Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank all of the members who signed the motion to allow the debate to proceed, the people who are manning the exhibition in the lobby this week and those who are attending in the public gallery, including members of the transplant team, health professionals and, in particular, Audrey Cameron, a donor’s mother, about whom I will say more later. I also thank those who have remained in the chamber after a very long week because of late sittings.

My contribution extends only to transplants following a death. Talking about death is always a difficult topic in any circumstance. One might say that it is grisly, and we in the western world prefer to avoid it. However, one death can save a life or allow a better life to someone else, and sometimes to many strangers.

Let me first set out the legislative background. The Human Tissue (Authorisation) (Scotland) Act 2019 was passed in July 2019. It provides for a deemed authorisation, or opt-out, system of organ donation for transplantation. It applies to most adults aged 16 and over who are resident in Scotland, but it does not apply to everyone.

There are exemptions: adults without capacity to understand the law, adults who have lived in Scotland for fewer than 12 months before their death and children under the age of 16. If a person in one of those groups dies in a way that means that they could donate, their closest family member will be asked whether they wish to authorise donation.

Otherwise, if a person dies in circumstances in which they could become a donor and have not recorded a donation decision—either to agree or to reject—it will be assumed that they are willing to donate their organs for transplantation. Even then, a person’s family will always be asked about their latest views on donation to ensure that it would not proceed if that was against their wishes.

I am grateful for the publicity on organ and tissue donation, but members who are sitting here in the Parliament did not know that it is preferable to register one way or the other. I know that we are sometimes not the brightest of the bright, but even though there is a campaign, the message is not even getting through to us. How do we step up the campaign so that it becomes common knowledge that people should help by registering one way or the other?

Has the Labour Government’s increase in employer national insurance contributions had an impact on the delivery of free personal care?

I am ashamed to say that I, too, did not realise that. I have been carrying the old card and did not know that I had to register. I just thought that all would be well, because we now have presumed consent.

The reason for the debate is partly to highlight that.

That is where understandable difficulties arise. Specialist nurses must—without delay, for obvious reasons—raise the issue of consent to use some of the deceased’s organs in the most distressing of circumstances. If a person has registered their wishes one way or another, it makes that discussion much easier.

Therefore, although there is presumed consent, it is still better to register. Let me also stress that only 1 per cent of the population who die can be considered to become an organ donor—only those who are in intensive care and ventilated—so it is a niche set of circumstances.

The specialist nurse whom I referred to is one of a team of 23 who are based in intensive care units across Scotland. They support consultants and nurses who are having end-of-life discussions with families. They cover all aspects of the donation process, from the initial referral from the intensive care unit team, to building a patient’s profile—bloods, electrocardiogram, chest x-ray, medical notes—organ matching, offering and placement; organising theatre; and organising for the national organ retrieval service team to arrive at the donor hospital. Time is always of the essence.

Those nurses co-ordinate the retrieval operation to the very end, when they perform last offices with donors and ensure that organs are safely dispatched to their recipients. They also provide a bereavement follow-up service for donors’ families.

There are currently around 600 people waiting for an organ transplant in Scotland at any one time. Those patients are in urgent need of life-saving or life-enhancing organs, with the majority waiting for a kidney transplant. One donor can save up to nine lives.

Nothing illustrates the significance of organ transplant better than an example. Audrey Cameron is here in the Parliament today. Her son James Borland died in February 2024 at the young age of 25. Audrey chose to donate James’s organs, as she felt that that was fitting for him, as a kind and gentle young man. James went on to donate his heart, lungs and both kidneys, saving the lives of four people. His becoming an organ donor has given his family so much comfort amid their grief. James’s story has not ended, and he has changed so many people’s lives. He left behind his young son, who one day will know how brave his daddy was and how he is a true hero to so many. Audrey now works closely with the specialist nurse in the organ donation team, promoting and sharing her passion for organ donation, and I thank her for this permission to make public her experience. I thank all others who, in similar circumstances, have done that. Nothing can illustrate how important organ donation is more than that example. [Applause.]

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the finance secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding different funding models that may be available to finance the building of social housing, in light of the approach adopted by Falkirk Council which awarded Hearthstone Investments £30 million through its local government pension scheme fund to invest in social and affordable housing in 2015. (S6O-04975)

Having supported the bill at stage 1, subject to the caveats that I emphasised on both capital and revenue funding, I am pleased that it will now progress to stage 2. We know that those issues will not be easy to resolve.

Will Broomlee outdoor education centre in West Linton, in my constituency, which I have visited often, be a consultee? I have huge regard for the facility and its staff and would hope for an extended future for it, which could perhaps include provision for children with ASN in the Borders, which is much needed.

Notwithstanding that it will need some public funding, I put this proposal because it is my understanding that the total of the local government pension scheme fund in Scotland amounts to almost £60 billion, which is 140 per cent of what is required to service the pensions. Does the minister agree that that 40 per cent surplus—which, at the very least, is just under £20 billion—could be invested in building social housing for rent, which would be an ethical investment of local government pension funds and, importantly, would contribute to reducing council waiting lists for housing?

Is not the real story here the increase in national insurance contributions for employers? As an example—I declare an interest as a member of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals—that increase will cost the Scottish SPCA £400,000 extra every year. Is that not the real story of why charities are in such difficulties?

I congratulate all who are engaged in the bill, but I also consider that to allocate just over one hour to debate these radical changes to the delivery and pursuit of our criminal law is misplaced.

I shall make just a few remarks. Steps to better steer witnesses through the court process with compassion must be welcomed. I am not convinced of the need for specialist sexual offences courts. I pose this question. An individual is indicted for robbery, assault with a threat to life and sexual assault, and there are three different victims—in which court should that case be held?

The changes in the majority required and in the size of juries seem to me untried. The removal of the not proven verdict may make convictions more difficult, whether before a sheriff sitting alone or before a jury. The test that is applicable across summary and solemn proceedings is still that the Crown has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The onus is on the Crown. Not proven meant that there was still a reasonable doubt, but that now transfers seamlessly to not guilty considerations. Some campaigning organisations may believe that that, together with the change to jury size, makes convictions more likely, and I understand why, but in my view, it will not, and at best it may be neutral.

As the not proven verdict is consigned to history, I have marked down my reservations, and I sincerely hope that my concerns about unintended consequences do not come to pass. Despite those concerns and reservations, I will support the bill at decision time, but I will watch how it works in practice.