Latest news with #ElenaWhitham
Daily Record
7 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Record
Almost 6,000 Ayrshire households at risk of losing heating and hot water
The signal which controls radio teleswitch meters, or RTS meters, will be switched off on June 30 and thousands of people in Ayrshire are still to have theirs replaced. Almost 6,000 households in Ayrshire have still to have their radio teleswitch (RTS) meters replaced just weeks before the signal is switched off. The latest available figures, from mid-April, revealed that 5,923 households across the county were still relying on an RTS meter to record their energy usage. At the current rate of replacement, more than 4,500 homes in Ayrshire will still be relying on RTS meters when the signal is turned off on Monday, June 30. RTS meters, introduced in the 1980s, use outdated longwave radio signals to switch between peak and off-peak rates. Without replacement, customers risk being stuck on the wrong setting, moved onto a more expensive single-rate tariff or losing heating and hot water. Consumers are being urged to check their meters and contact their energy suppliers if they think they need a replacement, rather than waiting to be contacted. Last week, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley MSP Elena Whitham took part in a debate in the Scottish Parliament calling for more to be done to support people with the transition or to postpone the switch-off date so that everyone affected can prepare. Ms Whitham said: 'The RTS switch-off takes place on June 30 - and it could have real consequences for households that have been unable to make the switch. 'I have heard from constituents who have done their part to get ready for the cut-off date but have faced hurdles which have left them in limbo. 'This is completely unacceptable and the UK Government must take control of the situation to ensure no one is left worse off. 'The switch-off date must be postponed, or full compensation must be given to those affected. 'Households are already struggling financially and the prospect of being stuck on a higher rate is the last thing they need to be dealing with. This is even more so the case for those who have RTS meters who are already experiencing fuel poverty. 'While challenges are clearly being experienced, I encourage everyone to do their part and replace their RTS meter ahead of switch-off at the end of June - this is one of those simple changes that can save a lot of stress down the line.' Across Scotland, nearly 125,000 properties are still using the obsolete energy meters but replacements are only happening at a rate of around 5,000 every two weeks. Advice Direct Scotland, which runs the national energy advice service has warned that urgent action is needed to avoid households being left without control of their heating or hot water when the signal controlling Radio Teleswitch Service (RTS) meters is switched off on June 30. Andrew Bartlett, chief executive of Advice Direct Scotland, said: 'With less than six weeks to go until the deadline, these figures lay bare the scale of the challenge ahead. The replacement rate simply isn't fast enough and must urgently speed up. 'We are continuing to see a rise in the number of calls from worried households and expect this to increase as we get nearer to June 30. 'The system isn't working as it should, putting thousands at risk of losing heating or hot water. 'Anyone who thinks they might be affected should act now and contact their supplier. If you know someone with an RTS meter, especially if vulnerable, encourage them to act. 'Free advice is available at or by calling 0808 196 8660.'
The Herald Scotland
26-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Has Holyrood misinterpreted the Supreme Court ruling on sex?
