 The next item of business is consideration of business motion number 15997, in the name of Dolfiths Patrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting at a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Beryl and Cremation Scotland Bill. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press a request-speak button now, and I call on Dolfiths Patrick to move motion number 15997. Firmly moved. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 15997, in the name of Dolfiths Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is consideration of business motion number 15995, in the name of Dolfiths Patrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting at a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Abusive, Behaviour and Sexual Harm Scotland Bill. Any member who wishes to speak against this motion should press a request-speak button now, and I call on Dolfiths Patrick to move motion number 15995. Firmly moved. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 15995, in the name of Dolfiths Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Beryl and Cremation Scotland Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have. The bill is amended at stage 2, that is SP Bill 80A. The marshaled list, the correction slip to the marshaled list and the groupings. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division on proceedings this morning. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press a request-speak button as soon as possible after I call that group. Members should now refer to the marshaled list of amendments. I call group 1, meaning of Beryl authority and Beryl ground. I call amendment number 2, in the name of the minister, a group of amendments as shown in the groupings. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This group of amendments makes a number of changes to references to Beryl authorities. Most of those are consequential on amendment 2, which alters the definition of a Beryl authority. The effect of amendment 2 is that a Beryl authority is defined as the person who has a responsibility for the management of the Beryl ground rather than the person who owns the Beryl ground. That reflects the fact that some Beryl grounds, particularly private Beryl ones, are operated by someone other than the owner of the land. It is important that particular duties are placed on the operator, and most of the amendments in the group give effect to that. Amendment 3 provides a specific definition of Beryl ground for the purposes of section 2, which places duties on local authorities to provide Beryl grounds. The effect of that is to make it clear that a local authority is required to provide an open Beryl ground. A number of amendments are required where the bill places specific duties on local authority to Beryl authorities. Amendments 4 to 10 make drafting changes in connection with a change made by amendment 2. Those ensure that the powers conferred on local authorities by sections 3 and 4 are not affected by the change in the definition of Beryl authority made by amendment 2. Similarly, various drafting changes are required to references to the provision of a Beryl ground, since it is not always the case that a Beryl authority is the person that provides a Beryl ground, but instead is the person with responsibility for the management of the Beryl ground. Amendments 11 to 17, 20 and 21 give effect to that. Finally, amendment 71 changes the definition of a Beryl ground that is given in section 75, the bill's interpretation section. Amendments 3 and 10 adjust the meaning of a Beryl ground in sections 2 and 4, so that those sections now contain a bespoke definition, which is more limited than the definition elsewhere in the bill. Consequently, the general definition of Beryl ground for the bill requires to be adjusted, so it does not apply to sections 2 and 4. Amendment 71 makes that adjustment. Amendment 2 No member has asked to speak in this grouping of amendment. Does the minister wish to wind up? No. The question then is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendments 3 to 17, all in the name of the minister, and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move amendments 3 to 17 on block. On block. Has any member objection to a single question being put on amendments 3 to 17? We have not. No member has objected to the question that amendments 3 to 17 on block are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call group 2, minor and technical. I call amendment 18 in the group name of the minister, which is grouped with amendments as shown in the groupings. The minister is to move amendment 18 and speak to all the amendments in the group. Amendment 18 is a structural change to the bill to move section 20, so it sits with the sections relating to Beryl in a burial ground. It will be placed in the bill after section 15. This is a minor drafting change to the bill. Amendments 19 and 22 are minor technical adjustments. They ensure the system for applying for an exhumation, and the issue of guidance about burial authorities functions operate effectively. There have been a number of amendments to the bill in relation to stillbirth, including one that provides for the definition of stillbirth to be put into section 75, the interpretation section. Amendment 28 removes the definition from section 47. Amendment 35 removes the definition of stillbirth and stillborn child from section 47b. Those are now provided at the interpretation section, and so are no longer needed here. Amendments 42 and 44 move sections 48 and 49, so they will appear after section 47. Those amendments regroup those sections following the insertion of various new sections between section 47 and 48 at stage 2. Amendments 98 and 99 make minor changes to section 62, which confers powers on inspectors to enter certain types of premises. Amendment 98 would enable an inspector, if authorised by the Scottish ministers, to enter premises associated with the carrying out of functions of burial authorities and others. Doing so will ensure that all activities of burial and cremation authorities and funeral directors are dealt with and given inspectors the power to carry out inspections wherever necessary. Amendment 99 makes a necessary consequential change. Amendments 69 and 70 change references to documents or records, to documents, records and registers. The effect of that is to make it an offence for a person to fail to comply with an instruction by an inspector to produce a document, record or register. That will ensure that information in each of those formats can be viewed by an inspector for the purposes of section 62. Amendment 72 adds definitions of stillbirth and stillborn child to the interpretation section of the bill. Amendments 102 to 107 are minor technical amendments to the table of repeals in schedule 2. Amendment 73 is a technical amendment that ensures that the long title of the bill accurately reflects the content of the bill, including the amendments that were made at stage 2 and the proposed amendments at stage 3. No members ask you to speak in this group. Does the minister have a right to sum up? The question then is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. I call amendments 19, 20, 21 and 22, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move the amendments 19 to 22 on block. Does any member object to a single question that may be put on amendments 19 to 22? No member has objected. The question then is that amendments 19 to 22 on block are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Group 3, cremation authority duties. I call amendment number 74, in the name of the minister, in a group of its own. Minister, to move and speak to amendment 74. Amendment 74 updates section 37 to put beyond out that any regulations that Scottish ministers may make in relation to the operation of a crematorium can include the operation of the equipment for carrying out the cremation. Thank you. No member has asked to speak in this group. Minister, you wave your right. The question is that amendment number 74 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. Group 4, location of crematorium. I call amendment number 75, in the name of the minister, in a group of its own. Minister, to move and speak to amendment number 75. The purpose of amendment 75 is to remove section 42a from the bill. Section 42a was inserted into the bill at stage 2. At stage 2, I said that I considered this kind of statutory minimum distance to be unnecessary because decisions about the location of crematoriums are rightly a matter for the planning system, as are decisions about development adjacent to crematoriums. A statutory minimum distance is inflexibly arbitrary and an unnecessary blunt solution to the issue. It has the potential to undermine the functioning of the planning system and place unnecessary restrictions on the provision of both crematoriums and housing. Throughout the bill's passage, I have expressed the view that the proposed location of a new crematorium is a matter properly dealt with by the planning system. I continue to be of that opinion. All planning applications are determined on their individual merit, in accordance with the local development plan and all material considerations. What might be regarded as a material consideration is a matter for the planning authority concerned and may include matters such as privacy and decency, preservation of sanctity, tranquility, traffic and increased footfall, which are all matters that are relevant to crematoriums. Location and the individual characteristics of the site and proposal are likely to be key considerations in decision making. None of that will be taken into account by statutory minimum distance, which will simply be a rigid and arbitrary distance with no particular justification or purpose. I understand the concerns that are at the root of section 42A. It is important that crematoriums are tranquil places of peaceful contemplation. Nonetheless, I continue to believe that the best way to achieve that is through the planning system. A 200-metre distance offers no guarantee of that. Indeed, section 42A says nothing about any kind of development other than crematoriums and housing and would not necessarily do anything to offer any kind of screening for the crematorium or take account of any other local circumstances. In seeking to remove section 42A from the bill, I commit the Scottish Government to providing specific policy advice for planning authorities to assist in considering planning applications for crematoriums as part of the next revision of Scottish planning policy. Scottish planning policy promotes consistency while allowing sufficient flexibility to reflect local circumstances. I believe that that would be the most effective way to ensure that planning authorities consistently consider relevant issues in the context of specific locations when assessing development applications for crematoriums. Planning policy of this type is already provided by Scottish planning policy in relation to other types of development. For example, Scottish planning policy advises planning authorities to consider buffer zones between dwellings and some waste management facilities, and it advises on preferred distances for particular types of facilities. Similarly, community separation is one of the factors to be considered when planning for the location of onshore wind farms. I know that some people are concerned that Scottish planning policy is not statutory. However, the Town and County and Country Planning Scotland Act 1997 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As a statement of ministers' priorities, the content of Scottish planning policy is a material consideration that carries significant weight. Setting out guidance about the location of crematoriums in Scottish planning policy ensures that all planning authorities will consider crematoriums in a consistent way. It will allow local circumstances to be taken into account, meaning that planning decisions about crematoriums reflect local circumstances in a way that would not be possible with a statutory minimum distance. Such issues are dealt with well by the planning system currently, and I believe that that is an appropriate way to address the issues raised in relation to crematoriums. I want decisions about where crematoriums are located to be handled sensitively and inconsistently by the planning system, and I believe that the approach that I have outlined will achieve that. I move amendment 75. It is a very odd section 42A. Reading it, I take from it that there are two policy intentions. The first policy intention is to protect residential properties that exist from having a crematorium built at the bottom of the garden, so to speak, and the other of which is to protect crematoriums, peace and tranquility, as the minister referred to, from the encroachment of nearby residential properties. The very immediate difficulty is that it is incomplete if that is the policy objective, in that in no sense does it prevent the redesignation of something that might be within 200 metres as a residential property. Therefore, in terms of the way that this section has been constructed, it fails to meet one of those policy objectives. The second issue that one might consider in relation to protecting the peace and tranquility of the crematorium and the grounds that often contain memorials to those who have been cremated is that it does not address a wide range of other things that might fall within 200 metres. Let's just think of some of the ones that might be a school, a play park, cinema, theatre, public house or a restaurant. If you want to protect the peace and tranquility of a crematorium, you would need to consider that as an issue, not simply ban residential properties. In terms of the policy objectives that are captured in section 42A, it is not constructed to deliver adequately on either of them. However, the minister makes an excellent point when she says that to put this into primary legislation is a very odd way to deal with a planning issue. The national planning guidelines would be a much more appropriate place because that leaves the councils who are the planning authorities the discretion to make decisions that are appropriate to the circumstances before them. In particular, the circumstances may be very different in a rural location from those that will prevail in an urban location. I conclude my remarks by saying that we, with regret perhaps to the policy intentions of the person who inserted 42A, have to at this stage remove it and deal with this issue in a more appropriate way via the planning system. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I, too, am concerned about this amendment. The minister went on at some length about planning policy. I think that we would all hope that the planning authority would make reasonable decisions when considering a planning application, but I think that it is perfectly reasonable that they would certainly not consider a planning application for either housing or a crematorium within 200 metres of each other. However, we also know that planning decisions are not always made properly. The amendment that is about to be removed gives protection both for residents and for crematoriums. Congestion could cause a huge problem for people living close by, especially road safety issues for people with young families and the noise and disruption caused by residents could upset those attending a crematorium for a funeral. Local authority would not be concerned about those matters. I sincerely hope that local authority would be concerned about those matters, but we have seen in the past local authorities making decisions that fly in the face of that. Even in spite of residents' campaigns, we have seen planning permission granted for things that we would not see the sense of. There is another issue at stake here. I think that you yourself are on the record about talking about the role of committees to hold the Government to account. This is one of the very rare occasions where a committee has put through an amendment at stage 2 against the will of the Government and showing that the committees have some teeth. It would be a bit sad if, at stage 3, the Government used its weight and power within the chamber to overrule one of those tiny times that the committee has raised its voice and held the Government to account. John Wilson, followed by Kevin Stewart. The amendment at stage 2, 42A, was to address an issue that had been identified by the committee in consideration of the bill at stage 1. In consideration at stage 1, we identified the 1902 cremation act. Within that act, there is a stipulation under section 5, site of crematorium. No crematorium shall be constructed nearer to any dwelling house than 200 yards, except with the consent and writing of the owner, lycee and occupier of such house, nor within 50 yards of any public highway, nor in the concentrated part of the burial grounds of any burial authority. In consideration of the bill, we took evidence as a committee and the evidence was quite clear that a number of those who made written submissions and oral presentations to the committee asked that the limit not only be installed but modernised. What we received from the Federation of Burial and Cremation Authorities was that, rather than having the 250-yard rules removed, the FPCA would like legislators to take action to protect these vital locations and prevent the sighting of subsequent developments literally up to the cartilage of the crematoria grounds. That led to the committee and its stage 1 report to say that the overwhelming majority of the evidence that we received asked for the 200-yard rule to be retained and strengthened. We also noted the substantial confusion around how that rule works in conjunction with the planning system. We find it undesirable that the bill does nothing to tackle this level of confusion. No. We therefore recommend that the Scottish Government takes cognisance of the issues raised and, in discussion with planning colleagues, brings forward an amendment at stage 2 that addresses those concerns. Quite clearly, the committee was concerned enough to put that in its report and asked the Scottish Government to come back at stage 2. Scottish Government did not come back at stage 2 with an appropriate amendment. In fact, the amendment that was put forward in my name has been challenged today and its proposal is to take that amendment out. We also received written evidence from Falkirk Council, and Falkirk Council has the experience of having properties and housing built up to 110 yards from an existing crematoria. Falkirk Council's written submission says that we disagree with removing the existing provision that restricts the proximity of new crematoria to housing. In our view, there are risks involved in reducing or removing the 200-yard limit. In the case of Falkirk Council's crematorium, an extensive area of new housing has been developed within 110 yards of the crematorium buildings. The degree of separation should not be determined by the planning process alone, because policies, provisions and local development plan can be overturned on appeal by developers. That is part of the issue. While we have to be reassured that the Scottish planning policy will address the issues raised, clearly Scottish planning policy can be amended, can be changed and the local planning authority's decisions can be overturned on appeal by developers. There is clearly a need to try to keep something in the legislation that not only protects the crematoria but also protects local authorities to maintain the barrier between crematoria and new housing developments against the wishes of developers. I ask the chamber to oppose the amendment when it comes to decision time. