Michael Marra
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“I thank Jack Middleton for bringing the debate to the chamber. Its subject is of widespread concern, and will impact significantly on communities across the north of Scotland and in my North East Scotland region.”
“Indeed, the decline of quality local journalism that is embedded close to people is a tragedy. As many local newspapers face increasing issues with sustainability, it has become more, rather than less, important for the biggest companies and corporations to ensure that their journalism is rooted in communities.”
“More broadly, I believe—Jack Middleton has touched on some of this—that the decision is an act of surrender to what is a wildfire of commoditised fear that is weaponised by tech oligarchs to purposely undermine real freedom in pursuit of power and profit.”
“Although it is a commercial decision from STV, backed by the regulator to this point, it is also the latest example of what is becoming an ever- growing list of services being centralised away from communities in Scotland. Those in the north- east and further afield have, over the years, seen the same situation before.”
“The absence of regional journalism will only hasten that process, and whatever we might think, collectively, about the barrier and where the balance should sit, local people should have that accountability and the opportunity to make their case about where power is situated.”
“I welcome the hard work that Our Union Street is doing to re-energise Union Street and the centre of Aberdeen. The project is working along with partners to bring together a shared vision of the future of the city centre.”
The complete record
Every one of 754 lines we hold for Michael Marra, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 16.
“I point to the very sensible contribution from Miles Briggs, who said that we are legislators and that we are going into an election, so it is up to parties across the chamber and those who aspire to be here to set out in their manifestos their commitments to palliative and other care. I observe that if the debate on the bill has shone a light on palliative care that did not exist prior to the introduction of the bill, I very much welcome that and hope that that will continue. The review that is proposed by Mr Marra could result in duplication, as the cabinet secretary said, while bringing with it its own financial implications. With regard to amendments 313 and 314, I am not in favour of tying the commencement of the act’s substantive provisions to the production and approval by the Parliament of a report.”
“As the cabinet secretary has noted, should the bill pass, there would need to be a substantial implementation period and consultation with relevant stakeholders to develop the policy framework for the bill, during which period the Scottish Government would undertake its own assessment of the financial impact of the bill. Michael Marra: I will be brief. What is Liam McArthur’s reaction to the letter from the cabinet secretary that came subsequent to stage 2, which clearly set out that putting the bill in place will require cuts to other NHS services? Liam McArthur: In fairness, I do not think that that was what the cabinet secretary said. It has been phrased that in the way that Michael Marra wants to phrase it.”
“However, I am not persuaded by Douglas Ross’s amendment 252, which would provide that the assessment under section 22A must include information on the impact on funding from charitable donations and other non-statutory sources. I do not think that that is necessary, partly for the reasons that the cabinet secretary highlighted in his earlier intervention. On Michael Marra’s amendment 255, I reiterate the comments that I made when the same amendment was lodged at stage 2, noting the Government’s view on the deliverability challenges.”
“My proposals received the highest number of responses to a consultation on a member’s bill, and scrutiny has been robust, as I say. Amendments 251, 253 and 254, in the name of Audrey Nicoll, are mostly constructive and proportionate amendments to section 22A, and would require the Scottish ministers to assess and report on the impact of the act on palliative and end-of-life care services. I reiterate Rona Mackay’s point in relation to the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee’s report. Its extensive inquiry into assisted dying found no detrimental impact on palliative care and, in many cases, the impact was the reverse. I have no principled objection to the amendments in Audrey Nicoll’s name.”
“I say by way of reassurance to Mr McMillan that polling consistently shows overwhelming public support across Scotland for a change in the law of this type, including the support of a majority in every constituency and region of the country. John Curtice’s 2025 Scottish social attitudes survey found that 81 per cent of people are in favour of assisted dying for someone with a terminal illness. The National Centre for Social Research has analysed attitudes towards assisted dying across the UK, including in Scotland, and has concluded that the picture on assisted dying is “one of remarkable stability and near consensus in public attitudes.” Ultimately—this is the point that Keith Brown, Alasdair Allan and Murdo Fraser all made—it is for the Parliament to decide on the basis of the remit that we have as elected representatives.”
