of that. Concern about the cost of training health professionals on the legislation is legitimate. For people to be able to do this work, not only will they have to have time to do it but they will have to be trained to do it. There is a question whether we should bear the brunt of that cost. Training will cost money. I would like to think that, if the bill is to include the safeguard that such professionals will be able to make such decisions, surely they will have the appropriate training. Even if my colleague Emma Harper does not press amendment 13 at stage 2, I would like to think that something similar will be lodged at stage 3, regardless of the cost.

I press amendment 220.

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee [Draft]

Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 4 November 2025

Pam Duncan-Glancy

Is the member suggesting that he would support the provisions of the act being operated in an unregulated way?

Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]

Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 29 October 2025

Pam Duncan-Glancy

Does the Government think that the timescale should be different if there are welfare concerns with regard to informing parents or carers?

Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]

Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 29 October 2025

Pam Duncan-Glancy

I presume that it means situations in which informing a parent or carer might result in the child being blamed or the parent overreacting, for example. Does the Government have any concerns about that?

Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]

Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 29 October 2025

Pam Duncan-Glancy

That is helpful; thank you.

We have heard a lot from parents about circumstances when they have not been informed about the use of restraint. As you heard earlier, the parents can hear about an incident from the young person or a third person, or the information comes to light in some other way. Who is accountable when that happens?

Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]

University of Dundee

Meeting date: 29 October 2025

Pam Duncan-Glancy

The other thing that has been put to us was that the decision to restructure the university into faculties was taken without the agreement of the senate and without discussion and agreement with the campus trade unions and student association representatives. Is that a fair representation of what happened?

Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]

Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 29 October 2025

Pam Duncan-Glancy

That is fair enough. What sort of oversight does the cabinet secretary hope to have on the extent to which the conditions that are attached to the money are adhered to?

Education, Children and Young People Committee [Draft]

Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 29 October 2025

Pam Duncan-Glancy

I understand that, but, regardless of what they are, are you—