I supported Margo MacDonald’s bill and Patrick Harvie’s bill on the matter. I eventually abstained on Margo’s bill. She told me to abstain for reasons that I will not repeat here, because I might get arrested.

I have found today that I come to this debate with no personal story to match some of the most profound and inspiring stories that I have heard across the chamber. Any personal story that I would bring would be quite feeble by comparison.

I have learned two things to my surprise in the debate. I will say this once and never again: I could have listened to Ross Greer’s speech again, and secondly, I might have preferred Krystle Ross to be the member of Parliament rather than her husband. That might be a sentiment that others would agree with this evening, having had time to reflect on it.

I pay particular tribute, as others have, to Liam McArthur, and not only to him, but to his team, going back to Jack, George and the other people who have helped since. The former of all those, when my head of office left in 2022, told me that he was adopting me as my unofficial carer, which was both charming and deeply alarming. They have worked incredibly hard to process the enormous volume of correspondence and work that Liam McArthur has had to progress during this session of Parliament. None could have done so with the charm, dignity, ease and restraint with which he has. His conduct in progressing the bill is, as others have said, a remarkable tribute to him and to this Parliament. He has done a fabulous job.

I stand here as someone, members will understand, who was not always terribly sure about this place, but I have come to have a profound respect for it. In fact, I have cherished its potential in the 19 years that I have been here, but not always its output. I remember when I first came in and looked around the chamber walls, I wondered, “What are these things?” I thought that they were bottles of whisky. I was told that that is the silent majority of Scotland looking at us as we debate the issues before us.

Over the years that I have been here, whether we were debating the ban on smoking, the groundbreaking legislation on improving the lot of people who require wheelchairs, the introduction of free personal care, same-sex marriage—I remember arguments about coercion being made at that time—or travel to the United States for women suffering as a result of transvaginal mesh, I have seen that when this Parliament works together, it is at its best. All those things, I have to accept, would probably not have advanced the social life of Scotland had this Parliament not been here to do it.

In this debate, I am reminded that each of us is equal. We are not loyal to any manifesto or any party leader tonight, however well intentioned their interventions might be. Each of us is an equal voice in the proceedings before us.

Today, I had quite a profound experience. I went into a Costa in my constituency before I came in here. There was a group of guys and a couple of women who talk about things every early morning. The Costa was very busy. I asked them what they would do if they were me and they all put up their hand in support, but that was not what was profound. I looked up and all around the Costa, other hands went up as well.

We should not forget, although it cannot be the only thing that governs our decision tonight, that the vast majority of the people of Scotland understand what is before us and support the progression of the bill.

I return to Ross Greer and to the reason why I enjoyed his speech, which was because he set out, in technical detail, the actual safeguards introduced by Liam McArthur during the progress of the bill and because he explained that we would need commencement orders to pass before the bill could actually be enacted. That is the answer for Jackie Baillie and others who say that they do not know about the bill. If members do not like it, they do not have to vote for the commencement orders in that final analysis.

It is the voices of the terminally ill that are missing from the chamber tonight. I ask members to look around and answer this: if your neighbour said to you, “I’m dying in excruciating pain,” would you say, “Well, I’ll do something about palliative care, years from now,” or, “I’m very sorry, you’ll have to endure”? That is not the answer.

To move forward today is to recognise a single truth: we all have a right to life but we do not have a duty to live whatever the circumstance before us. I do not know whether I would take advantage of the opportunity, but I believe that it is wrong, in this day and age, to deny individuals that right.

21:35

I supported Margo MacDonald’s bill and Patrick Harvie’s bill on the matter. I eventually abstained on Margo’s bill. She told me to abstain for reasons that I will not repeat here, because I might get arrested.

I have found today that I come to this debate with no personal story to match some of the most profound and inspiring stories that I have heard across the chamber. Any personal story that I would bring would be quite feeble by comparison.

