To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to comments by the Scottish Information Commissioner who stated, in relation to the Government’s handling of information concerning the Salmond files, “I can no longer trust the government to handle this information unsupervised and will explore more intrusive options to ensure compliance.” (S6O-05689)

The Scottish Information Commissioner has lost trust in the Government. He has called its excuses “preposterous and unacceptable”. Any other Government would be utterly ashamed, but this lot are brazen and think that they can get away with it. Does the minister understand that the Government’s behaviour on that case and so many others has led the public out there to tell me that they think that Scottish National Party ministers and the SNP Government are a bunch of chancers and liars?

I rise to make my final speech in the chamber. I chose to speak in this debate, on this subject, for a number of reasons. First, the member in charge proved to be a very conscientious and determined member in getting the bill through. I was reminded that he is the only member to take forward a member’s bill in this Parliament to have come to a Conservative group meeting to discuss the bill. I was leader at the time, and I remember watching him walk out the door and thinking that he got a far easier ride from my colleagues at that group meeting than I often did in the same room. That proved that Daniel Johnson was determined to get as much support for the bill as possible at every point.

Another reason for speaking in this debate is the campaigners, who have already been mentioned. Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger have my utmost respect and admiration for what they have done to get the bill to this stage and for the work that they have done for more than a decade to reach this point. I know that Peter, Calum, Beth and Kate are in the public gallery today to watch the bill reach this point and get passed into law. They should be extremely proud of the work that they have done. [Applause.]

I will make two final points as to why I thought that this was the right topic to finish on. First, I will mention the non-Government bills unit. I took a bill through the Parliament to stage 1. It was unsuccessful, but I saw up close the skill, dedication and commitment of that unit—something that I had not witnessed before, as I had not been involved. I believe that that team needs to be nurtured and celebrated in the next session of the Parliament, because it is a great asset to those of us who are lucky enough to take a bill through various stages.

The Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill came to the Education, Children and Young People Committee—a committee that I have been very proud to convene over the past 18 months. I have enjoyed my time as convener; I am not sure that my fellow members enjoyed it quite as much as I did. I know that I stretched the limits of the convener’s role at times, but I always did it in the best interests of trying to get to the root of some of the issues.

Willie Rennie quoted an email that we got from Beth Morrison this week. When we are thinking about the bill, which will undoubtedly pass at stage 3 today, I am sure unanimously, we might consider what she said in her email:

“Calum can’t advocate for himself due to his complex disability, but he can express this truth: the children aren’t naughty, they are scared.”

Children should not be scared in Scotland, and they should certainly not be scared in an educational setting. If passing the bill prevents just one more child from being scared at school, we will have done our job today.

In the time that I have available, I will make a couple of offers of thanks. The first is to the staff who have been with me through my time in Parliament—some of whom have been with me the entire time since I was first elected in 2016 and others who have come more recently. The work that I have done as an individual member, as a party spokesperson, as a party leader and as a convener has been assisted by their tremendous efforts.

I also want to say thanks to my wife, Krystle, and our two boys, Alistair and James, who will see a bit more of me in the coming weeks and months and who have been a great support to me, as has my wider family.

A final speech by me in a consensual debate would not be quite the same if I did not add in just a hint of controversy. I do not think that I have hidden—certainly not well—that I have grown increasingly frustrated with the mechanisms of the Parliament, because I do not think that we are doing enough. Today is an exception—I think that we will pass an important bill—but, other days, I come in here and I am frustrated. I am frustrated that we have politicians who cannot speak for four minutes without having the lectern up and reading from a script, daring not to deviate by taking an intervention. When people look at that from the outside, they do not see politicians who are upping their game; they see people who are reading a script that could have been delivered by anyone. From the back benches, we hear softball questions that are supposed to be spontaneous in response to an answer from a minister, and then the answer to that scripted question is also scripted. We can and should do far better than that. In the seventh session of the Parliament, more people will be looking to see an improvement, and I hope that we see that. We have an opportunity in the Parliament that is not offered to many. If we up our game, that will improve how this institution is viewed from the outside.

To have the chance to serve is a huge privilege. For me, that began 19 years ago, when I was first elected as a councillor. I have since been an MSP and an MP, and I now conclude my time in the Scottish Parliament. To those who gave me that opportunity, I say thank you. To the people of Moray and the Highlands and Islands, who, 19 years ago, put their trust in a young farm labourer to represent them, which has been a huge honour and privilege for me, I simply say thank you.

