I pay tribute to and thank my friend Kevin Stewart for his many years of public service and wish him all the best for the future.

I am also grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the motion, in the name of Kenny Gibson, marking four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine—an event that has reshaped that nation’s future and reverberated across our continent. We should, of course, be clear that the conflict did not begin in 2022—Kenny Gibson made that point—but has its roots in the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the destabilisation of eastern Ukraine through proxy war in Donetsk and Luhansk.

What we have witnessed since is not an isolated event but a sustained assault on sovereignty, international law and the principle that borders cannot be redrawn by force. Above all, the human cost has been staggering.

Last month, President Zelenskyy, whose courageous leadership has rightly been recognised across the globe, said that 55,000 Ukrainian combatants had been killed. Others put the figure higher—indeed, Kenny Gibson cited another figure. Some 200,000 or more Russian military personnel have been killed. Again, others put the figure much higher. More than 15,000 civilians have been killed and more than 40,000 injured. That is a senseless waste of human life.

Millions more people have been displaced within Ukraine or forced to flee their country. In Scotland, we have seen that human impact directly as thousands of Ukrainians have found refuge in our communities. That solidarity speaks to our fundamental values. Those who have come here, as others have come from other conflicts, are welcome to be with us as long as they need, although I am sure that we all hope that they will be able to return home safely soon.

In that vein, I was pleased to meet and speak with Zhenya Dove when she was at the Parliament as part of the Ukrainian community in Scotland as they brought their exhibition entitled “The Weight We Carried” to this place. Being confronted with the question of what I would take if I had to pack my life into one suitcase was a stark demonstration of the reality that many Ukrainians have had to face in dealing with that question through their lived experience rather than through the hypothetical scenario that was put to me.

In this debate, we must confront the wider implications for countries across eastern Europe, including Poland, the Baltic states and Moldova. This war has understandably triggered profound concern. They consider the history—they look at Ukraine and ask, if aggression is rewarded, who might be next?

That is why concerns about the future cohesion of long-established arrangements for mutual defence cannot be dismissed. Donald Trump’s various utterances about Europe and Greenland have raised doubts about the unconditional nature of collective defence. If that guarantee becomes conditional or transactional, the credibility of deterrence is weakened, and if deterrence is weakened, the risks to peace increase.

On the issue of peace, Kenny Gibson’s motion also speaks about the nature of any future peace. Peace is the end destination that we all must aim for, but it must be real and it must be meaningful. A settlement that rewards aggression, that involves ceding territory at the barrel of a gun and that is without security guarantees risks not ending the conflict but merely pausing it. History teaches us that unstable peace can sow the seeds of future war.

Our message today should be clear: Ukraine must be supported not only in defending itself today but in securing a just and lasting peace tomorrow. That requires sustained assistance, unity among allies and a recognition that the stakes extend beyond Ukraine’s borders. We should affirm not only our solidarity with the people of Ukraine but our commitment to the principles that underpin peace and stability across Europe.

13:11

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

I thank Liam McArthur for the considered manner in which he has advanced the bill. In my 19 years in the Parliament, this has been the single most difficult matter to determine.

I recognise and understand that many colleagues have known from the outset how they would vote today. I have not. As we debated the bill at stage 1 last May, I did not know how I would cast my vote on that day. Indeed, only in the past few days have I come to determine my final position. I admire and perhaps even envy those who approach the bill with absolute certitude on the best way forward. I respect those who have such certainty. Even at this stage, I have found myself grappling with how best to make the right decision.

I have approached the bill with an open mind throughout its passage. The first principle under which I have considered the bill is whether a person should be able to command autonomy in decisions that impact them and their lives most directly.

That is a principle that I broadly agree with, and it is a principle that lends itself to supporting the bill. Indeed, it was one of the reasons why, having heard the debate in May, which many colleagues took part in, I felt able to support the bill in principle at stage 1. However, it is not a principle that sits in isolation from other considerations, and, in contact with the many constituents who have been in touch with me about the bill, I have always been clear that those are just as important. The other primary areas of importance are tightly defining eligibility, protecting the most vulnerable in our society and protecting the interests of clinicians and medical professionals.

I recognise that, last week, we made a great number of changes to the bill, which have gone some way to further improve what was in it. The short time that is available prohibits me from mentioning many of those, but the one that I am clearest on is the requirement to have a reasonable end-of-life prognosis of six months. In my view, that was an essential change.

