Chamber and committees

Yesterday, we learned that the principal of UHI Perth had stepped down with immediate effect. That follows on from concerns about management decisions taken at the college, the collapse of the long-established subsidiary company Air Service Training (Engineering) Ltd and funding challenges caused by Scottish National Party budget choices, leaving the college with a £2 million deficit. What action will the Scottish Government now take to provide assurance to staff and students that their futures are secure?

Should Police Scotland be operating an unlawful policy? That is surely a matter that should be of concern to the Scottish Government.

For more than a year, I have been in correspondence with Police Scotland on non-crime hate incidents. After my initial complaints were rejected, the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner ruled that the police had responded inadequately to my three grounds of complaint, and Police Scotland has been given until next Tuesday to give me a satisfactory response. If it continues to be unable to defend the lawfulness of its policy, at what point will the Scottish Government intervene?

Music venues, particularly larger ones, are under unprecedented financial pressure at present. I know that the Music Venue Trust is writing to the cabinet secretary on the rates issue, although he might not have received that letter yet. If the Scottish Government is not prepared to reconsider its stance on business rates, what additional support can it give to the sector, which is being squeezed in a difficult way?

To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with Police Scotland in relation to its policy on the recording of non-crime hate incidents. (S6O-04650)

I, too, have received a huge volume of correspondence on the issue—indeed, correspondence is still coming in during the debate. I have also met constituents with strong views on both sides of the argument and with powerful and moving personal stories to tell.

Two things have struck me in particular about those who have come to me in support of the legislation, based on their experiences with close family members and friends. First, in many such cases, the circumstances that they outline, in which they watched a loved one die, relate to individuals who would not be eligible for assisted dying under the bill that is before us, because they would fall outwith the definition of terminal illness that is specified in it.

In some cases, those who have spoken to me recognise that and are quite explicit that they see the bill’s passing as only the first step, and as the opening of the door to more widely available assisted dying than we are currently legislating for. That is the evidence that we need that the “slippery slope”, which was just referred to by Marie McNair and is so clearly identified in the excellent Health, Social Care and Sport Committee report, is real.

If we pass the bill and give one strictly defined set of individuals a right in law to assisted dying, there is, in principle, no argument against then extending that to include others. It simply becomes a question of categories. That is precisely what we have seen in many other jurisdictions, most notably Canada. Once legislation for assisted dying exists, there will always be hard cases that make the argument for it to be expanded.

We simply do not know what will happen if we legislate—that is the risk that is before us.

My other point is that we should not forget that Dignity in Dying, the campaign group that is behind the bill, was called the Voluntary Euthanasia Society until 2006. Let us not be in any doubt about the agenda of some of the people who are pushing for reform. If anybody thinks that the day after the bill is passed—however tightly defined it might be—that campaign group will pack up its bags and stop campaigning for more law relaxations, I am afraid that they are likely to be very mistaken.

The second thing that has struck me about those who have come to me in support of the bill is that, in most cases, they are articulate, well-informed, strong-minded individuals who are used to having agency in all aspects of their lives. Understandably, they want to have agency when it comes to the end of their lives. From my own personal, political and philosophical outlook, I find that a very persuasive argument. However, the difficulty for us as parliamentarians here is that we cannot pass laws that apply only to those who have agency and are articulate and well-informed. Any laws that we pass have to apply to everyone, which includes the weak, the vulnerable and those who might be susceptible to coercion, whether it is passive or active.

In essence, we are being asked to agree to give one group of individuals a new set of rights that can only be granted to them if we create risk for a second set, which includes some of the weakest and most vulnerable people in our society. That is too high a price for us to pay, even though I have huge sympathy for those who want to have greater control over their lives at the end.

Our solemn duty as parliamentarians is not to listen to the loudest, most articulate and most empowered voices or the best-funded and slickest campaigns. Our duty is to be a voice for the voiceless: the weak, vulnerable, excluded and those who have no one else to speak up for them. They are the ones who rely on us to be their sword and shield, and we should not fail them.

There is an alternative, as we have heard this afternoon. I have watched close family members die in the care of excellent palliative care medical staff, and I cannot praise enough the quality of care in hospices across Scotland. Those family members have had good deaths, which is not everyone’s experience, but it could be and should be. The only thing that prevents that from happening is us here.

As parliamentarians, we can choose to prioritise and properly fund hospices and palliative care to ensure that everyone can have a good death. That is a far better option than the one that is before us today, and it ensures that we are not sacrificing the rights of the weak and the vulnerable.

I do not believe that the bill can be improved in such a way as to eliminate that threat. Passing it is simply too great a risk. Today, I urge everyone here to oppose the bill and instead press for better palliative care as the answer.

Will Michelle Thomson give way?

I start by reminding members of my entry in the register of members’ interests in relation to the income that I derive from property rental and my connection with the Scotch Whisky Association.

The programme for government that was announced yesterday was a real opportunity for the Scottish Government to put growth back at the heart of the political agenda. For years, in coalition with the anti-growth Green Party, it did not even want to mention the subject. Fortunately, it is now at least prepared to talk about growth, although there is a huge mismatch between the rhetoric and the actual delivery. We should all agree that growth is important. Growth is what delivers the ability to solve the nation’s problems. It creates wealth, it reduces poverty, it supports household incomes and it provides the tax revenues to fund the public services that we all rely on.

We have to create the growth first; we have to create the wealth first. That needs to be the first priority. If we do not have the wealth, we cannot share it around.

However, the reality is that growth has been too slow both across the UK and in Scotland. In the latest month for which we have figures, which is February 2025, Scotland’s onshore gross domestic product is estimated to have fallen by 0.2 per cent. Overall, the UK economy grew in the same month by just 0.5 per cent. The output of 11 of 14 sectors of the Scottish economy fell, with the services sector shrinking overall by 0.6 per cent. Too many people of working age are not working, and we have a higher percentage of people who are economically inactive compared with the UK as a whole.

That poor economic output is reflected in collapsing levels of business confidence. Just last month, Scottish Chambers of Commerce published its quarterly economic indicator in conjunction with the Fraser of Allander Institute. It shows business confidence evaporating across key sectors, with sharp drops recorded for tourism, manufacturing and construction compared with the same period last year. Taxation is now the number 1 concern for Scottish businesses, overtaking inflation, and rising labour and energy costs continue to be major factors. Overall, it is a very worrying picture.

Kicking in just at the beginning of last month was the UK Labour Government’s increase in employer national insurance contributions, which is literally a tax on jobs.

I thank the minister for his response—perhaps he can tell us when that financial support plan will actually be published, because we are still waiting for it.

I also want to raise an issue that was raised with me last night at the NFU Scotland parliamentary reception, which I know that the minister attended. Farmers are concerned about the issue of public procurement and the need to have healthy, home-grown, locally produced food on the menu in schools and hospitals. What more is the Scottish Government going to do to make that happen?