Michelle Thomson
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“We cannot lose sight of the human stories behind that—there has been not just uncertainty but financial worry and a loss of confidence in what should be their safest space: their home.”
“Even though section 104 orders are commonplace, like others, I remain unconvinced by the UK Government’s reasoning. It is a sober reminder that power devolved is power retained. I caution those who believe that, should the bill pass, the choice that they hope for will be immediately and seamlessly available.”
“Willie Rennie: I understand some of the changes that have been made, and I welcome some of the ones that have been introduced, but the issue is still incredibly sensitive. We do not yet have the investment that the changes are designed to bring. That is why acting carefully must be the first priority.”
“To that end, I thank the minister for the Government’s acceptance of my amendment 15. First-time buyers already face significant barriers, and it would have been unfair for the levy to have created further obstacles. I am grateful to colleagues and the minister for ensuring that fairness is at the centre of the legislation.”
“On the other side, we are reminded by philosophers such as Marcus Düwell that “in the concept of human dignity questions about the role of humanity, the rights of individuals, and the structure of our normative social and political orders are interconnected.” In essence, we confront a profound fault line between two fundamental considerat…”
“I will start my short remarks by popping in the intervention that I hoped to make on Willie Rennie. I hope that he will join me in my calls for an adjustment to the fiscal framework to remove the ridiculous limits on the Scottish Government’s capital borrowing powers, because that is a fundamental aspect of being able to improve our infra…”
The complete record
Every one of 425 lines we hold for Michelle Thomson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 9.
“To ask the Scottish Government how the £9 million being invested in the food and drink processing scheme Scotland will help businesses to increase productivity, improve efficiency, and invest in new equipment and technology. (S6O-05696)”
“Therefore, I urge members who might be considering abstaining to vote one way or the other, so that we have the clearest indication that we can get of the will of the Parliament. 20:18”
“It is not an unqualified vote. It is an on-balance, all-things- considered and, I hope, reflective yes. For those who remain uncertain, let me offer one final reflection. Yesterday, I visited my doctor and then my elderly father, I spoke to his carers and I talked to local constituents. I asked people informally what they thought. That was by no means rigorous research, but every person I spoke to expressed support. I believe that the public are ahead of us on this matter, and they look to us to create the progressive, dignified, supportive and enlightened Scotland that they seek. Whatever the outcome this evening, the margin must be clear enough to give people confidence that the Parliament has reached a decisive conclusion.”
“Even though section 104 orders are commonplace, like others, I remain unconvinced by the UK Government’s reasoning. It is a sober reminder that power devolved is power retained. I caution those who believe that, should the bill pass, the choice that they hope for will be immediately and seamlessly available. Politics will not end with tonight’s vote. If part of our job is to pass good legislation—and it is—we must recognise that no bill is ever and can ever be perfect. This one is no exception. What we can say is that the member in charge of the bill has conducted this process with courtesy, respect and a genuinely open mind. I also commend the Scottish Government and, in particular, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care for the way in which they have handled this difficult terrain. For my part, I will vote for the bill.”
“We have heard multiple such examples from colleagues. That is our status quo. My greatest concern during this process has been the risk of coercion. Members know my particular interest in the protection of women. That concern led me to support many of the safeguarding amendments, even in the knowledge that such amendments would make the bill more complex and, at times, more unwieldy. That said, coercion cuts both ways. I have heard first-hand evidence of families exerting significant pressure on their loved ones not to go through with their final wishes. A further significant concern relates to the decision that key aspects of protection and regulation will now be handled through a section 104 order rather than via section 30.”
“On the other side, we are reminded by philosophers such as Marcus Düwell that “in the concept of human dignity questions about the role of humanity, the rights of individuals, and the structure of our normative social and political orders are interconnected.” In essence, we confront a profound fault line between two fundamental considerations: respect for individual choice and autonomy, and recognition of human vulnerability and the state’s duty to protect life. However, we will not settle that philosophical dispute this evening—certainly not through the binary vote that each of us must cast. During the stage 1 debate, I said that, whatever our vote, harms will occur. They occur already. Terminally ill people sometimes starve themselves to hasten death. Others are slowly overmedicated until life ends.”