“Regardless of whether the bill passes, the Scottish Government is committed, through our palliative care strategy, to improving the way that data is recorded and reported to support better service planning and monitoring. The Scottish Government has no comment to make on the remaining amendments in the group, other than the technical points that are to be found in the commentary. Liam McArthur: On Stuart McMillan’s amendment 112, I find myself in whole-hearted agreement with my fellow islander, Dr Alasdair Allan, on the concerns that he raised. If the bill is passed, it will be after widespread consultation with the public, extensive engagement with the public and stakeholders and extensive scrutiny, debate and amendment.”
“That is in large part because, following the introduction of the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014, it became the responsibility of integration joint boards to plan and resource adult palliative care services, including hospice services, for their area, based on local need—a point that I put on the record in response to Pam Duncan-Glancy. In addition, palliative care is delivered across a wide variety of health and social care services, such as care-at-home services, hospices, care homes and hospitals. Therefore, new processes and investment would need to be included to support that level of data collection, development and reporting. The same considerations apply to amendment 299.”
“The same difficulties arise for other requirements under amendment 297. If it were possible to provide the data that is being asked for, significant investment would be required to set up the processes to gather it. I appreciate the sensitivities of these subjects, so I ask members to be careful not to conflate suicide and assisted death. I point to the Scottish Government’s suicide prevention strategy, which sets out our vision for reducing suicide deaths in Scotland. On amendment 298, it should be noted that the additional information required in the report would rely on data from Public Health Scotland, which does not currently collect data in the manner requested.”
“This is a member’s bill as opposed to a Government bill, so the usual controls and strictures that apply when the Government leads a bill are not the same. It is impossible for me to say what the current financial cost would be until the conclusion of the bill process, not least because we are voting on amendments that could have financial implications. On amendment 297, it might not be possible to provide the required information on the impact of the operation of the act on suicide prevention and broader mental health outcomes. Although it would certainly be possible to provide statistics on the number of assisted deaths that have taken place and the suicide rate in Scotland in the same period, it is likely to be difficult to provide any definitive view on whether the former had any direct causation on the latter.”
“Neil Gray: I have put on the record the Government’s position about choices having to be made in relation to budgets for the bill. I have also put on the record that the funding of palliative care is the responsibility of integration joint boards; it is not directly funded by the Scottish Government. Edward Mountain rose— Neil Gray: I will give way to Edward Mountain, but he will be the last in the group. Edward Mountain: I raised the issue in Parliament the other day, after you wrote to the committee before the stage 3 debate saying that there was no extra funding and that the funding would have to come from within the existing national health budget. Can you confirm that that remains the case and what your estimate would be of the costing? Neil Gray: I have no estimate of costing.”
“Such a review could therefore result in duplication and would be curtailed by decisions needing to be made on implementation, as well as requiring resource. I am also concerned that it is not clear what the effect of Mr Marra’s suggestion regarding a resolution of Parliament would be. 21:30 Pam Duncan-Glancy: We have rightly had a lot of discussion about the absolute essential necessity of ensuring that palliative care is supported and funded. Is the cabinet secretary in a position to also guarantee that there would be no cuts to other areas in his portfolio, such as the social care budget, the budget available to integration joint boards or the budget available for child and adolescent mental health services if the provisions in the bill were to be implemented?”
“Amendments 255, 313 and 314 would provide for an independent review of the financial implications of the implementation and operation of the act and for a report on its findings to be laid before the Parliament. I reiterate my comments from stage 2 that the timing of a review could be challenging, given that this is a members’ bill. The usual pre-introduction policy development has not occurred, which is an observation that Jackie Baillie referred to in her conclusion to the debate on the previous group. Should the bill pass, there would need to be a substantial implementation period and consultation with relevant stakeholders to develop the policy framework, during which time the Scottish Government would undertake its own assessment of the financial impact of the bill.”
“It may be difficult to show a direct correlation between the code of practice and any improvement or decline in support for hospices and providers of palliative and end-of-life care, given that there could be other reasons for such changes, including the work that is being undertaken to deliver on the palliative care strategy, “Palliative Care Matters for All”, as I discussed in the debate on group 2, or, indeed, the additional funding that we are providing for hospices. Those initiatives may lead to improvements, regardless of the bill or the code of practice. On amendment 119, the breadth and level of detail specified may have implications for the scale, complexity and resources that are required to carry out a review. Those factors would need to be considered in implementation.”
