Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

I congratulate Beatrice Wishart on securing this debate on the motion, to which I was a signatory. Much has been said about smart meters—often about their unreliability—but, as has been said, at the end of June, the radio teleswitch service that connects to some people’s meters is being switched off.

Now I take myself and my head into the uncomfortable area, for me, of technology. Here we go. The difference between the position in Scotland and the north of England and that in the south of England is that in the midlands, Wales and southern England all smart meters use cellular technology, similar to mobile phones, to send data to energy providers. In the north of England and Scotland, the situation is different—I say to Tim Eagle that it is the same in the north of England. Here, as in the north of England, there is a long-range radio signal. What I do not understand is why, when the radio teleswitch service is switched off at the end of June, it will be replaced with another long-range radio signal. In Scotland, smart meters will run on that new radio signal and not on the public internet or wi-fi. I hope that that is so far so good, because my head is already birling.

What is the impact? Currently, more than 6,000 households in the Borders and more than 700 in Midlothian have yet to switch. That is bad enough. Besides that, the impact on too many of my constituents is that, even if they want to, they will not be able to connect to a smart meter system, because they cannot receive the new radio signal in their location. I have many constituents in that position. Scottish Power, for example, has advised that it will install instead a white meter. Meters must change because, without a new meter, people’s heating and hot water will be affected. They may find that their heating and hot water are always on or off, or that charging happens at the wrong time of day. Their electricity supplier will not be able to confirm how much electricity they have used for heating and other uses, which means that electricity costs could be much higher for them than before.

If someone’s area has a poor signal, their supplier must still replace their RTS meter to ensure that their heating is not disrupted. I am back in the technical maze again. If someone does not have a smart meter and currently has an RTS meter, they may be on a tariff that charges them a different price for the electricity that they use for their heating and hot water than it does for the rest of their electricity, such as for lighting and appliances. Some tariffs also offer lower rates at specific times of the day. That is a good thing, but it all changes after June.

After June, without a new meter, people’s heating and hot water will be affected. A smart meter would ensure that their heating was not disrupted but, if that is not possible, the provider—Scottish Power, for example—can install a white meter with the tariff pre-programmed. I emphasise that it is pre-programmed. People will have to send in manual readings and will not get the full benefits of a smart meter or any other kind of meter, but at least their heating will continue to work.

The trouble is that most white meters charge a slightly higher daytime price compared with a standard tariff, so it is very likely that people will end up paying a lot more. That brings us beyond the technology to the fact that Scotland is doing badly out of this different system. In the event that it is not possible to install a smart meter, people will perhaps be paying more on the pre-programmed tariff. They have to be the kind of person who does not mind cooler water in the evenings. The system will heat most of their water at night and store it in a storage heater, so their hot water will be hot in the morning and coolest in the evening. However, as I said, most white meters charge a higher tariff for daytime usage, which will apply to many older people and disabled people.

We end up with this technology, with too many of my constituents having to opt for a metering system that is more expensive. That is a bitter pill when the wind turbines around them are producing four times more electricity than the south of Scotland uses. They endure a landscape of pylons, but they pay more for the electricity that is generated on their doorstep.

First, the member must accept that we have an ageing population and that we do not have enough national births to provide a sufficient workforce. I certainly want people who come from elsewhere to work here to be decently paid and I do not want them to be underpaid, but we simply do not have the right population balance.

I also mourn the loss of European influence not only because we quit the EU but more broadly. It is sadly ironic that, just as the UK commemorated the 80th anniversary of VE day, which was celebrated on 8 May 1945 and marked the end of the second world war in Europe, we see a European nation—Ukraine—still being bombarded by Russia in an illegal occupation that is now in its third year. That is referred to as a war in this new world order, but it is an occupation. It is also being suggested that Ukraine must surrender part of its sovereign territory to Russia and that, in order to secure military aid from the Trump regime, it must surrender some of its minerals to the United States. That is termed “contractual politics” and I want nothing to do with it. That is the new world order for you.

I see President Trump as symbolic of that order, but he is not the cause of it, although he is giving it his blessing with a scratch of his Sharpie. His bizarre, fractious and fluctuating politics has at last woken up Europe and NATO to the chaos and fragility around them.

