Seòmar agus comataidhean

I want to make a short contribution on this group of amendments.

Doctors’ opinions are very influential, in my experience. It is also my experience that that can vary among different cultures. I appreciate that many members have looked at different jurisdictions and the legislation that applies there, but we should see the legislation in the context of our own culture. That is my experience: that doctors are very influential in our society.

It should be clear that a doctor’s opinion should not form any part of a diagnosis. That is a substantive issue in relation to the bill—which, as I have said on the record, I will not be supporting. However, if it is passed, I want to ensure that there are safeguards in it.

As we discussed yesterday, members of the medical profession will need to decide whether they wish to participate in the administration of assisted dying. In some ways, I feel that there could be a protection for those in the medical profession in the amendments in this group, because if it is clear that they will not be expected to introduce the option into the conversation, they will be asked not to. Those people’s function, as I understand it, will be to administer and assist a person who wishes to take their life.

It seems to me that, if the bill were to pass, a review would be the best way to decide whether or not there are omissions, but the current provision is absolutely wrong.

I agree that there is some confusion here with the “Do not resuscitate” policy, which was misused during Covid. That is an NHS policy question, as well as a medical question.

I also agree with what Kate Forbes said about patients being vulnerable. We must provide a safeguard because of that. The greatest safeguard here, in terms of the ethics of the legislation, is to ensure that we are safeguarding the profession with clarity on what is expected at this point in a person’s pathway to their diagnosis, should it be terminal.

Police Scotland has been fined £66,000 for a deeply serious data protection failure after the full contents of a female officer’s device—including medical records, intimate images and sensitive personal information—were extracted and shared with a colleague whom she had accused of rape, along with his lawyer and his Scottish Police Federation representative.

Today, it has been reported that the Scottish Information Commissioner found that the force failed to minimise data collection, lacked adequate technical and organisational safeguards and did not report the breach within the legally required 72 hours. Police Scotland has apologised for the incident and said that it has learned lessons from it, but does the First Minister agree that that is an absolute scandal?

If it is a necessary practice to download the full contents of anyone’s phone or device, that should be all the more reason to ensure that cast-iron protections are in place. What steps could the Scottish Government take to reassure complainers, and anyone else, that there is proper oversight to prevent such a situation from ever happening again?

I recognise the on-going work that the cabinet secretary refers to. Mental health-related calls now represent one in five of all incidents that police officers attend, and only 15 per cent of those involve criminality. That is now the biggest single reason why police officers’ time is unnecessarily taken up. At a recent meeting of the Criminal Justice Committee, Scottish Government adviser Dr Robby Steel said that there is “a gap in provision” for many people who are having a mental health crisis. He went on to say:

“The reason that I point out the gap is that there is a limit to the extent to which the police and the NHS, working together, can solve this problem. It is a broader societal problem.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 18 February 2026; c 22.]

In effect, Police Scotland finds itself responsible for dealing with people in that gap. This morning, the chief inspector of constabulary said that, when he talked to people who had been in receipt of the service, they found it quite scary when the police turned up, and that that actually made the situation worse for them. Given that the gap needs to be addressed, what more can the cabinet secretary say to assure me that we are shaping services in a different direction to ensure that police officers are not picking up that wider societal problem?

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to recent reports that police officers are attending up to 700 mental health-related calls per day. (S6O-05624)

I want to speak in support of what Jackie Baillie said earlier and what Nicola Sturgeon has just said.

It would seem sensible to have a look at this. I will make a plea, and Ruth Maguire is right to do the same. We were almost going to get into a bidding war about who could and could not attend and for what reasons. We are all dedicated, no matter what party we are from and no matter the reason why we came here. As Kevin Stewart said, we all travel from different parts of the country, we all have personal circumstances, and we all have constituents to look after.

Let us not ever get into this situation again and let us put on the record that, in future parliamentary sessions, we must resolve matters so that there is enough time to deal with all the legislation that we want to pass.

We did not think that we would be here, and let us be honest that the situation is unprecedented. I have served in five parliamentary sessions; Jackie Baillie has served in more, as has Nicola Sturgeon. We cannot face this situation again, so let us try to deal with it sensibly and keep as many people on board as we can. We do have options.

My final plea is that we stop the bidding war when it comes to the reasons why people will have problems attending on Friday. We are all dedicated to taking whatever position we want to take on the bill, and we must all do our best to ensure that we reach the end of the process and that members are satisfied that they can make a decision that they are comfortable with.

Amendment 226 strengthens the conscientious objection provisions in section 18, which are essential if the Parliament is to legislate responsibly in such a sensitive area. Specifically, the amendment, which is to section 18, on page 12 at line 28, leaves out subsection (1) and inserts:

“No individual, in any role or capacity, including—

(a) medical practitioners,

(b) nurses,

(c) allied health professionals,

(d) pharmacists,

(e) administrative staff,

(f) receptionists,

(g) delivery personnel,

(h) students,

(i) trainees”.