However, I have lingering concerns. I was disappointed that Daniel Johnson’s amendments that would have absolutely required it to be in the hands of the patient to first raise the prospect of an assisted death with a medical professional were not agreed to. Any new legal right to an assisted death changes the context of patient and doctor conversations and creates a new dynamic. I believe that, in such circumstances, the amendments that Mr Johnson lodged were very important, and their being disagreed to has been an important part of informing my thinking.

I was disappointed by the rejection of the amendments that sought to create institutional opt-out. That would have been a helpful provision.

I am also concerned that Parliament has found itself in the unsatisfactory position of not being able to legislate for the protection of conscientious opt-out for medical professionals. I recognise that we are up against the limit of the Parliament’s legislative power, but having to remove those provisions and rely on the section 104 order process, which would leave it to the UK Government to determine how that would work, is of concern to me. In my view, the UK Government should have agreed a section 30 order to enable the Parliament to legislate to provide clarity.

I appreciate that it is argued that we can reasonably expect the UK Government to put in place the provisions that we would require to be satisfied that the position of the medical workforce was protected, but the fundamental point is that we do not know what those would be. That concerns me, and the inability to demonstrate how that area would work, along with the other areas that I have highlighted, leaves me at this time, with some sense of regret, unable to support the bill.

I know that that decision will disappoint many in this chamber and beyond, although I am just as sure that the alternative would equally have disappointed many others, but it is the decision that I have come to sincerely and that I rest upon.

18:52

I thank Liam McArthur for the considered manner in which he has advanced the bill. In my 19 years in the Parliament, this has been the single most difficult matter to determine.

I recognise and understand that many colleagues have known from the outset how they would vote today. I have not. As we debated the bill at stage 1 last May, I did not know how I would cast my vote on that day. Indeed, only in the past few days have I come to determine my final position. I admire and perhaps even envy those who approach the bill with absolute certitude on the best way forward. I respect those who have such certainty. Even at this stage, I have found myself grappling with how best to make the right decision.

I have approached the bill with an open mind throughout its passage. The first principle under which I have considered the bill is whether a person should be able to command autonomy in decisions that impact them and their lives most directly.

That is a principle that I broadly agree with, and it is a principle that lends itself to supporting the bill. Indeed, it was one of the reasons why, having heard the debate in May, which many colleagues took part in, I felt able to support the bill in principle at stage 1. However, it is not a principle that sits in isolation from other considerations, and, in contact with the many constituents who have been in touch with me about the bill, I have always been clear that those are just as important. The other primary areas of importance are tightly defining eligibility, protecting the most vulnerable in our society and protecting the interests of clinicians and medical professionals.

I recognise that, last week, we made a great number of changes to the bill, which have gone some way to further improve what was in it. The short time that is available prohibits me from mentioning many of those, but the one that I am clearest on is the requirement to have a reasonable end-of-life prognosis of six months. In my view, that was an essential change.

However, I have lingering concerns. I was disappointed that Daniel Johnson’s amendments that would have absolutely required it to be in the hands of the patient to first raise the prospect of an assisted death with a medical professional were not agreed to. Any new legal right to an assisted death changes the context of patient and doctor conversations and creates a new dynamic. I believe that, in such circumstances, the amendments that Mr Johnson lodged were very important, and their being disagreed to has been an important part of informing my thinking.

I was disappointed by the rejection of the amendments that sought to create institutional opt-out. That would have been a helpful provision.

I am also concerned that Parliament has found itself in the unsatisfactory position of not being able to legislate for the protection of conscientious opt-out for medical professionals. I recognise that we are up against the limit of the Parliament’s legislative power, but having to remove those provisions and rely on the section 104 order process, which would leave it to the UK Government to determine how that would work, is of concern to me. In my view, the UK Government should have agreed a section 30 order to enable the Parliament to legislate to provide clarity.

I appreciate that it is argued that we can reasonably expect the UK Government to put in place the provisions that we would require to be satisfied that the position of the medical workforce was protected, but the fundamental point is that we do not know what those would be. That concerns me, and the inability to demonstrate how that area would work, along with the other areas that I have highlighted, leaves me at this time, with some sense of regret, unable to support the bill.

I know that that decision will disappoint many in this chamber and beyond, although I am just as sure that the alternative would equally have disappointed many others, but it is the decision that I have come to sincerely and that I rest upon.

