Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would be happy to take that point away and to write to you to give you what I can on the financial memorandum considerations.

For the Government, yes, that would be premature. We have nothing further to add, other than our position that we believe that elements in the bill would not pass legislative scrutiny and are not within our legislative competence.

I heard the evidence that the committee took this morning. I have not interacted with NRS on that issue, and I am not sure whether the committee has explored it with NRS, but it might be something to follow up on. We do not have a position on that as yet.

Unfortunately not. Beyond what I have set out in the Government’s memorandum, I must maintain a strictly neutral position to allow the committee and the Parliament to assess the merits of the bill on the basis of what I believe will be a universally free vote, including for those in the Government. My responsibilities as health secretary and lead member for the bill will come in should the bill pass stage 1, and then there will be far more extensive dialogue and discussion and policy positions taken.

In the course of this session, I will try to be as helpful as possible. I hope that you will note that, in response to Ms Mackay’s questions, I tried to give as expansive an answer as I could. I cannot say anything beyond what I have already set out and what is already in the memorandum that I sent to the committee.

I cannot say much more than I have already said in my memorandum to the committee. However, to summarise the Government’s views, we believe that the bill in its current form is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. In particular, we believe that section 15(8), which gives power to the Scottish ministers to specify in regulations a drug or other substance as an “approved substance” to be provided to terminally ill adults to end their own life, appears to relate to the reserved matter of medicines, medical supplies and poisons, as set out in section J4 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998.

Given that the bill represents a novel and fundamental shift in the role of medical practitioners and the regulatory framework in which they operate—a shift from protecting or enhancing patients’ lives to assisting in the termination of life—we also have concerns that some of the other provisions in the bill may relate to the reserved matter of the regulation of health professionals, as set out in section G2 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. That is a confirmation of the position that I set out in the memorandum.

In the Government memorandum, I set out the elements around the potential costs. On the particular issue that Mr Torrance raises about training costs, if we were to assume that half of all doctors would undergo training, and that the training time would be around seven hours—as is suggested in Mr McArthur’s financial memorandum—there would be a total cost of just over £6 million for training time, which has not been factored in. Again, that is for the Parliament and the committee to consider. We have noted that as part of our memorandum to the committee for you to consider.

I recognise that some might have raised that as a concern, but I hope that I have set out the steps that we are taking to try to address its being a concern. I would highlight the draft strategy on palliative care that is being consulted on and which seeks to improve the position in that respect, and the steps that we are taking in the budget to fund our health boards and our hospices to maintain or expand provision.

It is important to stress, too, that there is a belief, wrongly held by some, that palliative care is only for those with a short time left to live. Such care can—and, in many cases, should—be offered from the time that a person is diagnosed with a serious or life-threatening condition, because it can help them to get the right support in place, manage their symptoms better and allow them to think through the best treatment options, taking into account what really matters to them. That is the person-led approach that we want to see, and it can be offered alongside other treatments that aim to prolong their life.

Such care has to be bespoke and person led to ensure that we are addressing the needs of people as they see them. It is not just for those at the end of life. I hope that that provides additional clarity for the committee in considering whether that should be a factor in decision making.

I heard the evidence that was given earlier and I note the debate that is being had and the points that have been put across. I hope that Mr Gulhane will accept that I cannot put forward a position on the matter; it is for the committee and the Parliament to determine. As the lead minister on a bill on which the Government has taken a neutral position, I cannot influence people’s consideration of the issue in any way.

Yes. Should the bill pass stage 1, extensive discussions would need to be had with a number of stakeholders, and I would have a responsibility as health secretary to ensure that I was taking matters forward in the interests of health and social care services and the people who interact with them. I think that everyone would expect me to have conversations such as those that Mr Gulhane set out.