I declare an interest as a practising national health service general practitioner.

The adult disability payment case load is growing at an astounding rate, with 750,000 Scots expected to be in receipt of the benefit by 2030. The increase is being driven by a rising number of people claiming for mental disorders, including 60,000 people claiming for anxiety.

Recent surveys have shown that GPs simply do not have the time to appropriately assess fit notes, which undermines the entire system on which those notes rely. Will the cabinet secretary commit to introducing a robust assessment system that does not include GPs, who are under immense strain and pressure?

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any increase in case load for the adult disability payment, particularly in regard to mental and behavioural disorders. (S6O-05710)

It has been a privilege to be here in the Scottish Parliament for the past five years. I came into politics to stand up for patients and our hard-working national health service staff, who do extraordinary work in the face of immense pressure, and I am proud to declare that I am a practising NHS general practitioner.

There have been multiple scandals at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board, from the Queen Elizabeth university hospital to atrocious abuse at Skye House, and we have witnessed consistent, systematic failures that have let down the most vulnerable patients.

Why have managers been protected and not held to account? Is it to shield the SNP after 19 years of mismanagement and failure?

I declare an interest as a practising NHS GP.

It is great to see the cabinet secretary back in the chamber, but he is wrong, because, during this parliamentary session, we have seen three different health secretaries, record waiting lists, record drug deaths, problems with delayed discharge and a failure to modernise our NHS. After almost 19 years in government, this is a mess of the Scottish National Party’s own making.

I came into politics because I wanted to stand up for patients, stand up for ourselves as doctors, nurses and key workers, and strengthen our greatest asset—our NHS. Under the SNP Government, our NHS has been recklessly mismanaged, leading to countless scandals that have caused unimaginable suffering among patients and fear among staff, and patients have sat on two-year waiting lists.

With that evidence in mind, how does the Scottish Government think that Scots would assess its performance on health and social care in this parliamentary session? Members of the public who are stuck on waiting lists would give it a score of zero.

To ask the Scottish Government how it would assess its handling of the NHS. (S6O-05667)

I wish to make a declaration of interests: I am a practising NHS general practitioner, who is registered with the General Medical Council, and a member of the British Medical Association. In addition, I chaired the medical advisory group for the Assisted Dying for the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. Also, I am a practising Hindu.

This debate touches on some of the most profound questions that any of us will ever face—life, suffering, dignity and death. I want to express my sincere respect for those colleagues and members of the public whose religious, ethical or philosophical compasses make it deeply difficult to contemplate supporting the bill. Those views are sincerely held and deserve respect in the chamber. I say that as someone who shares some of those internal tensions—as a practising Hindu, I wrestle with the philosophical, ethical and spiritual aspects of my faith when I consider legislation such as this. These are not abstract ideas to me; they are part of my own moral framework.

However, this Parliament is not a theocracy. Our responsibility is to inquire, to investigate, to debate, and, sometimes, to struggle with difficult questions so that we make decisions that improve people’s lives. That is why I came into politics.

We cannot be out of touch with the country that we all serve. Scotland today is largely secular. We live in a pluralistic society with many different moral perspectives, and 81 per cent of the public support assisted dying.

We, in this chamber, and all those watching share two things: we are born and we will die. All of us—no exceptions. We control all aspects of our lives, but we have no control over how we die. People die alone, scared and in agonising pain. As a patient told me, “I wouldn’t let a dog die like this. Why am I having to suffer like this?” That patient can choose to starve herself or to stop drinking and to die horrifically, but she could not choose to die with dignity or painlessly. Let us here, today, give people a real choice over how they die.

Having chaired the bill’s medical advisory group, I believe that we have before us a serious and sound piece of legislation. We must also be honest about the reality that already exists. Today, the option of a peaceful assisted death is effectively available only to those with the financial means to travel abroad. Those without such means often face prolonged suffering without the same choices, and that inequality should trouble us.

