Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 12 October 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 819 contributions

|

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee

Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 January 2025

Brian Whittle

In that case, would there also be the potential for coercion to prevent somebody from having an assisted death? Would that be an offence?

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee

Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 January 2025

Brian Whittle

One of the main concerns around the bill is that, currently, one in four people does not have access to appropriate palliative care, which might influence their decision on whether to access assisted dying. Cabinet secretary, from your perception and in the Scottish Government’s estimation, is palliative care good enough, or are you also concerned that lack of access to palliative care might have an impact on the bill?

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee

Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 January 2025

Brian Whittle

I think that there is a difference between the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which is going through the United Kingdom Parliament, and this bill, with the UK Parliament bill containing a wider range of offences than the Scottish bill. Should we be closer to what the UK Parliament is looking at, or would that cause us more issues?

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee

Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 28 January 2025

Brian Whittle

You will recognise that, as many have said and as a number of witnesses have made clear in evidence to us, the concern is that those who might not have or get access to palliative care are pushed, unnecessarily, down the route of assisted dying. Do you share that concern?

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee

Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 21 January 2025

Brian Whittle

Having taken evidence from other jurisdictions, I would argue that that is not the case. Some people in other jurisdictions have said that the lack of palliative care is a contributory factor, especially for those people in poor communities who have the disadvantage of having less access to palliative care. That issue will have to be addressed.

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee

Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 21 January 2025

Brian Whittle

Would you accept that, for those people who are moving towards the end of their life, the option of palliative care should be there—which it currently is not for a lot of people—at the same time as the option of assisted dying?

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 21 January 2025

Brian Whittle

In general, I do not see the advantage of removing ourselves from the process of double-checking the FSA and the FSS. As I have tried to say, probably clumsily, if we are consistently reviewing foodstuffs, renewing authorisations after 10 years is almost a rubber stamp, because there is not a huge amount of work to do at the end of the 10 years. Removing the 10-year review would mean that there was no need to consistently review products. I am not suggesting that that is what is happening, but if the resource given to the FSS is consistently reduced, it will be less and less able to review. That concerns me.

Having seen the issue come up several times in this committee over the past 10 years, I have always said that our food standards are extremely high, even in relation to the EU, so that is not what concerns me; my concern is whether the FSS has the ability to continually review at a level that we would accept. I am minded to accept the SI, but I would appreciate it if we could put those concerns in the letter to the Government.

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 21 January 2025

Brian Whittle

Good morning, minister. The standard of the food that is allowed to be consumed is an area that interests me greatly. If my reading is correct, under the current system, products are reviewed every 10 years, which prompts the question, “Are they not always continually assessed?” Conversely, if the requirement to review products every 10 years is taken away, my concern is that there will be no need to continually look at products.

At the end of the day, the issue comes down to resource. My concern is that the system that you are proposing to move to, if it is operated properly, will be more resource heavy, yet the resource that is provided to FSS is reducing. If we were to consent to the SI, which would take away ministerial responsibility, how could we guarantee that FSS would continually review products, when new evidence is always emerging?

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee

Subordinate Legislation

Meeting date: 21 January 2025

Brian Whittle

If we are doing that anyway, why do we need to change the policy?

Health, Social Care and Sport Committee

Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 21 January 2025

Brian Whittle

I will ask a wee supplementary to Emma Harper’s questions about the age of eligibility. That is a cluttered market. There are different legal ages for doing different things. The age for access to adult care support is 18 and the legal age for drinking alcohol is 18, for example. Even the judicial system treats people who are under the age of 25 differently than it treats the rest. Why 16 for this legislation? Why are you comfortable with 16?