Before we go to the deputy convener’s questions, Douglas Lumsden has a specific question.

I just want to get this clear in my brain. I cannot remember the size of the big pipeline that goes through my farm at home—it is something like 4 foot. It is a big pipeline that goes from Aberdeen to Inverness. If that was converted to pipe hydrogen, it would transmit the same amount of hydrogen as it does natural gas.

Graeme nodded, so I will give him the final word.

I thank the witnesses for giving evidence. As you say, our questions will continue in another panel discussion and into next week. I will briefly suspend the meeting to allow a changeover of witnesses.

Mark Symes wants to come in—briefly, please.

You were very quick, Simon.

I am sorry—you are right. I double jumped—that is a mistake. Sarah, you get the next questions. You look very offended, and rightly so. Off you go.

The bill does not do that because it is not known which substances are available. Some of the more effective substances are no longer produced. I think that that causes a problem.

I understand why the drugs will not be put in the bill. Evidence from Canada has proven that no drugs are 100 per cent guaranteed to work, be pain free or be as quick as is necessary.

I know that my time is running short and there are many matters that I have still not addressed, such as the competence of the bill and who should be eligible. I understand that Mr McArthur has said that 16-year-olds should no longer be eligible. In its stage 1 report, the committee identified that a plethora of amendments would be required, and there are many errors that Liam McArthur himself accepts will need to be amended. All of those, and my specific concerns, tell me that the bill should stop here and should never progress until we are sure that everyone is able to get palliative care, so that they are not coerced into opting to end their life.

I cannot support the bill. In my mind, the Parliament has a duty to make it easier to choose life, rather than to make it easier to die—which is what the bill will do.

I stand to speak in this debate with sadness, because it is all about the ending of life. During life, there will never be a bigger decision than the decision either to take a life or to sanction the ending of life.

As a young soldier, my view was that death happened to other people, but age and cancer made me realise that death was inevitably coming closer, and I was forced to contemplate carefully how my life might end. That was not a comfortable or easy experience, and the bill brings all of that into sharp focus.

I speak not with any religious beliefs, but as a son, husband and father—and soon, I hope, a grandfather. Those are the things that drive me to ensure that what we do is right and they are the reason why I will always seek life.

I have attended many of the pro-assisted dying meetings and listened to why some people believe that they have the right to choose how and when they die.

Let us be clear that, if one has a terminal illness, knowing that one will automatically have access to the best palliative care is fundamental to feeling in control of one’s illness. Indeed, it gives one options, which is why I support Miles Briggs’s proposed bill to ensure the provision of proper palliative care. Indeed, my opinion is that the issue of proper palliative care was one of the key reasons why previous bills on assisted dying fell.

If one does not know that one has control, there is no doubt that one will look to get control, and that is, inevitably, what will drive some people to supporting the bill. To my mind, that is a form of coercion. Although the bill attempts to prevent all types of coercion, I believe that it fails.

I believe that there are three types of coercion—active, passive and state coercion. Although the bill may try to prevent open and active coercion, it does nothing to prevent passive coercion. The lack of sufficient palliative care will make people think about the potential cost of their private medical care and think that every penny that they spend on that care is one less for their family. It therefore will become a mix of passive and state coercion—as, in my opinion, was the imposition of the family farm tax. In that case, if you died quickly enough, then you could give your farm to your family tax free. The bill thus invites an early death and transforms the right to die into a duty to die—and, then, it becomes truly unacceptable.

This bill ensures that the NHS medical practitioner who delivers the as yet unspecified mix of drugs to the patient will remain with that person until they die. We know that there are no available drugs that have an on-label use to cause death. If there were, they would be used in countries that approve of the death penalty. The unapproved mixture will need to be accompanied by a strong anti-nausea drug—and I can vouch that some of those are not infallible.