“This will be my last speech in this chamber, and I am proud that it is in a debate on this bill—one where we are all free to be colleagues acting on behalf of our fellow Scots, regardless of our view or our vote at decision time. I will begin my remarks by considering the philosophical tension that underpins the proposed legislation. On one side, the proposals before us can be seen as a continuation of the individualism that is now described as agency, and, in the context of this debate, the ability to make choices about the manner and timing of one’s own death.”
“This Government’s management of the capital programme in this country has been a disaster for years, and ministers should reflect on that. On that basis, I close my remarks. 18:08”
“Màiri McAllan: I agree with Michael Marra that we have to find the right resources to do that, but, given that a sum of billions of pounds will apply to the public purse, I cannot understand why he does not see that as a reasonable contribution. I wonder how he will explain to the people whom he represents that he was not willing to vote for something that made sure that remediation could progress and alleviated the significant pressure on the public purse that the programme requires. Michael Marra: I say to the minister—gently, if I can—that £100 million came to the Scottish Government to spend on remediation programmes. The Government has not applied that to remediation. It has spread it across other parts of its budget to fill the gaps and holes in that regard.”
“On Ivan McKee’s point, it is slightly odd that the minister seems incapable of understanding that we should have Scottish answers for Scottish problems. Through stages 2 and 3, he has been keen to talk about what the Labour Government elsewhere is doing in this policy area. My job here—and the job of the Scottish Parliament—is to come up with answers for Scotland that are specific to the Scottish challenges that we face. That is the position that Scottish Labour takes with regard to the legislation that we are looking at today. It is absolutely critical that we deliver the right resources to ensure that we get this work done, and we have to do that timeously.”
“I say to Mr Harvie that the nub of the debate today has been about whether, in the current circumstances of a housing emergency—which he has some culpability for— there is a mismatch between the need to raise that money and the vulnerability of a housing sector that is in a terrible, absolutely dreadful state. We also have to ensure that we do not lose sight of the fact that there are two forms of social good in this work. Yes, there is the safety of people who are in high-rise buildings that require remediation, but there is also social good in people having decent houses to live in. It should not be the case that more than 10,000 children—a record number in Scotland—are living in temporary accommodation, so we must have a housing market that works. That is absolutely critical.”
“However, even if Mr Marra does not support this specific levy, does he support the principle that the house-building industry needs to pay at least a significant portion of the cost of the remediation programme? What alternative mechanism does he propose to ensure that it does so? It will not do so voluntarily. Michael Marra: Mr Harvie will be aware that there are already specific taxes in this area on the house-building industry. The minister was right when he set out that we have a challenge in funding the large gap between the requirements in Scotland and what we need to raise, and we have to find vehicles to do that.”
“There is the issue of some of the language that has been used in relation to this bill and around the polluter-pays principle. Of course, there are members of the house-building industry in Scotland—small family firms, for instance—that have never built a building above two storeys or taken on any of the projects that are involved in this issue, and they are worried that they will be affected by a general levy across the sector. It is right that we make sure that we get the language for the specific Scottish sector correct in that regard. Patrick Harvie: I agree that we should be careful about our language, but suggesting that I have demonised anybody involved in the house- building industry is a hyperbolic use of language.”
“18:04 Michael Marra: We on the Labour benches are unequivocal that the horrors of Grenfell must never be repeated. It is incumbent on Governments across these islands to ensure that people have safe homes to live in and that lives are not needlessly lost through the neglect of Government and industry, which failed in their duties to the 72 residents of the Grenfell tower. At the start of his contribution, Patrick Harvie set out many things that I agree with in relation to where responsibility and culpability for those areas lie. We have had a public inquiry that drew stark conclusions. To take that a step further and seek to demonise anybody who is involved in the building of houses as some kind of malignant force in Scotland is a jump too far.”
“To that end, I thank the minister for the Government’s acceptance of my amendment 15. First-time buyers already face significant barriers, and it would have been unfair for the levy to have created further obstacles. I am grateful to colleagues and the minister for ensuring that fairness is at the centre of the legislation. The Parliament did not choose the circumstances that surround the levy, but we can choose a responsible response. With safeguards secured and a commitment to monitoring impact, we can take a step that protects home owners, advances cladding remediation and avoids, where possible, undue burdens on those who enter the housing market. I will, therefore, support the bill, and I urge all colleagues to do the same. The Presiding Officer: I call Michael Marra to wind up for the Labour Party.”
