Chamber and committees

That is true, but it is extremely valuable in quantifying and qualifying what we are talking about. I should have mentioned that the piece of work to which I referred was co-produced by Jesse Mitchell, who is principal teacher in health and wellbeing at St Luke’s high school in Barrhead.

We talk about alternatives to school, but those alternatives do not sit in isolation from school. You guys will work in tandem and in partnership with schools, which is encouraging.

Mark, do you have any reflections on that?

That was useful. Again, it will be for our successor committee to reflect on that issue and take it forward.

Convener, I am happy to share the academic paper that I referenced with the clerks so that it can be shared with other committee members. Given that it was co-produced by a principal teacher of St Luke’s high school, I should declare that I am a former pupil of the school.

That is a challenge. After all, you will want to spend every penny on delivery, because you know that it works, but you have to be able to evidence that, too. It is a bit of chicken-and-egg thing.

We have heard examples this morning from the east and the north-east of the country; Willie Rennie has talked about Fife; and I have talked about the west coast. This is happening in every corner of the country, and it is crucial that we pull all that evidence together so that we can take more of a national approach. That is my view.

Coming back to the academic partnership that you mentioned, Mark, I am interested in hearing about your work with RGU, with which you are closely aligned and associated. How much has the university been an anchor and support for you not only in resource terms but in helping you establish that evidence base?

Debbi, you mentioned the University of Edinburgh. Are you in the early days of that partnership? Has it been established for quite a while?

This is undoubtedly the most consequential decision that we will make in this session of Parliament, just five days before its conclusion. Indeed, it is one of the most consequential decisions that this Parliament has ever made in its relatively short existence. Many MSPs in the chamber will have made their final speech in the debate knowingly; we have heard about some of that already. Some in the chamber will make their final speech unknowingly. Some, of course, will return to the chamber to make speeches in coming years.

Nobody’s place in this Parliament and nothing that we do here is certain. As colleagues have already referred to, the only thing that is certain in life is death. Over these past days, weeks, months and years, we have debated what it is to die, what it is to have a good death, and how we support people in our society throughout their life and in its completion.

I want to begin, as I did at stage 1, by acknowledging the variance of views and experiences that have been shared with me by constituents and many others across the country—shared with genuine concern, passion and honesty. I will vote against the bill this evening, but I want people to know that I will do so with a genuine respect for those with whom I have found that I cannot agree, including Liam McArthur, the member in charge of the bill.

At stage 1, I set out my key concerns on coercion, and the deep concerns that disabled people have communicated to me in relation to the bill, not only during my time in Parliament but throughout my career working with people who have a learning disability and their families.

At stage 2, I followed growing concerns about the right of conscientious objection for healthcare professionals and organisations. As colleagues will know, in my amendments at stage 3 last week I sought to enhance protection from coercion, mandate training on it and provide an opt-out for organisations, particularly those with a faith ethos. I will dwell briefly on the failure of the latter amendment.

I cannot fathom why we would pass a bill that would not provide a sufficient safeguard and a right of conscience for organisations in this country that have provided care for hundreds of years. Those organisations and institutions are at the heart of our communities. Whether members have faith or not, they should recognise that those organisations and their staff have walked with, laughed and cried with, and held the hands and the hearts of people in our community in the darkest of moments. They cannot be allowed simply to be put into the annals of history. They have a place, they belong in our communities and they must be protected. My amendment that sought to protect them failed by only four votes, which was markedly different from the margin by which the general principles of the bill were agreed to at stage 1.

Of course, my opposition to the bill goes beyond just the amendments that were passed or not passed last week. I fundamentally believe that we do not debate the issue on a level playing field. We have heard a vast amount of testimony from disabled people about their fears of what would happen if the bill was passed. That is not imagined and it does not come from nowhere. It comes from the daily lived experience of disabled people and their families. In a country as rich, as democratic and as socially aware as ours, too many disabled people feel that they are not heard, not seen and not valued. They are our colleagues, our constituents, our neighbours and our friends. This is no longer a debate for the kitchen table, the pub or the radio. A monumental decision is before us, and we must hear their voices.

