The Scottish Conservatives support the bill, which makes much-needed corrections to the original flawed legislation. I will say more about that context in the closing debate next week. In the meantime, I will speak briefly to my two amendments in the group.

Amendments 5 and 6 have the purpose of exempting camping and caravan sites from the legislation, thereby ensuring that those who stay in such sites will not be subject to a visitor levy. The Conservatives attempted to make a similar change to the original legislation when it went through the Parliament, but the amendments were rejected at that time. However, it remains my view that the matter should be reconsidered, particularly given the changes to the legislation that are being introduced through the bill.

Camping and caravaning, including staying in static caravans, represent low-cost, affordable holiday options for many families who could not otherwise afford a break. I remember that—and I am sure that others in the chamber will remember the same—when I was growing up, that was the sort of holiday that we had as a family. I still have the memories of a weekend in Oban in a static caravan when it rained every day, as it sometimes does.

As we face a cost of living crisis, with rising bills everywhere, we should not be making the cost of a short break in Scotland even more expensive and therefore putting it out of reach for low-income families who might not be able to afford any other sort of holiday. I appreciate that, if councils bring in a visitor levy on a percentage basis, those who stay in campsites or in a caravan park will pay less than those who stay in a more expensive place, such as in a hotel or in larger self-catering premises. However, if councils take advantage of the flexibility that the bill offers and implement a fixed-fee option, the prices might be set in the same way, which would have a disproportionate impact on the cheaper end of the market. That is why we need to revisit the issue and take the opportunity to exempt campsites and caravan parks.

The Holiday and Residential Parks Association has calculated that, if a charge of £2 per person per night was applied, it would add £168 to the cost of a fortnight’s break in a static caravan for a family of six. That is a very significant additional cost. I do not want to see anybody, least of all those from low-income families, being unable to afford a holiday because of the imposition of a visitor levy. That is why amendments 5 and 6 are required.

I move amendment 5.

I associate myself entirely with everything that Kenny Gibson is saying. He might be coming on to talk about the support that people in Scotland are showing for Ukraine. Will he join me in saluting the many voluntary groups throughout the country, including Tayside and Strathearn Help for Ukraine, based in Errol in Perthshire, which collects donated goods from all over Scotland, including food, clothing and medical supplies, and takes them on a weekly trucking journey to Ukraine to help those in need? Will he join me in calling on the Scottish Government to do what it can to support those efforts in Scotland?

I am afraid that Mr Mason is being unduly optimistic in talking about “a few pounds here or there”. We could be talking about substantial sums. Edinburgh’s visitor levy is 5 per cent plus VAT, which is 6 per cent, and other councils have even higher charges. The total could be hundreds of pounds for a family holiday when people are staying for a couple of weeks. Mr Mason is being far too blasé in his approach to the issues, perhaps in customary fashion.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 27 addresses the same issue but takes a slightly different approach. I am sure that he will explain that in more detail when he speaks.

In the meantime, I am pleased to move amendment 12.

I suspect that this might be our last ever exchange in the chamber, so I wish the Deputy First Minister all the best for the future. I have enjoyed our constructive engagement over a number of years.

On that note, I wonder whether she would agree with me on what I am about to say. We see an issue with start-ups that are looking to grow and that struggle to get venture capital to move to the next stage. There is a lack of availability of venture capital in Scotland, and that is because there is a lack of venture capitalists in Scotland. We need to attract more venture capitalists to come to Scotland and invest.

Therefore, contrary to what is said by the Green Party—which I notice is boycotting this session on the economy, perhaps not surprisingly—we do not need to drive billionaires out of Scotland; we need to attract more billionaires into Scotland, with their investment, to support our economic growth. Does the Deputy First Minister agree?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to expand the availability of venture capital funding to aid business growth. (S6O-05650)

My amendments 294 and 295 seek to build on other amendments in this group from Audrey Nicoll and others and to strengthen the annual reporting duty, which requires a review of the impact on palliative and end-of-life care services, by extending it to suicide prevention measures.

I know that this is an emotive area for colleagues; indeed, we have already discussed it in this morning’s debate. I know that there are colleagues who do not like the use of the terms “suicide” or “assisted suicide” and such language being used in reference to the bill. However, I just want to quote three things to them.

First, Inclusion Scotland, which represents disabled people, has been clear in its view that the correct language in relation to the bill is assisted suicide, because that is the way in which its members, who represent the disabled community in Scotland, see it.

Secondly, our late colleague Jim Wallace, the former Deputy First Minister, said in an interview in 2022 that the term “assisted dying” was misleading and that

“what is actually being proposed is assisted suicide.”

Of course, Lord Wallace was Liam McArthur’s predecessor as the Liberal Democrat MSP for Orkney.

Perhaps most powerfully in this context, I want to quote the International Association for Suicide Prevention. The international experts in this field have said that there is

“overlap and equivalence between … suicide … and assisted suicide.”

In fact, I will quote directly from the statement that it made on 1 December 2025. It said:

“We must ensure that all persons considering ending their lives or having their lives ended by others, have access to high quality suicide prevention assessments and interventions, regardless of their problems, circumstances and status of their eligibility for”

assisted suicide. Those are not my words, but those of the International Association for Suicide Prevention.

I do not think that Christine Grahame is disagreeing with me in that intervention. All I am saying is that, as I argued earlier, suicide prevention services should be made available to those people, and we should do far more in society to promote suicide prevention.

I will close with a comment on the wider debate about palliative care, which we have just heard about from Stephen Kerr and others. One thing that is clear in this whole debate is that there is unanimity in the chamber that we need greater support for palliative care. We simply do not have enough palliative care doctors and support services across the country. Regardless of where members stand in the debate, and regardless of whether the bill is eventually passed, I think that we would all agree that that needs to be addressed.

We have had a discussion on whether palliative care would be aided and abetted by assisted dying. A study by the Anscombe Bioethics Centre found that, between 2012 and 2019, palliative care funding increased in European countries that had assisted dying at a rate of 7.9 per cent. However, in European countries that did not have assisted dying, in the same period, the funding increased by 25 per cent. Countries with assisted dying saw increases in funding—that point has been made in the debate—but they had a much lower increase in funding that that in countries that did not have assisted dying. We should reflect on that.

Whatever we think about the bill, let us agree that, in the next session of Parliament, we will do better on palliative care.

I am just about to close, so I will not take the intervention, if Mr Harvie will forgive me.

I want suicide prevention to be absolutely central to what we are doing here, so I would like to see it addressed in the bill.

I will speak briefly to the other amendments in the group. My colleague Stephen Kerr’s amendment 248 covers similar territory, but goes further than my amendment, in that it seeks to create offences. I am happy to support it if my amendment does not succeed. Liam McArthur’s amendments 52 and 71 would create new offences and penalties and would provide for those to be made in regulations. I would be happy to support them if my amendment does not succeed.

I move amendment 247.

I say very gently to Mr Adam that that intervention is not worthy of him. We are dealing with a legal reality and a groundbreaking change in the law that will have a huge impact. All that I am seeking to do is to ensure that we put suicide prevention at the heart of the bill.

For that reason, I press amendment 247.

The member has put her view on the record. All that I have done is quote from the international experts on suicide prevention. Members can make up their own minds as to whether or not it is appropriate to quote those people in the context of this debate.