I have learned two things to my surprise in the debate. I will say this once and never again: I could have listened to Ross Greer’s speech again, and secondly, I might have preferred Krystle Ross to be the member of Parliament rather than her husband. That might be a sentiment that others would agree with this evening, having had time to reflect on it.

I pay particular tribute, as others have, to Liam McArthur, and not only to him, but to his team, going back to Jack, George and the other people who have helped since. The former of all those, when my head of office left in 2022, told me that he was adopting me as my unofficial carer, which was both charming and deeply alarming. They have worked incredibly hard to process the enormous volume of correspondence and work that Liam McArthur has had to progress during this session of Parliament. None could have done so with the charm, dignity, ease and restraint with which he has. His conduct in progressing the bill is, as others have said, a remarkable tribute to him and to this Parliament. He has done a fabulous job.

I stand here as someone, members will understand, who was not always terribly sure about this place, but I have come to have a profound respect for it. In fact, I have cherished its potential in the 19 years that I have been here, but not always its output. I remember when I first came in and looked around the chamber walls, I wondered, “What are these things?” I thought that they were bottles of whisky. I was told that that is the silent majority of Scotland looking at us as we debate the issues before us.

Over the years that I have been here, whether we were debating the ban on smoking, the groundbreaking legislation on improving the lot of people who require wheelchairs, the introduction of free personal care, same-sex marriage—I remember arguments about coercion being made at that time—or travel to the United States for women suffering as a result of transvaginal mesh, I have seen that when this Parliament works together, it is at its best. All those things, I have to accept, would probably not have advanced the social life of Scotland had this Parliament not been here to do it.

In this debate, I am reminded that each of us is equal. We are not loyal to any manifesto or any party leader tonight, however well intentioned their interventions might be. Each of us is an equal voice in the proceedings before us.

Today, I had quite a profound experience. I went into a Costa in my constituency before I came in here. There was a group of guys and a couple of women who talk about things every early morning. The Costa was very busy. I asked them what they would do if they were me and they all put up their hand in support, but that was not what was profound. I looked up and all around the Costa, other hands went up as well.

We should not forget, although it cannot be the only thing that governs our decision tonight, that the vast majority of the people of Scotland understand what is before us and support the progression of the bill.

I return to Ross Greer and to the reason why I enjoyed his speech, which was because he set out, in technical detail, the actual safeguards introduced by Liam McArthur during the progress of the bill and because he explained that we would need commencement orders to pass before the bill could actually be enacted. That is the answer for Jackie Baillie and others who say that they do not know about the bill. If members do not like it, they do not have to vote for the commencement orders in that final analysis.

It is the voices of the terminally ill that are missing from the chamber tonight. I ask members to look around and answer this: if your neighbour said to you, “I’m dying in excruciating pain,” would you say, “Well, I’ll do something about palliative care, years from now,” or, “I’m very sorry, you’ll have to endure”? That is not the answer.

To move forward today is to recognise a single truth: we all have a right to life but we do not have a duty to live whatever the circumstance before us. I do not know whether I would take advantage of the opportunity, but I believe that it is wrong, in this day and age, to deny individuals that right.

21:35

I supported Margo MacDonald’s bill and Patrick Harvie’s bill on the matter. I eventually abstained on Margo’s bill. She told me to abstain for reasons that I will not repeat here, because I might get arrested.

I have found today that I come to this debate with no personal story to match some of the most profound and inspiring stories that I have heard across the chamber. Any personal story that I would bring would be quite feeble by comparison.

I have learned two things to my surprise in the debate. I will say this once and never again: I could have listened to Ross Greer’s speech again, and secondly, I might have preferred Krystle Ross to be the member of Parliament rather than her husband. That might be a sentiment that others would agree with this evening, having had time to reflect on it.

