Douglas Ross
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to comments by the Scottish Information Commissioner who stated, in relation to the Government’s handling of information concerning the Salmond files, “I can no longer trust the government to handle this information unsupervised and will explore more intrusive options to ensure complianc…”
“I literally follow sport from the sidelines in my role as a match official but, more than that, as a parent of two boys in Moray, I give credit to the sporting organisations in Moray and across the Highlands that provide so many opportunities for young people—boys and girls— throughout the country.”
“When we are thinking about the bill, which will undoubtedly pass at stage 3 today, I am sure unanimously, we might consider what she said in her email: “Calum can’t advocate for himself due to his complex disability, but he can express this truth: the children aren’t naughty, they are scared.” Children should not be scared in Scotland, an…”
“I rise to make my final speech in the chamber. I chose to speak in this debate, on this subject, for a number of reasons. First, the member in charge proved to be a very conscientious and determined member in getting the bill through.”
“The work that I have done as an individual member, as a party spokesperson, as a party leader and as a convener has been assisted by their tremendous efforts.”
“I am frustrated that we have politicians who cannot speak for four minutes without having the lectern up and reading from a script, daring not to deviate by taking an intervention.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,089 lines we hold for Douglas Ross, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 22.
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to comments by the Scottish Information Commissioner who stated, in relation to the Government’s handling of information concerning the Salmond files, “I can no longer trust the government to handle this information unsupervised and will explore more intrusive options to ensure compliance.” (S6O-05689)”
“If we up our game, that will improve how this institution is viewed from the outside. To have the chance to serve is a huge privilege. For me, that began 19 years ago, when I was first elected as a councillor. I have since been an MSP and an MP, and I now conclude my time in the Scottish Parliament. To those who gave me that opportunity, I say thank you. To the people of Moray and the Highlands and Islands, who, 19 years ago, put their trust in a young farm labourer to represent them, which has been a huge honour and privilege for me, I simply say thank you. 15:37”
“I am frustrated that we have politicians who cannot speak for four minutes without having the lectern up and reading from a script, daring not to deviate by taking an intervention. When people look at that from the outside, they do not see politicians who are upping their game; they see people who are reading a script that could have been delivered by anyone. From the back benches, we hear softball questions that are supposed to be spontaneous in response to an answer from a minister, and then the answer to that scripted question is also scripted. We can and should do far better than that. In the seventh session of the Parliament, more people will be looking to see an improvement, and I hope that we see that. We have an opportunity in the Parliament that is not offered to many.”
“The work that I have done as an individual member, as a party spokesperson, as a party leader and as a convener has been assisted by their tremendous efforts. I also want to say thanks to my wife, Krystle, and our two boys, Alistair and James, who will see a bit more of me in the coming weeks and months and who have been a great support to me, as has my wider family. A final speech by me in a consensual debate would not be quite the same if I did not add in just a hint of controversy. I do not think that I have hidden—certainly not well—that I have grown increasingly frustrated with the mechanisms of the Parliament, because I do not think that we are doing enough. Today is an exception—I think that we will pass an important bill—but, other days, I come in here and I am frustrated.”
“When we are thinking about the bill, which will undoubtedly pass at stage 3 today, I am sure unanimously, we might consider what she said in her email: “Calum can’t advocate for himself due to his complex disability, but he can express this truth: the children aren’t naughty, they are scared.” Children should not be scared in Scotland, and they should certainly not be scared in an educational setting. If passing the bill prevents just one more child from being scared at school, we will have done our job today. In the time that I have available, I will make a couple of offers of thanks. The first is to the staff who have been with me through my time in Parliament—some of whom have been with me the entire time since I was first elected in 2016 and others who have come more recently.”
“I believe that that team needs to be nurtured and celebrated in the next session of the Parliament, because it is a great asset to those of us who are lucky enough to take a bill through various stages. The Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill came to the Education, Children and Young People Committee—a committee that I have been very proud to convene over the past 18 months. I have enjoyed my time as convener; I am not sure that my fellow members enjoyed it quite as much as I did. I know that I stretched the limits of the convener’s role at times, but I always did it in the best interests of trying to get to the root of some of the issues. Willie Rennie quoted an email that we got from Beth Morrison this week.”
