Does the minister share my concerns that the Labour Government’s oversight of increasing—not decreasing, as we were promised—energy bills and changes to employer national insurance contributions are placing vast cost and workforce pressures on businesses in the night-time economy in and around Glasgow?

I remind the chamber that I am employed by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde as a bank nurse.

We need to ensure that care and support are available to people on the day that they ask for help, no matter where they live. Will the cabinet secretary inform me what action is being taken to drive up and ensure consistency in access to treatment across all alcohol and drug partnership areas?

I am not sure whether Martin Whitfield is aware of my background, but I spent about 15 years working in perinatal mental health before I came to the Parliament, so I am acutely aware of the importance not only of the months and years after a child is born but of the pre-birth era. The Scottish Government has committed to expanding childcare for younger children, but the childcare offer for three and four-year-olds is not necessarily suitable for younger children. I am sure that the work that I led when I was the minister with responsibility for that portfolio is on-going under Ms Don-Innes.

The primary aim of the expansion of early learning and childcare is to secure improved outcomes for children in Scotland by providing them with skills and confidence to carry into school education. The significant expansion is making a direct contribution to reducing household costs, with families saving about £5,500 a year in childcare costs. It also gives parents greater opportunities to access training, employment and learning.

We know that children and families benefit when they can access the support that they need when they need it. We must maximise the availability and consistency of key services that can have the greatest impact in eradicating poverty.

A key point in this year’s programme for government was the need to continue work with local authorities to increase the uptake of early learning and childcare for eligible two-year-olds, with a particular focus on boosting uptake among families who are most at risk of poverty and connecting them to other services and resources.

Education has long been nimble in contributing to the wider tackling poverty agenda. We saw that during lockdown, when schools and nurseries rallied to support families and when colleagues worked together on the cost of the school day—and, indeed, the cost of the nursery day—by pooling and sharing sometimes small ideas that had a huge impact.

The focus on education equality is linked to wider goals to eradicate child poverty, and vice versa. The cumulative impact of action across sectors by all partners in all parts of Scotland will make the difference for children and families. That starts with the decisions that we make and the priorities that we champion in the Parliament.

I call Brian Whittle.

Joe FitzPatrick has a supplementary question.

I thank Mr McArthur for his extensive evidence. I know that it has taken quite a substantial amount of time—more than we had anticipated—but the committee has certainly been able to ask the questions that were presented as a result of previous evidence.

I thank you and your witnesses, Mr McArthur. That concludes the public part of today’s meeting.

I have a couple of questions in relation to court involvement. The bill before the UK Parliament makes provision for all assisted dying applications to be considered by the High Court for England and Wales. Court involvement was seen as an additional protection by some of the respondents to this committee’s call for views. Was that something that you considered?

I have a point for clarification. I asked the cabinet secretary to clarify this last week, when he spoke about figures of just over £6 million on the basis of training 50 per cent of doctors, taking into account those who might wish to opt out of the scheme. Your figures are based purely on medical staff. They do not take into account pharmacy or nursing staff or any other allied health professional.

As we are only halfway through our questioning, I will briefly suspend the meeting for a comfort break.

Welcome back. We will continue to take evidence from Liam McArthur and his accompanying witnesses. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am employed as a bank nurse by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

I would like to explore a couple of issues with you, Mr McArthur, starting with conscientious objection. We have heard various arguments and questions at committee in relation to the conscientious objection clause in the bill, who it includes and what the clause extends to. Section 18(1) of the bill sets out that no one is

“under any duty ... to participate in anything authorised”

under the bill, if they have

“a conscientious objection”

to doing so. The bill does not prescribe to whom the conscientious objection would apply, but the policy memorandum indicates that it is intended to apply to doctors and other health care professionals who are involved in the process. There is some argument that the clause replicates a provision in the Abortion Act 1967 and is therefore likely to be interpreted in the same way by the courts. That would mean that the objection clause might extend only to those people who are directly involved in the process of assessing, prescribing and providing assistance. Could you perhaps clarify your thinking around that and who you envisage that the conscious objection clause would apply to?