Seòmar agus comataidhean

I reiterate what I said earlier, and what the member in charge has said. For me, it is certainly not an either/or, and I fully hope that the bill makes members in the current session of Parliament, and in the next session and any subsequent session, really look at the provision of palliative care, because it has been a bit of a neglected area.

What concerns me is that we can deal with the matter outwith legislation. It is a matter for policy and financial decisions by successive Governments as to how we address the issue of the increasing need for palliative care, not simply in the end-of-life context but in general. That includes babies and children and adolescents onwards. We should really look at how we provide that care across the board, and we should not have left so much of it to the charitable sector.

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. Perhaps I did not phrase my previous point of order appropriately. Mr Kerr is reading out a speech verbatim for a member who is online and is therefore deemed to be present in the chamber. I cannot understand that.

I see that Mr Ross is now appearing on the screen.

Members: Oh!

There is much to welcome in the statement. I will focus on the Scottish child payment, which, from April, will be £28.20 per child per week in qualifying households and, in particular, on the targeted child payment premium of £40 a week for a child under the age of one.

I will give the cabinet secretary the facts of real life. As at 31 December 2025, in Midlothian, 6,245 children were benefiting from the Scottish child payment; in the Borders, the figure is 5,775. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that is an investment for each child—12,020 children—in their wellbeing and their future prospects and, indeed, in the future prospects of Scotland itself?

I note that Rachel Reeves has referred the hike to the Competition and Markets Authority, but my constituents and, I suspect, constituents of many members throughout the chamber need something done in the here and now. They are simply overwhelmed by the soaring costs of their heating oil, which have more than doubled in days and are still on the rise. For example, in my constituency, the cost was 60p a litre in January, and yesterday it was £1.27 a litre. The increased costs affect about 130,000 homes in Scotland and 1.7 million homes UK-wide. Those homes already get very limited benefit from the energy price cap. That applies to combined electricity and gas supplies, so it applies only to their electricity bills.

Previously, with the spike in the price of heating oil due to the invasion of Ukraine, the UK Government introduced an alternative fuel payment of £200, which was better than nothing. Does the First Minister agree that an alternative fuel payment should be made now, but in tandem with the exposure of the cowboys who are profiteering and, at long last, proper regulation of the industry?

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I seek clarification. I have no problem with the member moving an amendment on behalf of Douglas Ross, but is Douglas Ross also voting in this debate? If that is the case, he should not be represented because, if he is voting online, he is, for all intents and purposes, in the chamber.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry—I fear that we will run out of time before I get this off my chest. As you know, I sent a note to the Presiding Officer on the issue that I intended to raise and I have had a reply, but—if you will forgive me for saying so—the reply is erroneous. I will explain why.

The point is that Stephen Kerr delivered verbatim—he told us so—a speech for Douglas Ross. In other words, he stood in Douglas Ross’s shoes and delivered a speech at the same time as Mr Ross was online and voting. Therefore, Mr Ross was perfectly capable of delivering that speech online, on camera.

The practice is that members speaking remotely require to be on camera, but it seems to me that a novel practice is developing whereby a member gives a proxy speech for another member to deliver while they are still online and voting, so they do not need to be on camera.

The reply that I received referred to rule 9.10.4, which refers to the fact that anyone may move an amendment on behalf of anyone, even if they are in the chamber. If the member does not move an amendment, anyone else can get up to do so. However, this is not about moving an amendment; this is about a member delivering a speech, word for word, for somebody who is online.

Questions arise here. First, why did Douglas Ross not deliver his speech on camera? It was obviously pre-arranged that Mr Kerr would deliver it for him. Secondly, why did Douglas Ross not intervene when I raised those points, if he was online and heard what I was saying? That raises serious questions about whether Douglas Ross is actually online and whether he is actually voting.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am not so foolish as to challenge the chair, but, from that, I now understand that, if I am at home and voting, I can give a speech by proxy, with another member delivering it on my behalf. I take it that that is now an accepted practice in the chamber.

To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Government can take, in discussion with the United Kingdom Government, to assist households in very rural areas that are wholly dependent on oil or liquefied natural gas for heating, and are not connected to the gas mains, to assist with increased costs. (S6F-04748)

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.