“Beth Morrison and Kate Sanger have my utmost respect and admiration for what they have done to get the bill to this stage and for the work that they have done for more than a decade to reach this point. I know that Peter, Calum, Beth and Kate are in the public gallery today to watch the bill reach this point and get passed into law. They should be extremely proud of the work that they have done. [Applause.] I will make two final points as to why I thought that this was the right topic to finish on. First, I will mention the non-Government bills unit. I took a bill through the Parliament to stage 1. It was unsuccessful, but I saw up close the skill, dedication and commitment of that unit— something that I had not witnessed before, as I had not been involved.”
“I rise to make my final speech in the chamber. I chose to speak in this debate, on this subject, for a number of reasons. First, the member in charge proved to be a very conscientious and determined member in getting the bill through. I was reminded that he is the only member to take forward a member’s bill in this Parliament to have come to a Conservative group meeting to discuss the bill. I was leader at the time, and I remember watching him walk out the door and thinking that he got a far easier ride from my colleagues at that group meeting than I often did in the same room. That proved that Daniel Johnson was determined to get as much support for the bill as possible at every point. Another reason for speaking in this debate is the campaigners, who have already been mentioned.”
“If we can get multiyear funding for a number of the clubs and organisations, that will go a great way towards improving the opportunities. I am delighted to speak in this debate and I whole-heartedly support everything in Brian Whittle’s motion. 10:48”
“In a year when we have the world cup coming up, with Scotland’s first participation in it since 1998, and the Commonwealth games, we have a great opportunity as a country and as a Parliament to get more people involved in sport, and that is what we should all seek to do. An issue that has come up time and again in the debate is funding. That will always be an issue and there are not unlimited pots of money, but we can make it easier for clubs and organisations to access funding. Having to look for funding on an annual basis means that a lot of the time that coaches and others could be spending on improving the opportunities for young people is spent on filling out forms to try to secure or re- secure funding.”
“They put themselves through protecting vulnerable groups courses and, when they could be having a weekend off or they have other duties, they turn up because they want to pass something on to young people. I also see that in football when I am officiating. We go around clubs up and down the country and we see the youth organisations. Finlay Carson mentioned the opportunities with Queen of the South. At the Education, Children and Young People Committee last week, we heard Spartans Community Foundation and the Denis Law Legacy Trust speak about the work that they do, both here in the capital and up in the north-east, to help and enable young people through their love of sport.”
“However, they were so determined that they encouraged their parents to drive all the way down from Caithness to Elgin and all the way home again, because they are passionate about rugby and they wanted to be involved. Like all the hundreds of others who were at the festival on Sunday, they enjoyed it. They got their medals and they shook hands after the matches. To me, that shows what sport can do at every level and at every age. It can encourage people to take part. That participation is so important and the rewards are so great. However, none of that would be possible without the coaches at Moray rugby club, who turn up every Sunday and coach the boys and girls in all the age groups with great success.”
“I literally follow sport from the sidelines in my role as a match official but, more than that, as a parent of two boys in Moray, I give credit to the sporting organisations in Moray and across the Highlands that provide so many opportunities for young people—boys and girls— throughout the country. I particularly want to mention Moray rugby club and its rugby festival, which was held at the weekend. We had literally hundreds of boys and girls from primary 1—or a bit earlier; my youngest, James, is four and he is not yet in primary 1, but he takes part in the youngest group—right up to the seniors, from right across the north-east. Indeed, two boys came down from Caithness. They had been told that their team was unable to take everyone down so they were not going to be able to take part in the Moray rugby festival.”
“That showed me at that point that Brian Whittle was passionate about sport, and he has continued to be passionate about it in everything that he has done in the chamber and in the committees that he has served on, bringing sport to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee and his other committee roles. Presiding Officer, this is not my final speech in the chamber. Members will be able to either enjoy or endure that later, depending on their own particular circumstances. However, when I saw that we were to have a debate about sport, I wanted to take part in it, because sport has been a big part of my life.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests: I am a match official and officiate matches for the Scottish Football Association. I, too, congratulate Brian Whittle on securing the debate and on his excellent opening speech. Brian and I entered Parliament together almost a decade ago, in 2016. We very quickly formed the Scottish Conservatives run club with our former colleague John Lamont. From Tuesday to Thursday, we would go out running around Edinburgh almost daily. If Tim Eagle thought that it was difficult to get away from Brian Whittle’s discussions about sport in the corridors or in his office, he should try to get away from an Olympic runner who also tried to get that message across as we pounded the streets around Edinburgh.”