15:37

I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a match official and officiate matches for the Scottish Football Association.

I, too, congratulate Brian Whittle on securing the debate and on his excellent opening speech. Brian and I entered Parliament together almost a decade ago, in 2016. We very quickly formed the Scottish Conservatives run club with our former colleague John Lamont. From Tuesday to Thursday, we would go out running around Edinburgh almost daily. If Tim Eagle thought that it was difficult to get away from Brian Whittle’s discussions about sport in the corridors or in his office, he should try to get away from an Olympic runner who also tried to get that message across as we pounded the streets around Edinburgh. That showed me at that point that Brian Whittle was passionate about sport, and he has continued to be passionate about it in everything that he has done in the chamber and in the committees that he has served on, bringing sport to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee and his other committee roles.

Presiding Officer, this is not my final speech in the chamber. Members will be able to either enjoy or endure that later, depending on their own particular circumstances. However, when I saw that we were to have a debate about sport, I wanted to take part in it, because sport has been a big part of my life. I literally follow sport from the sidelines in my role as a match official but, more than that, as a parent of two boys in Moray, I give credit to the sporting organisations in Moray and across the Highlands that provide so many opportunities for young people—boys and girls—throughout the country.

I particularly want to mention Moray rugby club and its rugby festival, which was held at the weekend. We had literally hundreds of boys and girls from primary 1—or a bit earlier; my youngest, James, is four and he is not yet in primary 1, but he takes part in the youngest group—right up to the seniors, from right across the north-east. Indeed, two boys came down from Caithness. They had been told that their team was unable to take everyone down so they were not going to be able to take part in the Moray rugby festival. However, they were so determined that they encouraged their parents to drive all the way down from Caithness to Elgin and all the way home again, because they are passionate about rugby and they wanted to be involved. Like all the hundreds of others who were at the festival on Sunday, they enjoyed it. They got their medals and they shook hands after the matches.

To me, that shows what sport can do at every level and at every age. It can encourage people to take part. That participation is so important and the rewards are so great. However, none of that would be possible without the coaches at Moray rugby club, who turn up every Sunday and coach the boys and girls in all the age groups with great success. They put themselves through protecting vulnerable groups courses and, when they could be having a weekend off or they have other duties, they turn up because they want to pass something on to young people.

I also see that in football when I am officiating. We go around clubs up and down the country and we see the youth organisations. Finlay Carson mentioned the opportunities with Queen of the South. At the Education, Children and Young People Committee last week, we heard Spartans Community Foundation and the Denis Law Legacy Trust speak about the work that they do, both here in the capital and up in the north-east, to help and enable young people through their love of sport.

In a year when we have the world cup coming up, with Scotland’s first participation in it since 1998, and the Commonwealth games, we have a great opportunity as a country and as a Parliament to get more people involved in sport, and that is what we should all seek to do.

An issue that has come up time and again in the debate is funding. That will always be an issue and there are not unlimited pots of money, but we can make it easier for clubs and organisations to access funding. Having to look for funding on an annual basis means that a lot of the time that coaches and others could be spending on improving the opportunities for young people is spent on filling out forms to try to secure or re-secure funding. If we can get multiyear funding for a number of the clubs and organisations, that will go a great way towards improving the opportunities.

I am delighted to speak in this debate and I whole-heartedly support everything in Brian Whittle’s motion.

10:48

To ask the Scottish Government for what reason the Lord Advocate briefed the First Minister that suspects arrested on alleged embezzlement charges as part of operation branchform were not being charged, before the individuals themselves had been notified. (S6O-05669)

I am confused by that answer from the Lord Advocate, because she claims that the communication was synchronised, but we know definitively that she briefed John Swinney before the suspects were told that no charges would be continued.

Does the Lord Advocate understand the concern about the political leadership of the Scottish Government being informed before suspects? Does she have any concerns that her actions in briefing the First Minister on two separate occasions could jeopardise the ability of the Crown or the defence to call John Swinney as a witness in that case of alleged embezzlement?

