Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would it not be better to hold off any further increase in ADS until you have more data and evidence from the review process?

The Royal College of Nursing suggests that

“The financial memorandum is largely silent on the resourcing implications for nursing, despite the Bill establishing a key role for registered nurses in the process”,

and it goes on to argue for a “dedicated assisted dying service”. Is that something that you looked at? If so, why was it dismissed, and what might it cost if it were the direction of travel?

Finally, a number of submissions suggest that you have underestimated the overall numbers who will come forward, as others have alluded to, in the early phase. With regard to the 33 per cent in Oregon who came forward but did not ultimately proceed with an assisted death, the Anscombe Bioethics Centre says:

“This figure of 33% does not represent all those who ‘entered the process’, it represents all those who, having entered the process and been assessed and approved have received a lethal prescription.”

Can you clarify the distinction between the sense that we had that one third did not proceed with the process with the fact that many more could be involved in the early phase of assessment but, having received a prescription, might not proceed with taking it?

That is why I was seeking clarification. I think that they are saying that, in Oregon, that 33 per cent figure is for those who receive a lethal prescription then do not proceed with it, whereas in New Zealand and Australian states, for example, all stages of the process are documented, so people are shown as not proceeding in a more gradual way. If this story features quite heavily in the news and if we are in advance of the rest of the UK on this, it might be that far more people than might otherwise be the case will come forward—not in a speculative way—then back out or not proceed. There could be a significant early-stage demand.

Gordon McGuinness, the Public Audit Committee took evidence from the Auditor General for Scotland in 2022, at a time when he had raised serious concerns about skills alignment between the various bodies, including Colleges Scotland, the Scottish Funding Council and the Scottish Government. At the time, he said that the arrangements that were in place were unlikely to deliver on the Scottish Government’s ambitions. In your submission, you say:

“Policy priorities need to drive out simplified and demand-led provision which better balances the needs of the learners, workers and the economy.”

Again, in effect, that is about skills alignment. What has changed in the past two years since the Auditor General first flagged that concern, and specifically what could be done to accelerate the process of skills alignment? That seems quite fundamental because, regardless of how much we are spending, the spending needs to be effective.

Yes—this is not rehearsed in any way. Earlier, we were talking about internationalisation. The fourth bullet point in Alastair McInroy’s submission was about attracting international talent into the UK. However, we do not compete only with California or Cork; we also compete with Cambridge—for example, in life sciences.

I am interested to get a view, including from Sandy Begbie, on this. The Government set out a plan in its tax strategy to support a “more productive and competitive” economy and, as a result, is taking action to grow Scotland’s tax base—that is what the strategy says. Is that borne out by recent experience in relation to the Scottish tax system?

Corporation tax has been referred to in relation to the Republic of Ireland, which has a corporation tax rate of 12.5 per cent. I think that it ranks ahead of the Bahamas on Tax Justice Network’s global league table of tax havens, but that is obviously a reserved matter. However, is the tax situation in Scotland and the differential with the rest of the UK one of the issues that might be holding your sector back, Andy Witty, or perhaps holding back the UK financial sector in relation to Scotland, Sandy Begbie?

On industry responsiveness, what would be the silver bullet to inject into the system—or to fire into the system, to use a better analogy—to ensure that the whole system and structures are more responsive to the evolving needs of industry?

Okay—I am leading you in, in a way—

Good morning, Mr McArthur. A lot of what I intended to ask has already been covered, so I will be as brief as I can. I agree with the convener that the financial memorandum will probably not be the determining factor for a lot of MSPs when they come to vote on the issue, but it is what is before us today.

The couple of points that I will make might seem like nitpicking, in some respects. I will detail them. It was—I think—the convener who asked a question in relation to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s observation that, in your assessment, the cost of each dose that is provided to a terminally ill adult to end their own life would be about £80. The RPS says, however, that it

“is likely to be a huge underestimate of the actual cost for each dose, once all the costs of procurement, storage, facilitation, disposal etc”

are taken into account. Could you use any international comparators to examine that sum, which, on the face of it, seems to be relatively low?

You would have to ensure that storage places were secure—for example if, in the end, the process did not take place through a traditional hospital or clinical setting—because the substance is potentially very dangerous.