I come back to the comments that I opened with about certainty. Our time in this place will come and go, and the debates that we have, the victories that we mark and the disappointments that we experience will fade. However, the decision that we make tonight will be lasting and its impact will be wide. We must look disabled people in the eye and assure them that we can give them safety, dignity and protection—the things that they need to live their lives. I do not believe that we can do that. If there are colleagues tonight who, even now, at this hour, are unsure about that or any other aspect of the bill, they must join me and many others across the chamber at decision time and they must vote no.

19:47

This is undoubtedly the most consequential decision that we will make in this session of Parliament, just five days before its conclusion. Indeed, it is one of the most consequential decisions that this Parliament has ever made in its relatively short existence. Many MSPs in the chamber will have made their final speech in the debate knowingly; we have heard about some of that already. Some in the chamber will make their final speech unknowingly. Some, of course, will return to the chamber to make speeches in coming years.

Nobody’s place in this Parliament and nothing that we do here is certain. As colleagues have already referred to, the only thing that is certain in life is death. Over these past days, weeks, months and years, we have debated what it is to die, what it is to have a good death, and how we support people in our society throughout their life and in its completion.

I want to begin, as I did at stage 1, by acknowledging the variance of views and experiences that have been shared with me by constituents and many others across the country—shared with genuine concern, passion and honesty. I will vote against the bill this evening, but I want people to know that I will do so with a genuine respect for those with whom I have found that I cannot agree, including Liam McArthur, the member in charge of the bill.

At stage 1, I set out my key concerns on coercion, and the deep concerns that disabled people have communicated to me in relation to the bill, not only during my time in Parliament but throughout my career working with people who have a learning disability and their families.

At stage 2, I followed growing concerns about the right of conscientious objection for healthcare professionals and organisations. As colleagues will know, in my amendments at stage 3 last week I sought to enhance protection from coercion, mandate training on it and provide an opt-out for organisations, particularly those with a faith ethos. I will dwell briefly on the failure of the latter amendment.

I cannot fathom why we would pass a bill that would not provide a sufficient safeguard and a right of conscience for organisations in this country that have provided care for hundreds of years. Those organisations and institutions are at the heart of our communities. Whether members have faith or not, they should recognise that those organisations and their staff have walked with, laughed and cried with, and held the hands and the hearts of people in our community in the darkest of moments. They cannot be allowed simply to be put into the annals of history. They have a place, they belong in our communities and they must be protected. My amendment that sought to protect them failed by only four votes, which was markedly different from the margin by which the general principles of the bill were agreed to at stage 1.

Of course, my opposition to the bill goes beyond just the amendments that were passed or not passed last week. I fundamentally believe that we do not debate the issue on a level playing field. We have heard a vast amount of testimony from disabled people about their fears of what would happen if the bill was passed. That is not imagined and it does not come from nowhere. It comes from the daily lived experience of disabled people and their families. In a country as rich, as democratic and as socially aware as ours, too many disabled people feel that they are not heard, not seen and not valued. They are our colleagues, our constituents, our neighbours and our friends. This is no longer a debate for the kitchen table, the pub or the radio. A monumental decision is before us, and we must hear their voices.

I come back to the comments that I opened with about certainty. Our time in this place will come and go, and the debates that we have, the victories that we mark and the disappointments that we experience will fade. However, the decision that we make tonight will be lasting and its impact will be wide. We must look disabled people in the eye and assure them that we can give them safety, dignity and protection—the things that they need to live their lives. I do not believe that we can do that. If there are colleagues tonight who, even now, at this hour, are unsure about that or any other aspect of the bill, they must join me and many others across the chamber at decision time and they must vote no.

19:47

This is undoubtedly the most consequential decision that we will make in this session of Parliament, just five days before its conclusion. Indeed, it is one of the most consequential decisions that this Parliament has ever made in its relatively short existence. Many MSPs in the chamber will have made their final speech in the debate knowingly; we have heard about some of that already. Some in the chamber will make their final speech unknowingly. Some, of course, will return to the chamber to make speeches in coming years.

Nobody’s place in this Parliament and nothing that we do here is certain. As colleagues have already referred to, the only thing that is certain in life is death. Over these past days, weeks, months and years, we have debated what it is to die, what it is to have a good death, and how we support people in our society throughout their life and in its completion.

I want to begin, as I did at stage 1, by acknowledging the variance of views and experiences that have been shared with me by constituents and many others across the country—shared with genuine concern, passion and honesty. I will vote against the bill this evening, but I want people to know that I will do so with a genuine respect for those with whom I have found that I cannot agree, including Liam McArthur, the member in charge of the bill.

