I visited Babcock on Friday. The company is absolutely flying, which is great, and it is struggling to fill vacancies. Going back to my colleague Stephen Kerr’s questioning, do you think that our education and training set-up is fleet of foot enough to keep up with these changes in the economy?

That is very interesting. We could go down that rabbit hole, but that would be a different conversation.

Good morning. I want to follow up the earlier line of questioning around data centres. Peter, you were talking about grid issues. I met SSE Transmission on Monday and we were talking about that. Its view is that, right now, Scotland is not a greatly attractive place to put data centres due to what it called the latency of the grid, by which it means the reliability. We can get there, as you fairly said, but that will require huge upgrades in transmission and much more battery and pump storage. That is years away and will come at massive cost. I do not know whether you have any thoughts on what the likely timescale is for getting a data centre built here. From what the SSE people were saying, we are talking five or 10 years at least.

For now.

I suggest that the purpose of the 1967 act was to protect the lives of mothers, who, in many cases, were potentially at risk from continuing with a pregnancy. I understand the point that Dr Gulhane is making, but I am not sure that it is salient to the argument that I am making.

My amendment 148 seeks to establish a statutory independent body that would be responsible for administering the functions of the act. That body would be separate from the NHS and would oversee all aspects of the process: receiving and recording declarations, co-ordinating assessments, authorising practitioners, arranging for the provision of the approved substance, maintaining compliance, and reporting outcomes. In creating an independent agency, we would make a clear moral distinction between a service that was dedicated to preserving life and a mechanism that was authorised by the state to end it.

I thank colleagues who commented on my amendments. I am grateful to Bob Doris for his comments; he made a reasonable point about the additional detail that might be required. Should amendment 148 be successful at stage 2, there would be an opportunity to address some of those concerns with amendments at stage 3.

There is an important point of principle in relation to the correct placing of an assisted dying service and whether it should be within the NHS. I am aware that there are many practitioners in the NHS who are deeply uncomfortable with the concept that the NHS, which they joined to save and preserve life, would have, as part of it, a service that is committed to helping people to end their lives. There would be many in the NHS who would be much more comfortable if there were to be a separate, stand-alone service providing assisted dying, rather than it being part of the NHS.

I remind members, as I am sure that they are aware, that the Dignitas service that operates in Switzerland—which people in this country sometimes avail themselves of—operates not in the public health sphere but as a private service. Therefore, there is precedent for services to be provided in different ways elsewhere. The amendment provides an important point of principle. For that reason, I press amendment 148.

That would have to be agreed as the procedures for assisted dying are progressed. Generally speaking, notaries public are private individuals who operate in firms of solicitors and they would normally make a charge for witnessing documents. In my experience, that would not be a large charge. It would tend to be a modest charge, but the cost would have to be borne in mind.

The amendment would put in an important safeguard to ensure that there are additional protections in the event that someone is using a proxy as opposed to signing on their own behalf.

I move amendment 149.

I have two amendments in this group—amendment 148 and amendment 208, which is consequential to amendment 148.

Amendment 148 seeks to establish a new statutory designated agency, which would be responsible for administering and overseeing the entire assisted dying process under the legislation. The agency’s duties would include managing declarations, co-ordinating medical assessments, authorising practitioners, arranging assistance, maintaining records and reporting. The designated agency would operate independently of the NHS, with its powers, governance and procedures further defined by Scottish ministers through regulations. Functions performed by medical practitioners in the process would generally be under the agency’s authority or delegation.

Amendment 148 would address one of the deepest contradictions in the bill—the expectation that assisted suicide will be carried out within the framework of our national health service. The NHS was founded, in the aftermath of the second world war, with a singular moral purpose, which was to preserve and protect life—without distinction. It was a national affirmation that every life, regardless of age, ability or circumstance, was worth saving. To ask that same institution now to facilitate the deliberate ending of life would be to abandon that founding principle. Doing so would blur the moral and professional boundaries on which public trust in the NHS depends. Patients turn to doctors and nurses in the belief that their sole purpose is to heal, comfort and preserve life. If the state asked them also to provide the means to end life, that trust would be fundamentally—and perhaps irreparably—weakened.

Yes—that is correct. That is the purpose of amendment 148.

Amendment 148 would create a new stand-alone body, regulated by Scottish ministers, that would have the responsibility for conducting assisted death.

I believe that, in creating an independent agency, we would create a clear moral distinction between the NHS and a new body that was established with a different purpose, which would be to end life. I do not believe that the NHS should be asked to bear the burden of bringing in assisted dying.

I urge members to support amendment 148 in order to protect the integrity of our health service and the trust on which it rests.

I move amendment 148.