I start by paying tribute to both Deputy Presiding Officers, and I echo the words that have been said about you. In particular, I say to Annabelle Ewing, what a loss you will be to the chamber—I wish you well with whatever comes next.

There is a poignancy about today. I think about the giants of Scottish politics lost to us not just from this parliamentary session but from parliamentary sessions that have gone before, whether that is Jeane Freeman or our beloved Jim Wallace, but I particularly echo the remarks that have been made about Christina McKelvie, who was always a good friend to me and a wonderful centre of light and warmth at the heart of our chamber. They will all be missed.

There are too many outgoing MSPs to mention by name, but I will mention Beatrice Wishart, my chum from the northern isles, who has been a passionate advocate for Shetland and has kept me right on a thing or two.

I thank all those who are leaving Parliament and their staff. Let us remember that our careers as parliamentarians are built on the backs of staffers who have bigger brains but smaller pay packets than we do. We owe so much to them for our success, so I thank them.

I also thank the Parliament staff. There are too many branches and directorates to mention, but I thank the cooks, the caterers, the posties, the porters, business information technology, payroll and pensions, human resources and all the clerks for all that they do.

My thanks go in particular to broadcasting. I thank especially—he has given me permission to do this—my lovely younger brother, Nick Cole-Hamilton, who is in the booth today. Nick has, in effect, held the broadcasting sword of Damocles over me for much of my parliamentary career, with the power to mute my microphone, and I love him all the more that he has never exercised that power—

Members: Do it now! [Laughter.]

Each member of our staff in this institution exhibits professionalism every day, and none more so than when circumstance and situation command it of them. When the Parliament needs to be in full sail in the eyes of the world, they have it thrumming like an America’s cup yacht.

I think about the state opening of Parliament, which was conducted while we were still in Covid restrictions, and the staff managed to make that work. I think of the quiet bedrock of support with which they have provided each of us in those late late-night sittings, while we have considered some very controversial and difficult issues that our constituents sent us here to discuss. Then, of course, there was operation unicorn, when, in the most sombre circumstances—the passing of Her Majesty the Queen—they showed this Parliament and this country at their very best, in particular by working through the night, as I know that so many of them did.

It was in those days around the passing of the late Queen, Presiding Officer, that I think I got to know you the most, as you were a constant source of advice on protocol and things like that. It would be wrong—entirely wrong—to describe you as a matriarch in the Parliament; I think of you more as a big sister and, like a big sister, you have been there to offer support. When it was difficult for the Liberal Democrats to come in when we were not officially a group, you met me, as their leader, every month to keep me up to speed with what was going on in the Parliamentary Bureau.

I wish that I had always taken your advice. There was one occasion—I think that it was actually the funeral of the late Queen—when you suggested that I might consider using the facilities in Westminster abbey before we sat down. Four and a half hours later, I really wish that I had done, and I had to barge past Emmanuel Macron to use the bathroom.

Presiding Officer, that support and advice has, I know, been extended to everyone in the chamber. You have had to deal with difficult behaviour—some histrionics have been on display, that is for sure—but I thank you for everything that you have done for us, and I wish you well with whatever is still to come.

The final thing that I will say is this. I reflect on the words of Jamie Greene, who I know is not done with Scottish politics, and Scottish politics is not done with him. He said—rightly, I think—at First Minister’s question time that the promise of this new Parliament, the Parliament to come, is there for the taking. It is a blank canvas—we can put aside a lot of the enmity that has held us back in this Parliament and reach for the better nature of the people who send us to this place. I hope that we grasp that with both hands.

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to protect people receiving and awaiting social care packages, in light of recent reports that industry leaders are warning that home care services are heading towards a “catastrophic breakdown”. (S6T-02979)

For the five years of this parliamentary session, we have known about the challenges that the minister has just rehearsed, and all the while that crisis in social care has fed through to a crisis in our NHS. It is no wonder that the report that was submitted to ministers by Lynn Laughland, who is the chair of HRM Homecare Services Ltd, revealed that 40,000 weekly hours of care were being missed or not met. That led her to say:

“These are not administrative backlogs. They are the measurable consequences of a system operating beyond sustainable capacity.”

The sector has been on its knees for the better part of this parliamentary session, and this Government has been found wanting. In the dying days of this parliamentary session, what will the minister’s Government do to help social care in this country?

The current rates of social care pay are “woefully inadequate”. Those are not my words but those of Donald Macaskill, who is the chief executive of Scottish Care. Let me quantify for members what that means. As a result of those 40,000 hours of unmet need in our communities, 2,000 Scots remain in hospital every night—they are well enough to go home but too frail to do so without a care package. That costs the NHS £1.3 million a day, whereas it would cost a quarter of that to sustain them in their own homes with a care package. All of that causes an interruption in flow, which causes operations to be cancelled and ambulances to be stacked outside accident and emergency units.