I move from Putin to Netanyahu, because the issue extends beyond Europe’s boundaries to Gaza. Too many have apparently accepted Netanyahu’s genocide, even if tacitly. I can do no better than refer members to the extraordinary and heartfelt submission that was made just days ago to the United Nations Security Council by the UN emergency relief co-ordinator, Tom Fletcher, who said that Israel is

“deliberately and unashamedly imposing inhumane conditions on civilians”

in Gaza and the West Bank. For more than 10 weeks, nothing has entered Gaza: no food, medicine, water or tents. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been forcibly displaced and confined to ever-shrinking spaces, because 70 per cent of Gaza’s territory is either within Israel’s militarised zones or under displacement orders. Every single one of the 2.1 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip faces the risk of famine and one in five risk starvation. The few hospitals that have somehow survived bombardment are overwhelmed, and the medics who have somehow survived drone and sniper attacks cannot keep up with the trauma and the spread of disease. Appalling violence is also increasing on the West Bank, where the situation is the worst it has been in decades.

I will begin with Brexit, but I am not lingering there, because Stephen Kerr is too easy a target and, indeed, delights in being a target. Not only did 62 per cent of Scots reject Brexit at the EU referendum almost 10 years ago, but the percentage who reject it has risen throughout the rest of the UK, so that 55 per cent now think that Brexit was a mistake and only 30 per cent think that it was a good idea. Members do not need a PhD to know why that is the case. We face higher costs and more red tape, and we do not have £375 million extra a week to redirect to the NHS, as was blazoned on the side of a bus—and that is just for starters.

We lost freedom of workforce movement across Europe, which has had an impact across the Scottish economy and particularly in the hospitality, care and horticultural sectors, and is now exacerbated by the UK hike in the cost of employer national insurance, which is a tax on jobs if ever there was one, and by ill-considered comments and policies on legal migration from Sir Keir Starmer. We need migrants here because we know that we have an ageing population and a decreasing available workforce, so we cannot separate Scotland’s domestic needs from what the UK and Europe do or from the world’s wider conflicts.

The member has pre-empted where I am going with this narrative. Entire communities have been destroyed in the West Bank and refugee camps have been depopulated. The world’s press is banned—that is no wonder.

What is Europe saying? On Ukraine, we have the “coalition of the willing”. That is better than nothing but, in the meantime, Russia’s occupation creeps further into, and embeds itself deeper in, Ukraine’s sovereign territory. On Gaza, the European Council has called for

“an immediate return to the full implementation of the ceasefire-hostage release agreement”;

it cites

“the importance of unimpeded access and sustained distribution of humanitarian assistance at scale into and throughout Gaza”

and calls for a “two-state solution”. Is that enough? I do not think so. It is better than nothing, but it is certainly not enough.

Brexit was not just bad for the UK and Scottish economies; it reduced the UK’s and Europe’s status and influence in world affairs. We need a strong European Union, with an independent Scotland as a partner and member state, not simply for economic reasons but as an international political force in order to counterbalance and challenge the new world order. We cannot leave it to contractual politics—to Putin, Netanyahu and Trump, to name but three international villains. It is not just about economics.

Yes, certainly, if I may have my time back.

As the welcome summer months approach, we enter the season of gala days and common ridings across the Borders, Midlothian and throughout rural Scotland. The British Horse Society has launched a “Dead Slow” campaign, which is aimed at motorists, in order to prevent injuries and even deaths for riders and horses.

Will the First Minister encourage drivers—particularly city drivers—to remind themselves of their obligations under the highway code on how to drive when there are horses on the roads in rural areas? I declare an interest as convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare.

The target arises.

I, too, commend Liam McArthur and all speakers in the debate for their thoughtful, heartfelt and sensitive contributions. I also thank all my constituents who have taken the time to write to me with their views.

I will support the principle of assisted dying for terminally ill adults at stage 1. I first spoke in support of that principle in the debate on Margo MacDonald’s bill on 1 December 2010, and I quote from that:

“I have changed my view on the issue, from being opposed in principle—I stress it is in principle, which is what stage 1 is about—to support in principle.”

“Why have I changed my view? The death of both my much-loved parents in recent years made me focus on my own mortality and the manner of people’s deaths, which is something many of us choose to avoid.”

I reflected on the marked contrast between my mother’s lingering, heavily sedated hospital death—she was too ill to be moved to a hospice—and that of my father, with his digestive biscuit and cup of tea by his side, in his own chair in his own home, among generations of family photographs. I added:

“Incidentally, when my mother was taken as an emergency into hospital for those final weeks, my sister and I were asked out of the blue, little realising then how dire her condition was, who had authority not to resuscitate.”