“The first point for discussions on that is the Parliamentary Bureau and not the corporate body. Oral Questions (Annual Staff Resource Cost) 3.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I advise members that the chamber office staff process questions in accordance with standing orders, which are agreed to by the Parliament. Where appropriate, they advise on edits to allow questions to be put, which I understand is what happened in this case. Maggie Chapman: I can say to Douglas Ross that, although the scheduling of business is, as he acknowledges, not down to the corporate body, the corporate body and the bureau have worked— and we expect, in session 7, will work—closely together on that. I have already referred to some of the changes that have been made to the members’ bill process that should help with the bottleneck at this point in the next session, but it is absolutely the responsibility of the Parliament as a whole to determine the business that happens in here.”
“Douglas Ross: I was banned by the Parliament from using the words “chaotic” and “avoidable” in my lodged question, but I can and will use them in my supplementary question, because the past few weeks have been chaotic and the situation has been entirely avoidable. I understand that that has been the responsibility not of the SPCB but of the Parliamentary Bureau and the Government. Although I welcome the review and discussions that will take place at the start of the next parliamentary session, can Maggie Chapman assure me that that work will include encouraging the Government, whoever is in it, not to waste vital parliamentary time on issues that the Parliament has no say over, but to focus on the issues that are devolved to this Parliament and ensure that those issues are prioritised in the next session?”
“I know that the bureau is very mindful of the challenges of balancing the need to ensure that Parliament has the necessary time to scrutinise legislation against the impact that increased sitting time has for members and the Scottish parliamentary service. That said, the corporate body is concerned that extended business creates unsustainable pressures on member and staff welfare, as well as on resourcing. I can confirm that, at the conclusion of the session, officials will review the impacts of the scheduling of parliamentary business. It will be for the incoming corporate body and bureau to work together to ensure that Parliament has a sustainable operating model.”
“To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will initiate a review of how the scheduling of parliamentary business during the current session has impacted on parliamentary resources, particularly in light of the large volume of stage 3 proceedings in the final weeks. (S6O-05683) Maggie Chapman (Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): The corporate body is responsible for resourcing parliamentary services, but the programme of parliamentary business is a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau. Agreement to business motions is a matter for the whole Parliament. Individual members are able to seek to amend business motions, to speak against them or to speak about other items that they would wish the bureau to consider, including future programmes.”
“To ask the Scottish Government for what reason the Lord Advocate briefed the First Minister that suspects arrested on alleged embezzlement charges as part of operation branchform were not being charged, before the individuals themselves had been notified. (S6O-05669)”
“Another issue that I have wrestled with a lot is that of coercion, which we have heard many members talk about tonight. If we cannot be absolutely certain—absolutely sure—that no one will feel coerced into taking their own life, because they feel a burden, or because of the efforts of others, we cannot support the bill.”
“At the end of today, each and every one of us will cast a vote, and we will be able to defend it, one way or another. For me, it all comes down to what is not in the bill. The fact that conscientious objections were taken out of the bill—for understandable reasons and because of the requirement for a section 104 order—concerns me. It also concerns the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which moved from a neutral position to a position of opposition to the bill, as well as the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, which similarly said that, because the bill did not contain vital protections for pharmacists and other healthcare professionals with conscientious objections, it could no longer remain neutral on the bill and urged members to vote against it.”
“They have been some of the most difficult and distressing emails and letters to read and respond to. You would have to have a heart of stone not to understand the pain and suffering that those constituents’ loved ones have gone through and how much they want to alleviate that for themselves or their loved ones in the future. Others have spoken about their family connections, and I thought that George Adam, once again, spoke very passionately about his wife and his family. In my family, my wife takes a completely different view from me; she has always been very much in favour of the bill, and she cannot understand why I would not be. Therefore, this is an issue that splits not just parties; it splits families and couples, too, and there is no right answer.”