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. A number of issues have been raised here today, and often we find conflict between various pieces of legislation. In this case, it has been between the 1902 act and various planning legislation and guidance. For one, I am always keen to ensure that there is no conflict between pieces of legislation. I think that what we have from Mr Wilson will create that conflict. I think that we should trust planning authorities and local authorities to take those decisions. After all, they are the folk who know the geography and topography of a particular area. I will give way to Mr Wilson. When Mr Stewart confirmed to the chamber that Mr Stewart was the convener of the local government and regeneration committee that submitted the stage 1 report that asked the Scottish Government to consider the issue and to bring forward legislation to address the issues raised by many of the witnesses that gave evidence to the committee. I was the convener of the committee and I suggest that that will be leaked out. Mr Wilson's amendment might have been better worded in terms of dealing with conflicts if that was what it was supposed to do, but all his amendment did mention housing and did not mention any commercial properties. I think that there would be more difficulty in building a factory next to a crematorium or crematorium next to a factory rather than housing. Beyond that, what would happen in a situation where there was an application to maybe put a new crematorium in a place where there is already a crematorium and housing around it? One of the best examples is in Edinburgh, where housing is right next to the crematorium. Common sense should come into play here. That common sense approach would be to allow local authorities to look at the geography and topography in a particular area and to see what is suitable or not suitable to be built in a particular area. I think that if we are going to deal with this, we should deal with it through planning guidance that has been suggested by the minister and put our faith in local councillors to take the right decisions in their areas. It is true that local authorities agree with minimum distance, but they believe that it should be them who are making the decision. The Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management also supports the use of the planning system at local authorities, such as Glasgow and the Scottish Borders. Distance, as some members have said, is arbitrary. There may, for example, be a dual carriageway between the crematorium and housing. Kevin Stewart makes an important point about what other-than-housing might be built next to a crematorium. As members have mentioned, crematorium with housing is right around their perimeters and they manage to live perfectly well. The decision that was proposed by John Wilson is not applicable to other larger developments, which might well be intrusive. I ask the chamber to support my amendment. The question is that amendment 75 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. There will be a division. As this is the first division of the stage 1, I suspend now for five minutes. The question is that amendment 75 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are not. There will be a division. Please vote now. The result of the vote on amendment 75 is, yes, 61, no 38. There were no abstentions, and the amendment is therefore agreed. I now call amendment 23 in the name of the Minister for Public Health, Sport and Sport to move amendment 23 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In themselves, amendments 23 to 27, 29, 31 to 33, 36, 38, 41, 43, 45 to 54, 91, 92, 56, 57 and 60 to 68 do not have any impact on the meaning of the sections that they relate to. They are technical drafting amendments to ensure consistency of language throughout the bill. I believe that the change to using a more sensitive phrase, that of burial or cremation, instead of disposal, is more appropriate and uses more sensitive language. I move amendment 23. Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, many thanks. I now call amendments 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28. I'll previously debated and invite the minister to move amendments 24 to 28 on block, please. Does any member object to a single question being put in amendments 24 to 28? As it appeared, no member does. The question is that amendments 24 to 28 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, many thanks. I move to group 6. I call amendment 76 in the name of the minister. A group of amendments has shown in the groupings minister to move amendment 76 and speak to all amendments in the group, please. Amendments 76 to 83 make various changes to section 47a. Section 47a relates to a stillbirth, which occurs as a result of a post 24-week termination. The cumulative effect of those amendments is to enable a health body to ask the woman what she wants to happen to the remains before the termination occurs. By virtue of amendment 77, the health professionals must do this if they consider that it is in the woman's best interests to do so. Amendment 84 adds a new section after section 47a. This new section gives various powers to health authorities, where they are authorised to make arrangements by section 47a. Powers, rather than duties, are used in the section to provide additional flexibility. The effect of that is that health authorities will be able to make arrangements for the disposal of remains where they are authorised to do so by virtue of section 47a. Amendment 85 adds a new section after section 47a. This new section places a duty on health authorities to give a woman the opportunity to make a decision about what she wishes to be done with the remains following a post 24-week termination. That will have the effect where it appears to the health authority that no decision has been made under section 47a. The new section allows women to make a range of decisions, including authorising the health authority to make the arrangements. Where the woman does not wish to make a decision, is unable to make a decision, or does not inform the health authority of a decision, the health authority may make arrangements for the burial or cremation of the remains. Amendment 86 inserts a further new section after section 47a. The effect of that is that a health body will be able to ask a woman if she wants to make a decision about arrangements for burial or cremation before the loss occurs in the case of a stillbirth. The health professionals must do that if they consider it is in the woman's best interests to do so. The woman can choose to make the arrangements herself or to authorise the health body to make the arrangements. The woman will be able to instruct the health body to make the arrangements as soon as practicable after the loss occurs, otherwise the health authority must wait seven days after the loss occurs. Amendment 87 inserts a further new section after section 47a. The effect of that is to set out the process that a health body must follow where it is authorised before the stillbirth occurs to make arrangements for the burial or cremation of the remains. That authorisation is given by the woman by virtue of the section inserted by amendment 86. If the woman has specified how she wishes the health body to make the arrangements, it must do so as she has specified. Amendments 88 and 34 make various changes to section 47b. Amendment 88 inserts a new paragraph so that section 47b has effect where it appears to a health body that no arrangements have been made by virtue of the section inserted by amendment 86. That means that where a health body does not ask a woman what she wants to happen with the remains before the loss occurs, it must do so after the loss occurs. Amendment 34 adjusts the drafting in relation to requirements around keeping of information. That does not alter the effect of the provision but provides consistency with similar duties throughout the bill. Amendment 37 replaces a reference to the appropriate form with the prescribed form in section 47c. Amendment 39 adjusts the drafting of section 47d so that a health body can make arrangements for the burial or cremation of remains where it appears that no arrangements have been made or are being made. Amendment 40 adjusts the drafting of section 48 so that it refers to the burial or cremation of remains rather than their disposal. Amendment 89 inserts a new section after section 49. That new section provides health bodies with various powers in relation to the burial or cremation of remains of a pregnancy loss that occurs before or on completion of the 24th week. That section applies where a health body is authorised to make arrangements by virtue of section 54a. The section allows health bodies to make arrangements and requires them to comply with any wishes expressed by the woman about the burial or cremation of the remains. If a woman authorises the health body to make the arrangements for burial or cremation of the remains as soon as practical after the loss occurs, it must do so, but otherwise it must wait seven days after the loss occurs before making arrangements. Amendment 90 adds an additional criterion to the circumstances that must be met before section 50 can have effect. The additional criterion is that it appears to the health authority that no arrangements for the burial or cremation of the remains have been or are being made. Amendment 93 provides a definition of appropriate health authority for the purposes of section 52a. It is given the same meaning as in section 56 of the bill. Amendment 58 and 59 adjust the drafting of section 54. The effect of those amendments is to add additional criteria to the circumstances that must be met before section 54 applies. Those are that it appears to the health authority that no arrangements for the burial or cremation of the remains have been or are being made. Amendments 94 to 96 make changes to section 54a. Amendment 94 adjusts the criteria that must be met for the section to apply to include the woman being in the care of a relevant health body. That clarifies when the section will apply. Amendment 95 makes changes to section 54a so that a health body may ask a woman what she wishes to happen to the remains of a pregnancy loss before that loss occurs. In some instances, that might be preferable for the woman and that amendment ensures that it can happen. Where the woman makes a decision, the health body must follow her wishes. Amendment 96 moves to section 54a to after section 49. That places it next to other provisions dealing with the same subject. Amendment 97 changes the section of the bill to which section 55 applies. That has the effect of requiring health authorities to keep a register of information in relation to sections 47a to 54, which cover pregnancy loss on or before 24 weeks, post 24 weeks terminations and stillbirths. Where it is known that a pregnancy will result in a stillbirth or will be lost, amendments 86 and 95 place health bodies under a duty to give a woman the opportunity to say before the pregnancy ends what she wishes to happen to the remains. Importantly, health bodies are given the discretion to decide whether it is appropriate to ask a woman in advance or better to wait until the loss has occurred. In some instances, a woman who knows that she will lose her baby may wish to start making arrangements in advance. In other instances, the trauma of being told that her baby will be lost may be so great that it would be better for her to make the decision after the loss occurs. The approach that is set out in those amendments means that a health body can act accordingly, depending on the interests of each individual woman who experiences such a loss. If the health body considers that it would be better not to ask a woman before the loss occurs, it is nonetheless still a duty to give the woman the opportunity to decide after the loss occurs. Amendments 86 and 95 have the effect of allowing health professionals to use their judgment as to whether it is better to raise this difficult subject with a woman before or after the loss occurs. That approach ensures that a woman's best interests are always the priority. It will always be the woman who makes the decision. The intention of amendments 86 and 95 is to ensure that no woman is required to make this decision before she is ready to do so. Those amendments provide that flexibility and person-centred approach. The effects of amendments 86A and 95A in Malcolm Chisholm's name would be to remove the health body's discretion, meaning that in every instance where it is known that a pregnancy will end or a still birth will occur, the health body must ask a woman what she wants to happen to the remains, regardless of whether the woman is ready to do so. I think that this is unnecessarily rigid removing the health professional's ability to judge whether or not a woman should be confronted with this decision before the loss has occurred. If those amendments are agreed, it will mean that every woman will be asked what she wants to happen to the remains of a pregnancy loss or stillborn baby, while she is still coming to terms with the fact that her baby has died. I move amendment 76. I call on Malcolm Chisholm to speak to amendment 86A and other amendments in the group, please, Mr Chisholm. At stage 1, the minister said that, and I totally agreed with her in setting out what will happen after a pregnancy loss, the bill ensures that the woman who has experienced losses at the centre of the decision-making process. I was concerned and committed that the words in relation to another situation appeared in the words that are in three of those amendments, and I quote them, if the appropriate health body considers that it will be in the woman's best interest to do so. The situation that arose during the health committee was where six weeks had elapsed and a decision had to be made about what happened to the remains, and the minister argued that those words were appropriate, because perhaps in that situation the woman should not be asked. I reluctantly accepted that explanation. When I saw the words attached to the situations that were described in amendments 77, 85 and 86, I was alarmed, because it seemed that the principle of deciding in what appeared to be a paternalistic way what the woman's best interest was was being extended to those new situations. I remembered what the minister said at the committee when she said that if the woman, I quote again, is still involved in the process, it will be entirely her view that is taken into account. It seemed to me that there was perhaps a potential loophole here if, in various situations, the authorities were going to decide on the woman's behalf. However, if the minister can confirm that this is purely a matter of timing, then that completely changes the situation. It was not apparent from the amendments that came