Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. When I asked my question, I should have said that I am in receipt of adult disability payment. I apologise for not declaring that.

The first principle underlying the adult disability payment is to help people to get employment and stay in it; it was never intended to be an income replacement benefit. Does the First Minister agree that the proposed reductions to that benefit, whereby people who require help to wash, dress and prepare meals will no longer qualify, will risk their ability to maintain employment and so go against the benefit’s fundamental principle?

A young DJ recently told BBC Scotland that he is concerned that the rising cost of going to gigs will stop people being energised by music and that priority is being given to artists from more affluent backgrounds. Will the cabinet secretary outline what action the Scottish Government is taking to enable artists from all backgrounds to thrive at this time in particular, as we approach the important festival season?

I echo what colleagues have said about the tone of the debate thus far. As we have just heard, this is an emotional topic and it is good to see colleagues engaging positively with each other and disagreeing well.

As many in the chamber know, I am a Christian. I believe that all people are created in the image of God, which means that life is always sacred and worthy of protection, and that ultimately leads me to oppose this legislation. However, I understand that not everyone shares that belief in God, so I will focus today on issues that can speak to everyone, regardless of whether they have faith.

I am sympathetic to the argument regarding personal choice and freedom that is made by supporters of assisted dying. That is naturally where I lie as a Conservative, and I would even say that there have been times in my life when I found myself agreeing with some of the points that have been strongly made this afternoon. However, during my time in Parliament, I have interacted more and more with disabled people, organisations and charities, and I have become convinced that the introduction of assisted dying would put the most vulnerable in our society at risk.

This afternoon, as a Parliament, we stand at a crossroads. If we go along one path, we face introducing death as a viable treatment for suffering, fundamentally redefining both our society’s belief in the inherent value of human life and the relationship between doctor and patient. On the other hand, we could choose to maintain the dignity of all human life and to make real and meaningful investments in the palliative care system.

Make no mistake: I am not arguing for the status quo. The conversations that the bill has prompted in the past three or four years have brought to light the failings in our palliative care system. Speakers on both sides have commented on the chronic underfunding of services that are supposed to care for our vulnerable neighbours as they approach the end of life, but the answer to inadequate palliative care cannot be to deliberately end a patient’s life. That is not only because we, as a society, have considered and should always consider life as being worthy of value, no matter the circumstances, but because of the inherent danger that the abandonment of that principle would pose to disabled people and other vulnerable people.

The truth is that there are no safeguards that can be put in place to completely remove the dangers that this legislation poses for disabled people. Whether explicit or implicit, disabled and older people will feel pressure to consider whether to keep on living if dying is an option. That could come in the form of not wanting to burden loved ones with the financial or personal costs of continued care or of believing that they are a drain on a society in which they are no longer seen as valued members.

As I have said previously in the chamber, I am here today only because someone came this morning to help me to shower and dress. I can function in this Parliament only because my assistant is willing to give me personal care. I can imagine, in a few years’ time—hopefully a number of years’ time—having some terminal illness and feeling that a burden could be put on my wife and children because of the care that they give me day in, day out. I have spoken to other disabled people who have felt and feel the same. They are concerned that they will turn and put pressure on their family. To take that pressure away, they could take a course that they did not necessarily want to, but that they felt they should take for the sake of their children or their partner. To support the bill as presented is to roll the dice with the lives and dignity of the one in five people in Scotland who have a disability.

I ask my colleagues who will vote for the bill—believing that it is narrow enough and that adequate safeguards can be brought in at stage 2—to consider that, in every jurisdiction in which assisted dying has been introduced, the parameters have widened and the safeguards have been watered down. That is not a sentimental, slippery-slope argument; it recognises the evidence that is in front of us. As MSPs, we are bound to vote on behalf of the best interests of our constituents. I beg and urge members to consider the most vulnerable in their constituency or region and to say no to playing dice with the sanctity of their lives.

We have heard several contributions on what will happen with regard to court interventions and interpretation of the bill, which we cannot control once the bill leaves this place. What guarantees can the member give that, over time, the courts will not expand the definition of terminal illness to go beyond what he intends today?