At stage 1, I set out my key concerns on coercion, and the deep concerns that disabled people have communicated to me in relation to the bill, not only during my time in Parliament but throughout my career working with people who have a learning disability and their families.

At stage 2, I followed growing concerns about the right of conscientious objection for healthcare professionals and organisations. As colleagues will know, in my amendments at stage 3 last week I sought to enhance protection from coercion, mandate training on it and provide an opt-out for organisations, particularly those with a faith ethos. I will dwell briefly on the failure of the latter amendment.

I cannot fathom why we would pass a bill that would not provide a sufficient safeguard and a right of conscience for organisations in this country that have provided care for hundreds of years. Those organisations and institutions are at the heart of our communities. Whether members have faith or not, they should recognise that those organisations and their staff have walked with, laughed and cried with, and held the hands and the hearts of people in our community in the darkest of moments. They cannot be allowed simply to be put into the annals of history. They have a place, they belong in our communities and they must be protected. My amendment that sought to protect them failed by only four votes, which was markedly different from the margin by which the general principles of the bill were agreed to at stage 1.

Of course, my opposition to the bill goes beyond just the amendments that were passed or not passed last week. I fundamentally believe that we do not debate the issue on a level playing field. We have heard a vast amount of testimony from disabled people about their fears of what would happen if the bill was passed. That is not imagined and it does not come from nowhere. It comes from the daily lived experience of disabled people and their families. In a country as rich, as democratic and as socially aware as ours, too many disabled people feel that they are not heard, not seen and not valued. They are our colleagues, our constituents, our neighbours and our friends. This is no longer a debate for the kitchen table, the pub or the radio. A monumental decision is before us, and we must hear their voices.

I come back to the comments that I opened with about certainty. Our time in this place will come and go, and the debates that we have, the victories that we mark and the disappointments that we experience will fade. However, the decision that we make tonight will be lasting and its impact will be wide. We must look disabled people in the eye and assure them that we can give them safety, dignity and protection—the things that they need to live their lives. I do not believe that we can do that. If there are colleagues tonight who, even now, at this hour, are unsure about that or any other aspect of the bill, they must join me and many others across the chamber at decision time and they must vote no.

19:47

This is undoubtedly the most consequential decision that we will make in this session of Parliament, just five days before its conclusion. Indeed, it is one of the most consequential decisions that this Parliament has ever made in its relatively short existence. Many MSPs in the chamber will have made their final speech in the debate knowingly; we have heard about some of that already. Some in the chamber will make their final speech unknowingly. Some, of course, will return to the chamber to make speeches in coming years.

Nobody’s place in this Parliament and nothing that we do here is certain. As colleagues have already referred to, the only thing that is certain in life is death. Over these past days, weeks, months and years, we have debated what it is to die, what it is to have a good death, and how we support people in our society throughout their life and in its completion.

I want to begin, as I did at stage 1, by acknowledging the variance of views and experiences that have been shared with me by constituents and many others across the country—shared with genuine concern, passion and honesty. I will vote against the bill this evening, but I want people to know that I will do so with a genuine respect for those with whom I have found that I cannot agree, including Liam McArthur, the member in charge of the bill.

At stage 1, I set out my key concerns on coercion, and the deep concerns that disabled people have communicated to me in relation to the bill, not only during my time in Parliament but throughout my career working with people who have a learning disability and their families.

At stage 2, I followed growing concerns about the right of conscientious objection for healthcare professionals and organisations. As colleagues will know, in my amendments at stage 3 last week I sought to enhance protection from coercion, mandate training on it and provide an opt-out for organisations, particularly those with a faith ethos. I will dwell briefly on the failure of the latter amendment.

I cannot fathom why we would pass a bill that would not provide a sufficient safeguard and a right of conscience for organisations in this country that have provided care for hundreds of years. Those organisations and institutions are at the heart of our communities. Whether members have faith or not, they should recognise that those organisations and their staff have walked with, laughed and cried with, and held the hands and the hearts of people in our community in the darkest of moments. They cannot be allowed simply to be put into the annals of history. They have a place, they belong in our communities and they must be protected. My amendment that sought to protect them failed by only four votes, which was markedly different from the margin by which the general principles of the bill were agreed to at stage 1.