“We cannot lose sight of the human stories behind that—there has been not just uncertainty but financial worry and a loss of confidence in what should be their safest space: their home. Whatever the disagreements about funding, the need to complete remediation is unquestionable, and I fully accept that it will cost billions over a multitude of years. Through my role on the committee and having heard the debate, I recognise the concerns of members, developers and the wider housing sector. It is fair to recognise that the current market faces rising costs, tightening supply chains and pressures on affordability. Introducing a levy at this moment is therefore not ideal, and I think that the Government recognises that. I recognise and accept that the Government will monitor and mitigate any unintended consequences on supply and affordability.”
“Even where there has been disagreement, we share a commitment to ensuring that homes in Scotland are safe, secure and fit for purpose. It is a pity that the levy has not emerged from a Scottish policy design process. It has been foisted on us by the UK Government’s decisions on building safety funding and the UK-wide levy framework. That said, regardless of whether we agree with the framework, Scotland must respond, because doing nothing would risk leaving home owners and local authorities without the mechanisms that are needed for remediation. I agree that the uncertainty that many home owners have been required to live with must have been extremely difficult.”
“I will start my short remarks by popping in the intervention that I hoped to make on Willie Rennie. I hope that he will join me in my calls for an adjustment to the fiscal framework to remove the ridiculous limits on the Scottish Government’s capital borrowing powers, because that is a fundamental aspect of being able to improve our infrastructure. Given the volume of legislation that we have to get through this evening, I intend to make only a few brief remarks. I join those members who have stated that the decision that we make today will have real consequences for home owners, the housing market and our collective responsibility to keep people safe in their homes. That is fundamental. I have been heartened by the fact that members from across the parties have engaged constructively.”
“Willie Rennie: I understand some of the changes that have been made, and I welcome some of the ones that have been introduced, but the issue is still incredibly sensitive. We do not yet have the investment that the changes are designed to bring. That is why acting carefully must be the first priority. I therefore urge the Government to use caution. It should not charge ahead—because the sector sees a Government that is more interested in taxing than in delivering the programme. If the Government had moved ahead, spent that money and resolved more of the properties that are desperate for resolution, I might have had more sympathy. Michelle Thomson rose— Willie Rennie: I am concluding, I am afraid—I had only four minutes. That is why we will not support the bill. It is a cack-handed measure that will knock confidence in the sector.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Willie Rennie: I will take an intervention from Màiri McAllan. Màiri McAllan: In this debate, it is worth remembering that we are talking about a contribution to what could be billions of pounds of public money to rectify something and keep our residents safe. Surely members can understand that that is an important contribution to make. Does Willie Rennie appreciate that we can both foster confidence and investment—as we have been doing with record budgets, greater confidence, a delivery agency and clear exemptions to encourage investment—and work with developers to ensure that key issues of public safety are addressed? I hope that members will support that.”
“It is much easier for them to go for the step-up market, because, in that area, access to finance is easier and quicker, transactions are larger and margins are better. I thank the minister for his open-mindedness, flexibility and engagement on the matter. 16:45”
“Amendment 15, through the introduction of the word “partial” and by the use of regulation-making powers, recognises that the minister has consistently stated the Scottish Government’s concerns around quantum. It was helpful at stage 2 to have on the record the fact that 22 per cent of new-build sales are to first-time buyers. Arguably, that percentage could be more if the measures that the Scottish Government undertakes come to fruition. My final point is that, as a minimum, enabling a partial relief is vitally important to developers— particularly small and medium-sized enterprise developers, who play their part in enabling sustainable communities. We need to support SMEs to have a continued focus on the first-time buyer market.”
“I rise to speak to amendments 8, 10 and 15 in regard to a crucial part of the residential housing market: first-time buyers. At stage 2—I stand by this—I noted “the vital role of first-time buyers in keeping the housing market viable” and said that they “drive demand and create a ripple effect, free up homes for rent, support economic growth, support a balanced market and play into balancing sustainable communities.”— [Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 10 February 2026; c 35.] Given the importance of first-time buyers, I hedged my bets and, therefore, lodged three amendments at stage 3. I do not intend to move amendments 8 or 10, but I will move amendment 15.”
“Daniel Johnson: I understand that those things are happening, but we are talking about an option where the express objective is to end life and bring about death.”