“Stuart McMillan has rightly identified a democratic deficit, because, if we pass the bill, we will then pass responsibility for it to someone else. The democratic deficit is, as Alasdair Allan said, in relation to representative democracy in this Parliament and MSPs being able to decide on the issue, not so much in relation to people. I just wanted to voice those concerns. Neil Gray: I will work my way through the group as quickly as possible, starting with amendment 112, regarding a referendum on what would by then be an act, not a bill—so it would be in statute, with the expectation that it would be implemented. We raised technical concerns at stage 2 that are on the record. On amendment 118, I am sorry to disappoint Ms Baillie after the request she made of me regarding my summing up.”
“I know that this will be considered contentious by different political parties, although it is not supposed to be, but, if the bill is passed and we go into a section 104 order process, it is not hard to imagine a situation in which the governing party in London does badly in the elections in May and we subsequently have a constitutional environment in which assisted dying is rejected at Westminster but approved in Scotland. Some people might have good faith and trust that the UK Government would honour the section 104 order process, but I do not. I am not making a party political point; I just do not think that we can have that confidence. That is my real worry about the provisions on conscientious objection and other provisions.”
“However, I do not know how that can be said, because I do not think that we have a definitive timescale for the section 104 order process. This is the substantive point that I want to make about the doubt that is in my mind. I was visited by a GP in my constituency who said that she would resign on the day that the bill was passed if it did not sufficiently provide for conscientious objection. She felt that, having taken the Hippocratic oath, she should never be in the position of being involved in assisted dying. She would stop being a GP if the proposals went ahead.”
“If the cabinet secretary felt able to intervene, it would be useful if he could say whether he has any understanding of whether what I am about to say about the progress of a section 104 order is correct. As I understand it, once such an order has been agreed between the Scottish Government and the UK Government, it will be submitted to the House of Commons and must be accepted in its entirety or not accepted at all. That is what I have been told, although it may be wrong—I am just looking for confirmation of that. The Government’s commentary on Stuart McMillan’s amendment 112 indicates that, if the bill was passed, it would be on the statute book before the referendum that Stuart McMillan proposes could take place.”
“In relation to Stuart McMillan’s amendment 112, I believe that the member has identified a democratic deficit, and I will explain why. Although I am not normally a huge fan of them, I think that it would have been advantageous if we had been able to have a civic assembly go into some of the detail that we have gone into over the past many hours. However, we did not have that and we are where we are. In my view, the deficit arises in relation to the section 104 order. Although, coming into the debate, I was more concerned about coercion, the section 104 order is a concern of mine now. The point that the Deputy First Minister raised about it is very important.”
“Whatever our views on the bill that is before us, we are now 18 and a half hours into scrutiny of amendments, so nobody could reasonably argue that the members of this Parliament are not doing their job properly in scrutinising the legislation. People who vote for us do so trusting us to take such decisions on their behalf. We should accept that responsibility and not try to pass the buck to somebody else. Keith Brown: I have heard the quotes from Edmund Burke a number of times over recent years. He was giving his point of view about the responsibilities of a member of Parliament. It was a conservative point of view, vehemently opposed by many other people who thought that it was not right. It was not written on tablets of stone—there are many other different versions of what an MP can be.”
“Jamie Hepburn: Apologies, Presiding Officer— I keep pressing my request-to-speak button rather than the intervention button. I agree with the points that Murdo Fraser and Alasdair Allan have made, but does Mr Fraser not also think that there is another challenge? I made the point in an intervention on Stuart McMillan earlier. Aside from all those issues, amendment 112 does not even point to the practical effect of the proposed referendum. It does not say what would happen next—so what is the point of it, to be frank? Murdo Fraser: Mr Hepburn makes a reasonable point. Perhaps Mr McMillan can address it in winding up, because the amendment does not specify that. People who vote in referendums sometimes cast a vote for different reasons. They will not always scrutinise in detail the issues that are before them.”
