Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will bring in Laura Zeballos or Maggie Page to provide more detail on that. We are looking, for example, at seeking to make sure that there is confirmation of the ability to share data across services, whether it be drug and alcohol services or, in this case, someone’s experience of their pathway through health and social care. The National Care Service (Scotland) Bill seeks to put in place a more robust process to ensure that proper data sharing is in place, because we recognise that there is a challenge with different services sharing data, even within the health service and between the health service and social care.

Laura or Maggie might wish to elaborate on our plans.

I have been able to see the impact of that funding via the Corra Foundation in many of the community organisations that I have visited. As Ms Nicoll said, the fact that it has been possible to provide the funding on a multiyear basis is helpful.

In response to a question about the MAT standards statement, I set out that we are considering what comes next and what we can do to build on the national mission that is due to end next year, and that funding option will be part of that consideration. We will look at how we can learn from the organisations in which we have been investing and consider the impact that they have had and what we need to do next. That will ensure that there is clarity for organisations and individuals. In that way, we are seeking to build on the national drugs mission rather than feeling that, when 2026 comes, our work is done, as it is clearly not.

We absolutely recognise that, particularly for community and voluntary organisations, funding certainty is critical for planning and for recruitment to the programmes that are delivered. Colleagues from the community and voluntary sectors have contributed today. We all support organisations in our constituencies and we want to provide as certain a funding landscape as possible and to support them in their funding applications. We absolutely recognise that providing that element of certainty for as long as possible helps them, sometimes, more than the quantum that they get, because the certainty allows them to plan and to shape their services in a way that year-to-year funding just does not. The fairer funding route has been developed to provide greater levels of certainty and multiyear funding.

As colleagues will be aware, we have an ambition to go further than that. We hope that the funding that we receive—and the certainty around that funding through, for example, the UK Government’s spending review in the spring—will allow us to have greater certainty in our medium-term financial planning in order to provide that level of budgetary certainty. Others across the Cabinet recognise the importance of doing that, not least for recruitment but also in relation to providing the space for those organisations to focus on delivering and building a service and delivering transformational change, rather than having to go through the cycle of funding applications every year—which, as we all recognise, is time consuming and requires a huge resource commitment. We are looking at what more we can do on that.

I note that those questions were considered by the previous panel, particularly in relation to prosecution policy and investigations. We have considered Mr McArthur’s equality impact assessment. Depending on the consideration that the committee gives to those questions, further work may be required post stage 1. However, at this stage, I will rest there.

Good morning, colleagues, and thank you very much for your invitation to give evidence to the committee on what is, as I am sure that you have found throughout your evidence gathering, a very sensitive and emotive topic.

As I outlined in my memorandum to the committee in September, the Government is taking a neutral position on Liam McArthur’s bill at this stage, and it is for the Parliament to decide whether it supports the general principles behind the bill. Given that, I am not in a position to comment on assisted dying in principle or on the individual provisions in the bill, beyond what I have already outlined in the memorandum.

It is important that I, as lead minister on the bill, and the Government, remain neutral while the Parliament carries out its scrutiny. However, my officials and I have been closely following the evidence that the committee has gathered over the past few months. The work that you have been doing and the evidence of stakeholders will play an important role in supporting our decision making on any amendments that we might wish to lodge, should it pass stage 1. I also look forward to reading the committee’s stage 1 report when it is published.

This is a hugely complex, emotive and contentious topic, and it remains my hope that, regardless of our personal views, we as MSPs will be able to work together across parties to ensure that the debate continues to be handled with the sensitivity that it requires and deserves. I am grateful to the committee for the respectful way in which it has handled its scrutiny thus far, and I thank you again for inviting me to give evidence on this important issue.

I am happy to bring Ms Crossan in to give further detail. A lot would be dependent on the service model that is put forward. I know that the British Medical Association has raised questions about the model and how it will be established. The point that you raise is correct.

That would be a financial undertaking and we would need to consider that, should an amendment of that nature be made. It would be for others to determine whether such an amendment would be within the scope of the bill. I recognise the work of the likes of Miles Briggs, and we are considering how to ensure that palliative care support is as extensive and equitable as possible as part of our strategy. The work that we are doing in that vein, as well as supporting our hospice sector and our health and social care services, aims to ensure the availability of palliative care at the point of need.

I recognise that some might have raised that as a concern, but I hope that I have set out the steps that we are taking to try to address its being a concern. I would highlight the draft strategy on palliative care that is being consulted on and which seeks to improve the position in that respect, and the steps that we are taking in the budget to fund our health boards and our hospices to maintain or expand provision.

It is important to stress, too, that there is a belief, wrongly held by some, that palliative care is only for those with a short time left to live. Such care can—and, in many cases, should—be offered from the time that a person is diagnosed with a serious or life-threatening condition, because it can help them to get the right support in place, manage their symptoms better and allow them to think through the best treatment options, taking into account what really matters to them. That is the person-led approach that we want to see, and it can be offered alongside other treatments that aim to prolong their life.

Such care has to be bespoke and person led to ensure that we are addressing the needs of people as they see them. It is not just for those at the end of life. I hope that that provides additional clarity for the committee in considering whether that should be a factor in decision making.

Again, I understand that being a query and an area of interrogation for the committee, but the Government has not taken a position on that as yet.

Yes. Should the bill pass stage 1, extensive discussions would need to be had with a number of stakeholders, and I would have a responsibility as health secretary to ensure that I was taking matters forward in the interests of health and social care services and the people who interact with them. I think that everyone would expect me to have conversations such as those that Mr Gulhane set out.