“No matter how the vote goes tonight and no matter the fact that, less than two hours away from the vote, many of us are still unsure of how it will go, the fact that the bill has come this far is down to his efforts and the efforts of his team and of the non-Government bills unit. I want to put on the record, as someone who will not be supporting the bill, my complete admiration for what Liam McArthur has done to get this very passionate and difficult issue to the floor of the chamber and the way in which he has done it. I will not be supporting the bill, but it has caused me more trouble than any other vote that I have taken part in. As Liam McArthur said when he was quoting Lisa Fleming, we have all had constituents—many hundreds or thousands—who have written to us about their personal experiences.”
“Like others, I recognise the incredible work that Liam McArthur has put into the bill in the last week, the last month and this entire parliamentary session. When I heard that an assisted dying bill was being introduced for a third time, before I knew the make-up of the Parliament this session and the views of individual members, I thought that it had the best possibility of passing this time because of the member in charge. Liam McArthur is the rare politician who it is very difficult to dislike. He works across the political spectrum and is compassionate, empathetic and absolutely committed to this cause.”
“It is important to raise the points that I have made in relation to amendment 256, and I hope that they will encourage members to support the amendment. I move amendment 256.”
“I said that we would come back to the point in group 18 because it has to be highlighted. That new research is so stark that it cannot be ignored. Based on the methodology that was used, the report shows that, each year, one in three people who die in Scotland have unmet palliative care needs. That means that, every year, 18,500 Scots die without access to the compassionate and high-quality care that they deserve. None of us can think that that is acceptable, and we all have to agree that it is a national disgrace. That is why it is important to include amendment 256, should the bill be passed. The other amendments in the group are self- explanatory. I will allow John Mason to speak to his amendment 257 and Jackie Baillie to the remainder of the amendments in the group. If need be, I will come back to them in summing up.”
“When New South Wales legislated for assisted suicide, it committed to increasing palliative care spending by 743 million Australian dollars over a five-year period, but, only a year later, that spending was slashed by 249 million Australian dollars. Canada promised 6 billion Canadian dollars over 10 years for palliative and home care when medical assistance in dying was legalised. Five years in, less than 200 million Canadian dollars has gone to palliative care. 10:30 An analysis from Marie Curie that was published last month revealed the desperate state of palliative care in this country. I have the report in front of me, and we referenced it during day 1 of the stage 3 proceedings. When I spoke to my first amendment, there were questions from Emma Roddick, Ross Greer and the Deputy First Minister, who intervened on me.”
“However, the Government is clearly at odds with the member in charge of the bill and his financial memorandum— that was laid out very clearly in its letter to the lead committee. It is absolutely crucial that we safeguard the money that is currently dedicated to palliative and end-of-life services. I am not certain that that would be done under the bill as drafted. The member in charge of the bill, Liam McArthur, claimed at stage 2 that “no evidence has been seen of a deterioration in the delivery of palliative and hospice care”—[Official Report, 25 November 2025; c 35.] in jurisdictions that have legalised assisted suicide. However, in jurisdictions that have gone down that route, when we look at what they promised and what has actually been delivered, the picture is very different.”
“He made reference to the letter that Neil Gray sent to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee on 26 February. Some of the comments that the health secretary made in that letter bear repeating. He said that “There remain many uncertainties as to the overall costs of the Bill” and that “the Scottish Government does not agree … that the Bill will have minimal cost implications.” The money will have to come from somewhere, and we do not know how much will be needed or where it will come from. We cannot allow the palliative care service to be in any way affected by the bill. I understand the argument that the cabinet secretary made in response to Edward Mountain yesterday about it not being a Government bill, meaning that the Government cannot cost it in the way that it normally would.”
“I am pleased to speak to the amendments in my name, and I am grateful to Stephen Kerr for covering for me yesterday. Amendment 256 seeks to preserve palliative and end-of-life care by ensuring that statutory and charitable funding that is intended for such care is not rerouted to fund assisted suicide instead. It would be so very wrong—to be frank, it would be indefensible—to divert money that is intended to improve lives to fund people taking their own. Incorporating an assisted dying service into the national health service will inevitably mean that such a service will compete with other services for funding. I followed the whole of yesterday’s proceedings, and I recall my colleague Edward Mountain intervening on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to ask about the funding.”
“The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Gibson. Your vote will be recorded.”