18:52

I thank Liam McArthur for the considered manner in which he has advanced the bill. In my 19 years in the Parliament, this has been the single most difficult matter to determine.

I recognise and understand that many colleagues have known from the outset how they would vote today. I have not. As we debated the bill at stage 1 last May, I did not know how I would cast my vote on that day. Indeed, only in the past few days have I come to determine my final position. I admire and perhaps even envy those who approach the bill with absolute certitude on the best way forward. I respect those who have such certainty. Even at this stage, I have found myself grappling with how best to make the right decision.

I have approached the bill with an open mind throughout its passage. The first principle under which I have considered the bill is whether a person should be able to command autonomy in decisions that impact them and their lives most directly.

That is a principle that I broadly agree with, and it is a principle that lends itself to supporting the bill. Indeed, it was one of the reasons why, having heard the debate in May, which many colleagues took part in, I felt able to support the bill in principle at stage 1. However, it is not a principle that sits in isolation from other considerations, and, in contact with the many constituents who have been in touch with me about the bill, I have always been clear that those are just as important. The other primary areas of importance are tightly defining eligibility, protecting the most vulnerable in our society and protecting the interests of clinicians and medical professionals.

I recognise that, last week, we made a great number of changes to the bill, which have gone some way to further improve what was in it. The short time that is available prohibits me from mentioning many of those, but the one that I am clearest on is the requirement to have a reasonable end-of-life prognosis of six months. In my view, that was an essential change.

However, I have lingering concerns. I was disappointed that Daniel Johnson’s amendments that would have absolutely required it to be in the hands of the patient to first raise the prospect of an assisted death with a medical professional were not agreed to. Any new legal right to an assisted death changes the context of patient and doctor conversations and creates a new dynamic. I believe that, in such circumstances, the amendments that Mr Johnson lodged were very important, and their being disagreed to has been an important part of informing my thinking.

I was disappointed by the rejection of the amendments that sought to create institutional opt-out. That would have been a helpful provision.

I am also concerned that Parliament has found itself in the unsatisfactory position of not being able to legislate for the protection of conscientious opt-out for medical professionals. I recognise that we are up against the limit of the Parliament’s legislative power, but having to remove those provisions and rely on the section 104 order process, which would leave it to the UK Government to determine how that would work, is of concern to me. In my view, the UK Government should have agreed a section 30 order to enable the Parliament to legislate to provide clarity.

I appreciate that it is argued that we can reasonably expect the UK Government to put in place the provisions that we would require to be satisfied that the position of the medical workforce was protected, but the fundamental point is that we do not know what those would be. That concerns me, and the inability to demonstrate how that area would work, along with the other areas that I have highlighted, leaves me at this time, with some sense of regret, unable to support the bill.

I know that that decision will disappoint many in this chamber and beyond, although I am just as sure that the alternative would equally have disappointed many others, but it is the decision that I have come to sincerely and that I rest upon.

18:52

I thank Liam McArthur for the considered manner in which he has advanced the bill. In my 19 years in the Parliament, this has been the single most difficult matter to determine.

I recognise and understand that many colleagues have known from the outset how they would vote today. I have not. As we debated the bill at stage 1 last May, I did not know how I would cast my vote on that day. Indeed, only in the past few days have I come to determine my final position. I admire and perhaps even envy those who approach the bill with absolute certitude on the best way forward. I respect those who have such certainty. Even at this stage, I have found myself grappling with how best to make the right decision.

I have approached the bill with an open mind throughout its passage. The first principle under which I have considered the bill is whether a person should be able to command autonomy in decisions that impact them and their lives most directly.

That is a principle that I broadly agree with, and it is a principle that lends itself to supporting the bill. Indeed, it was one of the reasons why, having heard the debate in May, which many colleagues took part in, I felt able to support the bill in principle at stage 1. However, it is not a principle that sits in isolation from other considerations, and, in contact with the many constituents who have been in touch with me about the bill, I have always been clear that those are just as important. The other primary areas of importance are tightly defining eligibility, protecting the most vulnerable in our society and protecting the interests of clinicians and medical professionals.

I recognise that, last week, we made a great number of changes to the bill, which have gone some way to further improve what was in it. The short time that is available prohibits me from mentioning many of those, but the one that I am clearest on is the requirement to have a reasonable end-of-life prognosis of six months. In my view, that was an essential change.