When will the Government finally recognise the words of Donald Macaskill, who says:

“I am still frustrated the Scottish Government doesn’t take social care seriously”?

I start by echoing the tributes that have been paid to my friend Liam McArthur and his excellent team for getting us to this stage.

Throughout our consideration of the bill, I have listened with quiet awe and, at times, great sadness to the testimony of colleagues and constituents who have lost the people they love in the most brutal and unforgiving of circumstances. I have nothing to match that. I have no comparable experience from my own family or friendship group to offer the Parliament, and I am profoundly grateful for that, just as I am grateful for the strength of those who have shared those stories, framing the debate around the human at the heart of this, speaking about their loss of agency, their loss of dignity, the agony of it and the terror of it, distilling into heartbreaking clarity what really matters at the end and how, all too often, people are robbed of so much of that in their final days.

Medical culture and practice have led us to a point where life can be foreshortened, but only with the removal of sustenance and fluids. That is the barbaric and inhumane compromise that we have settled for, where emaciated bodies are made as comfortable as possible but are still left to a lingering death that can take many days. The provisions in the bill offer patients in the end stages of life a far more gentle and dignified alternative to that—but only if they are terminally ill, only if they are aged 18 or over, only if they have mental capacity, only if they are acting of their own volition and only if their clinicians agree that they have fewer than six months left to live. That is a powerful matrix of safety, and the member in charge has drawn from the very best practice of those jurisdictions that have gone before us.

We benefit from that because we are not pioneers in this. More than 300 million people live in jurisdictions that already offer assisted dying. We should consider that, over the decades, not a single one of those countries or territories has ever reversed that decision. If this were so readily exploitable or dangerous, there would be examples of repeal—but there are not.

The narrow scope and significant safeguards of Liam McArthur’s bill as introduced have only been strengthened and enhanced by the quality and depth of the amendments that we have made as the bill has moved through the Parliament. The guardrails around the bill are unprecedented. This is one of the safest approaches in the world.

Please do not vote against the bill because you are waiting for a safer one. In this moment of final decision, all that is left for us to decide is whether we support the idea of choice at the end, or we do not. I respect and have great admiration for many of those who have spoken in opposition to the bill, but we have made sure that, if it passes, you will never be forced to choose it. I ask members: please do not take the choice away from the rest of us.

I have no real fear of death itself, but I have abundant fear of dying. Uncontrollable breakthrough pain frightens me. Asphyxiation and an inability to swallow frighten me. More than anything else, the loss of my identity and the lack of recognition of those I love frighten me.

I want to be able to choose a different end and to remain the author of my life’s story until the very last word, but the law as it stands makes death a lottery—a potentially cruel and terrifying uncertainty that all too many Scots meet the sharpest edges of. That is why, with all my heart, I hope that we change the law tonight.

19:05

I start by echoing the tributes that have been paid to my friend Liam McArthur and his excellent team for getting us to this stage.

Throughout our consideration of the bill, I have listened with quiet awe and, at times, great sadness to the testimony of colleagues and constituents who have lost the people they love in the most brutal and unforgiving of circumstances. I have nothing to match that. I have no comparable experience from my own family or friendship group to offer the Parliament, and I am profoundly grateful for that, just as I am grateful for the strength of those who have shared those stories, framing the debate around the human at the heart of this, speaking about their loss of agency, their loss of dignity, the agony of it and the terror of it, distilling into heartbreaking clarity what really matters at the end and how, all too often, people are robbed of so much of that in their final days.

Medical culture and practice have led us to a point where life can be foreshortened, but only with the removal of sustenance and fluids. That is the barbaric and inhumane compromise that we have settled for, where emaciated bodies are made as comfortable as possible but are still left to a lingering death that can take many days. The provisions in the bill offer patients in the end stages of life a far more gentle and dignified alternative to that—but only if they are terminally ill, only if they are aged 18 or over, only if they have mental capacity, only if they are acting of their own volition and only if their clinicians agree that they have fewer than six months left to live. That is a powerful matrix of safety, and the member in charge has drawn from the very best practice of those jurisdictions that have gone before us.

We benefit from that because we are not pioneers in this. More than 300 million people live in jurisdictions that already offer assisted dying. We should consider that, over the decades, not a single one of those countries or territories has ever reversed that decision. If this were so readily exploitable or dangerous, there would be examples of repeal—but there are not.

The narrow scope and significant safeguards of Liam McArthur’s bill as introduced have only been strengthened and enhanced by the quality and depth of the amendments that we have made as the bill has moved through the Parliament. The guardrails around the bill are unprecedented. This is one of the safest approaches in the world.