“Members of Parliament are elected to exercise their judgment once they are elected. We are not here to represent exactly the views of everybody who votes to put us into Parliament; we are here to exercise judgment. Dr Allan made a reasonable point as he concluded. We have seen it elsewhere that, sometimes, people will vote in referendums not on the topic that is on the paper in front of them but to cast judgment on wider issues—for example, on whether the Government of the day is doing a good job. We have seen that in referendums that took place elsewhere in Europe and, indeed, in Ireland, in which people voted not on the question that was before them but on different matters. That is what makes referendums on topics such as assisted dying dangerous.”
“Murdo Fraser: I pressed my button to speak briefly on amendment 112, in the name of Stuart McMillan, but Dr Alasdair Allan has made nearly all the points that I was going to make, so I will not elaborate much further. I agree with him about the constitutional and political tradition that we have, in which we have referendums only to deal with major constitutional matters. To start proposing them on other matters—social matters or changes in the law—could take us down a different route. We have a political tradition for elected members of Parliament that is best summed up by the writings of the Ireland-born philosopher and English politician Edmund Burke. Two centuries ago, he set out the responsibilities of members of Parliament. We come here not as delegates but as representatives.”
“John Mason: I understand the risks of amendment 112, but one of our challenges has been to engage the public more in decision making. We have tried different approaches, such as citizens assemblies. It was because there was a referendum in 2014 that people thought about independence in much more detail. Does Alasdair Allan not think that people would think assisted dying through in greater depth if there was a referendum? Alasdair Allan: I accept the point about the validity of referenda. I am merely making the point that they work best when we are talking about changing the rules of the game through some major constitutional change. The public rightly hold us to account at elections. Constitutional questions aside, that is how representative democracy should work, so, respectfully, I cannot support Mr McMillan’s amendment 112.”
“However, I genuinely fear what would happen if we were to set a precedent today of moving to referenda on individual non- constitutional pieces of legislation. Without using hypothetical examples, I can say that, if we were to go down that route, it is easy to imagine situations in which some angry majority in the country might, at some stage, decide to whip up online hostility against some minority or other and then seek to press for a referendum on their interests. I can understand the motivations that members might have for considering supporting amendment 112. They have been gone over. It is tempting to try to find some way of moving this difficult debate into another sphere. However, after many months of public engagement and debate, and after many days and nights of parliamentary scrutiny, the public expect us to make decisions.”
“That is a tradition that has grown up in Scotland and the UK over the past 60 years, although I stress that I am not making an argument from tradition; if I thought that the tradition was mistaken, I would say so. Indeed, the UK has not been responsive enough to demands for constitutional referenda. Some mention has been made of the Republic of Ireland, and it is true to say that Ireland has referenda on issues of the kind that we are debating here today. However, as Mr O’Kane pointed out, that is because those questions involve changing parts of the 1937 constitution, which requires that all constitutional amendments be put to a referendum. If we lived in ancient Athens or in some cantons of modern Switzerland, it is possible that referenda might form an established part of our day-to-day legislative process.”
“It would also require Scottish ministers to set out their assessment of the action that they intend to take in relation to palliative care services as a result of the review. Regardless of the outcome of our deliberations on the bill, I hope that the current debate will provide a catalyst for further improvements to be made to the quality and availability of palliative care services across our country. Alasdair Allan: I wish to comment on amendment 112, which proposes that the bill could be the subject of a referendum after royal assent. I realise that my friend Stuart McMillan feels strongly about the issue—I also realise that he is sitting directly behind me. However, I believe that, in a representative democracy, referenda should be reserved for major changes on constitutional questions.”
“It needs an opportunity to meet that need on its own and to have access to safe funding models that will enable the service to be delivered in each and every one of our communities. I thank all the members who undertook local consultation exercises as part of the wider consultation that I undertook along with Marie Curie. Amendment 299 would require there to be a five-year review involving Scottish ministers’ assessment of the “availability, quality and distribution of palliative care services to people with palliative and end-of-life care needs”, the “availability of information to such persons about accessing palliative care services” and the implications of the legislation that we are discussing for palliative care services.”
