Seòmar agus comataidhean

Death is a universal experience, yet it remains a difficult subject. We all approach this debate with a profound desire to live. People who are asking us to support the bill would certainly rather live, but for many of them, that choice has been removed by a terminal diagnosis.

I think of my constituent Joanne and her father Robert, a retired firefighter. The unbearable reality of Robert’s terminal illness led him to beg his family to help him die. Too many families have been in that position. Too many people have experienced an agonising death against their wishes, yet it remains taboo—consigned to the too-difficult box.

I thank Liam McArthur for creating a respectful space for the stories of dying Scots and his immense capacity to listen. I also honour those who shared their most painful moments, so that others might not face a similar lack of choice. In a recent interview, I listened to Lorna Slater, who spoke movingly about her father’s beautiful death in Canada. I know that holding a loved one’s hand at the end is a sacred privilege, but for some, the law makes that peaceful holding of our loved ones impossible.

The Scottish Government has confirmed that the bill is within our legislative competence and is deliverable. We have vital clarity that commencement will only happen once employment protections and conscientious objection rights are in place, as well as requirements for training and qualifications.

The views of clinicians are important, but I was struck by the words of Rhona Baillie OBE—the chief executive of the Prince & Princess of Wales Hospice—in a letter to all of us, and I hope that all MSPs have had a chance to read her words. Rhona is a supporter of change, with more than 40 years’ nursing experience. She is advocating for a rights-based approach that is centred on the patient. I am heartened to hear that, should the bill be agreed to, her hospice is adequately prepared to engage with the new legal clinical framework.

I have seen the work of our hospice movement at first hand, even walking through fire for Kilbryde hospice. I say to those who argue that this is not the time because our systems are underfunded that they must join me in demanding that hospice-led palliative care no longer relies on bake sales and raffles.

Assisted dying is not a replacement for palliative care—it is additional. Our views on how healthcare should be in the future must not be used as a cover to deny individual choice today. Whatever our own beliefs and preferences, our decision must be transparent and honest. Vote on this bill, not on one that does not exist.

Our responsibility is not to judge but to provide a compassionate and safe choice for terminally ill people who want to have that choice. Voting for the status quo is not a neutral act. It will deny safeguards, hope and compassion to many. Tonight, I will vote yes for choice, agency and dignity for dying Scots.

20:27

—the SNP will fulfil its promise to Scotland’s children?

The SNP went into the 2021 election promising universal free school meals for all primary pupils. When in government, the roll-out to all primary 1 to primary 7 children was promised by August 2022, but thousands of children are still waiting, years later. Does the cabinet secretary agree with the education secretary, who admitted this week that school meal debt is still an issue and a burden that no child or family should face? Does the cabinet secretary accept that the support from the school meal debt fund is a sticking plaster, and can she advise the Parliament when—

It feels as though it is a good time to remind the Parliament and Kevin Stewart in particular that the triple threat of climate breakdown, nature loss and pollution is an urgent danger to our people and environment.

I thank the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy, Gillian Martin, for their support for the Ecocide (Scotland) Bill, which was recently backed by 90 MSPs from six political parties at stage 1. Although the parliamentary committee has stopped the clock on the bill for this session—by a majority of one vote—the threat to Scotland’s nature remains. Does the First Minister agree with me and the majority of people in Scotland that the bill must be a priority for the next session of the Parliament, so that Scotland can benefit from a stand-alone offence of ecocide to deter and protect us from the most severe environmental disruption?

I think that I am finally off mute. I apologise. I could not connect. I would have voted yes.

That is helpful.

Given the serious nature of some of the questions about serious types of crime and antisocial behaviour that have been asked in this meeting, it is regrettable that there has been a lot of mansplaining at the committee today. Two former transport ministers have come to your rescue to some extent, minister.

I tried earlier to get clarity on the Government’s policy intention. I understand the scope of the statutory instrument and I understand what the Parliament will be asked to vote on. However, as someone who has sat in a room in this Parliament with you, minister, and with other stakeholders who want urgent action taken to reduce and tackle violence on our buses, I am asking about the Scottish Government’s position and your position as the minister. I am not asking what you will do about wider societal violence or gender-based violence; my question is about buses. You have now been asked about holding discussions with justice colleagues on what could be done through sentencing. My question is whether, before getting to this point today, the Scottish Government considered what other action could be taken to provide for a situation in which violent criminals who have committed crimes on buses in Scotland would face the automatic removal of their bus pass—that is, would lose the privilege of having one. Was that considered? If so, why was it dismissed as an action that could be taken during this parliamentary session?

The minister perhaps knows the answer.

On the same theme, I want to drill down into the governance arrangements and what you anticipate the role of NatureScot will be.

You have said that it is complex and that sites in England and other areas outwith Scotland are not within your jurisdiction. Let us say that an offshore wind farm has been consented, the compensation measures have been agreed and they are set out in conditions or legal agreements. Oversight of that would involve ensuring that the compensation measures are implemented properly and that the project is monitored and evaluated. How would the governance around all of that look?

I want to briefly ask something that is supplementary to the deputy convener’s question. Nick, in your opening comments, you talked about the complexity of your organisation’s work but also said that, at times, it can be contentious. It is important that we see in writing some of the data behind what has just been discussed. I am going back a long time to when I worked as a planning officer but, often, the quality of information determines how quickly a decision can be made or a response given. It will be important to see that in writing. Given what you said about some of the abuse that has been levelled at your staff, we need to take the heat out of the issue and deal in facts.

I turn to the biodiversity delivery plan. We have heard about the nature and climate emergency and the need to halt the decline of biodiversity by 2030. You did not sound entirely confident that targets would be met in relation to woodlands. Will you talk us generally through the key milestones that need to be delivered early in the next parliamentary session if Scotland is to have a chance of halting the decline of biodiversity by 2030?