This bill is also not and must never be seen as an alternative to high-quality palliative care. As a GP, I have seen the extraordinary compassion and skill of palliative care teams. They do remarkable work, and I will continue to advocate strongly for greater resources in this area. Palliative care must remain a cornerstone of how we care for people at the end of life, but choice matters.

For some patients, despite excellent palliative care, suffering cannot always be relieved. For those individuals, the dignity of choice at the end of life is something that many Scots believe should be available.

The bill represents years of work, consultation and scrutiny. It offers compassion, safeguards and dignity for those who face the end of life.

If the bill falls today, it will not simply be a procedural moment; it will be a lost opportunity to help those suffering and dying who have no voice. For those reasons, and with respect for colleagues who will reach a different conclusion, I believe that this is a good bill, a sound bill and a bill that deserves the support of this Parliament.

19:15

I wish to make a declaration of interests: I am a practising NHS general practitioner, who is registered with the General Medical Council, and a member of the British Medical Association. In addition, I chaired the medical advisory group for the Assisted Dying for the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. Also, I am a practising Hindu.

This debate touches on some of the most profound questions that any of us will ever face—life, suffering, dignity and death. I want to express my sincere respect for those colleagues and members of the public whose religious, ethical or philosophical compasses make it deeply difficult to contemplate supporting the bill. Those views are sincerely held and deserve respect in the chamber. I say that as someone who shares some of those internal tensions—as a practising Hindu, I wrestle with the philosophical, ethical and spiritual aspects of my faith when I consider legislation such as this. These are not abstract ideas to me; they are part of my own moral framework.

However, this Parliament is not a theocracy. Our responsibility is to inquire, to investigate, to debate, and, sometimes, to struggle with difficult questions so that we make decisions that improve people’s lives. That is why I came into politics.

We cannot be out of touch with the country that we all serve. Scotland today is largely secular. We live in a pluralistic society with many different moral perspectives, and 81 per cent of the public support assisted dying.

We, in this chamber, and all those watching share two things: we are born and we will die. All of us—no exceptions. We control all aspects of our lives, but we have no control over how we die. People die alone, scared and in agonising pain. As a patient told me, “I wouldn’t let a dog die like this. Why am I having to suffer like this?” That patient can choose to starve herself or to stop drinking and to die horrifically, but she could not choose to die with dignity or painlessly. Let us here, today, give people a real choice over how they die.

Having chaired the bill’s medical advisory group, I believe that we have before us a serious and sound piece of legislation. We must also be honest about the reality that already exists. Today, the option of a peaceful assisted death is effectively available only to those with the financial means to travel abroad. Those without such means often face prolonged suffering without the same choices, and that inequality should trouble us.

This bill is also not and must never be seen as an alternative to high-quality palliative care. As a GP, I have seen the extraordinary compassion and skill of palliative care teams. They do remarkable work, and I will continue to advocate strongly for greater resources in this area. Palliative care must remain a cornerstone of how we care for people at the end of life, but choice matters.

For some patients, despite excellent palliative care, suffering cannot always be relieved. For those individuals, the dignity of choice at the end of life is something that many Scots believe should be available.

The bill represents years of work, consultation and scrutiny. It offers compassion, safeguards and dignity for those who face the end of life.

If the bill falls today, it will not simply be a procedural moment; it will be a lost opportunity to help those suffering and dying who have no voice. For those reasons, and with respect for colleagues who will reach a different conclusion, I believe that this is a good bill, a sound bill and a bill that deserves the support of this Parliament.

19:15

I apologise to the chamber and to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for not mentioning my amendments 31 and 32 in my earlier remarks. Amendment 31 would require ministers to consult people when they make regulations, and amendment 32 would clarify that ministers must consult people before they can make regulations. I feel, as Carol Mochan does, that they are sensible amendments, and I hope that members across the chamber will be able to agree with us.

Can the minister reassure Parliament that HIS has the required resources to carry out what we are requesting of it?

I press amendment 25. We are very supportive of the amendments in the group.