However, I have lingering concerns. I was disappointed that Daniel Johnson’s amendments that would have absolutely required it to be in the hands of the patient to first raise the prospect of an assisted death with a medical professional were not agreed to. Any new legal right to an assisted death changes the context of patient and doctor conversations and creates a new dynamic. I believe that, in such circumstances, the amendments that Mr Johnson lodged were very important, and their being disagreed to has been an important part of informing my thinking.

I was disappointed by the rejection of the amendments that sought to create institutional opt-out. That would have been a helpful provision.

I am also concerned that Parliament has found itself in the unsatisfactory position of not being able to legislate for the protection of conscientious opt-out for medical professionals. I recognise that we are up against the limit of the Parliament’s legislative power, but having to remove those provisions and rely on the section 104 order process, which would leave it to the UK Government to determine how that would work, is of concern to me. In my view, the UK Government should have agreed a section 30 order to enable the Parliament to legislate to provide clarity.

I appreciate that it is argued that we can reasonably expect the UK Government to put in place the provisions that we would require to be satisfied that the position of the medical workforce was protected, but the fundamental point is that we do not know what those would be. That concerns me, and the inability to demonstrate how that area would work, along with the other areas that I have highlighted, leaves me at this time, with some sense of regret, unable to support the bill.

I know that that decision will disappoint many in this chamber and beyond, although I am just as sure that the alternative would equally have disappointed many others, but it is the decision that I have come to sincerely and that I rest upon.

18:52

I thank Liam McArthur for the considered manner in which he has advanced the bill. In my 19 years in the Parliament, this has been the single most difficult matter to determine.

I recognise and understand that many colleagues have known from the outset how they would vote today. I have not. As we debated the bill at stage 1 last May, I did not know how I would cast my vote on that day. Indeed, only in the past few days have I come to determine my final position. I admire and perhaps even envy those who approach the bill with absolute certitude on the best way forward. I respect those who have such certainty. Even at this stage, I have found myself grappling with how best to make the right decision.

I have approached the bill with an open mind throughout its passage. The first principle under which I have considered the bill is whether a person should be able to command autonomy in decisions that impact them and their lives most directly.

That is a principle that I broadly agree with, and it is a principle that lends itself to supporting the bill. Indeed, it was one of the reasons why, having heard the debate in May, which many colleagues took part in, I felt able to support the bill in principle at stage 1. However, it is not a principle that sits in isolation from other considerations, and, in contact with the many constituents who have been in touch with me about the bill, I have always been clear that those are just as important. The other primary areas of importance are tightly defining eligibility, protecting the most vulnerable in our society and protecting the interests of clinicians and medical professionals.

I recognise that, last week, we made a great number of changes to the bill, which have gone some way to further improve what was in it. The short time that is available prohibits me from mentioning many of those, but the one that I am clearest on is the requirement to have a reasonable end-of-life prognosis of six months. In my view, that was an essential change.

However, I have lingering concerns. I was disappointed that Daniel Johnson’s amendments that would have absolutely required it to be in the hands of the patient to first raise the prospect of an assisted death with a medical professional were not agreed to. Any new legal right to an assisted death changes the context of patient and doctor conversations and creates a new dynamic. I believe that, in such circumstances, the amendments that Mr Johnson lodged were very important, and their being disagreed to has been an important part of informing my thinking.

I was disappointed by the rejection of the amendments that sought to create institutional opt-out. That would have been a helpful provision.

I am also concerned that Parliament has found itself in the unsatisfactory position of not being able to legislate for the protection of conscientious opt-out for medical professionals. I recognise that we are up against the limit of the Parliament’s legislative power, but having to remove those provisions and rely on the section 104 order process, which would leave it to the UK Government to determine how that would work, is of concern to me. In my view, the UK Government should have agreed a section 30 order to enable the Parliament to legislate to provide clarity.

I appreciate that it is argued that we can reasonably expect the UK Government to put in place the provisions that we would require to be satisfied that the position of the medical workforce was protected, but the fundamental point is that we do not know what those would be. That concerns me, and the inability to demonstrate how that area would work, along with the other areas that I have highlighted, leaves me at this time, with some sense of regret, unable to support the bill.

I know that that decision will disappoint many in this chamber and beyond, although I am just as sure that the alternative would equally have disappointed many others, but it is the decision that I have come to sincerely and that I rest upon.

