Seòmar agus comataidhean

My first questions are directed to Hayley Valentine. In the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster, you indicated that the BBC would be open to working towards broadcasting Scotland national team games on free-to-view TV. Could you update us on the work that is under way on that?

I recognise the issue of the cost of acquiring those rights for public sector broadcasters, as I have had conversations with a couple of different broadcasters over the course of the campaign that we have run.

Before Christmas, I wrote to Ian Murray to ask him to put the Scotland games on the prescribed fixtures list. I have yet to receive a reply from Mr Murray. Would such a move help to solve the issue of the cost of acquiring the rights? Is that something that the BBC would support?

I will be as quick as possible.

Mr Davie, I get that you may be frustrated at us for going round in circles about the Scottish qualifying criteria, but that is because you have said that a production has ticked two boxes, but also that it is not a box-ticking exercise. You have said that you are interested in the spend, but that it is not about the spend; it is about doing the right thing. What is the spirit of the Scottish qualifying criteria supposed to be? Is it about what Ofcom wants you to do? Is it about ticking enough boxes to get things past Ofcom? Alternatively, is it actually about diversifying the talent in Scotland, deepening the talent base and working with Scotland-based production companies to make that a reality? We have heard all that this morning. For clarity, it would be good for the committee to hear what you believe the spirit should be.

That is fine. Thank you, convener. I might come back in later, if that is okay.

Good morning, minister. The statutory instrument summary indicates that both FSS and the FSA have the ability to review authorisations and take action if new evidence raises safety concerns. However, do those agencies currently have the resources to proactively and continuously review emerging evidence, ensure that businesses meet their obligations and enforce compliance effectively? Given that the Scottish Government’s budget outlines a 1.6 per cent cut to FSS funding, how can the Scottish Government guarantee that those critical public health responsibilities will not be compromised?

Accepting the statutory instrument would create further divergence from European Union food regulation at a time when the EU is maintaining rigorous standards. How does the Scottish Government justify that move, particularly given its stated ambition of one day rejoining the EU and the need to align with its food safety framework to do so?

Given that products will no longer be subject to a 10-year reauthorisation process, how will the proposed change make the food environment safer? At the moment, I am hearing that what is proposed will simply speed up another side of the process. It sounds as though resources are simply being moved from renewing authorisations every 10 years to looking at the massive number of new feed additives and so on that will require to be researched. How, overall, will the proposed change make the food environment any safer? Will it not simply shift resource from one side to the other and potentially miss things as a result of continually reviewing evidence rather than having a 10-year regulated framework?

I will go back to what Dr Wright said about the feeling of being a burden. I know that, towards the end of their lives, my grandparents felt like a burden regardless, and I do not think that anything would have resolved that. When I think about whether I would want an assisted death, feeling a burden would always be part of that consideration, but it would not necessarily force my hand one way or another. It is about how we divorce those feelings of being a burden, which I think are a natural human emotion at the point of needing such care, from the question whether that feeling has coercive capacity for those who are seeking an assisted death. It is actually about how, as a clinician, you drill into that and divorce the two from each other—how you divorce that coercive impact of feeling a burden from real coercion.

You spoke about taking a whole-family look, which witnesses in a previous session suggested as well. It is about looking not only at the individual but at the wider family dynamic. Is that something that you would want to see? I acknowledge that, ideologically, you are opposed to the bill, but if it was to go ahead, would you like to see a soft-touch whole-family evaluation, to make sure that coercion was detected?

Other than what Fraser Sutherland has just mentioned, does anyone have any suggestions for any other safeguards around coercion—in either direction—that they would like to be included in the bill?

We had a private session with a group of people with learning disabilities who were concerned about coercion and were equally concerned about the need to be taken seriously if they were to decide to opt for an assisted death. Dr McDougall, could you give your perspective on how we balance having stringent safeguards around coercion and feelings of being a burden and so on with the need to take people with disabilities seriously when they make that choice?