That is not the case for disabled people. Disabled people do not have a free choice to make. Because of their disability, those choices are often limited by society. Does the member not accept that the proposal is yet another pressure put on disabled people, who do not have the same choice as those who do not have a disability?

I, too, thank Michael Marra for securing this afternoon’s debate.

I fully agree with the comments of the two previous speakers. I am sure that members will be tired of hearing me say this, but it bears repeating as often as it takes for the message to break through: disabled people are being left behind in Scotland today. I agree that we have gone backwards in Scotland in the past number of years. Pre-pandemic, the situation was already bad, but, since then, the decline has been escalating and getting worse.

There is a worrying trend emerging as the country struggles to deal with our current economic predicament. It seems that, if sacrifices have to be made, the Government and local authorities are going to the most vulnerable in our society, and that is often disabled individuals. Third sector budgets are being cut and numerous charities are going to the wall. That is leaving undone the vital services that provide vulnerable people with support when the need for those is getting worse.

Nowhere is that more evident than in the gutting of after-school and holiday care for children with additional support needs. For parents of ASN children, after-school and holiday care is not a luxury; it is absolutely essential to allow them to take part in society and, in many cases, to hold a job to support their family.

A number of constituents have written to me over the past couple of weeks leading up to the debate. They have been put in an impossible situation because of the lack of adequate support. I will give an example. One individual who has written to me is a single parent with two children, the eldest of whom has both autism and ADHD. She is classed as her child’s carer but is also pursuing a degree at university. During the most recent school holiday, she managed to secure four days a week for her son at an ASN holiday club, which she describes as a godsend. However, thanks to a decision by the City of Edinburgh Council, she now has only two weeks’ cover for the summer holidays. That leaves her with five weeks with no support at all. How do we expect that mother to cope on her own? Moreover, she has told me that ASN children are, in effect, banned from mainstream holiday clubs because the charities that run them cannot afford to pay the staff who are required for one-to-one care.

As members are, I am sure, aware, additional support needs are becoming more prevalent. In Edinburgh, the proportion of children with ASN in education has grown to around 50 per cent. Without support, that represents a huge number of parents who are unable to work because of caring duties, and we should not forget that most of those caring responsibilities fall on women.

That is obviously not good enough. Apart from the morality of ensuring that everyone has access to meaningful work to support their family, it has economic implications for us in Scotland. The Social Justice and Social Security Committee recently produced a report on “Addressing Child Poverty Through Parental Employment”, in which it looked at trying to get women back into employment—in fact, that inquiry started back when the current Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise was a member of the committee. One of the key factors was enabling support for women to allow them to go back to work. However, my constituents are being told that, in the summer, there is no support for them.

I am tired of saying this, and I am sure that members are tired of hearing it, but disabled people and their families are being left behind. Children with ASN and their parents deserve our support, and they deserve much better than they are getting now.

I urge the Scottish Government and local authorities to deal with the situation. We have seven weeks until the summer holidays—-that is seven weeks for something to be done to help the most vulnerable in our society. I say to the minister that people do not want to hear warm words today; they want action so that they can live normal lives.

The minister rightly criticises the Westminster Government, but does she recognise that the disability plan that she has been working on has been overwhelmingly rejected by disability charities and disabled individuals? Will she re-engage with the disability community in a meaningful way, instead of imposing stuff that it knows will not work in practice?

I do welcome that announcement, minister, but will you also commit to meeting the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities as soon as possible before the summer holidays to find out what is happening on the ground and what extra help the Scottish Government could give local authorities for this summer?

My question follows on from the previous question. I have been contacted by numerous charities in my region that will have to cease providing vital preventative care for individuals in the Lothians due to the IJB cuts. The First Minister said that he wants to lay aside politics and do the best for the people of Scotland. Will he now intervene in the crisis to make sure that NHS Lothian does not cut the budget to the IJB? That cut would put vulnerable people out of the services that they require. Rather than talk about previous measures, will he now be proactive in working with NHS Lothian and the council to make sure that the IJB gets the appropriate funding?