in on the last day that this was the case. If the minister can confirm that it is purely a matter of timing and that, in that situation, the woman will always be asked possibly after rather than before the pregnancy loss, then, of course, I shall not move those particular amendments. The reason that I want to speak in relation to this group of amendments is that the minister's reference to section 54A, which has been moved within one of the amendments from this group to another section within the bill, welcomes the provision in section 54A to put a duty on health board for pregnancy losses likely to occur. I am sure that many members in the chamber know that there are many occasions where many women are sent home knowing that the pregnancy is likely to end in a loss, and little choice is given to those ladies and to the families in that strength is the power and choice that those individuals and families have. However, I also note that the provision kicks in when the women are in the care of appropriate health authority. It might be worth getting some clarification at what point is it deemed that the woman is in care of the appropriate health authority? Is it a 12-week scan? Is it once the GP is informed that the lady is pregnant? At what stage do those obligations kick in? Perhaps a little bit more thought has to be needed in relation to that, particularly for women and families who suffer from recurrent miscarriages or pregnancy losses and who are losing their unborn children. I welcome those amendments. I share them. I look forward to what the minister says in relation to his amendments. Those issues were discussed quite a bit by some of the brief parents with members of the health committee, and they are obviously very sensitive issues. I think that the women involved would feel very strongly that to put their interests first and discuss matters with them, they can make up their mind when they feel able to do so is the right way to go. I am very happy with the set of amendments. All provisions relating to pregnancy loss and stillbirth are based on flexibility and the centrality of the women in the decision making process. Those amendments proposed by Markham Chisholm I think would remove that important flexibility. I do not think that it best serves the interests of the women who have just learned that their pregnancy will be lost. It is absolutely about timing. I believe that my amendments provide that timing. I think that Bob Doris introduces something that is not in relation to those particular amendments of more early pregnancy loss. I am happy that Nanette Mill believes that my amendments serve the purpose that they are intended. The question is that amendment 76 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 77, in the name of the minister to move, please. Thank you. The question is that amendment 77 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Amendment 78, 79, 29, 80, 30 and 81 to 85. All in the name of the minister and all previously debated, invite the minister to move those amendments on block. Does any member object to a single question being put on those amendments? As it appears, no member does. The question is that amendments 78, 79, 29, 80, 30 and 81 to 85 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Many thanks. I now call amendment 86 in the name of the minister to move, please. Many thanks. I also now call amendment 86A in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, Mr Chisholm, to move or not. The question is that amendment 86 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Many thanks. I now call amendment 87, 88, 31 to 44, 89, 90, 45 to 54, 91 to 93, 55 to 66 and 94, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move those amendments on block, please. Many thanks. Does any member object to a single question being put on those amendments? As no member does, the question is that amendments 87, 88, 31 to 44, 89, 90, 45 to 54, 91 to 93, 55 to 66 and 94 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? Yes. We are. Many, many thanks. I now call amendment 95 in the name of the minister to move, please. Many thanks. I now call amendment 95A in the name of Malcolm Chisholm, already debated with amendment 76, Malcolm Chisholm to move or not. Not moved. The question is that amendment 95 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Thank you very much. I now call amendment 96, 67, 97, 68, 98, 99, 69 and 70, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. Minister, to move those amendments on block, please. Does any member object to a single question being put on those amendments? As it appears no member does, the question is that amendments 96, 67, 97, 68, 98, 99, 69 and 70 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Many thanks. I now move to group 7. I call amendment 1 in the name of Leslie Brennan in a group on its own. Leslie Brennan, to move and speak to amendment 1, please. Thank you. At stage 2, I moved this amendment and the minister said I support the principle behind the amendment, so I really welcome today the note that the Government is going to support this amendment. The minister also stated during stage 2 that funeral costs have been debated repeatedly throughout the bill's passage. The bill's central purpose is to improve legislation governing burial and cremations. I remain of the view that the bill is not the right place to tackle funeral property, so that is what the minister said at stage 2. I do not disagree with the central purpose, but it does not exclude guidance on funeral costs and the desirability of such costs to be affordable. I welcome the fact that the Government is going to support this amendment at stage 3. The minister did not make any comments about the drafting of the amendment, but rather the minister suggested that such provision did not need to be included in the bill. However, I felt differently, especially reading the consultation responses that alloged it again. In the consultation document for the bill, there was a section on funeral poverty. The minister sought answers to questions regarding funeral poverty, and the primary focus of those questions was local authorities. However, the final question states what else could be done to reduce funeral costs and ensure that they remain affordable to everyone. Thus, I consider amending the bill to incorporate a duty to produce guidance that will improve the current position. Consultation responses suggest that, in some areas, third sector organisations have reduced guidance on how to make funerals more affordable. However, the coverage is patchy. Thus, the amendment will ensure consistency of information across Scotland. The Citizens Advice Bureau states that 19 per cent of issues that are raised with Scottish CABs regarding bereavement is funeral poverty. It is really good today that the amendment is adopted and that there is a start in the process of eradicating funeral poverty. I welcome the support from the Government. I am pleased that the Government is going to accept the amendment today. I think that we have some opportunities coming up, as has been discussed at the local government committee and at the welfare reform committee of late. Social justice secretary Alec Neill said, our new powers over funeral payments will give us the opportunity to set up a benefit that is simpler and more streamlined. We heard during the course of our evidence about the profitability that some private companies have in dealing with funeral services, cremation in particular. I would also like to pay tribute to Citizens Advice Scotland for the work that they have done in that area. I hope that the Parliament will agree to accept the amendment today. There is no doubt that funeral costs continue to be an area of concern for many people. Indeed, the issue has been debated repeatedly throughout the bill's passage. Where possible, the bill supports greater transparency of costs. For example, the bill was amended at stage 2 to require local authorities to publish full details of their burial and funeral costs. Funeral costs are complex, as they are made up of a number of different elements. I know that it can sometimes be difficult to understand exactly what is included in those costs. I believe that it is important that costs associated with funerals are as transparent as possible. That includes clear pricing structures and being clear about the elements of the funeral that are necessary and those that are not. There has been much discussion about making funeral costs affordable. This is undoubtedly an important aim, but it is not necessarily straightforward. For example, a person may choose a particular type of coffin or a particular floral tribute, which increases the overall costs of the funeral. There are numerous factors that can affect the real cost of a funeral. The Scottish Government has worked closely with funeral directors, burial authorities and cremation authorities in developing the bill, and will continue to do so when implementing the new legislation. In particular, I am keen that funeral directors' costs should be more transparent and that people should know that they can choose certain elements, but not others, when arranging a funeral. That is something that will be addressed when implementing the legislation. The Scottish Government is already working to address funeral costs generally and funeral poverty specifically. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners' Rights is leading on important work to address funeral costs and funeral poverty. Alex Neil has recently published advice to the general public about what to do when faced with organising a funeral. That includes advice on costs, including ways to reduce costs, while still providing a dignified and respectful funeral. The cabinet secretary has also commissioned work on funeral poverty, and her report will be published. In response, the cabinet secretary is undertaking a range of work to address funeral costs, including speeding up the time taken to make decisions about funeral payments once the responsibility for this is devolved. Officials who are developing policy on those issues have engaged with a wide range of experts, including academics from the University of Bath that Leslie Brennan has mentioned in previous debates. That is important work that should have a significant impact on the underlying causes of funeral poverty in the long term. Given the work that the Scottish Government is already doing to address funeral costs and our intention to continue working closely with the funeral industry on this issue after the bill comes into force, I believe that Leslie Brennan's amendment would place an important marker in the bill. As such, I am pleased to support the amendment. I want to say thank you very much to the Government for supporting this amendment. I think that we need to recognise that this is the start of a process to eradicate funeral poverty in Scotland. During stage 2, I recognise the fact that power over the social fund funeral payment was coming in the new Scotland bill, and consumer protection was also in the Scotland bill. However, the guidance and the adoption of the amendment on the face of the bill is an important first step in eradicating funeral poverty in Scotland, so I welcome the Government's support on this. The question is whether amendment 1 will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are. Many thanks. I will now move to group 8. I call amendment 100 in the name of the minister group with amendment 101. Minister, to move amendment 100 and speak to both amendments in the group, please. Amendment 100 removes section 73, bracket 6, which sets out consultation requirements in relation to regulations made about the licensing of funeral directors. This is no longer required because amendment 101 inserts a new section, which sets out fuller consultation requirements as well as placing additional duties on Scottish ministers in relation to developing a licensing scheme. Amendment 101 inserts a new section after section 73. That sets out a range of requirements in relation to any regulations made by Scottish ministers under section 66, bracket 1, about the licensing scheme for funeral directors. Before laying a draft of such regulations before Parliament, Scottish ministers will be required to prepare a draft of the regulations that they propose to make. They must then consult on that draft with persons representing funeral directors and anyone else that ministers consider appropriate. Ministers must have regard to any representations made during the consultation and must then lay a draft of the regulations before the Scottish Parliament. In addition, ministers must also lay a document that sets out how representations made during consultation have been taken into account in finalising the draft that was played before the Parliament. The convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee wrote to me after stage 2 to set out the committee's on-going concerns about the power in the bill to make regulations about the licensing of funeral directors. I am confident that the original approach to this offered sufficient detail and safeguards, but I recognise the committee's concerns and have lodged those two amendments in response, so I hope that they reassure the committee and members. I move amendment 100. Who is, of course, the aforementioned convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which committee welcomes those amendments as a response to our concerns. Section 66 of the bill contains a revised power allowing Scottish ministers to make regulations for or in connection with the licensing scheme for funeral directors' businesses, as power was subject to the affirmative procedure. Given the extent of the power and its potential impact on the individuals, the committee encouraged the Scottish Government to bring forward, at the very least, an amendment to attach an enhanced form of affirmative procedure to that power, which those amendments now do. However, I would like to put on record that the committee continues to believe that licensing regimes ought, as a matter of principle, to be set out substantially in primary legislation rather than delegated entirely to regulations. The committee accepts that some matters of technical or administrative detail relating to such schemes could appropriately be set out in regulations, but the committee is of the view that delegation of power to create an entirely new licensing scheme in subordinate legislation, whether in this bill or in any other, does not strike an acceptable balance between primary and secondary legislation. Accordingly, the committee's preference would have been for matters relating to the licensing of funeral directors' businesses to be set out more fully on the face of the bill. Recognising the time constraints, the committee appreciates that it has not been possible to develop such detail on the face of the bill, and the committee therefore accepts that an enhanced form of affirmative procedure will enable the Parliament to scrutinise and influence the development proposals on licensing before the regulations are laid for approval, in accordance with the affirmative procedure. If I might recognise that the Minister for Parliament is also here just at the moment, one aside, it would be helpful to the committee in the future had there been some recognised form of words about an enhanced form of scrutiny. I do understand that we maybe don't want one lay down in statute, but I think if we had a form of words which cover the issues of preparing a draft, consulting, laying a draft that summarises representations, describes the changes in the affirmative procedure, which is exactly what's in front of us, if we as a committee, under yourself and other committees, had a form of words which we could refer to, that might make life of awful body easier in the future. I'm happy that the convener of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee is pleased that I've gone some way to address their concerns. I'm sure that in the next Parliament some committee will take up looking into the situation with funeral directors and how we proceed to make sure that the funeral industry addresses the needs of our citizens. The question is that amendment 100 be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, many thanks. Now call amendments 101, 71, 72, 102, 207 and 73, all in the name of the minister and all previously debated. I invite the minister to move these amendments on block, please. Move down block. Many thanks. Does any member object to a single question being put on these amendments? As it appears no member does, the question is that amendments 101, 71, 72, 102, 107 and 73 are agreed to. Are we all agreed? We are, many thanks. That ends consideration of amendments. We now move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 15996 in the name of Maureen Watt on the Burial and Cremation Scotland Bill. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request to speak muttons now or as soon as possible. And before I invite the minister to open the debate, I call on the cabinet secretary to signify crown consent to the bill, please. I now call therefore on cabinet secretary Shona Robison, please. For the purposes of rule 9.11 of the standing orders, I wish to advise the Parliament that Her Majesty having been informed of the Portport of the Burial and Cremation Scotland Bill has consented to place her prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the bill at the disposal of the Parliament for the purposes of the bill. Many thanks. So we now begin the debate and I now call on cabinet minister Maureen Watt to speak to and move the motion. Minister, you have 10 minutes or thereby, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. And I'm delighted to open the stage 3 debate on the Burial and Cremation Scotland Bill. I thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, the Local Government and Regeneration Committee and the Health and Sport Committee for the rigor with which they have each considered the bill. The subject matter of this bill is not something many of us are keen to think or talk about. Nonetheless, these are important matters and it is vital that burial and cremation processes are robust, consistent and fit for 21st century Scotland. Recent events, as well as evidence at stage 1, suggest that this has not always been the case. This bill will make important and much needed changes to burial and cremation processes and will help to ensure that those processes are easy to understand, reliable and fit for purpose. The existing legislation for burial and cremation is extremely old. The legislation for burial dates back to 1855, while the current cremation legislation is from 1902, when cremation was a new and largely untested process. We have come a long way since then, but the current legislation continues to reflect older and very different expectations about death and what should be done with human remains. As our attitudes change towards death, the treatment of human remains and how we remember the dead, the current legislation is increasingly found wanting. It is right that we should put in place legislation that reflects modern Scotland and supports our expectations about the respect and dignity with which human remains should be treated. I believe that the bill will do that. The bill's passage has been marked by broad agreement on the need for new legislation and support for the bill's key provisions. Nonetheless, key areas of the bill have undoubtedly been strengthened by the parliamentary process. In particular, the provisions relating to still born babies and pregnancy loss have benefited greatly from the evidence given by various people at stage 1 and the recommendations that are made by the health and sport committee. Much of the bill is based on recommendations that are made by Lord Bonomy's information commission, and it is particularly important that those provisions address problems that have arisen in the past. Some of those who gave evidence to the health and sport committee were healthcare professionals drawing from years of working with people who have suffered the devastation of losing a pregnancy or a baby. I am pleased that the bill reflects that collective experience. Others who gave evidence had personally experienced such a loss and in many instances had also been affected directly by past failing in relation to the disposal of ashes. Indeed, many people whose losses were compounded by the torment of not knowing what happened to their babies' remains have been involved with the development of the bill, as well as with other non-legislative work that has emerged from Lord Bonomy's report. I thank them for their continued commitment to ensuring that those mistakes do not happen again. At stage 2, a number of amendments were made to the processes that will apply in the case of a pre-24-week pregnancy loss or a stillbirth. Those will provide improved clarity and consistency while ensuring that women are not rushed into making decisions before they are ready. The woman who experiences the loss is rightly placed at the centre of the process and at every step of the process she will have the opportunity to make decisions about what she wants to happen to the remains. Several of the amendments that I lodged today at stage 3 provide additional flexibility in ensuring that women have every opportunity to make a decision about what they wish to do. An important point that emerged from stage 1 was the tension between ensuring that a woman was able to make a decision in her own time and making sure that remains are able to be buried or cremated when it becomes clear that the woman does not wish to make a decision. The bill set out an initial six-week period between a loss occurring and a decision being made about burial or cremation. While it was always the intention that a hospital could go beyond this six-week deadline where a woman was still trying to decide what should happen to the remains, the bill was amended at stage 2 to provide a clearer route for this to happen. In developing provisions about pregnancy loss and stillbirth, we have ensured that the woman is always at the centre of the decision-making process. That extends to situations where it is known in advance that a pregnancy will be lost or will result in a stillbirth. The hospital must ask that question, but the bill gives the health professionals the discretion to decide whether it is best to ask the woman before or after the loss occurs. Other amendments were made to the bill at stage 2 to set out a clear process for what should be done with ashes. Those amendments will make sure that a cremation cannot be carried out unless the applicant has stated that he or she wishes to be done with the ashes. Cremation authorities are placed under a duty to carry out the applicant's wishes. The bill sets out a clear process for cremation authorities and funeral directors about what should happen where ashes are not collected as agreed. Those are important steps that will provide consistency and clarity about what will be done with ashes. Considerable debate has also taken place about the location of crematoriums in relation to housing. I am glad that that will now be left in the local authorities hands and in favour of the planning decision making the decisions about the location, because it is something that is sensibly placed with local authorities. In speaking to my amendment about distance, the Scottish Government, as I said, will bring forward specific planning policy about the issue, setting out the issues that planning authorities should consider when assessing development proposals for crematoriums, including steps that can be taken to support a quiet environment. Such guidance will be included in the next revision of Scottish planning policy. Guidance on separation distances between particular types of development and housing is already contained in the Scottish planning policy, and it is right that matters relating to crematoriums are also set out there. That will ensure a consistent approach to the sighting of crematoriums while leaving scope for appropriate local decisions to be made. The bill will bring about important improvements to burial and cremation, creating a system that meets the needs of modern Scotland and prevents a repeat of previous mistakes. I hope that the Parliament will agree to the bill being passed at decision time. I thank the health committee, the local government committee and the delegated powers committee for their careful and scrupulous consideration of the bill over the past few weeks and months. It is, as the minister said, an extremely important bill, because it addresses so crucial issues around the dignity of death and the importance of making sure that all of our loved ones in every citizen in this country have a dignified death burial or cremation and that their families are able to afford to give their loved one that dignity of death and the appropriate arrangements are in place by statute to surround it. The passage of the bill in the past days of this Parliament has given me time to reflect a little bit on some of the representations that I have had over the past five years. The constituents coming to me surrounding difficulties and issues around death, burial and cremation have certainly not been absent in my surgery. I am sure that many other members in the chamber would share that experience and so very much welcome the improved arrangements, as the minister said, for death, burial and cremation in modern Scotland today. I would like to explore a few of the issues that we discussed at stage 3, Presiding Officer, because I think that this bill has been a good example of the legislation evolving through the stages of the parliamentary process. Of course, the most sensitive issue—probably by far the most important issue—that the bill has dealt with over the past few weeks and months has been the provisions around women's decisions on what happens to the remains of their unborn children following either stillbirth, pregnancy loss or termination. I would like to say that the Scottish Labour Party welcomes the Government's amendments today. I think that the minister has made great improvements around the clarity of the process, both for the families and for the health bodies. Malcolm Chisholm's amendment identified a potential loophole, but it was very good today that the minister was able to confirm that her intention was regarding timing. I think that Parliament was in complete agreement that the bill is putting the correct and most appropriate and sensitive arrangements in place. That is to be very much welcomed. On the issue of exclusion zones, I briefly argued at stage 1 that those decisions should rest with the local planning process. That is the decision that the Government has taken today. We, however, were persuaded by the arguments at stage 2 in committee and voted as thus at stage 2 and stage 3 today for the amendment that no residential property should be constructed within 200 metres of any crematorium. The evidence was strong on either side. Although we took that position, it is good that we have come to an overall position on that today. My colleague Leslie Brennan raised some very persuasive issues right throughout since she came into the Parliament throughout the passage of the bill surrounding funeral poverty. Leslie Brennan, I and other ministers in the chamber will be very aware of some of the issues in some of our more deprived communities around funeral poverty and the experience of those people who simply cannot afford to bury their loved ones. At stage 1 of the process, I feel that it is a hallmark of our civilised society that we should have arrangements in place that can afford everyone a dignified funeral burial or cremation. The fact that some families in the country simply cannot afford those costs is something that I think the next Parliament will need to look very seriously at. I am glad that the powers over funeral payments are being devolved and that the cabinet secretary has commissioned a report on funeral poverty. I certainly intend, if I am returned to this Parliament, to work and follow this very closely to make sure that we can make some strides on this in Scotland. I commend the Citizens Advice Bureau's work on that because it has highlighted very starkly the issues of funeral poverty across this country. It was a very good move today that the Government was able to accept my colleague Leslie Brennan's amendment on funeral poverty, but, as my colleague said, I think that this is just the start of a very important process to really try and eradicate funeral poverty in Scotland. Nigel Donne was left with some of the intricacies surrounding in his convenership of delegated powers committee, but I think that that links back to what I was saying about funeral poverty and licensing scheme and some sort of regulation of funeral directors. I would agree with him that I would prefer those arrangements to be set out in primary legislation rather than regulations. I think that that makes for clearer and better law, but I am glad that the affirmative procedure will help the next Parliament to scrutinise the development of a licensing scheme. However, for the reasons that I have outlined in combination with the issues around funeral poverty, I think that that is going to be very important and it is a process that we will follow very intensely in the next Parliament. Dr Milne, five minutes please. Members may wish to note that this is Dr Milne's validatory speech. On behalf of the Parliament, I would like to thank Dr Milne for her many years of dedicated service to our Parliament. She has been a figure of honest endeavour, and if I may say so, at times, undervalued by even her own party. Dr Milne, thank you very much. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, for those very kind words. Of the seven bills dealt with by the Health and Sport Committee during this session of Parliament, six of them have been before us during the last five or six months, and this final stage three debate brings to a close a particularly busy session, which has been quite onerous on committee members' clerks and support staff, and no doubt that this applies to ministers and their staff as well. The committee clerks have done a tremendous job and managed to retain their sense of humour even during the most nitpicky changes to their carefully written draft reports, and I greatly admire their tenacity. This bill is a very welcome piece of legislation and much needed given that the law around burial is well over a century old and no longer fit for purpose in the modern world. The proposed legislation around cremation should prevent in future the traumas experienced by the many still grieving parents who have no idea what happened to the ashes of their infants and stillborn babies following cremation. It was a discovery in 2012 that cremation authorities in Scotland had different practices for the recovery of ashes from the cremation of babies and the severe distress that this caused to bereaved parents that led to Dame Elish Angelini's report on the practice at Mortonhall crematorium and the establishment of the infant cremation commission that was chaired by Lord Bonomy, which examined the policies, practices and legislation related to the cremation of babies in Scotland, and whose recommendations in 2014 led to the voluntary code of practice on baby and infant cremations published thereafter, which this bill will make binding on relevant authorities within the funeral industry. There were significant concerns around the drafting of the bill as it was introduced, particularly concerning the large amount of detail left to regulation rather than being on the face of the bill. There will still be a deal of work required by the next Parliament, but significant amendment of the bill at stages 2 and 3 has resulted in a better and stronger piece of legislation. At the last meeting of the Parliament's cross-party group on funerals and bereavement, which I have co-convened for a number of years, there was general consensus that the bill was acceptable and indeed welcome as amended at stage 2, and no suggestions for further amendment came forward from there ahead of today's stage 3 proceedings. There was agreement that electronic records are needed in this day and age, although there was less willingness to accept the need for licensing of funeral directors, but most of whom already follow the code of practice of their national association with very few giving the industry a bad name. The agreement to provide guidance on funeral costs will be very welcome, I am sure, by that group of people. Do I appear, Presiding Officer, that this bill has widespread support from the bereaved and from those responsible for dealing with the burial or cremation of their loved ones? There is a great deal of sensitivity surrounding the issues that are dealt with in this bill, and I think that the Parliament's committees and staff have done their very best to ensure that its passage has been dealt with in a mature and sensitive manner. As I said at the outset, the Health and Sport Committee has scrutinised several bills in this Parliament and done a number of other important pieces of work, but we have had no time at all to look at previous legislation. This lack of post-legislative scrutiny in a unicameral Parliament is something that will have to be considered in future, in my opinion, because a critical appraisal of our work is very important in a Parliament such as ours, particularly when it is a majority Government. As I come to the end of my speaking time in this Parliament, I must acknowledge with gratitude the help and support of so many people who spare no effort in looking after us in this building. Indeed, all the Parliament's support staff, including those in security, the postal service, the canteen, the Queensbury lounge, SPICE, the official report and many others, I have no time to mention. I would also like to acknowledge the excellent work by yourself, Deputy Presiding Officer and your colleagues, and that of the committee clerks and my own party's hardworking researchers in our PRU. I must particularly mention my own team of Miles Dom and Lindsay, for most of you know, who have been rocks of support and help for me over the years and who are now more like family than employees. I have enjoyed my contact and friendship with fellow MSPs both within my own party and across the chamber, and I particularly enjoyed sharing the health brief with Jackson Carlaw, who has astute and witty comments that have often enlivened a long Thursday afternoon of debate and who has quickly absorbed the detail of our health service, which I have lived and breathed for such a long time. Presiding Officer, it has been a privilege to represent the great folk of North East Scotland for the past 13 years and to meet the many people that I have got to know down here through committee work and the many cross-party groups that I am involved with. However, I am looking forward very much to getting back to my long-suffering husband and family, to re-engaging with many friends in Aberdeen and beyond, and to paying a bit more attention to my home and garden. I was reminded last week when I met the late Tom McCabe's widow showing her young daughter around Parliament of my maiden speech in 2003. It was in a member's debate on north-east dentistry to which Tom McCabe replied in his role as health minister. During the course of his speech, he inadvertently referred to me as Nanette Newman, who was in her day quite a famous film star that is probably not known to the younger members here today. Poor Tom could not understand what he had said to result in such loud laughter all around him, and I dined out it as a mistake for quite some time. Today, Presiding Officer, I think that I am the oldest member of this current Parliament, and there is, therefore, perhaps a degree of irony in the fact that my final contribution is in stage 3 of the Better Than Cremation Scotland bill. A bill that we will, of course, be supporting this evening. Many thanks. And, of course, we wish you every success in the future. We now move to the open debate speeches. I now call on Bob Dorris to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. I enjoyed that valedictory speech from Nanette, although she did have at one point googling Nanette Newman just to double-check that I knew who it was, but I know who it is. Unfortunately, I am not that young. I just wanted to check that I was right. I thank Nanette for all her hard diligent work on the health committee, which she sat on with me for a number of years now, and I very much appreciate the constructive and partnership approach that she has taken to that. I wish her the very best for the many years of her retirement that she has left out with this place. Back to the real world, I suspect, rather than the bubble of hollardood. Best wishes to Nanette for her retirement. When we are doing thank yous, I thank all the witnesses that gave evidence to the health and sport committees across the range of committees that took evidence in relation to the bill. I suppose that most of all to the families that I and other MSPs have met with who came forward bravely and fiercely and diligently to make their voices heard in relation to whether there were shortcomings in relation to the service that they were due. They should have expected and should have delivered to them at some of the most horrific experiences in their life where the organisational framework was let down by that and by people who failed in their service to them. I thank the parents who have come forward to help to shape the bill that we have before this morning. I have written down a few words in relation to what I thought this was about for myself. For me, it is about bereavement and loss as much as it is about anything else. That is the thread that runs through all this. When you suffer bereavement and loss, it is about feeling control, knowing that there is transparency in the process that then faces you, that there is certainty in relation to that, that there is compassion along the way and that there is sensitivity and flexibility to deal with that loss in the way that you see fit and that you have that choice, and that there is the expectation at the bottom of it all, and that is the expectation that when you lose a loved one that you choose how their remains are best remembered and that there will be ashes should you wish them. It is said that 99.9 per cent of the time we should be expecting ashes for loved ones when they pass away, and this bill should make sure that that happens all the time. The legislation that underpinned us was a cake, it was fragmented, it was poor, it was shoddy, quite frankly, and I think that the stage 3 legislation that we have before us today provides a coherent and statutory framework in relation to taking forward a modern way of dealing with these tragic events when they do happen. I made an intervention on the minister at one of the amendments at stage 3 in relation to section 54A, which the minister rightly said that the amendment was not particularly in reference to, but I wanted to make the point about pregnancy loss, when pregnancy loss is expected to occur, because I believe that one of the powerful aspects of the legislation will be to expect higher standards of care right across the NHS when expected mothers lose their babies, whether that is before or after 24 weeks of pregnancy. That will be given the choices that too often they have been denied. I said before during my contribution during the amendment that, for many mums—and it is just the tragedy of pregnancy loss—are sometimes sent home and told that you can expect a miscarriage or a pregnancy loss in the next week or so, in having to deal with the pain and the grief that surrounds that. What this bit of legislation, which section 54A does, affords to those mums some of the same choice, power, protection and control that others have gone through such a horrific experience and should always have had. We have to look at the continuum of loss and bereavement, whether that is in old age or in pregnancy. We have to draw that right down to recurrent miscarriage and early pregnancy loss and how we deal with the mental health of expected mums in relation to that and how we support the families in relation to that and how we make sure, when they lose their unborn children, that we deal with that loss in a very sensitive way that gives them the maximum amount of choice and that NHS hasn't always got that right. The final thing that I'd like to say is that the other thing that I got from this is that we can legislate any way that we like in this Parliament. The key aspect of this issue is about empathy, respect and dignity and the conversation that people have, whether that is NHS staff having conversations with mums who experience loss, whether that is funeral directors having that empathy and compassion in those discussions that they have with families who experience loss and you can't quite legislate for that. You have to hope that the human condition makes that happen in a positive and constructive way but what we can legislate for is the framework that underpins all of that and I hope in the years ahead we do better than we have done in the past. Many thanks. Before we proceed any further, I should apologise to Parliament for having inadvertently misled you. We are expecting four-minute speeches in this debate but there is quite a bit of time in hand so there will be generous four-minute speeches. I now call on Malcolm Chisholm to be followed by Kevin Stewart. I can also pay tribute to Nanette Milne for the massive contribution that she has made on health and other issues during her 13 years in the Parliament. So much I have enjoyed working with her for several years as joint conveners of the cross-party group on cancer. Since this is the sixth health bill that I have dealt with during my six months on the health committee, I think that I would also like to take this opportunity to say thank you for the last time to the wonderful clerks of the health committee and also to the always helpful members of the legislative and delegated party in the Parliament. Now this is not my last speech but, like Nanette Milne, I did think that the cremation bill might be a suitable topic for an older person myself but, while it is the prerogative of an older person to look towards death in a realistic and light-hearted way, that is certainly not the situation for any parent losing a child. Of course, in the context of this bill, that means also infant loss, stillbirth and pregnancy. Lost that has to be the most devastating experience that anyone could suffer. If anyone doubts that, they would only need to listen to the evidence that we heard and I thank all the people who gave evidence to us on the record but also Sans Lothian, parents who gave evidence, Hamilton and Nanette Milne and myself and I think one other member of the health committee in a private session. Now there was a great deal of discussion in that and other evidence sessions about ashes and some people have said, I have even heard people say well what difference did the ashes make but if we listen to the parents we know how important that is once we listen we can begin to empathise, the word that Bob Doris used a moment to go empathise with those parents. I raised the issue of ashes for example, I suggested amendments about having words about the expectations that ashes will be recovered and also that the processes and equipment in crematoriums should be dealt with in regulation and that we should always insist that the maximum amount of ashes will be recovered and I pay tribute to the minister because I think she reassured me at committee in terms of the codes of practice covering those issues and I also noticed amendment 74 today is about regulations about the operation of equipment for the carrying out of cremation so I think those matters have been dealt with by the government. I was also reassured of course earlier about women being at the centre of decision making in relation to ashes and I think we are all united now in feeling that the bill does that in a satisfactory way. Of course there are issues of which are not in the bill and perhaps cannot be in the bill and one issue that was raised by the Sands Lothian parents in private session was the whole issue about the training of staff and this is clearly very crucial in terms of relating to parents mothers in particular in this situation and they recommended for example specialist roles in midwifery maternity and bereavement services and that's something that the government will look at but of course it's not just health staff relating to patients that perhaps we think about because it's also a matter of us as politicians relating to parents in this situation and as I've thought about the bill and the issues in it it's made me reflect about politicians in general and the need for politicians to have empathy with people that they're discussing matters with firstly in order to respond appropriately to the individuals that we meet but also in terms of the policies and legislation that we develop and in fact as I come to the end of my political career although not my political involvement it seems to me that empathy is the most important quality that a politician can have so I support the bill including today's amendments there were quite a lot of them but as someone who introduced more than a thousand amendments to the final stage of the mental health bill I am no position to complain about late amendments many thanks I now call Kevin Stewart to be followed by Roder Grant first of all could I also pay tribute to Dr Nanette Milne over the years we have agreed we have disagreed we have agreed to disagree but I don't think that there has been any malice when we have disagreed Dr Milne's service not only in this Parliament but in councils beforehand has has been a great thing for Aberdeen in my opinion and I wish her and her husband Allen all the best for the future I'm sure that she will keep him very busy indeed preside officer we have scrutinised this burials and cremations bill to a great degree and I think there are a number of things which are within this bill which makes things much much better than they were previously inspectors I think are to be welcomed the introduction of a licensing regime for funeral directors is certainly a good thing in my opinion and things like the reuse of layers have been a long time coming but there are other things which I think are also important and although they didn't feature very highly in some of the contributions that have been made thus far I think the recording of things has got to be improved we're seeing that through this bill I know that Willie Coffey during the course of the local government deliberations mentioned these things a lot and contributed a great deal and I think that we are going to end up with a much better system in that regard after this bill is passed. Presiding Officer Fraser Sutherland of Citizens Advice Scotland told the local government committee that Citizens Advice Scotland had seen a 35% increase in the number of clients concerned about funeral issues and affordability and during the course of our evidence at the local government committee we've seen a huge difference in costs in various places for example the purchase of a layer in the cost of an internment is £694 in the Western Isles but £2,785 in East Dunbartonshire that's quite an astronomical figure in terms of cremation and the scattering of ashes the cost of number Clyde is £512 for a local authority cremation it's £749 in Perth and Kinross and in terms of private cremations it's £585 in Paisley but £830 in Murray and I'm pleased that the government has agreed to organise a national funeral poverty conference and round table discussions between ministers and stakeholders to look at this and to promote action I do think that as the funeral payments powers are devolved now is the right time to look at all of these issues because as others have said people do struggle with paying for the funerals of loved ones and I think we must do all that we can to ensure that we get that right. Presiding Officer this bill looked at a huge number of issues and we've seen this morning that one of the controversial ones that was discussed was that distance between a crematorium and housing I think that we need to look at the planning guidance I don't think it's just housing that is the problem as I said earlier on if you're going to have limitations that should include commercial property too but we have also got to look at where we are at at the present moment and as I said earlier we have a crematorium here in Edinburgh where there's housing right on the doorstep and if there was an application to reconstruct or refurbish that crematorium if we had passed Mr Wilson's amendment if we'd agreed to Mr Wilson's amendment that would have been extremely difficult indeed and I do think that we have to trust planning authorities to look at this very carefully take into account local circumstances and to act accordingly. Presiding Officer this is an issue that probably requires more than a four minute speech but since that's all I have today I would say thank you very much and I hope that we all agree to pass this legislation at decision time today. Thank you Mr Stewart but you actually got five. Rhoda Grant will be followed by Stewart Stevenson. Thank you Presiding Officer can I like others joining the tributes paid to Nanette non today for her valedictory speech but also for her service to the Parliament and she's always thoughtful and considered in her responses and someone I think everybody listens to so she'll be greatly missed but I'm sure knowing the way this place works she'll be back in touch and giving us the benefit of her thoughts and ideas as we go forward or those of us who hope to go forward and this might be a valedictory speech for more than we hope. Can I also thank the witnesses that give evidence to the committee some I think give evidence in very difficult circumstances and I would like to pay tribute to them as well as all those who supported the committee. This bill is trying to put safeguards in place to stop terrible things happening such as the baby Ashes scandal and make sure that they never happen again however it also makes us look at the way in which we view death and there is of course the temptation to take as much pressure off the bereaved person as possible and it's understandable that that's even more so when the bereavement is unexpected because such loss feels unbearable we seek to make decisions for them in order to make things easier however this can cause problems because disposal of remains has very strong rituals attached sometimes cultural issues and very often bound by a religious belief it's also the last thing we can do for a loved one and it's important where possible to have their wishes at the heart of the process where they're able to express them and also the wishes of close family and where this is a pregnancy loss or a stillbirth it's important to involve the mother in decision making at a pace and at a time that has had in her best interests organising a funeral internment or cremation are rituals that force people to continue through their grief provide them with a focus and make sure that the send-off is fitting and that can bring them comfort in the long term however if things are not done in accordance to their wishes can add to the distress of the bereaved therefore while sensitivity is required so is the provision of information and choices we see with the disposal of baby ashes the distress cause when parents were not informed or involved and there's no way of easing that suffering all we can do is make sure it never happens again amendments have been made which puts matters very much in the hands of the mother not allowing