Official Report 1214KB pdf
We will move on to the next item of business, but before we continue, I remind members in the strongest terms that all business is follow-on business. That can have an impact on any day, and that is the case today.
The next item of business is consideration of motion S6M-19456, on a financial resolution for the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3A of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act.—[Neil Gray]
16:41
Today, we are being asked to write what is in effect a blank cheque to make it easier to choose to die than to live. I do not believe that voting to do that is a neutral act—it has consequences.
Scottish hospices have said that, if assisted dying is legalised, hospices could see their fundraising efforts impacted. The Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland said that it did not think that costs could be absorbed within existing budgets. The Royal College of General Practitioners said that
“Trying to add it on to a busy general practice would be very difficult”.—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 19 November 2024; c 8.]
I have not touched on the crisis in social care, which sees staff on low pay, and disabled people having to rely on incontinence pads for hours because there is no money to pay staff to go in often enough to change them; or the housing crisis, which sees 10,000 disabled people stuck in their own homes; or the fact that one in four people who need palliative care in Scotland does not get it. What would the costs of the bill mean for the opportunities to address all of that?
As we would expect, many of those issues were raised during the committee’s scrutinising of the bill. The committee concluded in its report that
“costs may ... vary significantly according to a number of factors.”
We do not know the cost of making the bill safe, but we do know that we cannot amend the bill to fix the crises in social care, housing or the national health service. The costs of doing those things are huge, and rightly so, because this is life or death.
Today, colleagues are being asked to support a blank cheque for assisted suicide, and whatever the costs of that are in the end, it means money diverted away from services that are designed to support constituents to live well to a service that makes it easier for them to choose to die.
I have said all along that the risks of the bill are real, and they are. The bill is proposed in a context in which the NHS is in crisis, social care is creaking at the seams and one in four people do not get the palliative care that they need. To change that context, we need fundamental changes in health and social care, housing and much more to improve the lives of our constituents. Spending money—a lot of it, according to evidence—on assisted suicide reduces money for other areas.
Voting for the resolution is therefore, I say again, not a neutral act. We would be licensing Governments to spend money on assisted suicide in a world where we so desperately need money in public services that help people to live. No matter how hard or intolerable life can be, there must always be hope for a better world—one where we have the right to practical assistance and support to lead ordinary lives.
I ask members to vote against the blank cheque to make it easier to choose to die and, instead, to continue to fight for a better world where we can all choose to live, and a world that supports us to do that well.
16:44
Every member in the chamber should know that voting for the Government’s financial resolution is not a vote for or against the bill but a vote to carry out due parliamentary process after a bill has passed stage 1 and is about to start stage 2, which begins next Tuesday. A vote against the financial resolution will not stop the bill, which I fear may be the intention of those who intend to vote against it. It would merely delay it, and any amendments that would trigger the need for a financial resolution will fall. Voting against the financial resolution benefits no one, whether they are for or against the bill.
I welcome the fact that there is a free vote on the bill—it is natural that there are impassioned views on all sides. Our respectful debate at stage 1 was widely acknowledged as showing Parliament in its best light.
I urge members not to vote for an attempt to subvert parliamentary process, because it benefits no one, not least the reputation of Parliament.
16:45
I was not going to speak this afternoon but, having heard the comments, I feel compelled to. I have no idea how many of our colleagues are following the proceedings online this afternoon and will be around to come to a considered opinion and vote on the financial resolution.
I voted against assisted dying at stage 1, and I anticipate that that will be my vote at stage 3. I will work constructively at stage 2 to amend the bill to bring in safeguards, but I have put on record that I do not feel that those safeguards will allow me to vote for the bill at stage 3, for some of the reasons that Pam Duncan-Glancy has outlined this afternoon.
I am still thinking about how I am going to vote as I speak, but my slight concern is that if the financial resolution were not to pass this afternoon, because not all our colleagues were aware that that procedural action—
Will the member give way?
Of course.
Does the member not think that it is the duty of the 129 MSPs to be here or watching online? We cannot just make excuses because some MSPs fancy an afternoon off on a Thursday.
I ask Mr Mason not to put words in my mouth. I am giving no one an excuse for not being here on a Thursday afternoon. I am here every Thursday afternoon and, quite frankly, I am upset that some of my colleagues do not take that opportunity and seem to leave Parliament early. It is not good enough.
The point that I would make is that Parliament took a view at stage 1 that I disagreed with. The issue is whether we should use that as a mechanism by which to delay the legislation or be against it. I am still listening to the comments of colleagues, including that of Mr Mason.
I understand the point that the member is trying to make, but does he recognise Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point? Whether we are for or against the bill, we are, as a Parliament, being asked to write a blank cheque. As we are often told by the Scottish Government—and by Mr Doris—we have a fixed budget. That money will have to come from somewhere. Does Mr Doris acknowledge that some other service, whether it is education, another health service or transport, will be affected if the financial resolution is passed?
It is thus with every financial resolution that comes to this place.
The point that I wanted to make, notwithstanding the interventions from Mr Mason and Mr Balfour, was to the Scottish Government—
Will the member take an intervention?
Can I make this point first? I will then take Mr McArthur’s intervention, if the Presiding Officer permits me to do so.
I am seeking quite substantial stage 2 amendments in relation to the role of social work, which may have quite a significant cost. My amendments in relation to palliative care were ruled inadmissible because the bill was deemed to be too narrow. However, there is a policy intent there, and a substantial additional cost.
My question to the Government, which was my reason for making this point, is: will the Scottish Government keep under review the costs associated with the bill under the financial resolution? Many members want to make sure that, if the bill goes on to the statute book, it is costed and workable—not workable as a policy intent in itself but workable with all the safeguards that many of us would like to see, even if we may not vote for the legislation itself.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
I think that Mr McArthur was first—sorry, Ms Duncan-Glancy.
I thank Mr Doris for taking the intervention, and I commend him for how he sets out his argument. The issue clearly draws strong emotions on both sides, but we are being asked to do a procedural act that will allow the amendments—some lodged by Mr Doris and some by Pam Duncan-Glancy—that have budgetary implications to be considered and voted on. Part of the debate around those amendments will be on whether they are affordable within the context of the budget.
I am sure that the cabinet secretary will respond to the point that Mr Doris directed to the Government on keeping a running total of that. This is not a blank cheque. It will be for members of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee to consider the arguments that are made in support of various amendments and whether they are realistic, affordable and provide sufficient safeguards. Ultimately, Parliament will vote on the bill at stage 3, whether or not it meets the required standards that Mr Doris sets out.
I thank Mr McArthur for that point, but I would put a caveat on that. In this Parliament, we allocate budgets to all sorts of bodies, including the national health service and health and social care partnerships through local authorities and the NHS. Those bodies have to use the resources that they have to meet all the outcomes that we ask of them. They sometimes tell us that they are stretched and that they are under pressure, which is often challenging. Resources are always limited, irrespective of our aspirations in this place. That is a reasonable point to make.
If there is time, I will take Pam Duncan-Glancy’s intervention, but I have no idea whether there is time.
You may take Ms Duncan-Glancy’s intervention, then please conclude, Mr Doris.
I acknowledge the point that my colleague Bob Doris is making. I, too, lodged—or tried to lodge—amendments to address some of the wider issues that I alluded to in my contribution, but I was told that they were outside the scope of the bill. Does he agree with me that putting enough safeguards into the bill is not possible not only because some are outside its scope but because we do not know how much they could cost, which in effect means that a blank cheque is required?
I say to Pam Duncan-Glancy that that is a debate for stages 2 and 3.
I do not think that I will stand in the way of the financial resolution, but I will not be in a position to support it.
16:52
Like Bob Doris, I was not going to speak in the debate. I assumed that it would go straight to a vote; I did not realise that there would be a discussion such as this. I was wondering why there was such a delay for the cabinet secretary to come, but it is clear that people want to put their views on record.
I pressed my button only after Rona Mackay spoke, and I will come to her point in a minute. We have to accept that we are not dealing with a normal piece of legislation—it is a very emotive one. It has been expertly taken through Parliament to this stage by Liam McArthur, for whom I have a great deal of respect. I listened carefully to the stage 1 debate, and I took a different position from him. It is a member’s bill and has a Government financial resolution. It also, very rarely for us in the chamber, has a free vote. That is why we have a slight difference from when those of us who might oppose a Government bill would still support a financial resolution because we respect that the Government has a majority to take through its legislation. I believe that this situation is slightly different.
There are impassioned views on both sides of the debate, and I remember the speech that Rona Mackay gave at stage 1 in support of the bill. However, I respectfully disagree with Ms Mackay, and I have to correct her: I will not support the financial resolution not because I want to circumvent the will of Parliament at stage 1, and not because I want to use parliamentary procedures to stop it; I just want to be consistent in the way that I vote on the bill. I did not support it at stage 1, I do not believe that it is correct, and I therefore think that it would be hypocritical of me to vote to put money behind a bill that I do not support.
I simply say to Rona Mackay—I will give way if she would like to come in—that I am not doing this to use politics to circumvent the will of Parliament. I am taking a consistent approach to my opposition to the bill, which I have had for a long time, although I have listened to both views. It would be inconsistent to vote one way at stage 1 and a different way today on the financial resolution.
Can the member confirm whether he has ever before done what he is going to do?
I have not done it before. As I hope that I explained in my preamble, this is a different situation because we are dealing with a member’s bill, the decision on which is down to the choices of individual members. This is not a vote on which we are being whipped by our parties, which is an almost unique circumstance. I cannot think of any other occasion during this session of Parliament when none of us has been whipped—my party allowed its members a free vote on the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, but other parties did not. I think that it makes a difference when we are not instructed how to vote as groups of Scottish National Party, Green, Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative members, but each of us is making our own decision about how we vote.