“The sector asked for £13.5 million to enable it to meet the agenda for change measures, but it did not even get that. If we cannot help it to match NHS funding, how can we look at the wider unmet need? There will be additional costs in future to meet the service needs that will be involved in enabling people to die at home, which is where people want to die. I hope that all our manifestos will be honest about that cost. Whoever forms the Government after this election will have to seriously look at developing a new funding model for the hospice sector. What that sector does should not be brought into the NHS—I am not advocating that, as that would mean that the service would lose much of its quality as well as the personalisation of the service for families and individuals across our country.”
“21:15 To try to answer the Deputy First Minister’s question, I note that this debate is taking place ahead of an election and, in that campaign, we need to be honest—all of us, from all political parties—about what will be needed in the next session. It comes down to funding models. After the election 10 years ago, I worked with Children's Hospices Across Scotland to lobby the then health secretary, Shona Robison, on match funding and I was pleased when she announced a 50 per cent funding package for CHAS. That funded hospice care for children across Scotland, and it was a really important step forward in meeting the funding needs of that sector. We have recently seen money put into the budget for that sector, but not what the sector asked for.”
“It is important to put this on record, because many people who have dedicated their lives and careers to our palliative care service have watched this debate, and I do not want them to think—as I know that some will—that we have spent any time talking the service down. They work across our communities to deliver for individuals and families at the most challenging times in their lives. They do amazing work, and we should all thank them for what they do day in, day out across our country. [Applause.] We know that 18,500 people across Scotland each year die with significant unaddressed symptoms and significant concerns about their care, and that almost one in three people do not have their palliative care needs met.”
“It cannot be ignored that our palliative care and end-of-life system is currently in crisis, with significant inequalities in access to care, unmet need and highly variable quality and distribution across the country. Kate Forbes: I know that Miles Briggs takes a huge interest in palliative care, and I am very conscious that members across the chamber think that, irrespective of what happens with the bill next week, we should focus on palliative care. What is his vision for the future of palliative care in Scotland? Miles Briggs: I thank Kate Forbes for that intervention, and I will come on to that point.”
“I believe that it will help if it is agreed to, and I hope that colleagues will support it. Miles Briggs: We have a good set of amendments in this group. I worked with Marie Curie Scotland on amendment 299 and on amendment 288, which is in group 20 and which we will come to tomorrow. One of my concerns about the bill from the outset has been the aspect that no one should choose an assisted death because they cannot access the care and support that they need. As we go through the process, that is one of the hardest aspects for anyone who will vote for the bill, because the number of people dying in Scotland is rising every year, and 90 per cent of them need some form of palliative care. I undertook my Right to Palliative Care (Scotland) Bill consultation with Marie Curie to look at how that can be improved.”
“It is an important amendment that would introduce a requirement for Scottish ministers to review and report specifically on the interaction between the operation of the bill and suicide prevention. It would ensure consideration of overall suicide rates, any cases where individuals might have benefited from alternative interventions, the effectiveness of procedures for identifying and supporting those who are at risk and any unintended impacts on mental health or suicide prevention measures. It would promote transparency and accountability and, as always, the protection of vulnerable individuals in relation to the broader public health implications of the bill. It closely follows an amendment from Stephen Kerr, which suggests recording and reporting on the impact of the bill on suicide prevention services. Amendment 297 builds on that.”
“Jeremy Balfour: Before I turn to my amendment—members will be glad to hear that I intend to be very brief—it would be helpful if the cabinet secretary could give us some indication of the financial cost of this. I have been in the Parliament for 10 years and have never been in a position where we have been asked to pass a bill without any concept of the costs. I appreciate that that will take time to draw up, but will it be funded in year 2, year 3, year 4 and so on? I appreciate that the Government is neutral on the bill, but whoever forms the Government after May will have to fund it. For us to pass legislation when we have no concept of the costs seems rather strange. I turn to my amendment 297.”
“The length of prognosis for someone living in poverty will be different from that for someone who is not living in poverty, and, as I have said before, the bill is deeply flawed and will impact those who are already struggling to a greater extent than those who are living with means. It is shocking that we have to consider such a situation and that I have to lodge an amendment that does nothing to stop it and only records it, but that is where we are. Although I remain steadfastly against the bill, I am doing what I can to raise awareness around some of the issues that it contains and around the ways in which we can protect the most vulnerable in Scotland.”