Whenever the Scottish Government is asked how it is responding to the Supreme Court's ruling on the legal definition of 'woman', the answer is usually some variation of: we're waiting for the EHRC. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is due to publish its updated statutory Code of Practice — a sort of authoritative instruction manual on applying the Equality Act — later this year. But the problem for service providers, public bodies and associations is that while they are in this holding pattern, the law already applies. Read more from Unspun: As a spokesperson for the EHRC told me the other week: 'As we have said publicly since 16 April, the law — as set out in the Supreme Court's judgment — is effective immediately. Those with duties under the Equality Act 2010 should be following the law and looking at what changes, if any, need to be made to their policies and practices. Where necessary, duty-bearers should take appropriate specialist legal advice.' That is essentially what the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) did earlier this month, when it adopted an 'interim' position and confirmed that male and female toilets and changing facilities at Holyrood would be either designated by biological sex or gender neutral. That move made Holyrood something of an outlier. At Westminster, Stormont and the Senedd, existing policies remain unchanged. Over the weekend, 16 MSPs and 29 Holyrood staffers added their names to an open letter to Presiding Officer Alison Johnstone, coordinated by the Good Law Project, challenging the SPCB's decision. Among the signatories are former ministers Elena Whitham and Emma Roddick, Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton, Scottish Greens co-leaders Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater, and former Labour leadership contender Monica Lennon. The letter was also signed by two of Nicola Sturgeon's staff — though not by the former first minister herself. The letter argues that the SPCB has misinterpreted the Supreme Court ruling and that the change in policy is 'deeply invasive' and raises 'immediate questions about enforcement'. Curiously, one of the MSPs criticising the decision is Green MSP Maggie Chapman — who, er, also happens to be one of the five members of the SPCB. To be fair, the SPCB's own paper and equality impact assessment make clear they had little choice. Parliament's Deputy Chief Executive, supported by a small advisory group, warned MSPs that as both an employer and service provider, the SPCB is legally required to offer separate male and female facilities based on biological sex under the Equality Act 2010 and workplace safety regulations. Failing to do so, the MSPs were warned, could expose Holyrood to legal challenge. Redesignating those spaces accordingly — while also expanding gender-neutral options — was deemed the most defensible and inclusive course of action. But if that is the legal advice going to the SPCB, it stands to reason that other Scottish public bodies are hearing the same. Nevertheless, most are waiting for the Scottish Government — who are waiting for the EHRC. A cynic might suggest this is about political cover. Waiting for the regulator to make the call allows the Government and other bodies to avoid a potentially toxic row. They are not making the change — they are just following orders. But in the meantime, there is confusion. The Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association has warned that schools 'do not have the luxury of waiting for updated guidance' and is urging the Government to issue clarity now. And that is the problem at the heart of this: the law remains the law, and while MSPs and their employees sign open letters, the people charged with implementation are trying to navigate the consequences.
Scotsman
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Scotsman
Assisted Dying Bill: Hospices and care homes must not be forced to participate
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... It is a fair criticism of the Holyrood parliament chamber that it seldom rises to the occasion when it comes to debate. Too often we simply see a succession of backbenchers reading out highly partisan speeches, sometimes written by a researcher, which bear little relation to what has been said before. Because of timings, the opportunities for interventions to be made and taken, and a genuine discussion opened up, are rare. There can be exceptions to that rule, and last week's debate on stage one of the Assisted Dying Bill was one of them. It is extremely unusual at Holyrood for issues to be discussed which are genuinely subject to a free vote, where all MSPs have to make up their own minds without being told what to do by the party whips. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad And so it was on this occasion, with quality speeches both for and against the Bill. Both George Adam and Elena Whitham made moving contributions, drawing on their personal experiences caring for loved ones, to explain why they supported it. Campaigners from both sides of the argument demonstrate outside the Scottish Parliament (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell) | Getty Images A narrow majority On the opposition side, my Conservative colleague Edward Mountain drew on his own battle with cancer to explain why he couldn't back the Bill, whilst the Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy, in the best speech of the afternoon, expressed her concern that, as a disabled person, her life would be valued less should assisted dying be legislated for. The Bill passed stage one by a narrow majority of 70 votes to 56, but a number of those voting in favour were clear that this was only to allow the debate to continue, and this did not necessarily mean they would support the legislation in its final stage. The discussion now shifts to the detail of the Bill, and whether it is capable of being improved to remove the many concerns that have been expressed about its potential consequences. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Legal specialists have already warned that the Bill is deeply flawed as it stands, and carries with it a large number of risks. The Law Society of Scotland has said that there are significant issues that need to be carefully considered. Dr Mary Neal, reader in law at the University of Strathclyde, went further, saying: 'There is so much MSPs are going to have to address to try and mitigate some of the serious risks that the Bill poses. Some of those risks, as I see it, are just unfixable. Almost every aspect of the Bill is deeply flawed and ill-conceived.' Medical profession's concerns There are particular concerns around a number of areas, including the role of the medical profession. Many doctors and nurses are very clear they want nothing to do with offering assisted dying to patients, indeed palliative care doctors have come out strongly against the legislation in principle. There must be firm protections for those who do not wish to participate. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Those protections also need to cover settings such as hospices and care homes. There can be no suggestion that hospices should be under an obligation to discuss assisted dying as an option with patients if they feel that is fundamentally objectionable and contrary to their ethos. Such a protection needs to be stated explicitly in the Bill. There remain concerns around the question of whether the Bill falls within Holyrood's legislative competence. The law on medical opt-outs and on the regulation of medicines is reserved, and Holyrood cannot pass laws in these areas without Westminster consent. This issue needs to be resolved if the Bill is to progress further. These legal concerns are real and serious but, as we saw in the debate, the principal arguments against the legislation remain at a more philosophical level. Both Pam Duncan-Glancy and Jeremy Balfour spoke from their perspectives as disabled MSPs, about the pressure that they feel would be put on disabled people to end their lives prematurely. Against a backdrop of a rapidly aging population and spiralling care costs which governments are unable or unwilling to meet, these concerns are real. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Slippery slope is real There is also a very real worry that passing this legislation simply opens the door to it being expanded in future. I have met many constituents on both sides of the argument, including those pressing for a change in the law to allow assisted dying, and what has struck me in many of the cases of individuals with whom I have met is that they would not actually be eligible for assisted dying under this Bill. That means even should this Bill be passed, there will be a push for the criteria to be expanded beyond the definition of those with a 'terminal illness'. And once parliament has agreed in principle to grant a right of assisted dying to one group of individuals, there is essentially no argument in principle against extending that to others. As we have seen in Canada, the slippery slope is real. I voted against the Bill essentially because I believe that granting a right to one group of articulate well-informed individuals with agency in their lives can only in this case come at the expense of putting at risk another group who are weak, vulnerable, and potentially subject to coercion. That remains my view, but I will certainly look to work with others to build in additional protections to what is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. Already there are signs that the mood is shifting against the Bill. This week the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which had been widely expected to move to a neutral stance on assisted dying, instead voted to reaffirm its historic opposition, thus keeping it in the mainstream of Christian opinion. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It seems that the more people consider the arguments, the more likely they are to be opposed. Whether that will be enough to change the votes of seven MSPs who voted in favour – all that's needed to prevent the Bill becoming law – remains to be seen.
Daily Mail
14-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
STEPHEN DAISLEY: Tearful testimony, but sober analysis shed the most light
Liam McArthur is a Liberal Democrat and therefore a fundamentally inoffensive chap. Owlish and earnest, firm but polite, he has the demeanour of a librarian. Every time he speaks, I worry that I might have overdue books. But because he's a Lib Dem he is also invincibly certain. Not obnoxiously certain — he's not a Green, after all — but serenely secure in his belief that the world is an enlightened place, where everyone has good intentions, institutions can be trusted, and law is the reliable guarantor of process. It was in this spirit that he opened the Stage 1 debate on his Assisted Dying Bill. He wished for a reasonable and respectful exchange and urged doubters to give him a chance to better the legislation at the next stage. McArthur demonstrated his fluency in the language of contemporary liberalism with its promises of consent, choice, and autonomy. Nowadays, even death must be human rights compliant. Among those in favour of McArthur's Bill, the two hardest-hitting contributions came from Nationalist MSPs Elena Whitham and George Adam. Whitham, a scrunched up tissue gripped in her hand, described how her mother Irene starved herself to death in 2014 after being diagnosed with terminal cancer aged 58. She took two weeks to die. 