I pay particular tribute, as others have, to Liam McArthur, and not only to him, but to his team, going back to Jack, George and the other people who have helped since. The former of all those, when my head of office left in 2022, told me that he was adopting me as my unofficial carer, which was both charming and deeply alarming. They have worked incredibly hard to process the enormous volume of correspondence and work that Liam McArthur has had to progress during this session of Parliament. None could have done so with the charm, dignity, ease and restraint with which he has. His conduct in progressing the bill is, as others have said, a remarkable tribute to him and to this Parliament. He has done a fabulous job.

I stand here as someone, members will understand, who was not always terribly sure about this place, but I have come to have a profound respect for it. In fact, I have cherished its potential in the 19 years that I have been here, but not always its output. I remember when I first came in and looked around the chamber walls, I wondered, “What are these things?” I thought that they were bottles of whisky. I was told that that is the silent majority of Scotland looking at us as we debate the issues before us.

Over the years that I have been here, whether we were debating the ban on smoking, the groundbreaking legislation on improving the lot of people who require wheelchairs, the introduction of free personal care, same-sex marriage—I remember arguments about coercion being made at that time—or travel to the United States for women suffering as a result of transvaginal mesh, I have seen that when this Parliament works together, it is at its best. All those things, I have to accept, would probably not have advanced the social life of Scotland had this Parliament not been here to do it.

In this debate, I am reminded that each of us is equal. We are not loyal to any manifesto or any party leader tonight, however well intentioned their interventions might be. Each of us is an equal voice in the proceedings before us.

Today, I had quite a profound experience. I went into a Costa in my constituency before I came in here. There was a group of guys and a couple of women who talk about things every early morning. The Costa was very busy. I asked them what they would do if they were me and they all put up their hand in support, but that was not what was profound. I looked up and all around the Costa, other hands went up as well.

We should not forget, although it cannot be the only thing that governs our decision tonight, that the vast majority of the people of Scotland understand what is before us and support the progression of the bill.

I return to Ross Greer and to the reason why I enjoyed his speech, which was because he set out, in technical detail, the actual safeguards introduced by Liam McArthur during the progress of the bill and because he explained that we would need commencement orders to pass before the bill could actually be enacted. That is the answer for Jackie Baillie and others who say that they do not know about the bill. If members do not like it, they do not have to vote for the commencement orders in that final analysis.

It is the voices of the terminally ill that are missing from the chamber tonight. I ask members to look around and answer this: if your neighbour said to you, “I’m dying in excruciating pain,” would you say, “Well, I’ll do something about palliative care, years from now,” or, “I’m very sorry, you’ll have to endure”? That is not the answer.

To move forward today is to recognise a single truth: we all have a right to life but we do not have a duty to live whatever the circumstance before us. I do not know whether I would take advantage of the opportunity, but I believe that it is wrong, in this day and age, to deny individuals that right.

21:35

I supported Margo MacDonald’s bill and Patrick Harvie’s bill on the matter. I eventually abstained on Margo’s bill. She told me to abstain for reasons that I will not repeat here, because I might get arrested.

I have found today that I come to this debate with no personal story to match some of the most profound and inspiring stories that I have heard across the chamber. Any personal story that I would bring would be quite feeble by comparison.

I have learned two things to my surprise in the debate. I will say this once and never again: I could have listened to Ross Greer’s speech again, and secondly, I might have preferred Krystle Ross to be the member of Parliament rather than her husband. That might be a sentiment that others would agree with this evening, having had time to reflect on it.

I pay particular tribute, as others have, to Liam McArthur, and not only to him, but to his team, going back to Jack, George and the other people who have helped since. The former of all those, when my head of office left in 2022, told me that he was adopting me as my unofficial carer, which was both charming and deeply alarming. They have worked incredibly hard to process the enormous volume of correspondence and work that Liam McArthur has had to progress during this session of Parliament. None could have done so with the charm, dignity, ease and restraint with which he has. His conduct in progressing the bill is, as others have said, a remarkable tribute to him and to this Parliament. He has done a fabulous job.

