Seòmar agus comataidhean

A report came out recently showing that palliative care is really struggling financially, among the other issues that it faces. I know that we will discuss palliative care with our next panel of witnesses. Does the bill process give us an opportunity to better fund palliative care, and do you think that that is important?

We have spoken a lot about palliative care nurses. I agree with Dr Kennedy—in my experience, there are not enough palliative care nurses in our community. More and more people want to die at home, rather than anywhere else. What are your thoughts on palliative care, especially when it comes to our nursing colleagues?

Fiona McIntyre, I have some specific questions for you about the means of assisted dying. The bill does not specify how that will happen, which I suspect might be because things change in medicine and it might be more appropriate to use secondary legislation. Do you think that that is appropriate, or should the means be specified in the bill?

My final question is for all the witnesses, but particularly for Fiona McIntyre.

Is it clear what should happen in the unlikely but possible event of complications during the assisted dying process?

I declare an interest—I am a practising national health service GP and I chair a working group on assisted dying.

I will follow up on what Emma Harper was asking about. Chris Provan, can you tell me how many people responded to the survey, and what the breakdown for Scotland was?

Should the bill say that we must talk about the options for palliative care whenever someone requests assisted dying?

Fantastic; thank you. I ask because the bills are different, and if someone objects to a bill in one jurisdiction, it would not necessarily mean that they would object to another bill in a different one, because bills can be written badly or well.

I declare my interest as a practising NHS GP and, obviously, as a contributor to the NHS pension scheme.

I have a number of questions that I would like to put on the record and to which I would like answers from ministers, where appropriate. I would like to know what the anticipated financial impact of the amendments are on NHS staff pensions and, more importantly, on the overall sustainability of the pension schemes. What is the long-term strategy for ensuring the financial sustainability of NHS pension schemes in Scotland, given the rise in contribution rates? How do the amendments align with broader public sector pension reforms in Scotland and how do they compare to similar changes across the rest of the UK? To what extent would the changes to pension contributions and retirement flexibilities influence NHS staff recruitment and retention in Scotland? Can we explain the rationale behind the introduction of the final pay controls and what impact they will have on pensions for NHS staff who are near retirement age?

My final comment is that, with the changes that we see here, people who use the NHS pension scheme are totally and utterly unable to easily see their pension and to understand what is happening and what tax implications their pensions might have. That is important, because we are at a time when our NHS is on its knees and we need to make it easier for staff to do more work. However, what can happen is that staff who do more work will be landed retrospectively with a huge tax bill because of pension contributions, which means that they have, in effect, paid to go to work and to help us in our NHS. There are simple changes that can be made to stop that happening, and I urge the Scottish Government to look at those, both to make that easier and to allow people to see their pensions, as I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are unable to do so.

This is a genuinely fascinating session.

I would like to speak more about the role of the courts. Dr Earle, I will start with you. I will specifically address the slippery slope argument that we began discussing earlier. I want to take that to its extreme and to hear your opinion on it. Suppose that I have diabetes, that I decide to go down the assisted dying route and that I can argue in court that I am being discriminated against as I am not allowed to do so for that condition. Obviously, that is an extreme. Do you foresee a way in which we could slowly move from the position of having fairly tightly worded reasons for being able to access assisted dying to the inclusion of conditions such as diabetes, on a rights basis?

Yes—for people throughout the process, really.