Chamber and committees

Do any other witnesses have any comments to make on the adequacy of the bill’s reporting mechanisms and the potential for unintended consequences?

That is helpful. On the point that was made earlier about resource and capacity, surely creating that clear demand signal would indicate where there is a gap. It might be helpful to have those expected target times against each type of treatment and pathway, so that there would at least be a clear signal of where we are not meeting those standards. Would it be helpful for that to be defined in the bill?

That is helpful.

Does the financial memorandum take appropriate account of potential costs if treatment options, as defined in the bill, were to be expanded? Does anyone in the room have a view on that?

To be clear, are you content that there is sufficient flexibility in the provisions in section 1(5) and (6) as currently drafted to enable Scottish ministers to include the nuances to which you refer, or do you want those provisions to be amended to include specific mention of community-based support?

I reiterate my thanks to the wide variety of people who have made representations on a challenging area of potential legislation. The more that we have delved into the complexities of the issue, the more fraught the considerations have become. In the correspondence that the committee received, I noted a story of someone whose life had been set on a negative trajectory because of dementia, which led to their early retirement. That brought to the fore the wider implications of how we manage people’s healthcare in a wider setting. Similarly, if people have a sense that they are a burden on their friends and family, it might mean that they are inclined to support assisted dying, but it also raises questions of coercion. That is the moral conundrum that we are trying to contend with. Representations that we have heard reflect many of the difficulties that we face in trying to find a way through to the right course of action.

Thank you, convener. It is a pleasure to join the committee this morning.

I echo your comments about the work of Pinar Aksu from the Maryhill Integration Network and Doaa Abuamer from the Red Cross VOICES network, who drove the public campaign on extending free concessionary bus travel to people seeking asylum in Scotland, given the fairly onerous conditions in which they live, with no recourse to public funds and so on.

I am pleased that your efforts in the Conveners Group pressed the First Minister to consider the adoption of the policy. That was successful, although, as you mentioned, there was a mishap when the Government declined to carry it forward. I welcome the news that, in the most recent budget, the Government has included the policy in its programme.

I believe that the initial allocation in the budget for 2024-25 was £2 million, but the detail of how that latest iteration will be rolled out remains to be seen. That is where the concern of the petitioners continues to lie. There has been a stop-start approach from the Government in the past, and there is also concern that the scheme will not be on the same statutory footing as the other concessionary travel schemes in Scotland, including the over-60s scheme and the under-22s scheme. There is, therefore, a desire to ensure that it is done via statutory instrument, so that it is not some tokenistic measure that could simply expire after a year or so. The petitioners want a degree of permanence in the process, so, until that comfort is provided and the Government is prepared to furnish the committee with the detail of how the scheme will operate, I appeal to committee members to keep the petition open. We have had only a high-level commitment in the budget, which has never been progressed into how it will be operationalised.

Obviously, there is a real and continuing social need for the scheme. Government ministers expressed previously that it could be interdicted by adjustments to the no recourse to public funds rule by the Home Secretary. The nature of the change in Government since the election means that that risk is less obvious. There is a great opportunity to press ahead with the statutory instrument to introduce the scheme on a sure footing. Until we get that commitment from the Government, the petition merits being kept open.

I thank the witnesses for their contributions so far.

You have mentioned in evidence issues with resourcing and some of the practical challenges that the bill’s aspirations or intentions might present. Do you have any modelling or understanding of what increases in demand might be generated in terms of workforce numbers or man hours, and of which areas that might be particularly problematic or challenging in?

The picture that you paint seems to be quite complex with regard to patient flow, interaction and presentation, and whether you would then induce demand by creating an easier interface.

It would be interesting to know, for example, whether requests for referral to residential rehab are not being fulfilled, and whether that illustrates unmet needs in a more critical sense—not necessarily assuming that X thousand people would theoretically benefit and that therefore we can convert that to capacity. As you said, myriad complexities and risks are associated with the subject. It would not be the case that everyone would turn up on the first day. I am just trying to get a rough idea of the scale of financial and other resource capacity that might be needed.

Also, what impact would the reporting requirements that are set out in the bill have on healthcare professionals?