“We are considering something quite different—the ending of life. That is in a different category from other things that a doctor might advise, such as analgesics or things that might alter an underlying disease. Elena Whitham: Would the member accept that the way that the system currently works means that conversations with people who are terminally ill are indeed happening? I have spoken on the record about my mum, and there are many others like her. They have conversations with doctors about voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, about medication that might have a double effect and might hasten or bring about death, or about withdrawing treatments in a way that will bring about their death. People are having those conversations with trusted doctors across the country at the moment.”
“That is what happens when you contemplate life, and it would be more profound if you were contemplating death. I can only imagine what that is like, but it is important that we realise that, therefore, the introduction of information about the options is incredibly delicate. There is a question as to whether that is a matter for the bill itself or for guidance, but any guidance is out of our hands whereas the detail of the legislation is in our hands. There has been much discussion about presenting all treatment options. I speak as someone who voted for the bill at stage 1, but who does not consider assisted dying to be a treatment option. It is an option, but it is not a treatment option. Treatment alters the course of a disease, improves a condition or alters a state of life.”
“I pay tribute to Edward Mountain. He did well in making the point that this is about when the right moment to have a discussion is, and his sharing of his insight and story was helpful. I have never been in that situation. The closest I have come to it was when my daughter was born and we were in hospital. I do not want to go into all the details, although I have shared some of them with Mr Mountain. I always thought that it was a euphemism when people said that the room was spinning when they were being told information and had to make decisions, but it is not a euphemism, because that is literally how it feels when you are faced with doctors telling you things in some detail, in 30 or 45 minutes, and you have to make decisions. The room spins and you do not take it all in.”
“Finally, amendment 49 is a technical and drafting amendment to section 20B to reflect the correct terminology, as Jackie Baillie set out, and I support that amendment. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Daniel Johnson to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 18. Daniel Johnson: This is quite a group of amendments to attempt to sum up, but I do not think we should be surprised by that because we are all aware of the delicate and sensitive nature of the doctor-patient relationship and we know that we are contemplating legislation that will enable something that is quite different from what is ordinarily discussed and considered within that relationship. We must acknowledge that. Although we can talk about technicalities, as we have done with other groups of amendments, this group puts us in the consulting room.”
“The bill as drafted stipulates that a healthcare professional must not raise the topic of assisted dying with a person under the age of 18 unless the young person raises it themselves, and I think that that is still the right approach. Similarly, amendment 244 would prevent assisted dying from being considered as part of an anticipatory care plan for any person, rather than just someone under the age of 18—again, I think that that provision is disproportionate. Amendments 245 and 246 would create a range of penalties for those who contravene section 20B. As Mr Balfour will be aware, matters of addressing professional conduct are already provided for in our health services, both public and private, so I am opposed to those amendments.”
“Sensitive conversations are an important part of clinical practice and often lead to healthcare professionals being able to explore underlying concerns. Other members—I think that Alasdair Allan was one of them—expressed concern that shutting down the conversation would risk discouraging young people from speaking openly to their healthcare team, and the further escalation that is proposed in amendment 243 would risk breaching trust. Although conversations should be handled with care, young people should be able to express themselves and ask for information about death and dying, including assisted dying, and healthcare professionals should be able to use their clinical judgment about whether further support might be required.”
“In that sense, I have concerns about amendments 18 and 19, as well as amendments 233 and 234 in the name of Brian Whittle, and also Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 235. I turn to Mr Balfour’s amendment 243, which seeks to amend section 20B to provide that “Where a person under the age of 18 raises the subject … with a … medical practitioner or other health professional”, the conversation must be ended and the person immediately referred to a child protection officer and to mental health services. Requiring medical professionals to shut down conversations about assisted dying when the subject is raised by a person under 18 would risk preventing open and honest communication at a point when a young person may be expressing distress or a desire to understand their condition or future care options.”
“I must admit that I am struggling to understand the member’s point about a decision being made through the courts. The Montgomery ruling, which goes back to 2015, set out quite clearly what doctors must do. Why would it be a decision for the courts when that is already set out? I am trying to get to the nub of that, as I must admit that I do not understand it. Liam McArthur: As Michelle Thomson will have seen, under section 18A there is no duty on a medical practitioner to raise the topic of assisted dying, so ultimately the court would have to take a decision as to whether, given the way in which the legislation is framed, there was a case to be determined. As I said, I could give an assurance on that question, but, to be honest, that is not really in my gift.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting the cashback for communities programme as it enters phase 7. (S6O-05622)”
“They would also maintain a rights-based balance through respecting organisational values while ensuring individual access. I therefore also urge members to support amendments 229 and 308.”
