We have finally reached the last stage of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. I am sure that, for many, it has been a long and uncomfortable journey. We have all had to consider our own mortality and that of our constituents. Looking death in the eye has never been easy, and we must always consider the fragility of life. However, let us be clear: in my mind, life is always about living.

I have heard much in the debate about why people should have the choice. In principle, I agree. However, choice can be made only if there are genuine options. Those options must include palliative care, for which my colleague Miles Briggs has fought hard. However, the sad fact is that more than 14,000 Scots a year die without proper palliative care, and a lot of money would be needed to provide that. Thus, to some, it may be easier to opt for death, knowing that palliative care close to their home and family is unavailable. That is not a choice. Before we consider helping those people to die, we must know that their end of life is fully provided for and funded—which, at the moment, it is not.

Funding is a key issue when it comes to the bill. We know that funding for it would come from the existing national health service budget. The Government has been clear that it has no idea of the costs, but it admits that they would be high, and it says that a level of reprioritisation would be required. That means that existing services would face funding cuts. Which treatments would be cut? Would they include cancer care, palliative care, elective surgery, or perhaps even screening for breast or bowel cancers? It is just not good enough to say, “Pass this bill, and then we’ll work out how we’re going to pay for it.” We need clarity now.

On clarity, if the bill is passed, what will happen to those who want to opt out of providing an assisted death—from doctors to nurses to care homes to palliative care homes? Many of those, like me, will have no religious drivers but will know in their hearts that they do not want to be part of the process. The part of the bill that would have protected conscientious objectors has been removed, in order to make the bill competent. That worries me. Civil servants and ministers at Westminster will be able to decide on how to protect Scots in what is specifically a Scottish bill. Here, in our Parliament, there will be no choice on the exact detail. That not only seems wrong but is wrong.

I will turn to the area of the bill that gives me the greatest concern: coercion, including self-coercion. I find that a really difficult area to discuss. When one’s grip on life is fragile, the mind does somersaults. However, once someone gets past thinking that it might be easier and kinder to their family to die, the overriding consideration will turn to living. Treatment options and pathways for care are, rightly, the top priorities. However, the bill would give doctors the right, in terminal cases, to say, “Death is available.” I believe that the last thing that we should do is suggest that ending life is a form of treatment.

Presiding Officer, when we despair we need hope. Death offers no hope. Treatment and care offer hope. Let us provide and fund that care before we legislate to end life. Until we do, I am afraid that I cannot support the offering of assisted death; to me, that is morally wrong if we cannot allow for an assisted life.

18:48

We have finally reached the last stage of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. I am sure that, for many, it has been a long and uncomfortable journey. We have all had to consider our own mortality and that of our constituents. Looking death in the eye has never been easy, and we must always consider the fragility of life. However, let us be clear: in my mind, life is always about living.

I have heard much in the debate about why people should have the choice. In principle, I agree. However, choice can be made only if there are genuine options. Those options must include palliative care, for which my colleague Miles Briggs has fought hard. However, the sad fact is that more than 14,000 Scots a year die without proper palliative care, and a lot of money would be needed to provide that. Thus, to some, it may be easier to opt for death, knowing that palliative care close to their home and family is unavailable. That is not a choice. Before we consider helping those people to die, we must know that their end of life is fully provided for and funded—which, at the moment, it is not.

Funding is a key issue when it comes to the bill. We know that funding for it would come from the existing national health service budget. The Government has been clear that it has no idea of the costs, but it admits that they would be high, and it says that a level of reprioritisation would be required. That means that existing services would face funding cuts. Which treatments would be cut? Would they include cancer care, palliative care, elective surgery, or perhaps even screening for breast or bowel cancers? It is just not good enough to say, “Pass this bill, and then we’ll work out how we’re going to pay for it.” We need clarity now.