“I am also grateful that we, as members of a family-friendly Parliament, have the ability to spend some time with our children when it is very special to them that their parents are with them. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ross. That is not a point of order, but it is now on the record. We will continue with our proceedings. Section 20B—Raising assisted dying with a person under 18 Amendments 242 and 243 not moved. Amendment 49 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to. Amendments 244 to 246 not moved. Section 21—Offence Amendment 50 moved—[Liam McArthur]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 50 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed. Kenneth Gibson: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes.”
“[Made a request to intervene.] Christine Grahame: I see that Mr Ross is now appearing on the screen. Members: Oh! The Presiding Officer: I have already ruled on the matter. I would prefer that we moved on to our next item of business. [Interruption.] I call Douglas Ross for a point of order. Douglas Ross: I am grateful, Presiding Officer. I confirm to Christine Grahame that I am following proceedings and voting from home. I travelled for three and a half hours today to spend a small amount of time with my son, who turned seven today and hoped to see his father on his birthday. I will leave Moray at approximately 5 am tomorrow morning so that I am in the chamber with other members. I have been following proceedings, and I am grateful to Stephen Kerr for contributing on my behalf today.”
“I apologise for having to leave immediately after question 1, and I am grateful to the Presiding Officer for accepting my request to do so. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether colleges should have borrowing powers and how any such powers would be delivered. (S6O-05635)”
“Sue Webber: Frankly, yes, I agree, and law- abiding Scots across the country would also agree, and they would agree that free bus passes must be stripped from those who have used them as any excuse to act violently, whether they do so on a bus or whether they use their pass to travel to a location where they carry out antisocial behaviour and criminality at stations—bus or rail—retail venues or leisure facilities. The Scottish Conservatives are on Scotland’s side and believe that any passenger who commits criminal or antisocial behaviour should automatically have their bus pass stripped from them. That is the least that passengers and bus drivers deserve. The SSI gets the ball rolling, but far more needs to be done to deliver safer buses for Scotland. 22:22”
“Keith Rollinson was a constituent of mine. I attended his funeral at Elgin town hall. I have listened as his wife, Sue, and his family have expressed their deep concern and, frankly, disgust that the killer of their relative could soon be released from prison—well, I cannot even say “prison”, because he is not in a prison—and still be entitled to his free bus pass. Does Sue Webber agree that that is completely unacceptable and that the Government should do everything possible to ensure that someone who has killed a bus driver is never allowed to retain his free bus pass?”
“It would have to be a case of no committees at all, but I know that my education committee and Edward Mountain’s net zero committee have scheduled sessions, and I do not think that they can be cancelled at this stage, despite the heavy pressures on us to get legislation through. 21:39”
“That could have been an extra 30 or 40 minutes, within which I believe that we could have got through group 9. We would certainly have made progress, and I would like that to be considered. I do not know whether the minister can say anything. Finally, I will respond to the point that Jackie Baillie made about committee meetings. I say this as a committee member, not as a committee convener, because I cannot speak on behalf of the committee—although I try to sometimes. We have scheduled meetings over the next two weeks; we have invited witnesses, and witnesses have agreed to come.”
“If we are not even going to be flexible around those issues, we might not even complete the business on the additional day on Friday. Ross Greer: Mr Ross said that we were due to debate the bill until 10 o’clock this evening. My understanding is that an hour had already been allocated for multiple Scottish statutory instruments. That was always part of the planned business this evening. Douglas Ross: I do not have the business bulletin in front of me, but my understanding is that that was to take place after we reached the 10 o’clock deadline for decision time; that is, that we should start those SSIs at 10 o’clock. We have taken up a large amount of that time discussing this, but we stopped the debate on amendments on the bill before half past 9.”
“That is what I am troubled with. Group 9 had only six amendments in it. Although we will have to sit for further days than scheduled, we should use the maximum time that is allocated on the days when we are due to speak about the bill. I am seriously concerned that, if we agree to the business motion today, we will have further scenarios in which we will stop early, which I do not think is acceptable. I was more than willing and prepared to debate amendments to the bill until 10 o’clock and then get into the further procedures that we have to do today. I am unsure who took the decision, or why it was taken, not to start group 9, because I believe that it could have been finished. If it could not, we could have followed up to the amendments that had been debated and then restarted tomorrow.”