“Earlier in our stage 3 considerations, we also heard about the difficulties in making an accurate prognosis and the factors that can affect that. All those things must be recorded and reported on to ensure transparency and safeguarding. We cannot have a bill that impacts the vulnerable differently. Amendment 119 would simply ensure that those differentials are recorded and monitored so that we can act if we see those who are homeless, those living in poverty and the disabled being pushed into an assisted death due to circumstances rather than illness. Colleagues, that will happen.”
“The amendment proposes transparency, evidence- based evaluation and informed parliamentary scrutiny of how the legislation operates in practice. We have discussed the importance of recording key outcomes of the bill, and I have spoken about the side effects of the drugs. However, we must also record other differentials. Last week, we heard from Tanni Grey-Thompson, who reminded us that the six-month prognosis can be very different for someone who has economic means compared with someone who does not. Doctors might consider someone who is homeless or without family support as having a shorter prognosis than someone who has money to spend on treatments and care and who has a supportive family around them.”
“Michael Marra: Jackie Baillie might want to recognise that, in the 2026-27 budget, there is an increase in resource funding for palliative care, but it is to pay staff more money. The point that I made in my speech was that there is no resource to expand capacity in palliative care. Does Jackie Baillie recognise that? Jackie Baillie: I, of course, recognise that as being true. Sue Webber: Amendment 119 would strengthen the statutory review by requiring Scottish ministers to examine, document and report on potential risks, failures and unintended consequences arising from the operation of the legislation. It would ensure that the review considers clinical safety, the effectiveness of safeguards against coercion or undue influence, the accuracy of eligibility assessments and any differential impacts on vulnerable groups.”
“There are many potential ways to review the effectiveness of the code of practice as part of that five-year review. For example, hospices or palliative care providers could be consulted on how well the code of practice has supported them. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government’s commentary on the amendment does not acknowledge that narrower approach, although I hope that the cabinet secretary will do so in his remarks. The Scottish Government’s commentary repeated comments that were made at stage 2 about data being required from Public Health Scotland. I point out as gently as possible that the key outcome of the Scottish Government’s palliative care strategy is to improve data collection and that amendment 18 would fit neatly with that approach.”
“Members will know that the aim of the code of practice is to ensure that palliative and end-of- life care services are supported if assisted dying is legalised, and that any negative impacts are mitigated and managed. Amendment 118, if members support it, would ensure that, when the implementation of assisted dying legislation is reviewed, the impact on palliative and end-of-life care services is considered, including, for example, whether any changes to staff training for those working in palliative care are needed, or whether additional guidance should be provided to hospices. Amendment 118 is similar to an amendment that I lodged at stage 2, but it takes a narrower approach that is tied more specifically to the code of practice, which now forms part of the bill.”
“I did not want to intervene on Mr Marra, so, as my final comment, I note that there is an increase in palliative care funding in the budget. However, it is not enough of an increase, and we need to see far more funding in that area. Michael Marra rose— Bob Doris: I will not take an intervention—it is the only time in the debate that I will not do so. I just wanted to put that point on the record. Jackie Baillie: I lodged amendment 118 on behalf of Hospice UK. The amendment would ensure that the five-year review of the assisted dying legislation considers the effectiveness of the code of practice, which is set out in section 22B of the bill.”
“Also, and most significantly, a review carried out in line with my amendment 117 would have to examine “the operation and effectiveness of any safeguards within this Act”. I understand that there has been some debate about the effectiveness of the safeguards and provisions in other jurisdictions, but if the bill is passed, we will not be scrutinising other jurisdictions; we will be scrutinising the act that will be in force in Scotland and therefore must build in a review that will work properly here in Scotland. We must ensure that any review carried out here, should the bill become law, collects robust data on assisted dying while examining in some detail, and in an informed way, whether the various concerns about assisted dying have been realised.”