I was banned by the Parliament from using the words “chaotic” and “avoidable” in my lodged question, but I can and will use them in my supplementary question, because the past few weeks have been chaotic and the situation has been entirely avoidable. I understand that that has been the responsibility not of the SPCB but of the Parliamentary Bureau and the Government. Although I welcome the review and discussions that will take place at the start of the next parliamentary session, can Maggie Chapman assure me that that work will include encouraging the Government, whoever is in it, not to waste vital parliamentary time on issues that the Parliament has no say over, but to focus on the issues that are devolved to this Parliament and ensure that those issues are prioritised in the next session?

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will initiate a review of how the scheduling of parliamentary business during the current session has impacted on parliamentary resources, particularly in light of the large volume of stage 3 proceedings in the final weeks. (S6O-05683)

Like others, I recognise the incredible work that Liam McArthur has put into the bill in the last week, the last month and this entire parliamentary session. When I heard that an assisted dying bill was being introduced for a third time, before I knew the make-up of the Parliament this session and the views of individual members, I thought that it had the best possibility of passing this time because of the member in charge. Liam McArthur is the rare politician who it is very difficult to dislike. He works across the political spectrum and is compassionate, empathetic and absolutely committed to this cause. No matter how the vote goes tonight and no matter the fact that, less than two hours away from the vote, many of us are still unsure of how it will go, the fact that the bill has come this far is down to his efforts and the efforts of his team and of the non-Government bills unit. I want to put on the record, as someone who will not be supporting the bill, my complete admiration for what Liam McArthur has done to get this very passionate and difficult issue to the floor of the chamber and the way in which he has done it.

I will not be supporting the bill, but it has caused me more trouble than any other vote that I have taken part in. As Liam McArthur said when he was quoting Lisa Fleming, we have all had constituents—many hundreds or thousands—who have written to us about their personal experiences. They have been some of the most difficult and distressing emails and letters to read and respond to. You would have to have a heart of stone not to understand the pain and suffering that those constituents’ loved ones have gone through and how much they want to alleviate that for themselves or their loved ones in the future.

Others have spoken about their family connections, and I thought that George Adam, once again, spoke very passionately about his wife and his family. In my family, my wife takes a completely different view from me; she has always been very much in favour of the bill, and she cannot understand why I would not be. Therefore, this is an issue that splits not just parties; it splits families and couples, too, and there is no right answer. At the end of today, each and every one of us will cast a vote, and we will be able to defend it, one way or another.

For me, it all comes down to what is not in the bill. The fact that conscientious objections were taken out of the bill—for understandable reasons and because of the requirement for a section 104 order—concerns me. It also concerns the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which moved from a neutral position to a position of opposition to the bill, as well as the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, which similarly said that, because the bill did not contain vital protections for pharmacists and other healthcare professionals with conscientious objections, it could no longer remain neutral on the bill and urged members to vote against it.

Another issue that I have wrestled with a lot is that of coercion, which we have heard many members talk about tonight. If we cannot be absolutely certain—absolutely sure—that no one will feel coerced into taking their own life, because they feel a burden, or because of the efforts of others, we cannot support the bill.

I understand that members will still be in doubt at this late stage, despite all the debate that we have had, because this is such a difficult decision. However, as Humza Yousaf said in what I thought was an excellent speech, if just one person ends their life as a result of coercion, the bill will have failed. We will have failed as legislators, and this Parliament will have failed. We cannot allow that.

I will end by making two brief points. Liam McArthur has said before tonight, and others including Rona Mackay, Patrick Harvie and Alex Cole-Hamilton have said in the chamber this evening, that this bill is the most heavily safeguarded bill of its type anywhere in the world. That sounds really good and very comforting, but I see no way of assessing or judging that statement. I would love it to be true, but I am just not sure that we have the data, or the background, to support such a view.

Finally, there is another voice that I thought that we might have heard before in this debate, but we have not. As the enormity of this decision weighs heavily upon us all, I have been listening to experts. This morning, we had an intervention from someone whom I have respected for some time. Sir Harry Burns was this country’s chief medical officer from 2005 to 2014, and when he writes about the bill, as he has done this morning to urge MSPs to oppose it, we have to listen carefully to what he says. He said:

“We may have no medical cures for their physical illness, but we can and should give them a sense of control over their lives, not a pathway to death.”

I do not want to give people a pathway to death. If the bill, and the proceedings around it, have done anything, it is to ensure that not just Parliament in this session but Parliament in the next session and the next Government prioritise palliative and hospice care, so that we can ensure that people live their lives to the fullest opportunity for as long as they can, instead of giving them a pathway to death.

20:08