“I understand and respect the points made by Jeremy Balfour and others. I want to make a few points myself. First, in some of the interventions on Mr Balfour, members said that there is no alternative. There may be no alternative now, but there was a big alternative. Liam McArthur never hid that he was introducing this bill. We have known about it for years. At some point, the Government or the Parliament will have to reflect on the fact that we have left such an emotive and important bill to our final weeks in this session. We cannot get away from that. The reason why I requested to speak is that, right now, we are considering a motion to sit for an additional day when we have not even reached the time limit within which we were supposed to debate the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill tonight.”
“If the bill is genuinely to be about choice, it must guarantee that every person knows and has access to the full spectrum of palliative care. Without that guarantee, I fear that the bill risks turning what should be a well- supported, fully informed decision into one that is coerced or coerced by circumstance. Amendment 154 is a small but crucial step to ensuring that patients would not be left facing a false choice and that the promise of autonomy would be matched by real, accessible care. For those reasons, I hope that members can support amendment 154.”
“If we do not ensure that palliative care is funded and accessible, we risk presenting people with a false choice between unbearable suffering and ending their life prematurely. True autonomy can exist only when people are able to access the care that they need, regardless of circumstance. 16:00 We know from palliative care specialists that suffering at the end of life can often be alleviated with expert support. Pain management, psychological care and holistic support can significantly reduce the desire for an assisted death. That is why it is essential that discussions about those options are comprehensive, understood by the patient and formally recorded. That would not only strengthen informed decision making but ensure a clear safeguard whereby palliative care was fully considered before any assisted death was pursued.”
“Amendment 154, in my name, seeks to strengthen the assessment process by ensuring that registered medical practitioners must fully discuss the range of palliative care options with anyone who is making a declaration. That would include “symptom management, pain relief, psychological and social support, and end-of-life planning”. Crucially, the amendment would also require that the patient understood those options and that the discussion was formally recorded. At its core, amendment 154 is about real choice. As the bill currently stands, a doctor could proceed with assessing eligibility for assisted suicide without guaranteeing that the person fully understood or had access to the care that could relieve their suffering. That is simply not acceptable.”
“My view is the same as the view of the Deputy First Minister—the aim of including that phrase is to ensure that people get the care that they need, and there are some individuals who would want to know the cost of that care before going forward in that way.”
“The research is about the need to ensure that there is universal equity of palliative care, otherwise people might feel more inclined to opt for relief from their symptoms rather than getting the palliative care that they need. Douglas Ross: I will come on to that when I speak to my amendments on the issue in group 18, but the briefing that we got from Marie Curie on it was very important. I accept what Emma Roddick, Ross Greer and the Deputy First Minister have said. You can read this amendment in different ways. I tried to say in my response to Emma Roddick that the aim is to ensure that people get the palliative care that they should get. If Ross Greer reads the amendment in such a way that it is almost like a bill above someone’s head, which could maybe then prevent their seeking to get that care, that is his interpretation.”
“However, if I am ever in such a situation, I would like to know that the work has been done to ensure that the costings have been fully sought, fully understood and fully laid out, and that they are clear to everyone. That is why they are included in my amendment, but there are alternative amendments that members can consider. Kate Forbes: Maybe I was misreading it, but I read that line as meaning that it was essentially about having a fully resourced palliative care offering rather than about providing the accounting details to the patient. I wonder whether, in drafting the amendment, the member was struck by the research from Marie Curie that came out last week, which I know Miles Briggs took a particular interest in.”
“If the bill truly values individual care and autonomy, that choice must exist in reality and not only as a theoretical option. Ross Greer: Like Emma Roddick, I sympathise with the outcome that Douglas Ross is aiming for. However, I am concerned that the phrase “fully costed” might have the opposite impact to what Mr Ross proposes in that it might make the patient feel like a financial burden on society. Does Bob Doris’s amendment 23 not reach the same outcome that Mr Ross is aiming for but without the potential disadvantages of using the phrase “fully costed”? Douglas Ross: I am listening to members’ concerns about the term “fully costed”. However, I do not share those concerns. We have an option: members can support my amendment or Bob Doris’s amendment.”