“My amendment 117 would ensure that any review explores the extent to which the requirements set out in section 7, as amended, have been undertaken. It would also ensure that the documentation, statements and so on have been compiled in accordance with the provisions of the bill. Similarly, the review would have to consider the information on assisted dying that is made available to relevant professionals and to those wishing to have an assisted death. Once again, provisions on that are contained within the bill. The review would also have to consider the information made available to the Scottish Government by Public Health Scotland, a lot of which relates to amendments to be considered in group 20. That information is essential if any review is to be meaningful and informed.”
“No matter our views on assisted dying, we surely all believe that it is essential to include adequate mechanisms by which we can monitor the impacts, effectiveness and safety of the bill, should it become law. Given the complexity and nature of the issues involved, it is crucial that we have baked-in ways of understanding how the legislation is working in practice from the outset and that is what my amendment 117 relates to. It would add several important items to the list of matters to be included in the five-year review of the legislation. Much of our debate in the many—now 18—hours that we have spent here has revolved around the registered medical practitioner assessments dealt with in section 6 of the bill and the requirements for those as set out in section 7.”
“My amendments would require Parliament and Government to acknowledge the significant costs that would be involved, to put that on the record, to approve spending and to say where that money should come from. I urge all members to support the amendments. Turning briefly to other amendments in the group, I am happy to support the amendments from Audrey Nicoll, Douglas Ross, Bob Doris, Jackie Baillie, Sue Webber, Jeremy Balfour, Stephen Kerr and Miles Briggs because they all, in various ways, aim to increase data collection, which I think is essential. I urge members to vote against the amendment from Stuart McMillan. Bob Doris: I am not sure that the concept of a referendum was actually Stuart McMillan’s idea, but I am sure that he will take the credit for it.”
“We all share an aspiration in that regard, but we must consider the bill on the basis of what is in front of us when no money has been allocated for any of that—none. No one here, whatever their political views, would question the considerable strain that our NHS is under or the fact that health budgets look set to be tight in the coming years, given the rising demand across Scotland. The Scottish Fiscal Commission is clear about that trajectory. We know that the money to pay for the bill will come from those resources, so Parliament would be neglecting its duties if it did not ensure robust financial oversight and scrutiny before the legislation is implemented.”
“Of course, future Governments can change that position, but the spending plans of this Government are set and no additional money has been allocated for palliative care. Audrey Nicoll: I am keen to remind members that the provision of palliative care is not just the provision of that care itself; it includes workforce planning and staff training, often in specialist roles, and there are potentially significant additional costs for colleges, universities and other teaching environments. Michael Marra: Audrey Nicoll makes the fair point that any expansion of that service will come with more than the direct cost of providing care and that any scaling up of palliative care would take both time and resource.”
“Again, there is no additional money for the expansion of palliative care in the 2026-27 budget, and no money is earmarked for the expansion of palliative care in the Scottish spending review, which sets out the spending plans for this Government and the trajectory of spending for the next three years for whoever forms the Government after the election. 21:00 Promises have been made by both sides of the argument. People who are in favour of assisted dying say that we should have enhanced palliative care as an alternative to assisted dying, but there is no allocation of money. People who are opposed to assisted dying wish to see more and improved palliative care as a true alternative, but, again, no money has been offered. We should be fundamentally honest that there is no money.”
“The letter from Mr Gray also states that funding the costs would require “a degree of reprioritisation” and that negative impacts would be kept “to a minimum”. That would mean cuts to other parts of our NHS to pay the costs of this service—that is absolutely clear. I will also comment on the fact that there is no mention of assisted dying in the budget for 2026- 27, and nor is there in the Scottish spending review, which covers the next three years. In the discussion that we have just had, Mr Doris pointed out that he would like to see more funding for palliative care.”
“As the delivery model for the bill remains unclear, the Government is warning us that “any discussions around costs are, at this point, purely illustrative.” The Scottish Government disagrees with many of the assumptions that have been made in the revised financial memorandum, such as that the provision of assisted dying would be “absorbed” into “existing budgets”. That is not the case, says the Government. The financial memorandum says that the bill would have “minimal” cost implications. That is not the case, says the Government. The memorandum says that data collection from Public Health Scotland would be “minimal and covered by existing budgets”. Again, the Government says that that is not the case. It is abundantly clear that, even with a revised financial memorandum, Parliament has no idea how much the legislation would cost.”