The arguments here are similar to those made by Michael Marra and Jackie Baillie. This is probably the single biggest issue about the operation of the bill, so it requires intense scrutiny. It seems to me that, given the significance of an assisted dying bill and the fact that people will have conscientious objections to it, these provisions are the most important thing to get right.

As the bill stands, it says:

“An individual is not under any duty … to participate directly in anything authorised by this Act.”

Amendment 226 adds the words “directly or indirectly” and makes clear the range of roles that could fall within the scope of the bill. When we talk about conscientious objection, we must be honest about what participation could look like in practice. It is not only doctors and nurses who may find themselves involved; it could also be pharmacists who are asked to dispense substances, a delivery driver, a receptionist arranging appointments or administrative staff. For belt-and-braces purposes, it is important to include those members of staff who may be involved in a process, should the bill pass.

For some people, any involvement in the ending of life, however indirect, raises profound moral, ethical and religious concerns. If we are serious about protecting the conscience of those individuals who may wish to step back from the process, we must cover everyone. Amendment 226 would close a loophole in relation to that. Some have argued that such amendments might risk making the bill harder to implement, but it seems to me that there must be a cast-iron right of clinical staff and non-clinical staff not to participate.

It is of serious concern that we are at stage 3 yet are arguing over whether this is competent. Perhaps lessons have to be learned about the operation of devolved and reserved matters. This is a significant bill, and it gives me cause for concern that that has not yet been resolved. As the member in charge of the bill has suggested, it could be dealt with at a later stage under a section 104 order, but that is not satisfactory. It is important to put it in the bill, and I think that it is competent. There is a good argument that it is, particularly when we are talking about non-clinical staff. We are not talking about regulations here; we are talking about the operation of our NHS.

I am not comfortable with the suggestion that there would be a gap between royal assent and the legislation coming into force. Where would that leave those who wish to object? It is crazy that we would consider there being a gap of any sort. When we pass legislation in the Parliament and it reaches the royal assent stage, unless there are specific provisions in certain sections of a bill that will not come into force, it all comes into force. It is a serious flaw in the bill. I have said on record that I will not be voting for it, but we always have to consider that it might pass, so we want legislation to be the best that it can be.

For those reasons, I will support the other related amendments. I urge any member who believes that this is an important aspect of the bill to vote to put it in the bill. I believe that it is competent. In that way, the Parliament’s intention would be crystal clear that we want a cast-iron guarantee for clinical and non-clinical staff to exist from the minute of royal assent and that we do not want them to have to wait. I hope that amendment 226 is agreed to on that basis.

Will Liam McArthur take an intervention?

I am trying to understand how Liam McArthur sees this working. He will forgive me, but I am sure that he is familiar with the commencement provisions in section 32, which says,

“This section and sections 14A, 14B, 22A, 28, 29, 31 and 33 come into force on the day after Royal Assent”

and

“The other provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Scottish Ministers may by regulations appoint.”

Was section 32 designed and written in that way so that it would work in tandem with the section 104 order that Neil Gray was talking about? It would be helpful to know how it pieces together. I do not think that that is the normal way in which the commencement of an act would be written. Am I right in saying that?

I sincerely thank the First Minister for being here today and for the strong statement that he has made about Glasgow. I add my sincere thanks to the fire and rescue workers and to everyone else who is still ensuring that the fire has been dealt with, and I thank the senior officers who briefed me last night.

The situation is truly heartbreaking for Glasgow. I am probably Glasgow’s longest-serving elected member and I find it deeply emotional.

We are still waiting to find out about the damage to Glasgow Central station. Recent media reports indicate that that there is no major damage, although the architect of the glass roof has expressed some concern about that. I am sure the First Minister agrees that things must be difficult for the thousands of commuters who rely on the station, and for the network itself. I know that he has been having discussions about the implications and I presume that the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Fiona Hyslop, will also be having such discussions. Have there been any talks about what more could be done—including running more buses—to help people get to work or to appointments until we know when Glasgow Central station will be fully open?

The First Minister is aware that there are temporary works on the M8 viaducts and that the project is already four years over schedule. I put on record my thanks to Amey and Transport Scotland for the site visit that I had.

Transport Scotland is now consulting on three options for a permanent solution. One of them is to demolish that section of the M8 and divert it to the M74, at a cost of up to £125 million.

Does the First Minister agree that that option would be a disaster, given the impact on the M74 and the west of Scotland economy, because the issue affects a much wider area than Glasgow? Does he agree that Transport Scotland should remove that option and should reassure businesses, taxi operators, drivers and bus operators that that option will not be taken seriously?