On clarity, if the bill is passed, what will happen to those who want to opt out of providing an assisted death—from doctors to nurses to care homes to palliative care homes? Many of those, like me, will have no religious drivers but will know in their hearts that they do not want to be part of the process. The part of the bill that would have protected conscientious objectors has been removed, in order to make the bill competent. That worries me. Civil servants and ministers at Westminster will be able to decide on how to protect Scots in what is specifically a Scottish bill. Here, in our Parliament, there will be no choice on the exact detail. That not only seems wrong but is wrong.

I will turn to the area of the bill that gives me the greatest concern: coercion, including self-coercion. I find that a really difficult area to discuss. When one’s grip on life is fragile, the mind does somersaults. However, once someone gets past thinking that it might be easier and kinder to their family to die, the overriding consideration will turn to living. Treatment options and pathways for care are, rightly, the top priorities. However, the bill would give doctors the right, in terminal cases, to say, “Death is available.” I believe that the last thing that we should do is suggest that ending life is a form of treatment.

Presiding Officer, when we despair we need hope. Death offers no hope. Treatment and care offer hope. Let us provide and fund that care before we legislate to end life. Until we do, I am afraid that I cannot support the offering of assisted death; to me, that is morally wrong if we cannot allow for an assisted life.

18:48

Before you disappear, cabinet secretary, you have engaged with the committee quite heavily over the past few years on land reform and various other matters. Disappointingly, I did not always get my way on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, but I—and, I think, the committee—have appreciated how you approached matters when you came before us, which was with great seriousness, but also in a manner that made it easier for us to deal with things. For that, we are extremely grateful, and I have been asked to record our best wishes to you as you move on to your next job.

Cabinet secretary, would you like to respond? You always like to have last words, so perhaps that is appropriate. [Laughter.]

Thank you, cabinet secretary. As you have had the last word, we will briefly suspend the meeting before we move on to the next item of business.

09:18

Meeting suspended.

09:20

On resuming—

Welcome back to this meeting of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. The next agenda item is consideration of an SSI that has been laid under the negative procedure, which means that it will come into force unless the Parliament agrees a motion to annul it. No such motion has been lodged, and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has made no comment on the instrument. Do members have any comments?

Item 5 is consideration of the proposal by the Scottish Government to consent to UK Government legislating in devolved areas, as set out in the UK statutory instrument proposal for the Mandatory Water Efficiency Labelling Regulations 2026. The proposed regulations would introduce a mandatory water efficiency labelling scheme for certain domestic water-using products, such as taps, showers, toilets, washing machines and dishwashers.

The committee’s role is to decide whether it agrees with the Scottish Government’s position on consent. We can express a view both on whether we agree in principle to the UK Government legislating in this area, and on whether we agree with the specific manner in which it proposes to do so. If we are content for consent to be given, I will write to the Scottish Government accordingly. In doing so, the committee also has the option to draw matters to the Government’s attention, pose questions or to ask to be kept updated on particular matters. However, if the committee is not content with the proposals, it may make one of the recommendations that are outlined in the clerk’s note. I will not read those recommendations.

The proposed labelling seems very similar to that used for electricity, including electricity used only for water, and we are used to seeing such signs—A, B, C, D and so on—on machines, so it seems to make sense.

No member has any comments on the proposal, so I will move to the substantive question on the item. Is the committee content that the provision that is set out in the notification should be made in the proposed UK statutory instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

I will ask a very simple question. The instrument talks about “Scottish persons” and the responsibilities of the Scottish Government. What does it mean for policing? Will the Scottish Government be responsible for policing or prosecuting Scottish persons?

Do committee members agree to delegate authority to me, as convener, to approve a draft of the report for publication?

Members indicated agreement.

Is the committee happy to delegate power to me to write to the Government on behalf of the committee to inform it of Sarah Boyack’s comment about monitoring and Mark Ruskell’s comment about the UK‑wide approach to the instrument when we notify it that we have considered the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

I will now move the meeting into private session.

09:27

Meeting continued in private until 10:34.