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 will speak briefly in support of Ash Regan’s amendments, which I think provide a remedy to some of the inflexibilities around the bill as drafted that I raised at stage 1.

Ash Regan spoke of constituents coming to see her, and I have had constituents come to see me. I am sure that members across the chamber have businesses in their constituencies that would not only be affected by all the proposed changes in the bill but would be absolutely sunk without trace if those changes were to be brought in unamended.

My anxiety is that, although we absolutely need to regulate for the bad actors in this field of procedure, there are a good number of people—largely women—who are well qualified and very focused on patient care, cleanliness, hygiene and all the other things that we would hope to see in the sector. To legislate without thinking about the consequences for them and seeking a remedy for them would be a very poor thing indeed.

The minister refers to practitioners who go above and beyond in the qualifications that they seek out and the measures that they put in place to safeguard the people in their care. They are still none the wiser as to whether the bill, when it is finally implemented, will put them out of business. I hope that the minister will clarify to members—either in her remarks now or in her closing remarks—the Government’s intention to work with the sector to find a way through all of this, so that, when the next Government implements the bill, it does not lead to the unnecessary loss of viable, high-quality 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

I expect, or at least hope, that every member in the chamber will always seek to reflect the better natures of the people who sent us here and who give us our instructions. It is clear that, although there is widespread good practice in the building, we are still falling short of that aspiration. I hope that the people who have come forward anonymously have found redress and support and, most importantly, have been believed.

There are challenges in the report. It is embarrassing, but it is also a call to action. I sincerely hope that, although the report represents one of the last considerations of this session of Parliament, it will also represent one of the first considerations of the session to come. Scottish Liberal Democrats will certainly play our part in ensuring that we act on the recommendations and uphold the principles of fair and safe work, both for our staff and for the people who seek our help when they come to our offices. We are committed to that endeavour.

This week, our hearts are with the people of Dunblane and, in particular, the families of the 16 children and their teacher who were lost to us that day. Thirty years on, many of those children might have been parents themselves by now, but the gunshots of a madman cut short the promise of those young lives. They brought a nation to grief and a Parliament to action, causing it to ban for ever the domestic ownership of handguns and, by so doing, prevent the likelihood of the repetition of such a tragedy.

This year, and every year, we remember the trauma of Dunblane and the shadow that it still casts across our national story.

Does Jamie Hepburn agree that it is very difficult to legislate for human interaction generally and that, when it comes to the holistic treatment of an individual—particularly someone in their late teens going through end-of-life care—it would be vital to have that kind of conversation, to give them agency and an understanding of the laws of the land, rather than just ceasing the conversation altogether?

There is good news. A year after she was ready to leave hospital, and months after I first raised her case, Margaret MacGill finally got home yesterday—not because of anything that the Government did but because her family took control of the budget and hired carers themselves, because they were told that the alternative was for her to spend another year in hospital.

Just down the road from Margaret, The Herald newspaper spoke to Elizabeth Jones, a mum in Caithness. Her first two kids were born in the local hospital but then, on the Scottish National Party’s watch, her local maternity services were downgraded. So, when her third child needed to be born by caesarean section, she had to travel 100 miles, alone, to Inverness on a bus.

In November, the Parliament backed a Scottish Liberal Democrat amendment that called for an independent review of maternity services in Caithness, giving hope to families in the area. Why is the SNP defying the wishes of this Parliament?