assumptions to be made about how how wishes and that's what went wrong in the past whatever guidance goes with this bill it needs to emphasise the wishes of the bereaved need to be sought and implemented i was a member of the health and sport committee and while we may be dealt with some of those very difficult issues it was the other committee that dealt with the most more contentious parts of the bill the sighting of crematoriums and their distance from housing is important too close to housing and you're likely to have parking and noise problems for those attending the crematorium and also likely to have parking congestion for housing and indeed traffic disruption which might be dangerous to young children and families living close by i agree that it should be common sense to ensure that they are a reasonable distance apart but we know that with planning common sense does not always prevail and i sincerely hope that the Scottish Government don't drew the day that they removed that prescription of distance from the bill yeah very briefly Kevin Stewart is rhoda grant presiding officer saying that she doesn't trust councillors to make common sense decisions in these regards rhoda grant the next time i hear Kevin Stewart complaining about a council planning decision i'll remind him of his words i think we've all been aware of council planning decisions and where we haven't agreed and maybe has gone in the face of what the local community wish the other issue touched upon in amendments today is the cost of funerals and the cost of increased a huge amount some of these are due to local government cuts the Scottish government have starved local government of funding leaving them with no choice but to increase costs where they have the ability to charge and this isn't right people are already distressed by their bereavement and have the worry of how they're likely to afford to bury or cremate their loved one on top of that speed and costs don't leave people with choices often forcing them to take the cheapest option which might not be their preferred option presiding officer we need to talk about dying and death providing family and friends with the information they need to make choices about burial and cremation we also need to make sure that those who do not or cannot make those choices for themselves are represented by close relatives and that they in turn are supported through this very difficult time many thanks i now call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Leslie Brennan thank you Presiding Officer and I like others welcome this bill and anticipate its passage come decision time burrows and cremations are of course a very important part of most people's lives we will make individual decisions about what we want to happen after our own deaths but it is for those who come after to discharge them for my part i hope there is neither a burial nor in particular a cremation it would be often nice if my pals got together and celebrated a little bit of my life perhaps but i'm in a tiny minority who wishes my remains to be disposed of for the benefit of anybody who can find anything useful to do with them and of course different societies make different decisions i visited the remains of Vladimir Ilych Ulyanov in Red Square in 1972 i visited the embalmed remains of Mao Zedong in Beijing in 1978 but in our culture the history has been that burials are the important thing with cremations following on rather later and the important thing is that it gives those who are left behind to grieve a sense of connection to a place and that seems to be the most important thing that there is around this that's why it's very important that part of the bill makes a legal duty on the local authorities to publish where people are buried that enables that sense of connection to be continued over the generations if that's what we want from my own part because of my genealogical research i've done over 50 years i'm still discovering connections of place it's only been three years since i discovered that one of my father's cousins actually died in queensbury house it was in 1970 when she died it was actually a nursing home so that wasn't particularly unreasonable so therefore i have that connection and find that interesting and in the last year i've discovered three members of my extended family who are actually buried in the new colton uh kirkyard out the back and that sense of connection is what we're important what we are discussing in this bill and in looking at the issue of ashes and in particular at those of the youngsters or those who have not survived to be born there's a particular poignancy associated with those remains their disposal and the connection of those who experience loss to the location of where those remains will end up and i think this bill does a great deal to set a future where people will not suffer the emotional turmoil that they suffered in the past let me congratulate leslie brennan our most recent member of the parliament for persuading the government to accept her amendment having spent quite a few years in opposition i know that's not the easiest of things to achieve so i think she deserves our congratulation but then that just simply illustrates that if sensible things are brought forward the option is always there to persuade people and at the other end of the scale the mother of the house departs her shortly i've sat beside nanette milm at many occasions when she she hasn't felt that her most comfortable i think in particular when she's deputised for alex johnson at farmers events i've felt her discomfort i see her nodding slightly so that's certainly true but the fact that she's done so i think shows how she's never shrinked from undertaking the duties that come with elected office and like others i wish her well in what we will describe as retirement but i suspect more properly it should simply be another part of her life finally presenting off as i made reference at a previous stage of life and this is something we have to deal with when we consider succession that one of the enduring mysteries for me in all this is that i can decide how my house is to be disposed of the money in my bank account my possessions but as the person who might be newly deceased i have no say over the disposal of my remains that is utterly left to my relatives and i think that is unfinished business in this policy area although of course it is always an area where there is checks and balances and difficulties to be considered when we look at that presiding officer many thanks and i call leslie brennan to be followed by ritchard lile thank you deput presiding officer the material covered in this bill as everyone said is very sensitive and in covers many very sensitive topics and i've focused on funeral poverty due to my experience as a local councillor but also as i mentioned at a previous stage a close friends experience and i think what's been mentioned a few times about empathy i think is politicians we ought to be able to empathise and actually try to understand how we best could serve the people that we are here to to represent i was really pleased that the minister has adopted and supported the amendment that put forward especially given the welfare state's cradle to grave philosophy and in the light of rising funeral costs and an ageing population and i'm also pleased that the minister made reference to the academic work that i highlighted at stage two for doctors christian valentine and kate woodrop at the centre for death in society at the university of bath having communicated with them i know that they are keen to share their knowledge to help to eradicate funeral poverty in scotland so i'm hoping in the next session that those who are working in this area will make use of their work and expertise it's accepted that funeral costs may impose considerable financial burden on those left behind and burden not only reflects that funeral costs are subject to market forces but also that bereavement in itself may cause financial hardship the situation is compounded by death being perceived as a private and highly individualised event accompanied by a lack of a widespread culture of preparing for death so with increasing funeral poverty important implications for existing and potential future demand for local authorities has been flagged up as an issue so these public health funerals which are often referred to as sort of a popper's funeral i think we need to actually look at why there's increasing demands and obviously it's funeral poverty and i will look i will look to the next government in the next parliament to fully address the social fund funeral payment scheme because it's just not working at the minute there's usually if you get about 1300 pounds funeral payment but the actual cost of the funeral being three and a half thousand and therefore when people have no choice when they have no choice they are then left to go to the local authority or in the case that i raised in stage one a case of my friend who couldn't he was advised not to claim his mother's body so that that person then would be left so that his mother would be left to the state for a state funeral that's just not good enough in scotland today he was left with that shame of not being able to give his mother his mother the funeral that he wanted so i really do hope that the next parliament addresses this issue fully so my amendment it and i recognise it's a really modest amendment it's just about guidance on funeral costs but it will help to illuminate how to help grieving families keep the costs down and at the same time give their their loved ones a final send-off with dignity and as roda grant has stated to give a dignified send-off gives those who are grieving some comfort and obviously as the guidance that states before issuing such guidance there's a duty on the scottish government to consult burial authorities cremation authorities funeral directors and any other person they wish to consider appropriate so i was really glad that the government has has supported the amendment because it isn't a reasonable amendment it's very similar in structure to section 20 of the procurement reform scotland act 2014 and it's when this bill passes tonight everyone supports it the parliament was take one step on the pathway of eradicating funeral poverty i think i finally want to say i think it's i want to say thank you to the the parliament's clerkin team who've helped me as a as a very newbie shape and amendment they've been so supportive so i just want to know how does my appreciation for the clerkin team so thank you many thanks and our call richard lyle to be followed by john wilson thank you president of sir can i begin my remarks in the chamber today this morning by saying how delighted i am to speak in the supporting debate in burials cremation scotland bill particularly as a member of the parliament's health and sport committee to the net mill i wish you well it's been an absolute pleasure to have worked with you in the committee and you're actually younger than the net newman some eight years younger so don't say you're an oldie you aren't i'd also like to take the opportunity to wish my other retiring colleagues past and present on the health committee all the very best in their retirement and to see how much it's been a pleasure to work with them over the years and the course of this parliament there's been a number of bills that the health committee has dealt with over the years evidence taken on this bill was the most heart rendering i want to focus the attention of my remarks today an important matter of this legislation the bill before parliament today will do well to modernise the legislative framework for burials and cremations here in scotland present our existing legislation and burial burial cremations dates back some 100 100 years and we see each day that it's been becoming increasingly unfit for purpose in our modern scotland now i do not wish to deliver a history lesson i think mr steveson does that quite ably to parliament but it is important to note that the law and burials is set in a burial ground scotland act 1855 and it's not been substantially revised since the 19th century and turning to our laws and cremation which were set out in the 1902 cremation act and amended and regulated through other pieces of legislation in short the picture i want to paint before this parliament today is that our current and existing legislation is fragmented dated and is increasingly unable to meet the needs of scottish society it is right therefore that today we refresh and modernise the existing provisions which are relevant to today's today's society and combine these with a new provision which will create legislation fit for our modern and 21st century scotland i am aware that i don't have a lot of time in this debate president officer and therefore i wish to choose to reflect on two particular strands of the bill before parliament i want to look at the ability of this bill to deliver on many of the recommendations made in the infant cremation commission report the report established by scottish ministers in april 2013 was in response to historical practices at some crematoriums in scotland and in relation to the cremation of babies and to address public serious public concern the majority of the commission recommendations focused on providing a more consistent and robust process for applying for a cremation of pregnancy losses and losses in babies the recommendations were made to remove ambiguity about the extent of which the current legislative legal process for cremation applies to pregnancy losses among other recommendations whether the application process should be strengthened so that applicants are given so much as much opportunity as possible to consider the implications of various methods of disposal before making a final decision the minister more in work has already outlined that this bill has a number of provisions that address the issues identified by lord bonomy and will ensure that we never make the mistakes of the past Presiding Officer in the time I have remaining and also like to look at the issue of burials one of the resounding areas of this bill is that we will support it will support burial authorities the management of the burial grounds as you already know Presiding Officer all burial authorities already manage and maintain burial grounds but there currently no single source of guidance on this which causes uncertainty over what actions can be taken in certain circumstances in particular there is lack of clarity over what actions can be taken to make safe headstones and memorials as a consequence of the Scottish Government's consultation with burial authorities it was found that the regulations would be beneficial therefore this bill serves to clarify and provides a duty on burial authorities to ensure the safety of burial grounds in closing Presiding Officer I am proud to see another piece of legislation before this parliament that seeks to deliver for our modern and 21st century scotland thank you many thanks to final open debate speaker is john wilson sir I'd also like to be on record my thanks to doctor Nanette Milne in terms of her quiet words that particularly when we served on the public petitions committee together it's always been a pleasure to work with Nanette in relation to the sage advice I think is appropriate to say in relation to the comments and in the passing in the corridor Presiding Officer we today will pass a bill and those will become an act and members will have heard my concerns earlier about one part of the bill that I think we missed out on an opportunity to modernise as many witnesses and others indicated we should as a committee try and and as a parliament try and do to make sure that the bill in the act is fit for the 21st century I'd also like to say that in terms of the the advice we received the comments the submissions and oral evidence that clearly there were some issues raised by those local authorities in particular about the retention of some type of buffer zone between crematoria and residential properties and I weigh with interest in relation to the minister's assurance that Scottish planning policy will result in guidance that will be issued to local authorities but as others have indicated and Rhoda Branquin indicated earlier the concern that I have is why we have guidance and planets in the Scottish planning policy that too often that guidance seems to be overturned in relation to the decisions not made by local authorities who tried to follow the guidance but by others above local authorities and local authorities that spend three years carrying out local plan consultation exercises with local communities to find that after the three-year process that local plan is totally ignored when it comes to housing development proposals by the Scottish Government ministers and DPAs so I would like to think when the minister takes us back to her colleagues that she takes on board the issue about ensuring that guidance applies to all when they consider the way forward. Can I say that my congratulations to Leslie Brennan in getting their perseverance and getting their amendment through today and acceptance by the Scottish Government on those amendments because I think it is important that we address funeral poverty and fuel poverty as well is equally important but when we took evidence at the committee we heard the costs of some of the burials that take place around Scotland and we heard that in terms of the most expensive was Easton-Bartonshire council with the cost of a layer and internment at £2,785 pounds and the cheapest Western Isles at £694 pounds when you get these types of costs presented to you and then you hear and you read that local authorities are increasing these costs by 15 percent this year then you realise the importance and the urgency that the minister's working group has to take forward this issue as a matter of concern because we need to get something in place that does not lead to a situation as Leslie Brennan indicated. We will have people who are not able to go and claim a family member's body because of the fear of having to pay the difference in the costs, funeral costs. We also heard that evidence at committee from a chaplain from the Scottish Prison Service where people die in prison and family members are not encouraged to claim the body because they will be liable for the costs of the funeral or the cremation. In this 21st century society to say to the individuals that it is better not to claim your loved one's body because you may be actually put into further financial hardship. I think that tonight we will be voting for this bill and see it coming to act. However, as I said with the caveats that I have mentioned, the minister hopefully will take forward the concerns that have been raised today and ensure that we do not look forward to a situation where the demand for land or barriers to be eroded between crematoria for housing is one that we actually find developers trapping on the door of local authorities and others to actually erode that further. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. We now turn to closing speeches. I invite the two colleagues who have participated in your omitting to return to the chamber, please, and I call on Jackson Carlaw. Maximum five minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This bill is a contract between this Parliament and the parents of those children or babies who reacted with anguish, bewildermint, astonishment and dismay earlier in this Parliament when they found out what the fate had been of the remains of those babies. It was impossible not to be enormously affected, as I know members from all parties across this chamber were, by the very personal testament that we experienced at that time. It led in this chamber to Ailey Shangelini and to Lord Bonomy's recommendations to the voluntary arrangements that Nanette Milne detailed in her speech earlier and finally to the bill today. Although I think the minister would accept that much of what we have passed today has been quite technical in nature and the way that we have had to progress it, the parents, some of whom were sitting in the gallery earlier on this morning as we discussed those amendments and held an open the earlier section of this debate, should be assured that actually the effect of this bill today will realise the very powerful demand that I think they made of us to ensure that we passed legislation that ensured that the situation that occurred would never happen again. I think that we can be proud of the fact that this legislation will achieve that even as we acknowledge with dismay ourselves that it proved to be necessary and that beneath the surface in so many areas of public life something turns up, which really does prove to be astonishing in the modern era and something that we all kind of in many ways would have imagined was otherwise being addressed. Within the context of the debate I thought that the key exchange that was of interest was over the designated location and boundary between a crematorium and adjacent properties. I was minded to support the minister, I thought that John Wilson's contribution was very powerful but I have to say to Kevin Stewart that his unfettered unblinking and unquestioning belief in the planning process in our local councils, which I have to say in my own case can quite often cheerfully ignore even elected councillors if they even bother to let those councillors have a say so many planning processes in our automatic will have provoked hoots of derision the length and breadth of the country. I know it was well intentioned, maybe they do things differently up there with the folks as Kevin likes to refer to them, Kevin Stewart likes to refer to them in Aberdeen, all Aberdeen, but I can tell you elsewhere I'm not just so persuaded that that faith will be rewarded. I know that we all get upset from time to time about planning decisions, but in cases like those, sensitive cases like those, councillors normally act wisely. I think that we have also got to take into account the things like Edinburgh, where there already is housing next to a crematorium. If there is a re-application to refurbish that crematorium, would it be rejected out of hand if Mr Wilson's amendment had passed? The answer to that would have been yes. As Kevin Stewart himself said, normally act wisely, which absolutely underlines the point that there must be occasions when they do not. Mr Wilson's amendment, which simply sought to ensure that the provisions which existed in the ancient act would carry on, I think was perfectly sensible. However, I do want to finish my remarks today by commenting on the party members. I'd like to see if Malcolm Chisholm, whose contributions over the years that I've been in Parliament and watched him, have always, on every occasion, given me pause for thought. They have very often challenged the conceptions. I have very often reinforced them on subsequent consideration, but I have always admired his tenacity and fluency in identifying very often, and I thought even the amendments that he did not press today, issues that might otherwise have escaped the attention of Parliament and to develop an argument around them, which, as I say, has always given Parliament pause for thought and I think helped to inform our debates all the more so for that. I certainly will miss him from this Parliament in the next session if I am fortunate enough to be here myself. I turn now, of course, to my colleague Nanette Newman. Now, until I'd met Nanette Newman, until I'd met Nanette, I'd never met a Nanette before. I have never come across a Nanette. The only Nanette cycle, or Dame Nanette de Valois, I seem to remember, was some ghastly old ballerina that used to stamp a stick in the television and some odd programmer too, and Nanette Newman, who I knew was married to a film director called Brian Forbes and appeared in a lot of dreadful movies as my recollection. I seem to remember suffering some awful thing called international velvet with my sister when I was younger, but she was most famous to me for being the person who, what was it, the hands that are do dishes are as soft as you please with mild green. That was my recollection of Nanette Newman on the television. So there we are, and before that, the only other Nanette I'd ever known was no-know Nanette, the 1925 musical which had in it the songs T for Two and I Want to Be Happy, and I'm very autosugestive. So every time I have seen Nanette during the last nine years in Parliament, the songs T for Two, I Want to Be Happy and the hands that do dishes have gone through my mind. But I have to say that she has been a persistent and I think superb member of this Parliament on health. Of course she has had the advantages of being a medical doctor. She also, of course, has a son who is with her now because of an organ donation and has spoken powerfully on those issues too. I certainly wish her well. Mr Stevenson should be reassured. Her discomfort was not the Mr Johnson wasn't there. It was because she's so mild-mannered and polite that the savaging Mr Stevenson was getting from the farmers left her slightly uncomfortable, and that must have been the emotion that he witnessed on that occasion. I certainly look forward to staying in touch with Nanette. We've worked together since John Major invited us both to be a party vice chairman over 25 years ago. She's given great service to this Parliament, and I know that she and Alan will have a long and happy retirement to which I wish them every success and happiness. I'd like to use this opportunity, especially since I'm speaking twice this morning, to pay tribute to some of my colleagues who are leaving as well. I'd like to follow several members this morning in paying tribute to Nanette Mill. It's only for the past year or so that I have worked, as I have been on the health brief, for a relatively short period, but I have felt great warmth from Nanette in the meetings both in this Parliament and outside NHS Tayside and in other forums. I hope that she has a very long and very happy retirement from this place. I was also reflecting just how, with a woman stepping down from Parliament, the example that women in this Parliament have given me in stepping into this role for the first time over the past five years. I think that there is an added, perhaps not burden but certainly added responsibility or certain pressure of being a woman in elected politics. I think that people like Nanette bear that with great fortitude and dignity and a good example to us all. If I may also mark, because this week, as Parliament dissolves, three very special colleagues of mine on the Labour benches will also not be seeking re-election to this place. I know that Duncan McNeill made his last speech in this chamber on the Scotland Bill last week, but I think that in this health debate it may be appropriate to pay tribute to him, because, as a health convener for the past five years, he has paid assiduous attention to the health of the NHS across this country. However, I always feel with Duncan very insightful and grounded analysis of how decisions in this place affect constituents and the people that he represents. He has made a great service to this chamber, this Parliament and its development over the past 16 years. I know that he will be missed, likewise, with my colleague Hugh Henry, who has a sense of humour and wit in this Parliament. He will be dearly missed. Those are giants of the first 16 years of this devolved Parliament. If I may, I would like to pay special tribute to a dear friend and colleague of mine, Malcolm Chisholm, who will participate in this last debate with Malcolm. Since I stepped into this building five years ago, Malcolm has been the most supportive, inspirational and empathetic mentor that any young politician could hope for. He has taken a very special care of myself and our Scottish Labour leader, Kezia Dugdale. We will both be forever indebted to that. I always sense when we are having debates in this chamber that I feel reassured and more confident when Malcolm is taking part in these debates with his attention to detail. I sense from the Government benches that they always feel the same. He will be greatly missed in this place. Can I turn to some of the contributions this afternoon? I summarised most earlier, but I was particularly taken by Kevin Stewart's thoughtful reflection on the bill today. Some of the things he mentioned, the welcome inspection regime, the reuse of layers, which I think is very welcome and particularly important, and the licensing of funeral directors. As I said in my opening speech, I think that that will be very important on the whole issue of funeral poverty to watch very closely going forward. Kevin Stewart took the opportunity to highlight citizens advice Scotland's figures and the geographical disparity on the cost of funeral, which really gives great weight and evidence to the case that my colleague Leslie Brennan brought today about funeral poverty. The 35 per cent increase that he highlighted in inquiries about affordability is particularly stark, and the geographical differences in cost that he talked about. Kevin Stewart's contribution also made me reflect on a constituent representation that I had on the issue that insurance policies for funerals that have been paid into for many, many years. Some couples and people have been paying into insurance policies to cover their funerals for many years, but they are falling short of the actual costs of funerals when the funeral bill comes in, leaving the family to cover the rest. I think that insurance policies are probably an issue for regulation at the European Union, but I wonder if it can be addressed in the summit that the Government is holding that Kevin Stewart referred to, along with the payment issue, the welfare payment that my colleague Leslie Brennan referred to, the £1,300 payment that is made, which goes no way to meeting the average cost of a funeral at £3,500. There is also, as we know, MSPs having had representations on that. There is an issue with the timing of those payments as well, whether they are going to be approved by the Department of Work and Pensions, whether the funeral directors can then rely on that when the application is still in process. I am sure that all of those issues will be discussed at the summit and in the commission that the Cabinet Secretary, Alex Neil, has commissioned. Can I close by saying, Presiding Officer, that I always enjoy, through the passage of this Bill, Stewart Stevenson's contributions? I think that the points that he made today about records on burials perhaps add a lighter but a cultural and a very important note to this debate, because it is about knowing our place, our ancestors, where they were buried and being able to track and record that, not just for companies in this country that can stretch abroad and make business through genealogy but also for people doing their own family tree and our own sense of place and belonging in this country. I think that it is a very appropriate thing to end on and a very appropriate place for this Bill. Scottish Labour Party is delighted to support this Bill tonight. I thank all members for their contribution to this debate. Throughout the Bill's progress, there has been strong support for the principles of the Bill, and I am grateful to members for the quality of the contributions that they have made not only this morning but previously, as the Bill has passed through Parliament. I thank the committees who have dealt with the Bill. It is always difficult to take a Bill through when it is in front of two committees, but the Health and Sport Committee and the Local Government and Regeneration Committee have done a good job with the Bill. I thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and Nigel Dawn for their detailed look at the Bill. Nigel has brought a specific insight into the working of this Parliament and has always had a slightly different take on the Bill as it has gone through Parliament. I thank him for that. I would like to pay tribute to Duncan McNeill as convener of the Health and Sport Committee and his thoughtful way in which he has dealt with witnesses and ministers coming in front of the committee. I had a bit of a tear in my eye when he spoke on the Scotland Bill Committee report of the LCM last week in his final speech. I also thank the Bill team for their support and the stakeholders who have helped in the construction of the Bill. I particularly thank Simon Cuthbert-Kair, who has lived and briefed the Bill for months and months. I am sure that he wakes up thinking about the Bill, but now he will be able to get his life back and get back to playing in his band, which he does so well. Malcolm Chisholm has said that it is still not his final speech in this Parliament, but I would like to pay tribute to all the work that he has done in both this Parliament and the other place. He too has had a colourful and distinguished career in politics, and I commend him for that. I would also like to say that I, too, will miss Nanette Mill, not just on the train up to Aberdeen on a Thursday night that we have shared on many occasions, but the number of cross-party groups on health that there are in this Parliament exceeds all expectations. Nanette Mill has done our utmost to try and represent the Conservative Party on so many of them. Nanette Mill and I have worked at local council level on Grampian region and district level, and Nanette Mill has made a huge contribution to political life in the north-east. I am sure that I will still see her because her son lives quite near me, and I am sure that Nanette Mill will continue her interest in the arts scene in the north-east, but I too wish you and Alan a happy retirement. There can be no doubt that the bill makes some much-needed changes to the burial and cremation processes. I believe that the bill would create a legislative framework for burial and cremation that will meet the needs of 21st century Scotland. It will remove the inconsistency that is apparent currently and make processes easier to understand and more reliable. When we are arranging a funeral, we should be able to expect a straightforward and transparent process that makes the process easier, not more difficult, and I think that the bill will provide that. Many of the topics in the bill are extremely sensitive. As the bill has made its way through Parliament, we have heard from people who have experienced loss in unimaginable circumstances. Those experiences alone should be reason for us to address the shortcomings in the current system. Bob Doris made an important