Of course, my opposition to the bill goes beyond just the amendments that were passed or not passed last week. I fundamentally believe that we do not debate the issue on a level playing field. We have heard a vast amount of testimony from disabled people about their fears of what would happen if the bill was passed. That is not imagined and it does not come from nowhere. It comes from the daily lived experience of disabled people and their families. In a country as rich, as democratic and as socially aware as ours, too many disabled people feel that they are not heard, not seen and not valued. They are our colleagues, our constituents, our neighbours and our friends. This is no longer a debate for the kitchen table, the pub or the radio. A monumental decision is before us, and we must hear their voices.

I come back to the comments that I opened with about certainty. Our time in this place will come and go, and the debates that we have, the victories that we mark and the disappointments that we experience will fade. However, the decision that we make tonight will be lasting and its impact will be wide. We must look disabled people in the eye and assure them that we can give them safety, dignity and protection—the things that they need to live their lives. I do not believe that we can do that. If there are colleagues tonight who, even now, at this hour, are unsure about that or any other aspect of the bill, they must join me and many others across the chamber at decision time and they must vote no.

19:47

This is undoubtedly the most consequential decision that we will make in this session of Parliament, just five days before its conclusion. Indeed, it is one of the most consequential decisions that this Parliament has ever made in its relatively short existence. Many MSPs in the chamber will have made their final speech in the debate knowingly; we have heard about some of that already. Some in the chamber will make their final speech unknowingly. Some, of course, will return to the chamber to make speeches in coming years.

Nobody’s place in this Parliament and nothing that we do here is certain. As colleagues have already referred to, the only thing that is certain in life is death. Over these past days, weeks, months and years, we have debated what it is to die, what it is to have a good death, and how we support people in our society throughout their life and in its completion.

I want to begin, as I did at stage 1, by acknowledging the variance of views and experiences that have been shared with me by constituents and many others across the country—shared with genuine concern, passion and honesty. I will vote against the bill this evening, but I want people to know that I will do so with a genuine respect for those with whom I have found that I cannot agree, including Liam McArthur, the member in charge of the bill.

At stage 1, I set out my key concerns on coercion, and the deep concerns that disabled people have communicated to me in relation to the bill, not only during my time in Parliament but throughout my career working with people who have a learning disability and their families.

At stage 2, I followed growing concerns about the right of conscientious objection for healthcare professionals and organisations. As colleagues will know, in my amendments at stage 3 last week I sought to enhance protection from coercion, mandate training on it and provide an opt-out for organisations, particularly those with a faith ethos. I will dwell briefly on the failure of the latter amendment.

I cannot fathom why we would pass a bill that would not provide a sufficient safeguard and a right of conscience for organisations in this country that have provided care for hundreds of years. Those organisations and institutions are at the heart of our communities. Whether members have faith or not, they should recognise that those organisations and their staff have walked with, laughed and cried with, and held the hands and the hearts of people in our community in the darkest of moments. They cannot be allowed simply to be put into the annals of history. They have a place, they belong in our communities and they must be protected. My amendment that sought to protect them failed by only four votes, which was markedly different from the margin by which the general principles of the bill were agreed to at stage 1.

Of course, my opposition to the bill goes beyond just the amendments that were passed or not passed last week. I fundamentally believe that we do not debate the issue on a level playing field. We have heard a vast amount of testimony from disabled people about their fears of what would happen if the bill was passed. That is not imagined and it does not come from nowhere. It comes from the daily lived experience of disabled people and their families. In a country as rich, as democratic and as socially aware as ours, too many disabled people feel that they are not heard, not seen and not valued. They are our colleagues, our constituents, our neighbours and our friends. This is no longer a debate for the kitchen table, the pub or the radio. A monumental decision is before us, and we must hear their voices.

I come back to the comments that I opened with about certainty. Our time in this place will come and go, and the debates that we have, the victories that we mark and the disappointments that we experience will fade. However, the decision that we make tonight will be lasting and its impact will be wide. We must look disabled people in the eye and assure them that we can give them safety, dignity and protection—the things that they need to live their lives. I do not believe that we can do that. If there are colleagues tonight who, even now, at this hour, are unsure about that or any other aspect of the bill, they must join me and many others across the chamber at decision time and they must vote no.

19:47

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes.