Chamber and committees

Does anybody else have a comment?

Thank you.

In the evidence session that we had with witnesses from Canada, we heard of cases in which people’s family members or loved ones had opposed the process for assisted dying. Should family members and loved ones be involved in the decision-making process for assisted dying?

Yes.

No.

If a loved one makes a request for assisted dying, should there be a requirement for the family to be informed?

The committee has already done that, and we have had answers back from the Government and COSLA. Callum was fantastic in his appearance before the committee, and I have to commend him for all the work that he has done, but, with regret, I do not think that the committee can take the petition further.

Therefore, I ask the committee to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that the Scottish Government does not intend to take forward work on a national procurement exercise for reusable water bottles at this time.

I wonder whether the committee would consider keeping the petition open and writing to the Built Environment Forum Scotland, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Chartered Institute of Building and the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland to seek their views on the action called for in the petition. The committee could also consider writing to the Minister for Housing to highlight the petitioners’ submissions, including the concern that local authorities’ scheme of assistance strategies offer homeowners only advice and guidance, rather than making provisions for financial support where repairs are required.

I do not think that the committee can take the petition any further, and I wonder whether the committee would consider closing it under section 15.7 of standing orders, on the grounds that there is a GB-wide regulatory framework to prevent or minimise harm to people and wildlife from the use of biocides; that the CAR regime in Scotland covers both direct discharges into a water environment and situations where there is a risk of diffuse pollution from activities on land, with SEPA assessing the risk of proposed activities before granting any authorisation, if appropriate; that many factors beyond labelling are required to assess the risk that a product poses to wildlife; that algae remover concentrate, which the petitioner refers to, has been authorised as safe for use by the Health and Safety Executive; and that the Scottish Government considers the issues raised to be a regulatory matter and that there is a robust framework in place, and therefore does not believe that there is either a role for the Government or a reason for ministers to intervene.

We could consider closing the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that resin composite fillings are available to patients under 15 years of age, pregnant or breastfeeding women, and those who have specific medical conditions that contraindicate the use of dental amalgam, and on the basis that it is the Scottish Government’s view that including white fillings in all cases for aesthetic reasons in the absence of an oral health rationale would not be supported within NHS general dental services.