Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Again, I understand that being a query and an area of interrogation for the committee, but the Government has not taken a position on that as yet.

I note that those questions were considered by the previous panel, particularly in relation to prosecution policy and investigations. We have considered Mr McArthur’s equality impact assessment. Depending on the consideration that the committee gives to those questions, further work may be required post stage 1. However, at this stage, I will rest there.

Good morning, colleagues, and thank you very much for your invitation to give evidence to the committee on what is, as I am sure that you have found throughout your evidence gathering, a very sensitive and emotive topic.

As I outlined in my memorandum to the committee in September, the Government is taking a neutral position on Liam McArthur’s bill at this stage, and it is for the Parliament to decide whether it supports the general principles behind the bill. Given that, I am not in a position to comment on assisted dying in principle or on the individual provisions in the bill, beyond what I have already outlined in the memorandum.

It is important that I, as lead minister on the bill, and the Government, remain neutral while the Parliament carries out its scrutiny. However, my officials and I have been closely following the evidence that the committee has gathered over the past few months. The work that you have been doing and the evidence of stakeholders will play an important role in supporting our decision making on any amendments that we might wish to lodge, should it pass stage 1. I also look forward to reading the committee’s stage 1 report when it is published.

This is a hugely complex, emotive and contentious topic, and it remains my hope that, regardless of our personal views, we as MSPs will be able to work together across parties to ensure that the debate continues to be handled with the sensitivity that it requires and deserves. I am grateful to the committee for the respectful way in which it has handled its scrutiny thus far, and I thank you again for inviting me to give evidence on this important issue.

I am happy to bring Ms Crossan in to give further detail. A lot would be dependent on the service model that is put forward. I know that the British Medical Association has raised questions about the model and how it will be established. The point that you raise is correct.

That would be a financial undertaking and we would need to consider that, should an amendment of that nature be made. It would be for others to determine whether such an amendment would be within the scope of the bill. I recognise the work of the likes of Miles Briggs, and we are considering how to ensure that palliative care support is as extensive and equitable as possible as part of our strategy. The work that we are doing in that vein, as well as supporting our hospice sector and our health and social care services, aims to ensure the availability of palliative care at the point of need.