I stand here as someone, members will understand, who was not always terribly sure about this place, but I have come to have a profound respect for it. In fact, I have cherished its potential in the 19 years that I have been here, but not always its output. I remember when I first came in and looked around the chamber walls, I wondered, “What are these things?” I thought that they were bottles of whisky. I was told that that is the silent majority of Scotland looking at us as we debate the issues before us.

Over the years that I have been here, whether we were debating the ban on smoking, the groundbreaking legislation on improving the lot of people who require wheelchairs, the introduction of free personal care, same-sex marriage—I remember arguments about coercion being made at that time—or travel to the United States for women suffering as a result of transvaginal mesh, I have seen that when this Parliament works together, it is at its best. All those things, I have to accept, would probably not have advanced the social life of Scotland had this Parliament not been here to do it.

In this debate, I am reminded that each of us is equal. We are not loyal to any manifesto or any party leader tonight, however well intentioned their interventions might be. Each of us is an equal voice in the proceedings before us.

Today, I had quite a profound experience. I went into a Costa in my constituency before I came in here. There was a group of guys and a couple of women who talk about things every early morning. The Costa was very busy. I asked them what they would do if they were me and they all put up their hand in support, but that was not what was profound. I looked up and all around the Costa, other hands went up as well.

We should not forget, although it cannot be the only thing that governs our decision tonight, that the vast majority of the people of Scotland understand what is before us and support the progression of the bill.

I return to Ross Greer and to the reason why I enjoyed his speech, which was because he set out, in technical detail, the actual safeguards introduced by Liam McArthur during the progress of the bill and because he explained that we would need commencement orders to pass before the bill could actually be enacted. That is the answer for Jackie Baillie and others who say that they do not know about the bill. If members do not like it, they do not have to vote for the commencement orders in that final analysis.

It is the voices of the terminally ill that are missing from the chamber tonight. I ask members to look around and answer this: if your neighbour said to you, “I’m dying in excruciating pain,” would you say, “Well, I’ll do something about palliative care, years from now,” or, “I’m very sorry, you’ll have to endure”? That is not the answer.

To move forward today is to recognise a single truth: we all have a right to life but we do not have a duty to live whatever the circumstance before us. I do not know whether I would take advantage of the opportunity, but I believe that it is wrong, in this day and age, to deny individuals that right.

21:35

I supported Margo MacDonald’s bill and Patrick Harvie’s bill on the matter. I eventually abstained on Margo’s bill. She told me to abstain for reasons that I will not repeat here, because I might get arrested.

I have found today that I come to this debate with no personal story to match some of the most profound and inspiring stories that I have heard across the chamber. Any personal story that I would bring would be quite feeble by comparison.

I have learned two things to my surprise in the debate. I will say this once and never again: I could have listened to Ross Greer’s speech again, and secondly, I might have preferred Krystle Ross to be the member of Parliament rather than her husband. That might be a sentiment that others would agree with this evening, having had time to reflect on it.

I pay particular tribute, as others have, to Liam McArthur, and not only to him, but to his team, going back to Jack, George and the other people who have helped since. The former of all those, when my head of office left in 2022, told me that he was adopting me as my unofficial carer, which was both charming and deeply alarming. They have worked incredibly hard to process the enormous volume of correspondence and work that Liam McArthur has had to progress during this session of Parliament. None could have done so with the charm, dignity, ease and restraint with which he has. His conduct in progressing the bill is, as others have said, a remarkable tribute to him and to this Parliament. He has done a fabulous job.

I stand here as someone, members will understand, who was not always terribly sure about this place, but I have come to have a profound respect for it. In fact, I have cherished its potential in the 19 years that I have been here, but not always its output. I remember when I first came in and looked around the chamber walls, I wondered, “What are these things?” I thought that they were bottles of whisky. I was told that that is the silent majority of Scotland looking at us as we debate the issues before us.

