Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you—that was a helpful point about inquiries versus investigations.

The bill allows the commissioner to

“take such steps as the Commissioner considers appropriate”

when seeking to resolve a matter without recourse to an investigation. Given that you have said that the powers are similar to those of your office, what would those steps look like?

Overall, what opportunities would arise from a commissioner being required to

“keep under review the law, policy and practice relating to wellbeing and sustainable development”?

What might the challenges of that be?

Some of my other questions are quite similar. In particular, we had evidence that suggested that some of the powers feel more like those of inquiry than investigation and that the ability to investigate could be strengthened. Does anyone have a view on that?

I am interested in hearing people’s views and thoughts on the general function of a future generations commissioner, if we were to have one, which is described in the bill as promoting

“the wellbeing of future generations by promoting sustainable development by public bodies in all aspects of their decisions, policies and actions.”

Should that definition be broader? Is it manageable? What are people’s views on it?

Will the Government tell us why only 5 per cent of the £251 million that was allocated to the project in 2020 has been spent? We have also seen the recent cancellation of projects such as the Prestwick spaceport. Has the minister considered appointing an independent chair to push the project along?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress of the Ayrshire growth deal. (S6O-05107)

I thank Paul Sweeney for again securing a debate on this important subject. I have spoken in previous years’ debates on the issue, and it saddens me that, once again, we need to raise our voices to speak out for those who are dying in poverty.

This year’s report tells us that we have not moved the dial one bit, so all our efforts must remain focused not on talk, reports or briefings but on the delivery of services and the redistribution of wealth. My colleague Richard Leonard put that so much better than I have done. The issue is about how, as a society, we can redistribute wealth and power.

As with so many things that we encounter in the course of our lives, the process of death is influenced by the poverty and inequality that are experienced by so many. That one in four working-age people and one in six older people still die in poverty should shame us all. I have said this before in the chamber, but I feel compelled to say it again: everyone deserves as pain-free and peaceful a death as possible, surrounded by those who love them, in a place that comforts them and that they have chosen.

Little attention is paid to working people and the strain that often comes with working multiple jobs or living in forgotten communities. What makes me say that? I grew up in a coalfield community. It is almost 40 years since the rapid closure of the mining industry began in coalfield communities in the South Scotland region, yet we are still seeing the consequences. Figures that I found last year suggest that 44 per cent of the working-age population in the Scottish coalfields are claiming some form of benefits, compared with a Scottish average of 23 per cent; 40 per cent of people in the Scottish coalfields have no qualifications, compared with a figure of 27 per cent for Scotland as a whole; and the mortality rate in the Scottish coalfields is 25 per cent higher than the Scottish average. That is why I feel that we do not prioritise the issue enough.

Poverty is the root of the injustice that permeates our society, and that injustice is often suffered from the cradle to the grave. I simply cannot accept that, which is what has driven me to speak in today’s debate. We must do more to stop so many having so little while the few have so much. The reality is that, at the end of life, the rich can often afford to stay at home and receive direct daily care in the places where they have lived and prospered. At a time of their choosing, they can move to a place that is more suitable to support them. However, for those who have suffered through a life of struggling to make ends meet, often, no such options exist. Their lives end, as they proceeded, with a sense of powerlessness.

I was fortunate to see that exhibition in Glasgow and then in the Scottish Parliament. It brought home what is the reality for so many people who wish to stay in their own homes but who are struggling to do so. We must not forget that they do that throughout their lives. That injustice must be made right.

That powerlessness is the final injustice and we should be doing everything that we can to limit it. I am going to say some words again because, when I think about the issue, I think that we all need to understand this: everyone deserves as pain-free and peaceful a death as possible, surrounded by those who love them, in a place that comforts them and where they can make choices. Those choices should never be dictated by what can be afforded. I cannot accept that someone who is dying cannot get the care and comfort that they deserve in a time of need such as the end of life. Surely, we must be looking for solutions to providing all the care and comfort that are necessary. I will close on that point, Presiding Officer.

I offer my deepest condolences to all those affected by what we have heard about today. I commend the families who have bravely shared their stories and have spoken out about their experiences, and I thank them for sitting with us in the public gallery today. I also thank the families who are watching the debate at home. I understand that speaking about this will not have been easy, and I offer my personal thanks to them all for telling their stories. We have heard their call for a national investigation, and I hope that the Government has, too.

Jackie Baillie and Willie Rennie have shown that this is not an either/or situation. The cabinet secretary can support our motion, so I ask the minister to come back to me, through an intervention, with an answer to this question. Is your position that there will be an investigation, or is your position, as your amendment suggests, that it is a case of “if” there is an investigation? I would be happy to take an intervention.