“Those services already determine which healthcare interventions they provide, and they are required, through regulation, to set that out clearly within their organisational aims and objectives, to ensure that there is transparency for patients, families and professionals. Amendments 220 and 308 would mean that those care services and independent healthcare providers would not be penalised for choosing not to provide assisted dying or for not allowing it to take place on their premises. They would also guarantee that patients and families using those services could still access assisted dying through an alternative provider, ensuring no loss of choice for the individual. They would protect the ethical integrity of care services and independent healthcare providers, including hospices and specialist providers such as CHAS.”
“That protection is needed because it ensures that the bill respects conscientious objection at an organisational level while still protecting individuals’ access to other legalised assisted dying services. Amendments 229 and 308 would give care services and independent healthcare providers, including hospices, the opportunity to opt out of providing assisted dying where there are reasonable grounds, including where staff exercise conscientious objection. Scotland has more than 10,000 registered independent care services, and not all of them will be suitable or appropriate settings for assisted dying.”
“Secondly, because the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland already operates a register successfully, there are therefore no issues with deliverability, in my view. If the Parliament intends to legislate for assisted dying, we must legislate responsibly, with appropriate checks, safeguards and oversight. The amendments in my name provide exactly that, and I therefore urge members to support amendments 7 and 8, as well as amendment 20, which is consequential to amendment 8 and provides that the relevant regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. 17:30 I will now move on to amendments 229 and 308, which I have lodged on behalf of Children’s Hospices Across Scotland—CHAS. The amendments recognise that institutions, as well as individuals, may have legitimate ethical grounds for not participating in assisted dying.”
“They would ensure that the Parliament embeds in law a safeguard that clinicians themselves have told us is important for patient safety, public confidence and the integrity of psychiatric practice in Scotland. Let me address what I suspect are the concerns of the Scottish Government and some members. First, on competence, we already successfully operate a register under the Mental Welfare Commission. We would not be changing how the GMC operates its register, because doing so would be constitutionally inappropriate. I do not believe that there are competence issues, because the proposal is to maintain a register, which we already do. In her earlier interventions, Clare Haughey outlined exactly why such an approach would be competent.”
“That would protect the individual seeking assessment and the integrity of the process. Fourthly, it would support robust data collection and evaluation, which will be essential for the annual and five-year reviews that are required by the bill. Without amendment 8, gathering consistent, high-quality national data on psychiatric assessments could be extremely difficult—or even impossible. Amendment 7, which is consequential to amendment 8, would replace the general reference to psychiatry with a reference to the new register of psychiatrists. The amendments would not alter the principle behind the bill or place any barrier in the way of a person who meets the necessary criteria for assistance.”
“The amendment would make it explicit that only psychiatrists on the specialist register of the General Medical Council, or those who hold equivalent qualifications or have experience in the assessment of capacity, would be considered eligible. Secondly, amendment 8 would strengthen oversight and governance. Expert bodies have warned of the risks that can arise internationally when a small number of clinicians undertake large volumes of assessments without adequate oversight. A formal register would provide a mechanism to ensure that minimum standards are upheld and that Scotland avoids those pitfalls. Thirdly, a register would improve fairness and transparency. It would help to ensure that second opinions are allocated equitably and would prevent the possibility of what is sometimes described as doctor shopping.”
“The new section that I propose in amendment 8 would oblige ministers to create such a register and set out the essential elements that must be included: clear eligibility criteria, the body that is responsible for maintaining the register, and a transparent process for applications for entry to and removal from the register. Let me be absolutely clear about why that matters. First, amendment 8 would ensure consistency and quality. The assessment of capacity in this highly sensitive and ethically complex area must be undertaken only by clinicians who have the appropriate specialist training and experience.”
“That would be a necessary and proportionate safeguard, because it would respond directly to concerns that were raised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland and other clinical experts, who have stressed the importance of ensuring that only appropriately qualified and experienced psychiatrists undertake capacity assessments in the context of assisted dying. The royal college notes that Scotland already successfully operates a national psychiatric register under the Mental Welfare Commission, which demonstrates that the model is familiar, workable and effective.”