My mother’s life or death was for us, and not her, to decide. She was resuscitated. The family were then told by the charge nurse that,

“with increased levels of morphine to kill the pain, her death would surely be accelerated.”—[Official Report, 1 December 2010; c 31071-2.]

We thanked him.

Fifteen years on, my support has never wavered. I am nearly 81 and am therefore probably more aware of my mortality than most of us here. At this age, many of my friends have gone. For some, death was kind; for others, it was really cruel. For Margo—bless her courage—who was supported by Macmillan nurses, it was Parkinson’s that finally ended her life. She did not need assisted dying; she simply wanted choice.

I say to Pam Duncan-Glancy and others that if I thought for one moment that the bill’s provisions would inevitably put pressure on the disabled, the vulnerable and the elderly, I would not vote for it even at stage 1. If protections need strengthening, let us try to do that.

There should be choice by Christine Grahame for Christine Grahame. No one else has that right for me, nor do I have it for anyone else. Throughout my adult life, I have been able to choose which medicines and treatments to take. I already do that. I can even sign an advance DNR—do not resuscitate—form. Until death itself, I have the final say. I am in charge of my own body. I therefore find it bizarre that I cannot choose, in closely defined circumstances and in the knowledge that I am terminally ill, the time and manner of my death, with capacity, consent, compassion and, I hope, my family. For me, that is a backstop; it is a choice only—an option that is not compulsory for the individual or the professionals.

I will support the bill and I hope that those who have yet to make up their mind will vote for it to pass tonight, so that, at the very least, we have the opportunity and time as it progresses through stages 2 and 3 to rigorously test it further and to take on the legitimate concerns that others have raised.

I, too, commend Liam McArthur and all speakers in the debate for their thoughtful, heartfelt and sensitive contributions. I also thank all my constituents who have taken the time to write to me with their views.

I will support the principle of assisted dying for terminally ill adults at stage 1. I first spoke in support of that principle in the debate on Margo MacDonald’s bill on 1 December 2010, and I quote from that:

“I have changed my view on the issue, from being opposed in principle—I stress it is in principle, which is what stage 1 is about—to support in principle.”

“Why have I changed my view? The death of both my much-loved parents in recent years made me focus on my own mortality and the manner of people’s deaths, which is something many of us choose to avoid.”

I reflected on the marked contrast between my mother’s lingering, heavily sedated hospital death—she was too ill to be moved to a hospice—and that of my father, with his digestive biscuit and cup of tea by his side, in his own chair in his own home, among generations of family photographs. I added:

“Incidentally, when my mother was taken as an emergency into hospital for those final weeks, my sister and I were asked out of the blue, little realising then how dire her condition was, who had authority not to resuscitate.”

My mother’s life or death was for us, and not her, to decide. She was resuscitated. The family were then told by the charge nurse that,

“with increased levels of morphine to kill the pain, her death would surely be accelerated.”—[Official Report, 1 December 2010; c 31071-2.]

We thanked him.

Fifteen years on, my support has never wavered. I am nearly 81 and am therefore probably more aware of my mortality than most of us here. At this age, many of my friends have gone. For some, death was kind; for others, it was really cruel. For Margo—bless her courage—who was supported by Macmillan nurses, it was Parkinson’s that finally ended her life. She did not need assisted dying; she simply wanted choice.

I say to Pam Duncan-Glancy and others that if I thought for one moment that the bill’s provisions would inevitably put pressure on the disabled, the vulnerable and the elderly, I would not vote for it even at stage 1. If protections need strengthening, let us try to do that.

There should be choice by Christine Grahame for Christine Grahame. No one else has that right for me, nor do I have it for anyone else. Throughout my adult life, I have been able to choose which medicines and treatments to take. I already do that. I can even sign an advance DNR—do not resuscitate—form. Until death itself, I have the final say. I am in charge of my own body. I therefore find it bizarre that I cannot choose, in closely defined circumstances and in the knowledge that I am terminally ill, the time and manner of my death, with capacity, consent, compassion and, I hope, my family. For me, that is a backstop; it is a choice only—an option that is not compulsory for the individual or the professionals.

I will support the bill and I hope that those who have yet to make up their mind will vote for it to pass tonight, so that, at the very least, we have the opportunity and time as it progresses through stages 2 and 3 to rigorously test it further and to take on the legitimate concerns that others have raised.