Chamber and committees

A main point that has come up in my discussions with constituents and organisations over the past four years has been about coercion. Notwithstanding Mr McArthur’s comments a moment ago—he may come in if he wishes to—about terms being well defined and well recognised and about the guidance, I lodged my amendments 216 and 217 to try to have something in the bill that would give the wider public a full understanding of the situation. We all recognise that although this is—technically—a normal bill going through the parliamentary process, the subject matter is not normal subject matter.

A point that has come up a number of times in discussions is that the smallest hint of disapproval from a loved one—the quiet suggestion that an individual is a burden, or even the unspoken weight of financial or emotional strain—can influence a person’s decision in ways that are almost impossible to measure. Bob Doris spoke powerfully about the aspect of feeling like a burden. If coercion or pressure goes undetected, people may die—not because they wish to but because they feel that they ought to. Amendments 216 and 217 would address the gap by introducing clear definitions of coercion and pressure in section 29.

I appreciate the points that Liam McArthur makes. My amendments may seem unnecessary and, to judge by Mr McArthur’s points, potentially confusing from a legal perspective. However, I think that they are very much worthy of being discussed at stage 2. If they were not acceptable to Mr McArthur—the committee could decide on them later—I would be content not to move them and to work with Mr McArthur on something else for stage 3.

Because of the subject matter, this is more than just a normal bill. I genuinely believe that having social consensus will be extremely important if the bill is passed at stage 3 and becomes an act of Parliament.

I am happy to take Mr McArthur’s intervention.

I appreciate that, Mr McArthur. Social consensus will be extremely important if the bill becomes an act of Parliament. As a consequence, we need a wider understanding of exactly what the act would say. The reason for lodging my amendments in the first place was so that the public—not solely those in the medical profession—can have that wider understanding. I am content not to move my amendments if we can work together on something else going forward.

Yes.

The instrument creates exemptions from NHS charges for people who come to the United Kingdom for medical treatment under the Gaza medical evacuation scheme and for people who are authorised to accompany them, if the need for treatment arose during the visit.

This instrument falls to be reported to the Parliament under reporting ground (j), for a failure to lay the instrument in accordance with section 28(2) of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. The instrument was laid on 7 October 2025 and came into force on the next day, breaching the 28-day rule in the 2010 act, which requires that a negative instrument must be laid before the Scottish Parliament at least 28 days before it comes into force.

The 2010 act requires the Scottish Government to explain to the Presiding Officer why the laying requirements have not been complied with. The Scottish Government explained, in its letter dated 7 October, that the instrument was being brought into force on the next day in order to provide clarity to those who are responsible for making and recovering charges from overseas visitors, and to provide assurance to those who are in Scotland under the Gaza medical evacuation operation that no children under that operation or their accompanying persons will be charged for NHS services.

Does the committee wish to draw the instrument to the attention of the Parliament under reporting ground (j), for failure to comply with laying requirements, as it was not laid 28 counting days before it comes into force?

Members indicated agreement.

That would be helpful. Thank you.

I see that colleagues have no further questions, so do you have any final comments?

Under agenda item 5, we are taking evidence from Graeme Dey MSP, the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans. This is one of our regular sessions with the minister on the aspects of Scottish Government work that are relevant to the committee. I welcome the minister back to his role and to the committee.

The minister is accompanied by three Scottish Government officials: Steven MacGregor, head of the Parliament and legislation unit; Claire Trail, SSI and UK legislation team leader; and Douglas Kerr, deputy legislation co-ordinator in the Scottish Government legal department. I welcome them all to the meeting and remind them not to worry about the microphones, which are controlled by our broadcasting colleagues and will come on automatically.

I invite the minister to make some opening remarks.

That was helpful. Thank you.

On a related matter, an unusual issue has arisen in recent months with amending instruments that have not addressed all the issues that the Scottish Government undertook to correct, and which have actually introduced further problems. You have already touched on the overarching checking process, but does that also cover this type of situation, in which something that has already come to the committee, and which we have highlighted, has had to go back to the Government to be looked at again? Is there a separate process for that?

Under agenda item 2, we are considering one instrument, on which no points have been raised.