“Therefore, it is very worthwhile to look at the issues that are raised by those amendments this afternoon. Thank you for your forbearance, Deputy Presiding Officer. Jackie Baillie: I have five amendments in the group, so I hope that colleagues bear with me. I will first speak to amendments 7, 8 and 20, on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland. The amendments would replace the existing reference to a “specialism” in section 7 with a clear requirement for assessments under section 7(2)(b) to be carried out by psychiatrists drawn from a formal regulated register, which would be established by Scottish ministers and set out transparently in regulations.”
“Although I believe that the intention behind Daniel Johnson’s amendments in the group is to provide a form of opt‑out, I do not think that they would achieve that, because staff and organisations would still be required to refer patients and facilitate their assisted death. It is unclear how the opt-out would be achieved. As I said, I am anxious that such amendments would force faith-based spaces to close because they are unable to take any part in assisted dying. We should all be mindful that the faith-based sector is underprovisioned. Although I believe that Pauline McNeill’s and Jeremy Balfour’s amendments in the group will be out of scope, they clearly remind us of the breadth of the group of health professionals who might be drawn indirectly into facilitating assisted dying in some way.”
“Paul O’Kane’s amendment 232 would make provision for conscientious objection by organisations, thereby providing clear statutory protection for care homes and hospices. I put on record that I have heard powerful testimony from many in the care and hospice sector, particularly in faith-based care spaces, about their desire for a statutory opt-out. Those in the Catholic church are particularly fearful that the passing of the bill could spell the end for care homes that are run by and through that church. Those facilities provide exemplary and compassionate end-of-life care, and their loss would be felt keenly by the communities that they serve and who find solace in them, and by wider society. Losing key capacity in a sector that is under significant strain should concern us all.”
“We have previously had similar bills in the Parliament, but such issues were not discussed in relation to those previous bills precisely because they did not reach stage 2 or 3. There is a huge hole in the bill, and medical professionals are significantly concerned about it. I shall finish soon, Presiding Officer—I appreciate your forbearance, given the amount of interest that there is in the issue. I am sure that others will touch on it, too. It should give colleagues serious cause for concern that the Parliament faces passing a bill that would not make provision for conscientious objection. The consequence of considering amendment 148 is to see that the bill has too many holes in crucial places.”
“As I set out to the cabinet secretary, it is a crucial point. The process has been lengthy and we have given considered and detailed scrutiny to the bill— nobody can be faulted in that regard. However, we have come to a moment at which we think that there is a significant gap. I say to members who supported the bill at stage 1 for the first time that they have done the Parliament a service in bringing the bill to a stage at which we can explore the potential and the limitations of the devolution settlement in the area. In a future session, Parliament might wish to consider the issue in the round, to ensure that it can deal with it on a Government-to-Government basis or in a more considered way.”
“It would still be for ministers in both Governments to agree—ministers would be involved in that negotiation process. Michael Marra: That is a worthwhile clarification, but the process would involve secondary legislation and so would not have the full scrutiny of Parliament, which we are providing today—I see that Mr Gray acknowledges that. Given that there are significant concerns among our medical professionals about such a fundamental issue, this is a crucial discussion as to whether the bill should stand or fall. Stephen Kerr: When I intervened on the cabinet secretary earlier, I am not sure that he was as clear as he could have been about the fact that section 104 requires secondary or subordinate legislation. That is a crucial weakness that now arises in the bill. Michael Marra: I agree with Mr Kerr on that.”
“I am listening intently to all the views that are being expressed, but I am not clear what specific remedies Mr Marra is suggesting. Michael Marra: My specific remedy is not to pass the bill. That is my view. It is not the only basis on which I take that view, but, at this moment, there is a significant hole in the bill. I do not think that the issue has been properly explored and explained to Parliament, the public or—clearly, given what Dr Allan set out—the professionals who are involved. That is the principal concern. There is a significant hole at the centre of the bill in this regard. Neil Gray: I wish to clarify the section 104 process. Mr Marra suggested earlier that it would be only for officials to negotiate and then conclude a section 104 process. That is not correct.”
“Please take this as my setting the record straight in terms of my reputation. Thank you.”