Over the years that I have been here, whether we were debating the ban on smoking, the groundbreaking legislation on improving the lot of people who require wheelchairs, the introduction of free personal care, same-sex marriage—I remember arguments about coercion being made at that time—or travel to the United States for women suffering as a result of transvaginal mesh, I have seen that when this Parliament works together, it is at its best. All those things, I have to accept, would probably not have advanced the social life of Scotland had this Parliament not been here to do it.

In this debate, I am reminded that each of us is equal. We are not loyal to any manifesto or any party leader tonight, however well intentioned their interventions might be. Each of us is an equal voice in the proceedings before us.

Today, I had quite a profound experience. I went into a Costa in my constituency before I came in here. There was a group of guys and a couple of women who talk about things every early morning. The Costa was very busy. I asked them what they would do if they were me and they all put up their hand in support, but that was not what was profound. I looked up and all around the Costa, other hands went up as well.

We should not forget, although it cannot be the only thing that governs our decision tonight, that the vast majority of the people of Scotland understand what is before us and support the progression of the bill.

I return to Ross Greer and to the reason why I enjoyed his speech, which was because he set out, in technical detail, the actual safeguards introduced by Liam McArthur during the progress of the bill and because he explained that we would need commencement orders to pass before the bill could actually be enacted. That is the answer for Jackie Baillie and others who say that they do not know about the bill. If members do not like it, they do not have to vote for the commencement orders in that final analysis.

It is the voices of the terminally ill that are missing from the chamber tonight. I ask members to look around and answer this: if your neighbour said to you, “I’m dying in excruciating pain,” would you say, “Well, I’ll do something about palliative care, years from now,” or, “I’m very sorry, you’ll have to endure”? That is not the answer.

To move forward today is to recognise a single truth: we all have a right to life but we do not have a duty to live whatever the circumstance before us. I do not know whether I would take advantage of the opportunity, but I believe that it is wrong, in this day and age, to deny individuals that right.

21:35

I supported Margo MacDonald’s bill and Patrick Harvie’s bill on the matter. I eventually abstained on Margo’s bill. She told me to abstain for reasons that I will not repeat here, because I might get arrested.

I have found today that I come to this debate with no personal story to match some of the most profound and inspiring stories that I have heard across the chamber. Any personal story that I would bring would be quite feeble by comparison.

I have learned two things to my surprise in the debate. I will say this once and never again: I could have listened to Ross Greer’s speech again, and secondly, I might have preferred Krystle Ross to be the member of Parliament rather than her husband. That might be a sentiment that others would agree with this evening, having had time to reflect on it.

I pay particular tribute, as others have, to Liam McArthur, and not only to him, but to his team, going back to Jack, George and the other people who have helped since. The former of all those, when my head of office left in 2022, told me that he was adopting me as my unofficial carer, which was both charming and deeply alarming. They have worked incredibly hard to process the enormous volume of correspondence and work that Liam McArthur has had to progress during this session of Parliament. None could have done so with the charm, dignity, ease and restraint with which he has. His conduct in progressing the bill is, as others have said, a remarkable tribute to him and to this Parliament. He has done a fabulous job.

I stand here as someone, members will understand, who was not always terribly sure about this place, but I have come to have a profound respect for it. In fact, I have cherished its potential in the 19 years that I have been here, but not always its output. I remember when I first came in and looked around the chamber walls, I wondered, “What are these things?” I thought that they were bottles of whisky. I was told that that is the silent majority of Scotland looking at us as we debate the issues before us.

Over the years that I have been here, whether we were debating the ban on smoking, the groundbreaking legislation on improving the lot of people who require wheelchairs, the introduction of free personal care, same-sex marriage—I remember arguments about coercion being made at that time—or travel to the United States for women suffering as a result of transvaginal mesh, I have seen that when this Parliament works together, it is at its best. All those things, I have to accept, would probably not have advanced the social life of Scotland had this Parliament not been here to do it.