Please do not vote against the bill because you are waiting for a safer one. In this moment of final decision, all that is left for us to decide is whether we support the idea of choice at the end, or we do not. I respect and have great admiration for many of those who have spoken in opposition to the bill, but we have made sure that, if it passes, you will never be forced to choose it. I ask members: please do not take the choice away from the rest of us.

I have no real fear of death itself, but I have abundant fear of dying. Uncontrollable breakthrough pain frightens me. Asphyxiation and an inability to swallow frighten me. More than anything else, the loss of my identity and the lack of recognition of those I love frighten me.

I want to be able to choose a different end and to remain the author of my life’s story until the very last word, but the law as it stands makes death a lottery—a potentially cruel and terrifying uncertainty that all too many Scots meet the sharpest edges of. That is why, with all my heart, I hope that we change the law tonight.

19:05

I start by clarifying that the Liberal Democrats have sought to engage with the bill. It is unfortunate that the minister and I could not make our diaries align so that we could meet directly on it. I am grateful for her offer to do so, and I will take that up if there is time before the dissolution of Parliament. I will certainly work with whoever the minister in charge is in the next session of Parliament to make sure that the legislation works for everyone.

The bill brings forward important reforms that are necessary. Its intention is to strengthen public safety and, by so doing, improve confidence in the sector and in the regulation of non-surgical cosmetic procedures. We will support it at stage 3. However, I repeat the caveats that I made in my intervention on the minister and in my earlier remarks in relation to Ash Regan’s amendments: we must not plough on with this legislation and send to the wall those high-quality businesses and professionals who have sought to get the maximum qualifications and deliver the highest quality of service that they can.

As we know, part 1 of the bill addresses higher-risk procedures that appear to penetrate the skin, including treatments such as dermal fillers, botulinum toxin, thread lifts and deep chemical peels. Those procedures are often marketed as routine or low risk, but when they are carried out incorrectly or by people without adequate training, the harm can be serious, lifelong and deeply distressing.

For too long, regulation in the area has been fragmented and unclear. There has been no single framework that sets out where such procedures can take place, who is qualified to perform them and what minimum standards should apply in their administration. That lack of clarity benefits no one—neither patients nor responsible practitioners. For those reasons, Scottish Liberal Democrats have supported the principle of regulation at every stage as the bill has progressed through the Parliament.

We believe that the move towards a more risk-based and proportionate framework, with a distinction between higher-risk procedures and lower-risk ones, is sensible. Likewise, restricting higher-risk procedures to appropriate premises, providing proper oversight, prohibiting procedures for under-18s and giving Healthcare Improvement Scotland inspection and enforcement powers are all important steps forward.

However, I reiterate that we still have concerns about the bill’s potential impact on trained practitioners who are currently operating safely and responsibly. Those practitioners also want regulation and bad actors to be removed from this field of work. Throughout the committee’s scrutiny of the bill, we heard consistent evidence that many practitioners in the sector have, at massive personal cost, invested heavily in training, qualifications and professional standards under the existing system.

As I said, many of those practitioners support regulation, because they want bad actors to be removed and confidence to be strengthened. However, there remains the risk that, if the system is implemented with the inflexibility that we saw at stage 1, some responsible practitioners—many of whom are self-employed—in the largely female-led sector could find themselves regulated out of the profession altogether. I do not think that any of us wants that to happen. I am gratified that I think that I saw a chink of light in the minister’s remarks, in that, through regulation and the bill’s implementation phases, her Government will work with the sector on a more rational implementation.

An inflexible approach would not improve safety; it would simply remove skilled providers and risk pushing activity outside the regulated system. If we do not get this right, some of the procedures will still take place, but in a black market setting and at higher risk. As the framework that the bill will introduce is implemented, it will be important for the Government to engage closely with practitioners—I am glad that we have heard that today—to keep the framework under review and to ensure that the regulations remain proportionate, workable and focused on patient safety.

Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the overall aim of improving safety and strengthening oversight, but we offer the caveat that we must protect hard-working and well-qualified practitioners who just want to protect their businesses.

I start by echoing the tributes that have been paid to my friend Liam McArthur and his excellent team for getting us to this stage.

Throughout our consideration of the bill, I have listened with quiet awe and, at times, great sadness to the testimony of colleagues and constituents who have lost the people they love in the most brutal and unforgiving of circumstances. I have nothing to match that. I have no comparable experience from my own family or friendship group to offer the Parliament, and I am profoundly grateful for that, just as I am grateful for the strength of those who have shared those stories, framing the debate around the human at the heart of this, speaking about their loss of agency, their loss of dignity, the agony of it and the terror of it, distilling into heartbreaking clarity what really matters at the end and how, all too often, people are robbed of so much of that in their final days.