18:52

I thank Liam McArthur for the considered manner in which he has advanced the bill. In my 19 years in the Parliament, this has been the single most difficult matter to determine.

I recognise and understand that many colleagues have known from the outset how they would vote today. I have not. As we debated the bill at stage 1 last May, I did not know how I would cast my vote on that day. Indeed, only in the past few days have I come to determine my final position. I admire and perhaps even envy those who approach the bill with absolute certitude on the best way forward. I respect those who have such certainty. Even at this stage, I have found myself grappling with how best to make the right decision.

I have approached the bill with an open mind throughout its passage. The first principle under which I have considered the bill is whether a person should be able to command autonomy in decisions that impact them and their lives most directly.

That is a principle that I broadly agree with, and it is a principle that lends itself to supporting the bill. Indeed, it was one of the reasons why, having heard the debate in May, which many colleagues took part in, I felt able to support the bill in principle at stage 1. However, it is not a principle that sits in isolation from other considerations, and, in contact with the many constituents who have been in touch with me about the bill, I have always been clear that those are just as important. The other primary areas of importance are tightly defining eligibility, protecting the most vulnerable in our society and protecting the interests of clinicians and medical professionals.

I recognise that, last week, we made a great number of changes to the bill, which have gone some way to further improve what was in it. The short time that is available prohibits me from mentioning many of those, but the one that I am clearest on is the requirement to have a reasonable end-of-life prognosis of six months. In my view, that was an essential change.

However, I have lingering concerns. I was disappointed that Daniel Johnson’s amendments that would have absolutely required it to be in the hands of the patient to first raise the prospect of an assisted death with a medical professional were not agreed to. Any new legal right to an assisted death changes the context of patient and doctor conversations and creates a new dynamic. I believe that, in such circumstances, the amendments that Mr Johnson lodged were very important, and their being disagreed to has been an important part of informing my thinking.

I was disappointed by the rejection of the amendments that sought to create institutional opt-out. That would have been a helpful provision.

I am also concerned that Parliament has found itself in the unsatisfactory position of not being able to legislate for the protection of conscientious opt-out for medical professionals. I recognise that we are up against the limit of the Parliament’s legislative power, but having to remove those provisions and rely on the section 104 order process, which would leave it to the UK Government to determine how that would work, is of concern to me. In my view, the UK Government should have agreed a section 30 order to enable the Parliament to legislate to provide clarity.

I appreciate that it is argued that we can reasonably expect the UK Government to put in place the provisions that we would require to be satisfied that the position of the medical workforce was protected, but the fundamental point is that we do not know what those would be. That concerns me, and the inability to demonstrate how that area would work, along with the other areas that I have highlighted, leaves me at this time, with some sense of regret, unable to support the bill.

I know that that decision will disappoint many in this chamber and beyond, although I am just as sure that the alternative would equally have disappointed many others, but it is the decision that I have come to sincerely and that I rest upon.

18:52

I thank Liam McArthur for the considered manner in which he has advanced the bill. In my 19 years in the Parliament, this has been the single most difficult matter to determine.

I recognise and understand that many colleagues have known from the outset how they would vote today. I have not. As we debated the bill at stage 1 last May, I did not know how I would cast my vote on that day. Indeed, only in the past few days have I come to determine my final position. I admire and perhaps even envy those who approach the bill with absolute certitude on the best way forward. I respect those who have such certainty. Even at this stage, I have found myself grappling with how best to make the right decision.

I have approached the bill with an open mind throughout its passage. The first principle under which I have considered the bill is whether a person should be able to command autonomy in decisions that impact them and their lives most directly.

That is a principle that I broadly agree with, and it is a principle that lends itself to supporting the bill. Indeed, it was one of the reasons why, having heard the debate in May, which many colleagues took part in, I felt able to support the bill in principle at stage 1. However, it is not a principle that sits in isolation from other considerations, and, in contact with the many constituents who have been in touch with me about the bill, I have always been clear that those are just as important. The other primary areas of importance are tightly defining eligibility, protecting the most vulnerable in our society and protecting the interests of clinicians and medical professionals.

I recognise that, last week, we made a great number of changes to the bill, which have gone some way to further improve what was in it. The short time that is available prohibits me from mentioning many of those, but the one that I am clearest on is the requirement to have a reasonable end-of-life prognosis of six months. In my view, that was an essential change.