In this debate, I am reminded that each of us is equal. We are not loyal to any manifesto or any party leader tonight, however well intentioned their interventions might be. Each of us is an equal voice in the proceedings before us.

Today, I had quite a profound experience. I went into a Costa in my constituency before I came in here. There was a group of guys and a couple of women who talk about things every early morning. The Costa was very busy. I asked them what they would do if they were me and they all put up their hand in support, but that was not what was profound. I looked up and all around the Costa, other hands went up as well.

We should not forget, although it cannot be the only thing that governs our decision tonight, that the vast majority of the people of Scotland understand what is before us and support the progression of the bill.

I return to Ross Greer and to the reason why I enjoyed his speech, which was because he set out, in technical detail, the actual safeguards introduced by Liam McArthur during the progress of the bill and because he explained that we would need commencement orders to pass before the bill could actually be enacted. That is the answer for Jackie Baillie and others who say that they do not know about the bill. If members do not like it, they do not have to vote for the commencement orders in that final analysis.

It is the voices of the terminally ill that are missing from the chamber tonight. I ask members to look around and answer this: if your neighbour said to you, “I’m dying in excruciating pain,” would you say, “Well, I’ll do something about palliative care, years from now,” or, “I’m very sorry, you’ll have to endure”? That is not the answer.

To move forward today is to recognise a single truth: we all have a right to life but we do not have a duty to live whatever the circumstance before us. I do not know whether I would take advantage of the opportunity, but I believe that it is wrong, in this day and age, to deny individuals that right.

21:35

::I associate myself with and commend the First Minister’s remarks.

On behalf of myself and the Conservative Party, I send our deepest condolences to Susan and all of Jeane’s family, friends and colleagues, and her wider party.

I am touched that Susan asked me to say a few words this afternoon about Jeane. I apologise if these words, in part, repeat some of the remarks that I made in the Parliament shortly after we heard of her passing.

It fell to me to welcome Jeane into Government when she first became a minister, which was a happy duty. I look back on what I said then and notice that Jeane’s mother’s tribute to her daughter was that she had a voice “that could sell coal”. Coal was not what she went on to sell, but she always spoke with tremendous authority and vigour, which was deeply impressive. She brought to the job considerable experience of the outside world, which the Parliament recognised and appreciated.

People will know that I used to do those welcome speeches for ministers, and I must say that I relished the prospect. I enjoy good parliamentary performance and I used to love how Jeane would sit—very still and quiet. She did not allow herself to be noised up. There would be these—probably from me—very theatrical performances from elsewhere in the chamber, with members thinking that they were lambasting her. She would stand up quietly at the end and would always begin by saying, “So…”, and then she would eviscerate every argument that those members had made. I quite often looked across just to exchange a twinkle in the eye, because I knew what she had done. She did it with tremendous effect because she was supremely well briefed and very committed to the job that she did—never more so, in my experience, than in the way in which she engaged directly with the women who were affected by transvaginal mesh.

The Transvaginal Mesh Removal (Cost Reimbursement) (Scotland) Bill was Jeane’s bill, which Humza Yousaf was to take into legislation at the start of this session of Parliament. It provided for the transport of women to the United States, so that Dr Veronikis in Missouri could surgically remove the mesh that, in many cases, they had been told had already been removed. That opportunity was not extended to women anywhere else in the United Kingdom. It was a bill that Jeane embraced and took forward.

I remember one constituent, Lorna Farrell, who went to the steps that Sylvester Stallone ran up in the “Rocky” movie. She got out of her wheelchair, free of mesh, staggered up those steps and stood at the top, thanks to Jeane. Jeane made a difference, and there are women all over Scotland, and their families, who will be forever grateful for what she did.

Let me finish with this final reflection. Decades ago, I sat at a private dinner for the then Prime Minister during the height of the Falklands war. I was sitting next to Alec Douglas-Home and asked him what it was like to lead in a crisis. He said:

“Well, the first thing is the duty of others to offer constructive support.”