Medical culture and practice have led us to a point where life can be foreshortened, but only with the removal of sustenance and fluids. That is the barbaric and inhumane compromise that we have settled for, where emaciated bodies are made as comfortable as possible but are still left to a lingering death that can take many days. The provisions in the bill offer patients in the end stages of life a far more gentle and dignified alternative to that—but only if they are terminally ill, only if they are aged 18 or over, only if they have mental capacity, only if they are acting of their own volition and only if their clinicians agree that they have fewer than six months left to live. That is a powerful matrix of safety, and the member in charge has drawn from the very best practice of those jurisdictions that have gone before us.

We benefit from that because we are not pioneers in this. More than 300 million people live in jurisdictions that already offer assisted dying. We should consider that, over the decades, not a single one of those countries or territories has ever reversed that decision. If this were so readily exploitable or dangerous, there would be examples of repeal—but there are not.

The narrow scope and significant safeguards of Liam McArthur’s bill as introduced have only been strengthened and enhanced by the quality and depth of the amendments that we have made as the bill has moved through the Parliament. The guardrails around the bill are unprecedented. This is one of the safest approaches in the world.

Please do not vote against the bill because you are waiting for a safer one. In this moment of final decision, all that is left for us to decide is whether we support the idea of choice at the end, or we do not. I respect and have great admiration for many of those who have spoken in opposition to the bill, but we have made sure that, if it passes, you will never be forced to choose it. I ask members: please do not take the choice away from the rest of us.

I have no real fear of death itself, but I have abundant fear of dying. Uncontrollable breakthrough pain frightens me. Asphyxiation and an inability to swallow frighten me. More than anything else, the loss of my identity and the lack of recognition of those I love frighten me.

I want to be able to choose a different end and to remain the author of my life’s story until the very last word, but the law as it stands makes death a lottery—a potentially cruel and terrifying uncertainty that all too many Scots meet the sharpest edges of. That is why, with all my heart, I hope that we change the law tonight.

19:05

I start by echoing the tributes that have been paid to my friend Liam McArthur and his excellent team for getting us to this stage.

Throughout our consideration of the bill, I have listened with quiet awe and, at times, great sadness to the testimony of colleagues and constituents who have lost the people they love in the most brutal and unforgiving of circumstances. I have nothing to match that. I have no comparable experience from my own family or friendship group to offer the Parliament, and I am profoundly grateful for that, just as I am grateful for the strength of those who have shared those stories, framing the debate around the human at the heart of this, speaking about their loss of agency, their loss of dignity, the agony of it and the terror of it, distilling into heartbreaking clarity what really matters at the end and how, all too often, people are robbed of so much of that in their final days.

Medical culture and practice have led us to a point where life can be foreshortened, but only with the removal of sustenance and fluids. That is the barbaric and inhumane compromise that we have settled for, where emaciated bodies are made as comfortable as possible but are still left to a lingering death that can take many days. The provisions in the bill offer patients in the end stages of life a far more gentle and dignified alternative to that—but only if they are terminally ill, only if they are aged 18 or over, only if they have mental capacity, only if they are acting of their own volition and only if their clinicians agree that they have fewer than six months left to live. That is a powerful matrix of safety, and the member in charge has drawn from the very best practice of those jurisdictions that have gone before us.

We benefit from that because we are not pioneers in this. More than 300 million people live in jurisdictions that already offer assisted dying. We should consider that, over the decades, not a single one of those countries or territories has ever reversed that decision. If this were so readily exploitable or dangerous, there would be examples of repeal—but there are not.

The narrow scope and significant safeguards of Liam McArthur’s bill as introduced have only been strengthened and enhanced by the quality and depth of the amendments that we have made as the bill has moved through the Parliament. The guardrails around the bill are unprecedented. This is one of the safest approaches in the world.

Please do not vote against the bill because you are waiting for a safer one. In this moment of final decision, all that is left for us to decide is whether we support the idea of choice at the end, or we do not. I respect and have great admiration for many of those who have spoken in opposition to the bill, but we have made sure that, if it passes, you will never be forced to choose it. I ask members: please do not take the choice away from the rest of us.

I have no real fear of death itself, but I have abundant fear of dying. Uncontrollable breakthrough pain frightens me. Asphyxiation and an inability to swallow frighten me. More than anything else, the loss of my identity and the lack of recognition of those I love frighten me.

I want to be able to choose a different end and to remain the author of my life’s story until the very last word, but the law as it stands makes death a lottery—a potentially cruel and terrifying uncertainty that all too many Scots meet the sharpest edges of. That is why, with all my heart, I hope that we change the law tonight.

19:05