point about health professionals and others dealing sensitively with pregnancy loss at whatever stage it occurs. In particular, the new processes put in place in relation to pregnancy losses and stillbirth will address many of the issues that are identified by Lord Bonamay, as both Brewer Grant and Richard Lyle mentioned in their speeches. It is really important to prevent a repeat of previous mistakes, and I believe that the bill will achieve that. Of course, that is in no way the end of the process, as Dame Elish Angiolini has to report on some of the mishandling of ashes at Crematoria throughout Scotland. Throughout the bill's passage, much has been said about the role of funeral directors. Although it is possible to organise a funeral without using a funeral director, in the majority of cases, people turn to funeral directors for their expertise and experiences. In the majority of cases, funeral directors provide a high-quality service, but we are all aware, as in our constituency cases, of poor service and high costs, which can be difficult to understand. It is important that we can rely on funeral directors when we have to. The bill allows ministers to introduce a licensing scheme for funeral directors that would help to establish basic criteria to operate as a funeral director and prevent those who have failed to make standards from operating as a funeral director. The new inspection powers will bring a level of scrutiny to funeral directors indeed to the funeral industry as a whole that has never been seen in Scotland. I am confident that that will drive up standards and consistency, helping people to know that they will receive the same level of care and service from all parts of the industry. Before the Scottish Government commits to licensing funeral directors, it is important that we better understand the current state of the industry, and that will make sure that any scheme that is introduced will reflect best practice and address specific concerns. I intend to use the inspectors appointed under the bill to monitor the industry and to make recommendations about licensing. There has also been much debate during the passage of the bill about funeral costs. The bill is likely to influence costs to a degree, for example, requiring local authorities to publish all costs relating to burial and cremation, and that will help to improve transparency. It is also likely that the introduction of inspection and potential introduction of licensing for funeral directors will help to improve transparency and consistency of costs. At this stage, I would like to pay tribute to the work that Leslie Brennan has done in her short time here on funeral poverty. Like me, she came in at the tail end of a Parliament, but she has immersed herself fully in the workings of this Parliament. In the early days of taking forward an amendment, an MSP is quite daunting, and I congratulate her on all the work that she has done in the short time in this Parliament and wish her well. The Scottish Government, as I said in my opening speech, has recently initiated work to examine fuel poverty, and that has been led by the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice Communities and Pensioner Rights. It builds very much on the cost of saying goodbye from Citizens Advice Scotland, and we should commend it on its report. The cabinet secretary has commissioned further work on that, which will report early next year. As has been said, there will be a conference in relation to that. In the response to the report, the cabinet secretary has indicated that that will undertake a range of work to address funeral poverty, including speeding up the time to make decisions about the funeral payments that Jenny Marra mentioned. One's responsibility for that is devolved to Scotland. Many members have raised the other parts of the bill that we have not spent much time on today. Kevin Stewart and others mentioned the reuse of layers and revitalising old burial grounds in our city and town centres, and I think that that will be important in going forward. The bill makes important changes to a subject that few of us wish to think about, but which touches us all, as Stewart Stevenson said at some point. I hope that Parliament will pass the bill unanimously when we come to decision time. That concludes the debate on the burial and cremation Scotland Bill. It is now time to move to the next item of business, which is consideration of motion 15993, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on stage 3 of the Bankruptcy Scotland Bill. I commend the bill to Parliament and hope that members will support it at decision time. I move the motion that the Parliament agrees that the Bankruptcy Scotland Bill will be passed. Many thanks. I now call on Nigel Don to speak on behalf of the Delicated Powers and Law Reform Committee maximum in five minutes, please. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Bankruptcy Scotland Bill, although it does not occur to me, as I said, that that may be one of a rare breed that would be interested in speaking on this. This is a rare example of a consolidation bill, and the Delicated Powers and Law Reform Committee first had to decide whether consolidation was appropriate and then consider whether the text was clear, coherent and consistent, and whether the law really did remain unchanged, as it must. The committee found that scrutiny of this consolidation bill was very much in keeping with the other work that we carry out, as we are used to considering technical and complex legal matters. Like the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Consolidation Scotland Bill, which is the only previous example of a consolidation bill and was passed back in 2003, the Bankruptcy Bill was introduced late in the session. The committee was able to undertake the necessary scrutiny of the bill in the short time available, but it should be noted that we were fortunate that we did not, on this occasion, need to consider a large number of Scottish Law Commission recommendations, as they would have made it much more challenging. There are other areas of law that would benefit from consolidation. Indeed, the committee recommended last year that the law on succession, some of which dates back to the 16th century, should be consolidated. That is another area of law that has widespread impact. I congratulate Nigel Dawn on the work of the DPLLR committee, but would he agree with me that the recommendation of the Standards Committee that there should be two justice committees, a road that we have already taken, is entirely flawed? I hesitate to say anything that is entirely flawed, but I will come on to the remit of my committee and what we might do in the future in just a moment if the member will bear with me. I am grateful to our clerks and legal advisers for their painstaking work. I also recognise and want to put on the record our appreciation of the essential role of Gregor Clark as draftsman for the Scottish Law Commission and the invaluable evidence of the Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism, the Accountancy Bankruptcy and Scottish Government officials. We also received evidence from practitioners. Their time and effort is very much appreciated. Not only did they challenge some of the proposals, but in the process they also gave us reassurance that the rest of the draft bill was fit for purpose. I would like to reflect on the change remit of the committee. When I became convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee in 2011, we looked only at subordinate legislation and the delegated powers in bills. Our remit has since been expanded to allow us to progress in non-contentious bills drafted by the Scottish Law Commission and subsequently to consider consolidation bills like the one before us now. That has enabled the Parliament to do more. Three bills fully considered and progressed to royal assent, which would otherwise probably not have been dealt with. I know that the Scottish Law Commission is grateful that the mechanism now exists, but I note in passing that there is a risk that they will now tailor their work to fit in with my committee's remit rather than the wider consideration of the law, which would obviously be more appropriate. The revised remit of the committee has enabled us to address contract law and legal writings bill, the law of succession and now the law on bankruptcy. This list gives me a clue as to the range of other legislation, which it might in future be appropriate for the committee to consider, for they are all part of what would be termed private law. Given, as the convener has already mentioned, the pressure on the justice committee will never go away. I suggest that this area of private law might be an area in which the delegated powers and law reform committee might in future help them out a bit further. I would also like to reflect on the committee membership and our way of working. As a legislature, we enact just over one statute per month, but almost one statutory instrument per day. The delegated powers and law reform committee considers each and every one of those instruments. Members will know that we are not concerned with the merits of the policy, but we do have to consider it to ensure that the powers provided will actually do what the policy describes. We worry about the technicalities—all of them. We are the Parliament's engine room. Not everyone's cup of tea, of course, and I have no doubt that the whips have found that the mere threat of being sent to sub-ledge has been enough to get some recalcitrant MSPs back into line in times past. However, we need the right people to don the legislative boiler seat, and those members need to be prepared to work collegiately. I absolutely empathise with what the convener of the committee is saying, but would you acknowledge that we are also the guardians of the English language and that one of our greatest achievements in this session has been rescuing the word forthwith from legislative oblivion? That makes a perfectly fair point, which will be explained by anybody who cares to look at the official report. We did have quite a lot of discussions about forthwith. We decided that it was not a word that you would probably meet in the pub, but one that we all understood and should not be replaced. Just to return to the fact that we need the right people to don the boiler seat in this committee, it does occur to me that, when you are trying to apply a chisel to the machinery of legislation, it is important to know that the member who is wielding the hammer is actually on the same side. I thank my colleagues that this is how we have worked. Returning to the bill itself, let me reiterate that we have gone to great lengths to ensure that we have not changed the law. I think that this volume therefore has two uses, Presiding Officer. Firstly, I suggest to members that it will be very effective bedtime reading, although that is unlikely to be necessary after a hard day's canvassing. Secondly, for those who actually do need to access the substantive law on bankruptcy, it has been cunningly designed. For its start to the beginning, it goes on to the end and it stops. I have many thanks. I have an unexpected bid for an open debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I just wanted to say two things. First of all, I welcome the bill and also the principle of doing consolidated bills, but the real reason that I am rising is because on my last day of legislation, I am reflecting on my first day of legislation in 1992, which was the bankruptcy bill in the UK Parliament. Of course, I think that that was amending the 1985 bankruptcy bill, so no doubt it is featuring somewhere in today's bill, although I cannot say that I have read every word of it. However, it made me reflect on two things. First, I think that we do stage 1 of bills much better than the UK Parliament, but let us just say that the UK Parliament used to do stage 2 in a slightly different way. In that, my first month in the UK Parliament, we sat literally till dawn listening to Donald Dure and others giving speeches of an hour or more on one or two lines of that bill. Perhaps that was a bit extreme in one direction, but perhaps sometimes at stage 2 we go to the other extreme. However, I certainly welcome the bill, and thank you for allowing me to speak. Many thanks, and I now call on Firkus Ewing Minister. Presiding Officer, I would like to thank Nigel Donne for his comments, and thank you for allowing me to speak in support of the Bankruptcy Scotland bill. It was almost 13 years ago to the day that this Parliament passed the last consolidation bill, which became, as Nigel Donne said, the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Consolidation Scotland Act 2003. Consolidating legislation and tidying up the statute book is good practice, and I am delighted that the bill has now progressed through stages 1 and 2. I hope that we will not have to wait for 30 years for this opportunity to arise again. If I may say so, if I have anything to do with it, that will not happen. It is one of the reasons why Malcolm Chisholm referred to Donald Dure and his contribution. Donald Dure remarked once that Scotland was the only country in the world that had its own legal system but lacked a legislature, and one of the functions of a legislature is to bring the law up to date. Although the bill will never be the talk of the steam ace, it nonetheless is extremely important for many reasons that I want briefly to canvas. Over the years, Bankruptcy legislation has been so heavily amended that it has lost its coherence and structure. The numbering of the sections in the 1985 act had become complex, unwieldy and inordinately long. I know that because I used to use it as an insolvency petition in the legal profession many years ago. Now is the right time to update the statute book in this area. The purpose is to bring Scottish Bankruptcy legislation into one place and improve accessibility. That will make it incredibly easier and simpler for practitioners who use the bill day and daily, but also for those who are affected by it to understand what the law is. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and therefore it is our duty to make sure that it is possible to acquire knowledge by reading one document, not a plethora of documents. We work closely with stakeholders who have given valuable feedback on the proposals. That went back to August 2011, when the Scottish Law Commission published their consolidation of the Bankruptcy legislation in Scotland consultation paper, making a number of recommendations following responses to that consultation. Virtually all of those recommendations were implemented by the Bankruptcy and Debt advice Scotland act 2014, known on the streets as the bad-ass act, as you know, which is allowed for a straight consolidation of the existing law in the bill. The evidence provided through the delegated powers and law reform committee scrutiny has highlighted widespread support of the bill. I would like to thank its committee, the committee, its lawyers and officials for their scrutiny and approach in communicating relevant issues with the drafter and the Scottish Government and all of the individuals who submitted their views. The exchanges between the committee and the Scottish Government have always been very positive and constructive at which improved the bill and enabled it to move smoothly and efficiently and also avoided stage 3 amendments, which I am sure is something that is appreciated by many members of this place. I am also grateful for the work undertaken by the Scottish Law Commission, in particular Gregor Clark, who led on drafting the bill. The task involved in consolidating the bill has been enormous, and I mean enormous. I therefore very much appreciate the huge amount of time and effort that has culminated in that good work. If it has passed today, I look forward to the bill receiving royal assent and its commencement, which we are planning for the 30th of November this year. If I may, as well as extending my gratitude to Nigel Don for his great work as convener of the busy committee, I would like to say a few remarks, given that it is possible that Nigel Don may not be returned to this Parliament in its next session. In case that is the scenario, I wanted to say a few words by way of tribute to Nigel Don. His very wide experience of life and work has informed, I believe, his substantial contribution to this Parliament over two terms in the past nine years. Always rational, never personal, he has always played the ball, never the man. Every contribution he has been made has been well informed and closely argued, sometimes probing, gently perhaps, but deftly and with great effect, the case that the Scottish Government has put on any particular occasion. Much about politics is partisan, perhaps too partisan, but that has never been the case in Nigel's manner. If I may say so, he is the least political politician that I have never known in this place. I am sure that all members present would join with me in wishing him well, and I do wish him well, forthwith. Many thanks, minister, and I note your particular skill in sneaking in some unparliamentary language in an allowable way. The question on this motion will be put at the decision time, and I now suspend this meeting until 2pm.