I try to remember that and I tried to provide that support when the Covid pandemic fell.

He also said something that I never forgot:

“Other politicians may wish they occupied the desk. Other politicians might think it would all have been better if they had been in charge. Other politicians might lambast and say, ‘That was ridiculous,’ but, for the Prime Minister, the First Minister and the woman in the hot seat, they are making life-and-death decisions. Some of them represent a burden they carry with them for the rest of their lives. They do not walk away from it. It is something they feel, because they had to take decisions—very brave decisions—that had fundamental consequences. That is a real sense of duty.”

I say to Susan: Jeane made a difference. She had a sense of duty, and this Parliament—and everyone in it—should be grateful for her work, the job that she did and the legacy that she leaves behind. [Applause.]

14:12

I associate myself with and commend the First Minister’s remarks.

On behalf of myself and the Conservative Party, I send our deepest condolences to Susan and all of Jeane’s family, friends and colleagues, and her wider party.

I am touched that Susan asked me to say a few words this afternoon about Jeane. I apologise if these words, in part, repeat some of the remarks that I made in the Parliament shortly after we heard of her passing.

It fell to me to welcome Jeane into Government when she first became a minister, which was a happy duty. I look back on what I said then and notice that Jeane’s mother’s tribute to her daughter was that she had a voice “that could sell coal”. Coal was not what she went on to sell, but she always spoke with tremendous authority and vigour, which was deeply impressive. She brought to the job considerable experience of the outside world, which the Parliament recognised and appreciated.

People will know that I used to do those welcome speeches for ministers, and I must say that I relished the prospect. I enjoy good parliamentary performance and I used to love how Jeane would sit—very still and quiet. She did not allow herself to be noised up. There would be these—probably from me—very theatrical performances from elsewhere in the chamber, with members thinking that they were lambasting her. She would stand up quietly at the end and would always begin by saying, “So…”, and then she would eviscerate every argument that those members had made. I quite often looked across just to exchange a twinkle in the eye, because I knew what she had done. She did it with tremendous effect because she was supremely well briefed and very committed to the job that she did—never more so, in my experience, than in the way in which she engaged directly with the women who were affected by transvaginal mesh.

The Transvaginal Mesh Removal (Cost Reimbursement) (Scotland) Bill was Jeane’s bill, which Humza Yousaf was to take into legislation at the start of this session of Parliament. It provided for the transport of women to the United States, so that Dr Veronikis in Missouri could surgically remove the mesh that, in many cases, they had been told had already been removed. That opportunity was not extended to women anywhere else in the United Kingdom. It was a bill that Jeane embraced and took forward.

I remember one constituent, Lorna Farrell, who went to the steps that Sylvester Stallone ran up in the “Rocky” movie. She got out of her wheelchair, free of mesh, staggered up those steps and stood at the top, thanks to Jeane. Jeane made a difference, and there are women all over Scotland, and their families, who will be forever grateful for what she did.

Let me finish with this final reflection. Decades ago, I sat at a private dinner for the then Prime Minister during the height of the Falklands war. I was sitting next to Alec Douglas-Home and asked him what it was like to lead in a crisis. He said:

“Well, the first thing is the duty of others to offer constructive support.”

I try to remember that and I tried to provide that support when the Covid pandemic fell.

He also said something that I never forgot:

“Other politicians may wish they occupied the desk. Other politicians might think it would all have been better if they had been in charge. Other politicians might lambast and say, ‘That was ridiculous,’ but, for the Prime Minister, the First Minister and the woman in the hot seat, they are making life-and-death decisions. Some of them represent a burden they carry with them for the rest of their lives. They do not walk away from it. It is something they feel, because they had to take decisions—very brave decisions—that had fundamental consequences. That is a real sense of duty.”

