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 31 March 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 1916 contributions

|

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]

Petitions

Meeting date: 11 March 2026

Alasdair Allan

As you will appreciate, this long-running petition is of great interest to my constituents. You mentioned the national goose forum and the delivery plan, and you mentioned the need for swiftness. The Scottish Government has recognised the problem that exists in some parts of the country with recent funding, not least that relating to Uist. Do you think that, going forward, there needs to be a swifter reaction to extreme situations with some species in some locations?

Rural Affairs and Islands Committee [Draft]

Petitions

Meeting date: 11 March 2026

Alasdair Allan

Finally, when you look at solutions to arrive at what might be considered sustainable numbers of greylag geese in some locations, is the only alternative that you are looking at the shooting of geese and the finding of shooters? If not, what alternatives are you open to looking at in the future?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 10 March 2026

Alasdair Allan

I appreciate that I have not given Mr Briggs much time to develop his argument, but many members will, like me, sympathise with the point that he makes about ensuring that professionals can opt out. Does his amendment 142 stray into reserved areas? How does he answer the question about the bill’s competence?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 10 March 2026

Alasdair Allan

Will the member take an intervention?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 10 March 2026

Alasdair Allan

I thank the member. I appreciate the motives behind his amendment, but I wonder whether he has a view on how the courts or others would be expected to interpret the six-month rule. One way that has been used to interpret the rule in the benefits context has been to ask, “Would you be surprised if this patient was alive in six months?” However, Marie Curie found that that measure has an error rate of 46 per cent. I do not doubt the reason why the member lodged his amendment, but does he accept that there are multiple ways of assessing against the criteria that he seeks to establish?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 10 March 2026

Alasdair Allan

Will the member take an intervention?

18:00

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 10 March 2026

Alasdair Allan

Liam McArthur’s amendments would remove ministers’ powers to set regulations defining the training, qualifications and experience of the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner. As members understand, that is because such powers would be out of scope for this Parliament.

Therefore, should the bill ultimately pass, we face two options. Either Parliament agrees to Liam McArthur’s amendments, effectively outsourcing such important decisions to unelected UK officials, or Parliament does not agree to the amendments, which would mean that the legislation would be all but certain to end up in the Supreme Court.

To avoid any misunderstanding, I accept that the areas in question here are pro tempore indisputably reserved to Westminster. However, I also believe that it is not good lawmaking to draft laws to end up in the courts while issues of competence are settled. I therefore understand the motivations of those seeking to make many of the amendments and do not intend to stand in their way, but it is difficult to endorse those moves with much enthusiasm.

My concern is that we are being asked to pass legislation here without having any real idea of what the UK Parliament has in mind or how it intends to plug the holes in our own law. I have already mentioned a letter that was sent to members by former presidents of the royal colleges of physicians and surgeons to make clear their concerns about that. We cannot interrogate any of what might be in a future section 104 order, because it has yet to appear. In any case, such an order, by its very nature, receives limited parliamentary scrutiny.

I mention those things to point to the dilemma that has been created. In previous debates, as well as in this one, members have pointed to the fact that debate is central to discussion that we are having. This is not a constitutional debate, although it certainly engages issues around the constitution; it is a question about whether this Parliament should get to see complete legislation and the full implications of that legislation before it makes a decision.

21:45

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Meeting date: 10 March 2026

Alasdair Allan

Does the member agree that it is not only in this chamber that the concerns that he has rightly outlined are being expressed? In the past few weeks, members have had a letter from former presidents of colleges of physicians and surgeons, who say:

“This is an issue of huge concern. … it seems unconscionable to us that parliamentarians would be committing our profession to such a monumental change in responsibilities without complete clarity on what protection would be offered for those who, for reasons of conscience, would decline to be involved.”

I take it that that is a direct reference to the section 104 order.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Ferries

Meeting date: 4 March 2026

Alasdair Allan

I take it that I am an exception, because I am a member who lives on an island and who has raised such issues frequently. Does he also accept that, as much as we might agree on the problems that the ferry services have faced, yesterday’s important announcement about the replacement of the MV Lord of the Isles should be welcomed?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Ferries

Meeting date: 4 March 2026

Alasdair Allan

Will the member give way?