However, I have lingering concerns. I was disappointed that Daniel Johnson’s amendments that would have absolutely required it to be in the hands of the patient to first raise the prospect of an assisted death with a medical professional were not agreed to. Any new legal right to an assisted death changes the context of patient and doctor conversations and creates a new dynamic. I believe that, in such circumstances, the amendments that Mr Johnson lodged were very important, and their being disagreed to has been an important part of informing my thinking.

I was disappointed by the rejection of the amendments that sought to create institutional opt-out. That would have been a helpful provision.

I am also concerned that Parliament has found itself in the unsatisfactory position of not being able to legislate for the protection of conscientious opt-out for medical professionals. I recognise that we are up against the limit of the Parliament’s legislative power, but having to remove those provisions and rely on the section 104 order process, which would leave it to the UK Government to determine how that would work, is of concern to me. In my view, the UK Government should have agreed a section 30 order to enable the Parliament to legislate to provide clarity.

I appreciate that it is argued that we can reasonably expect the UK Government to put in place the provisions that we would require to be satisfied that the position of the medical workforce was protected, but the fundamental point is that we do not know what those would be. That concerns me, and the inability to demonstrate how that area would work, along with the other areas that I have highlighted, leaves me at this time, with some sense of regret, unable to support the bill.

I know that that decision will disappoint many in this chamber and beyond, although I am just as sure that the alternative would equally have disappointed many others, but it is the decision that I have come to sincerely and that I rest upon.

18:52

I thank Liam McArthur for the considered manner in which he has advanced the bill. In my 19 years in the Parliament, this has been the single most difficult matter to determine.

I recognise and understand that many colleagues have known from the outset how they would vote today. I have not. As we debated the bill at stage 1 last May, I did not know how I would cast my vote on that day. Indeed, only in the past few days have I come to determine my final position. I admire and perhaps even envy those who approach the bill with absolute certitude on the best way forward. I respect those who have such certainty. Even at this stage, I have found myself grappling with how best to make the right decision.

I have approached the bill with an open mind throughout its passage. The first principle under which I have considered the bill is whether a person should be able to command autonomy in decisions that impact them and their lives most directly.

That is a principle that I broadly agree with, and it is a principle that lends itself to supporting the bill. Indeed, it was one of the reasons why, having heard the debate in May, which many colleagues took part in, I felt able to support the bill in principle at stage 1. However, it is not a principle that sits in isolation from other considerations, and, in contact with the many constituents who have been in touch with me about the bill, I have always been clear that those are just as important. The other primary areas of importance are tightly defining eligibility, protecting the most vulnerable in our society and protecting the interests of clinicians and medical professionals.

I recognise that, last week, we made a great number of changes to the bill, which have gone some way to further improve what was in it. The short time that is available prohibits me from mentioning many of those, but the one that I am clearest on is the requirement to have a reasonable end-of-life prognosis of six months. In my view, that was an essential change.

However, I have lingering concerns. I was disappointed that Daniel Johnson’s amendments that would have absolutely required it to be in the hands of the patient to first raise the prospect of an assisted death with a medical professional were not agreed to. Any new legal right to an assisted death changes the context of patient and doctor conversations and creates a new dynamic. I believe that, in such circumstances, the amendments that Mr Johnson lodged were very important, and their being disagreed to has been an important part of informing my thinking.

I was disappointed by the rejection of the amendments that sought to create institutional opt-out. That would have been a helpful provision.

I am also concerned that Parliament has found itself in the unsatisfactory position of not being able to legislate for the protection of conscientious opt-out for medical professionals. I recognise that we are up against the limit of the Parliament’s legislative power, but having to remove those provisions and rely on the section 104 order process, which would leave it to the UK Government to determine how that would work, is of concern to me. In my view, the UK Government should have agreed a section 30 order to enable the Parliament to legislate to provide clarity.

I appreciate that it is argued that we can reasonably expect the UK Government to put in place the provisions that we would require to be satisfied that the position of the medical workforce was protected, but the fundamental point is that we do not know what those would be. That concerns me, and the inability to demonstrate how that area would work, along with the other areas that I have highlighted, leaves me at this time, with some sense of regret, unable to support the bill.

I know that that decision will disappoint many in this chamber and beyond, although I am just as sure that the alternative would equally have disappointed many others, but it is the decision that I have come to sincerely and that I rest upon.

18:52