I say to Susan: Jeane made a difference. She had a sense of duty, and this Parliament—and everyone in it—should be grateful for her work, the job that she did and the legacy that she leaves behind. [Applause.]

14:12

On behalf of the corporate body, it falls to me to move this thrilling and compelling motion to update the Scottish Parliament salaries scheme.

The amendments to the scheme implement provisions of three Scottish statutory instruments made under the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025 that will prevent an MSP from simultaneously holding office as a member of the House of Commons, a member of the House of Lords or a local councillor. The provisions that are implemented in changes to the scheme will ensure that any member who holds such a dual mandate cannot be remunerated for both roles simultaneously.

In the hope that members are listening to this and will be able to answer questions on it in call and repeat, I move,

That the Parliament, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 81(1), 81(5)(b) and 83(5) of the Scotland Act 1998 resolves that, with effect from the day of the poll at the first general election for membership of the Parliament following the day on which this Resolution is approved, the Scottish Parliament Salaries Scheme is amended as follows—

(a) for paragraph 2(2) substitute—

“For any period during which a salary is payable to a member of the Parliament pursuant to a resolution of the House of Lords relating to the remuneration of members of that House, the yearly rate of the salary payable by virtue of this Scheme to that member for that period shall be reduced by two-thirds.”

(b) after paragraph 2(2) insert—

“(2A) No salary shall be paid to a member of the Parliament in respect of any period in which the member is or was also a member of the House of Commons. This does not apply to any salary payable to a member of the Parliament in their capacity as the First Minister, a Scottish Minister, a junior Scottish Minister, the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General for Scotland, the Presiding Officer or a Deputy Presiding Officer.

(2B) If remuneration is also payable to a member of the Parliament in respect of the same period under regulations made under section 11(1) of the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 then the amount of salary payable to the member shall be reduced by the amount specified as payable to a councillor (who is not designated the Leader of the Council, the Civic Head or a senior councillor) by those regulations made under section 11(1) of the 2004 Act.”

(c) in paragraph 2(1), after “sub-paragraph (2)” add “, (2A) and (2B)”.

On behalf of the corporate body, it falls to me to move this thrilling and compelling motion to update the Scottish Parliament salaries scheme.

The amendments to the scheme implement provisions of three Scottish statutory instruments made under the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025 that will prevent an MSP from simultaneously holding office as a member of the House of Commons, a member of the House of Lords or a local councillor. The provisions that are implemented in changes to the scheme will ensure that any member who holds such a dual mandate cannot be remunerated for both roles simultaneously.

In the hope that members are listening to this and will be able to answer questions on it in call and repeat, I move,

That the Parliament, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 81(1), 81(5)(b) and 83(5) of the Scotland Act 1998 resolves that, with effect from the day of the poll at the first general election for membership of the Parliament following the day on which this Resolution is approved, the Scottish Parliament Salaries Scheme is amended as follows—

(a) for paragraph 2(2) substitute—

“For any period during which a salary is payable to a member of the Parliament pursuant to a resolution of the House of Lords relating to the remuneration of members of that House, the yearly rate of the salary payable by virtue of this Scheme to that member for that period shall be reduced by two-thirds.”

(b) after paragraph 2(2) insert—

“(2A) No salary shall be paid to a member of the Parliament in respect of any period in which the member is or was also a member of the House of Commons. This does not apply to any salary payable to a member of the Parliament in their capacity as the First Minister, a Scottish Minister, a junior Scottish Minister, the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General for Scotland, the Presiding Officer or a Deputy Presiding Officer.

(2B) If remuneration is also payable to a member of the Parliament in respect of the same period under regulations made under section 11(1) of the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 then the amount of salary payable to the member shall be reduced by the amount specified as payable to a councillor (who is not designated the Leader of the Council, the Civic Head or a senior councillor) by those regulations made under section 11(1) of the 2004 Act.”

(c) in paragraph 2(1), after “sub-paragraph (2)” add “, (2A) and (2B)”.