Some of my colleagues who voted against the bill at stage 1 might vote for the financial resolution tonight, and I will respect that view. I simply took exception to Rona Mackay saying that all of us who are going to oppose the financial resolution tonight are doing it to try to circumvent the bill process. I am not doing that. I have lodged an amendment to Liam McArthur’s bill, and I am engaged in that process, but I personally believe that it would not be right to vote against it at stage 1 and then vote for the financial resolution.
I hear what the member is saying. However, he must also accept that those who are against the bill and have lodged amendments will not get their amendments through if the financial resolution is not agreed to.
I accept that, but what was troubling me when Rona Mackay spoke earlier was the fact that—I am going to go out on a limb here—we know that the financial resolution is going to go through. The bill had a majority at stage 1, and I cannot imagine that anyone who supported the bill at stage 1 will not support the financial resolution. We already know the outcome of the vote, so what is wrong with those of us who opposed the bill at stage 1 voting against the financial resolution because we do not want resources to go to legislation that we do not believe in? That is the point that I am trying to make.
In conclusion, I was not going to speak but I think that it has perhaps been helpful for members to put on record their views. I think that we know which way the vote is going to go. However, the issue divides opinions in the chamber, in our families and in our communities, so it is perhaps not surprising that the financial resolution is dividing opinions, too.
16:57
Like others, I was not going to speak in the debate, but I want to make a short contribution.
The Parliament has been commended on the way in which it has handled the bill. The debate was very sensitive, and the bill has been steered through very well by Liam McArthur, as has been commented on many times.
In my view, it is important to allow the bill to go to the next stage. To do that, we have to support the financial resolution. As Mr McArthur said, we can further debate the issues at stage 2. Members have had a real opportunity to submit amendments, with 300 or so having been lodged. We will debate those amendments to try to strengthen the bill and will allow members to vote for or against it in a free vote. In that process, we will also be able to discuss the financial implications of the legislation.
I hope that members will ensure that the financial resolution gets through at this stage.
16:58
Like many members, I was not going to speak in the debate, but I have to correct one or two points. There has been talk about people not being here and whether they should be here. Some people cannot be here, and a lot of people will be unable to debate the amendments at stage 2 because they will be attending other committees. We should never criticise people who are unable to attend a meeting unless we know specifically why they cannot.
I agree with Pam Duncan-Glancy that the financial memorandum is in effect a blank cheque that is being written by the Government, which is saying that it will cover whatever the bill costs. I wish that that was the case when it comes to palliative care, because we know that palliative care is not correctly funded.
I have heard the arguments for supporting the financial memorandum because it will allow the bill to go further. However, my position has always been that I can never support the bill—not because of religious reasons but because of what I personally believe. It would be wrong for me to cast a vote this afternoon that would progress a bill that I cannot support in any shape or form, whether it is amended or not.
I will be forced to vote against the financial resolution today because of my conscience. I do not think that any member of this Parliament should criticise anyone who does that for that specific reason.
I call the cabinet secretary to respond.
16:59
Presiding Officer, first, I offer to you publicly an apology that I have already offered to you privately. I also offer it to the rest of the chamber. It is not a reason for missing the start of this item of business, but it is important that colleagues are aware that I was on a call with other United Kingdom ministerial colleagues—Welsh and Northern Irish ministers—and I was not aware that business was running ahead of schedule.
The Scottish Government remains neutral on this bill. The Presiding Officer has made her determination that, due to the nature of certain amendments that have been lodged, a financial resolution is needed for Mr McArthur’s Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill in order for those cost-bearing amendments to be voted on. The Scottish Government lodged the financial resolution to enable the Parliament to take a decision on the amendments, as only a minister can lodge a motion for a financial resolution. Without a financial resolution, any amendment that has a financial impact can be debated, but, depending on the degree of the financial impact, it may automatically fall as it cannot be voted on.
What costing has the Scottish Government given to the amendments should they pass at stage 2? Where does the cabinet secretary believe that that money would come from? From which budget would he take the money to pay for such costs?
Those are matters for the Parliament to determine. This is a member’s bill that has a free vote, and the Government is neutral on it. I will come on to elements around the costings shortly.
We are clear that it is for Parliament to decide on the bill, so it is for members to decide whether to support the financial resolution today. Crucially, the vote on the financial resolution is not a vote on whether members agree or disagree with the figures in Mr McArthur’s financial memorandum. The Government has not put on record to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee its position on the financial memorandum or on the policy underlying the bill. The vote is on whether the committee will be able to vote on cost-bearing amendments during its considerations at stage 2.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
Air ais
Planning and Infrastructure BillAir adhart
Decision Time