'My mum deserved to plan a compassionate death, surrounded by her family, not one she had to conduct in secret,' Whitham told MSPs, in a defiance-hardened voice. Her words set off an audible chain of sniffles. Her colleague, Adam, spoke of his wife Stacey, who has multiple sclerosis. Adam is a gallus, cheery fellow, and watching him pause to gird his emotions — without much success — was an odd experience. He admitted that he couldn't bring himself to agree to assisted dying for Stacey for 'selfish' reasons, and that is why it was right that it be Stacey's choice. It was not something they needed now, but they might need it in the future. His contribution drew applause from across the chamber and both sides of the issue. It was one of the rawest, most personal speeches I have ever seen given at Holyrood. McArthur quipped that Adam was 'a snottery wreck'. Among those opposed, the interventions were no less poignant. Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy raised the risk that disabled people like her, already made to feel like a burden on society, would come under pressure to end their lives. Haltingly, and choking back tears, she told how during Covid she and her husband were so scared that medics wouldn't bother trying to revive them that they wrote notes to each other saying, 'Please resuscitate me.' In closing, she pleaded with her colleagues for her life and those of people like her: 'Rather than legislate to assist people to die, let us legislate to assist people to live.' The Tories' Edward Mountain drew on his background as a soldier and his experience of cancer to inform his views on death. Like Duncan-Glancy, he believed parliament should be in the business of improving life, not making it easier to terminate. While others warned of coercion, he invited us to consider 'passive coercion', such as poor provision of palliative care services. That anyone found themselves in this scenario, and felt driven to assisted suicide, was itself a form of coercion. Hour after hour, MSPs poured out their hearts and dabbed their eyes, and it was difficult to watch, especially if you had lost someone truly close to you in a slow, agonising fashion. Yet the contribution that shed the most light was not a tear-stained testimony but a steady, sober analysis. Murdo Fraser cautioned that McArthur's Bill was 'the opening of the door to more widely available assisted dying than we are currently legislating for'. 'The slippery slope,' he assured Holyrood, 'is real'. Assisted suicide was lobbied for by articulate people with high social capital but it would also apply to the poor, the vulnerable and 'those more susceptible to coercion'. Create a right for one and you create a risk for the other. Come decision time, MSPs backed the Bill 70 votes to 56 with one abstention. The Bill goes forward and assisted suicide will now become a fiercely fought battle over the meaning of life and death in Scotland.
Leader Live
13-05-2025
- Health
- Leader Live
MSP says her mother starved herself to death after terminal cancer diagnosis
Elena Whitham told how her mother Irene McLeod took two weeks to die after making that decision in secret back in 2014. As Holyrood debated a Bill that could bring in assisted dying for terminally ill Scots, Ms Whitham said her mother was 58 and 'had so much to live for'. She described her mother as being 'all sorts of awesome', adding: 'She was funny, she was sarcastic, passionate and complicated.' But after being diagnosed with terminal stage four lung cancer in February 2014, she said she she was dead just five weeks later. Ms Whitham recalled: 'I hadn't even processed the fact that she was ill by the time we were ordering her wicker casket. 'She was only 58, she had so much to live for. 'And yet her last decision on this earth was to starve herself, to hasten her inevitable death.' She added: 'My mum didn't tell us what she was doing, I think she knew we were not ready to let her go and she wanted to protect us from her decision. 'Her mind was made up in her usual headstrong manner, and she had the agreement of her medical team she could choose to die this way. It is the only way the medical establishment allows a death when you are terminal.' The SNP MSP for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley said she could 'not even fathom the internal conflict she must have experienced, as she was consumed first by hunger and then by the urgent need to drink'. The MSP, who is stepping down from Holyrood in May 2026, said it had taken two weeks for her mother to 'starve to death'. She recalled: 'She woke up very briefly the morning she passed away, when she wasn't sedated quickly enough, and none of us will ever forget the terror on her face when she realised she wasn't dead after having been unconscious for three days.' Ms Whitham told MSPs: 'My mum deserved to plan a compassionate death, surrounded by her family, not one she had to conduct in secret, with us only finding out when a caring nurse explained what she had been enduring prior to lapsing into unconsciousness. 'No-one should be forced to starve themselves, travel overseas or use other traumatic methods to end their lives when dealing with a terminal diagnosis.' And she said that without change 'people will continue to make choices like my mum' .
