���˿���

Mr Balfour asked who is responsible. Ultimately, it is me—of course it is me. I need to make sure that that information is available and is disseminated properly, and I need to do that in partnership with others.

Mr Balfour mentioned health boards and alcohol and drug partnerships. When it comes to, for example, the expectations around the delivery of the MAT standards, we need to ensure that the information is consistent, that the services are co-ordinated and that colleagues across the health service—Mr Balfour’s question pertained to this—are aware of them. Ultimately, that falls to me.

We are constantly driving to ensure that improvements are made. I hope that panel members, service users and medical professionals will recognise that improvements have been made, but there is more to do. The figures from last year demonstrate that. Too many people are still dying. The rapid action drug alerts and response statistics from the past quarter indicate a slightly more positive picture, but we cannot be complacent. I am certainly not, and if Christina McKelvie were here, she would say the same thing. We need to drive harder to ensure that there is consistency across the country and across all services.

I have noted some of the evidence that has been put forward. I understand the live debates that there are, which the committee will be considering, around the shape of any proposed service and how it would interact with existing health services. It is for the committee to determine that in its stage 1 report and for the Parliament to consider that. My position will remain neutral until that has taken place.

Again, I am trying to be as helpful as possible to Mr Gulhane and to the committee. I have set out in my opening statement that the Government is taking a neutral approach and that, as the lead minister for the bill, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on provisions within it. I note the evidence that has come forward and I understand the debate that is there. We will all have to consider the matter should the bill pass stage 1.

I would be happy to take that point away and to write to you to give you what I can on the financial memorandum considerations.

For the Government, yes, that would be premature. We have nothing further to add, other than our position that we believe that elements in the bill would not pass legislative scrutiny and are not within our legislative competence.

I heard the evidence that the committee took this morning. I have not interacted with NRS on that issue, and I am not sure whether the committee has explored it with NRS, but it might be something to follow up on. We do not have a position on that as yet.

Unfortunately not. Beyond what I have set out in the Government’s memorandum, I must maintain a strictly neutral position to allow the committee and the Parliament to assess the merits of the bill on the basis of what I believe will be a universally free vote, including for those in the Government. My responsibilities as health secretary and lead member for the bill will come in should the bill pass stage 1, and then there will be far more extensive dialogue and discussion and policy positions taken.

In the course of this session, I will try to be as helpful as possible. I hope that you will note that, in response to Ms Mackay’s questions, I tried to give as expansive an answer as I could. I cannot say anything beyond what I have already set out and what is already in the memorandum that I sent to the committee.

I cannot say much more than I have already said in my memorandum to the committee. However, to summarise the Government’s views, we believe that the bill in its current form is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. In particular, we believe that section 15(8), which gives power to the Scottish ministers to specify in regulations a drug or other substance as an “approved substance” to be provided to terminally ill adults to end their own life, appears to relate to the reserved matter of medicines, medical supplies and poisons, as set out in section J4 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998.

Given that the bill represents a novel and fundamental shift in the role of medical practitioners and the regulatory framework in which they operate—a shift from protecting or enhancing patients’ lives to assisting in the termination of life—we also have concerns that some of the other provisions in the bill may relate to the reserved matter of the regulation of health professionals, as set out in section G2 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. That is a confirmation of the position that I set out in the memorandum.

In the Government memorandum, I set out the elements around the potential costs. On the particular issue that Mr Torrance raises about training costs, if we were to assume that half of all doctors would undergo training, and that the training time would be around seven hours—as is suggested in Mr McArthur’s financial memorandum—there would be a total cost of just over £6 million for training time, which has not been factored in. Again, that is for the Parliament and the committee to consider. We have noted that as part of our memorandum to the committee for you to consider.