Seòmar agus comataidhean

No, thank you, convener.

Motion agreed to.

I echo the comments that the cabinet secretary has just made. I said as much at last week’s First Minister’s question time, but I am genuinely grateful to the cabinet secretary, his counterparts in the UK Government and officials for expediting this process at pace. As the cabinet secretary has said, there were many predictions about how long the process would inevitably take, and it is to the credit of the UK and Scottish Governments that they have managed to reach this agreement.

The points that Gillian Mackay has raised with regard to the transparency of the section 104 process are probably those of most concern to many colleagues, and it would be helpful if the cabinet secretary could confirm that my understanding of section 104 orders, which is that they are a fairly routine mechanism for dealing with such issues, is his understanding, too. Will he also reiterate the importance of ensuring that, as we progress to stage 3, MSPs are kept fully informed, on a timely basis, of the progress of those discussions with the UK Government?

Thank you—that was very helpful.

I just want take this opportunity to reiterate the question that I posed to the First Minister. I absolutely respect and understand the rationale for the Government’s position of neutrality, but as we saw through the stage 2 process, there is a growing expectation among colleagues, irrespective of the position that was taken on the bill at stage 1, that the Government will engage more actively in the amending process, even if it is only around technical amendments to ensure the workability of any legislation that the Parliament passes.

I know that there have been on-going discussions in Government on that. Again, it would be helpful—certainly for the member in charge, but also for the committee and other MSP colleagues—to have clarity on the level of engagement that the Government is going to be committed to at stage 3.

Thank you.

I am grateful to you, convener, not least for up-ending your agenda to accommodate me.

I echo the petitioner’s sentiments. I do not think that I am betraying confidences by saying that she is the resident of an island that does not have a GP or a nurse—and there is no shop. Accessing services is often achievable only by taking the ferry to the mainland. I have long made the argument that, for islanders in Orkney—it is the same in Shetland, the Western Isles and on the west coast—ferries often perform the function that buses perform on the mainland and that, therefore, the extension of concessionary travel on buses for younger people as well as for older people, although very welcome, has led to islanders feeling that there is a growing inconsistency in the way that they are treated.

The Government is right, and is to be commended, for extending free interisland ferry travel to island residents under the age of 22. I made the case for that strongly, along with other colleagues for the Highlands and Islands, across parties. However, the Government now has a problem. As it has accepted the principle in relation to under-22s, it becomes more difficult for it to say that it cannot do the same for those over the age of 60.

I support a great deal of the principle and the argumentation behind the petition. I am pragmatic enough to understand that, in the time that is available between now and the end of the parliamentary session, it might be difficult to make progress. However, the argument will not go away. As I said, as a result of the more recent decision in relation to under-22s, the Government has helped to make the case that Claire Sparrow and other signatories to the petition are fairly making.

I will see you in the Conveners Group meeting shortly, Mr Carlaw.

I understand the rationale; I even understand the rationale for setting the timeframe at two years. However, I go back to the point that the five-year review of how the act is operating sits alongside a requirement for the annual reporting of figures in relation to the number of people accessing assisted dying. The Scottish Government, Public Health Scotland and future committees of this Parliament will have oversight of that reporting.

We also had evidence from the Crown Office at stage 1 about the interest that it will take in each and every instance of an assisted death, certainly in the first five years. The regulatory professional bodies themselves will also take their own interest in what is happening and in how it is happening. I do not think that consideration of the act is solely reliant on the review.

There is a need for a wholesale review of how the act is operating in practice; that is required. However, as I said, there is a balance to be struck in relation to when we hold that review so that we have sufficient data to make informed assessments of what is happening without leaving it too long. The public need to have confidence that a weather eye is being kept on a process, which, I fully accept, is a new one.

Yes, certainly.

On the specific instance in New South Wales that Sue Webber has raised, I have always argued that seldom is an increase in budget, were it to happen, a part of the legislation. That sort of thing tends to come in a separate decision taken by the Government or the Parliament.

The debate around my bill has allowed more of a debate on palliative and hospice care, and I very much welcome that. Ultimately, any additional resource that is delivered to the sector will come through budgetary decisions by the Scottish Government and this Parliament. Those of us who believe that additional resources are needed must continue to make that case, and we can make it on a cross-party basis—with an election forthcoming, I dare say that it will feature fairly prominently in the manifestos of each party. However, it will be delivered through a budgetary process rather than through the legislation.

The point that I was making, and the conclusion that has been reached by the Health and Social Care Committee in the House of Commons, is that no evidence has been seen of a deterioration in the delivery of palliative and hospice care. Indeed, in many instances, there has been an increase in not only the budget for but the quality of the engagement with palliative care, which the committee heard in evidence at stage 1, too. That has arisen from the processes put in place for those accessing assisted dying, who need to have discussions with medical professionals about all the options available to them. Too often, palliative care is not necessarily understood as well as it might be.

Do you want to make another intervention, Ms Webber?

That is on us, Ms Webber. If we want to prioritise palliative care, there is an election coming up and each of us can make manifesto commitments. My point was in response to the earlier comment about a budget reduction in New South Wales, presumably by the Government in New South Wales.