Chamber and committees

Yes, it has, is the answer to your question. I understand Mr McArthur’s point, but the only point that I was trying to make—and Mr FitzPatrick is correct to some extent—is that, if the bill goes through and we get to stage 3, I want to ensure that it is competent and that we do not, as Mr Harvie alluded to, have to face legal action afterwards. I think that this approach will give the UN committee an opportunity not to tell us what to do but simply to point out any areas that it thinks might require stage 3 amendments. After all, we could end up with the bill being passed by this Parliament and then the courts striking down the whole law on the basis of one or two amendments, which would put us back to stage 1.

My suggestion seeks to be helpful, in some respects, to Mr McArthur by making sure that the sign-off takes place and that any issues can be debated at stage 3 rather than in the courts post this whole process. That is my simple suggestion, but if, as I have said, the committee is not for it, I absolutely understand that.

I am sure that the committee will be glad to hear that my amendments in this group are the last ones that I will be speaking to, so members will not hear my voice again.

Amendment 157 follows on from other amendments in the group that have been debated already. It seeks to strengthen the assessment process for anyone who is requesting assisted dying. Amendment 157 would mean that, before approval of that request, the person must be seen by a psychiatrist and a social worker. The doctor leading the process would then take into account what both of those professionals say before making a final decision.

The amendment is about making sure that the decision to die is made freely and with full understanding of what it means. Such situations are deeply complex and emotional, as we all acknowledge. People might be facing pain, fear, isolation or pressure, and those factors can affect how they think and feel. A psychiatrist can help to identify whether someone’s judgment is being clouded by depression, anxiety or another treatable condition. A social worker can help to uncover whether a person is feeling lonely, unsupported or under pressure, and perhaps feeling that they are a burden to others.

Bringing in those perspectives does not delay or deny a choice; it protects the choice and makes it more safeguarded. The amendment gives the public reassurance that the process will be careful and humane. It ensures that every request is looked at from all sides, so that any decision that is made truly reflects the individual’s own free and informed will.

Amendment 159 addresses another issue that is essential when it comes to life and death. Doctors need to know exactly what the law expects of them. If wording in the legislation is unclear, it can lead to hesitation, mistakes or uneven interpretation, and ultimately that could lead to lots of legal cases happening in Scotland. Amendment 159 removes any doubt about the responsibility of medical practitioners and makes that responsibility clear and unambiguous. We owe it to the professionals and the lawmakers that no doctor should ever have to guess what Parliament meant or have to see whether they can interpret it themselves. A clear law is safe law for everyone involved.

Amendment 160 would remove the phrase “in either case” from section 7. On the face of it, that might sound like a very small change, but I believe that it is an important one. The current wording could be read to suggest that doctors have different responsibilities in different circumstances. I do not think that that is what Mr McArthur has intended. The duties of medical practitioners to check that someone has capacity, is acting voluntarily and meets eligibility criteria should apply equally in every case. By removing those words, we would make the law clear and more consistent, ensuring that there is no room for confusion or uneven treatment between different cases, whether that is due to geography or the type of condition. If amendment 160 were accepted, the bill would be stronger, simpler and faster. It would help doctors to follow the law with confidence and it would give reassurance to the public that the same high standards would apply to every person in every case, whoever they are, wherever they live and whatever their condition.

I do not have the detail on that, but each piece of legislation will be different, and what the UN committee comments on is whether it is in line with disability rights issues.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I will keep my remarks brief, as I know that you have a long day ahead.

My letter suggests that, once stage 2 has been completed, the committee writes to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to ask whether it believes that the bill is in line with the convention and that persons with disabilities are not ill affected by it. The advantage of doing so is that, if that committee comes back and gives a clean bill of health, that will give reassurance to the Parliament. If that committee comments on the bill, that will give members the opportunity to lodge amendments for clarification at stage 3.

The reason for suggesting that is that none of us would want to get to a point where the bill is passed and then challenged in the courts on any grounds at all. It is a belt-and-braces approach to give the whole Parliament confidence that persons with disabilities are not going to be coerced as a result of the bill, and that, if they are at risk of that, amendments could be lodged.

Ultimately, it is for the Parliament and us, as MSPs, to make the final decision, but the UN committee is there to advise and help, and it is my suggestion that, once stage 2 has been completed, the convener writes, on behalf of the committee, to seek clarification, so that amendments can be lodged if required.

Can I bring in my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy to answer that? She has more knowledge about this particular area than I do.

Thank you.

Good morning. Has the Scottish Government looked at the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015? If so, what assessment have you made of it? Audit Wales says that it is

“changing conversations, influencing longer-term planning, and impacting day-to-day decision-making and working practices”.

Is that not something that we want to see in Scotland? Having something in legislation might drive those conversations.

I suspect that you will give a similar answer to this question. Similarly, the bill outlines that public bodies must “have regard” to guidance that is produced by a future generations commissioner. Does that seem reasonable?

Thank you.

To play devil’s advocate for a moment, we will have a new Government of some kind next year. We do not know what that Government will be, or what the Government after that will be. The issue might be high up on your priority list and high up on the Deputy First Minister’s priority list, but that might not be the case with the next Government. How do we ensure that, if it is not dealt with in legislation, it will still be high up on the agenda of whoever forms the next Government?