Official Report 275KB pdf
Agenda item 4 is consideration of the response from the member in charge of the Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill to the committee’s stage 1 report on the bill. Members have seen the briefing paper and the response from Patrick Harvie MSP.
Do members have any comments?
I welcome the response from the member in charge of the bill in relation to the phrase “best endeavours”, which the committee previously commented on. I think that the process that he proposes, whereby he will look to amend the bill at stage 2 to create
“an obligation on licensing authorities to immediately alert facilitators to any directions”,
is welcome. He suggests that that obligation will be accompanied by
“an obligation on facilitators to comply with any directions to which they are alerted.”
As far as I am aware, the whole business of directions being given that affect people who are not a public authority or part of a public authority is a little unusual. It is important that the process works in relation to any legislation, but it is particularly important that it works in relation to the bill, as it may affect the life—or lack thereof—of the people who are affected by it in the future.
Therefore, in process terms, I think that there is one further step that Patrick Harvie might care to think about introducing—a requirement on licensed facilitators, when they are advised of any new directions or changes to existing directions, to acknowledge to the authority that they are aware of those changes. That would close the loop, which is particularly important in a context in which the facilitators are individuals who are not part of a public authority and the whole issue is a matter of life and death.
I think that it would be useful for us to write to the lead committee or the member in charge of the bill in those terms, if other members of the committee see things in the same way as I do.
Thank you for that observation. It occurs to me that a duty might need to be imposed on the licensing authority to do something if the loop has not been closed, which begs the question who would police that. Nonetheless, you make a fair point.
Do members have any other comments?
I broadly agree with Stewart Stevenson, but I feel that the whole tone of the proposals seems to be that the licensing authority will do the minimum. I accept that there has to be a minimum that it will do, but I feel that in other areas in which licences are issued—ranging from taxes to illegal fishing—the licensing authority might be a bit more proactive in dealing with things. However, we are where we are. If we at least raise the issue, that is acceptable.
It is suggested that we write to the lead committee in the terms that Stewart Stevenson proposed. Is the committee content that we do that?
Members indicated agreement.
It might be a bit late in the day to say this, but I am still not certain that Patrick Harvie’s response is adequate in dealing with our concerns about the term “best endeavours”. I would like us to highlight to the policy committee that concerns exist about his view that the meaning of “best endeavours” is sufficiently clear. I am not certain that it is sufficiently clear.
We have the option to do two things: to point out your concern and to point out how it might be addressed through the variation in wording that the member in charge of the bill has suggested in his response to us.
I based my remarks on the understanding that the member in charge of the bill intends to remove the reference to “best endeavours” and
“to re-cast it as an obligation on licensing authorities”.
It is my understanding that it is intended that the phrase “best endeavours” will be removed at stage 2, but I may or may not be correct.
Thank you for that.
We need to be clear that Patrick Harvie is suggesting that there are alternative routes that could be followed; I am not sure that he is necessarily saying that he will definitely remove the phrase “best endeavours”. I think that we need to work on the basis that that might not happen and to make our own suggestions.
We will write about those two issues. Are there any other issues that members want to comment on that were covered in the response, or that were perhaps not covered in the response? This is probably our last opportunity as a committee to contribute to consideration of the bill at this stage.
In relation to the proposal that the facilitator should acknowledge the changes that have been made, can we ensure that he must confirm that he will follow those changes? There is not much point in the facilitator acknowledging that he has read the changes unless we get confirmation that he will adhere to them.
I suggest that the facilitator will have no option other than to adhere to them, because it is suggested that he will be duty-bound to comply. Therefore, it is unnecessary to say that he must comply with the changes because, as a facilitator, he will already have agreed that that is what he will do.
However, that begs the question what will happen if a facilitator fails to comply, how the loop is to be closed and how the matter will be policed and audited. I am sure that those are issues that the policy committee is considering in great detail.
My other concern was about how we ensure that the facilitator follows the rules and guidelines.
That is a very fair question.
I will put together a letter that I hope will cover all those points.
Are members happy to note the response and to write to the lead committee in the terms that we have discussed?
Members indicated agreement.
That concludes item 4. We come to item 5, which we will take in private.
11:39 Meeting continued in private until 11:51.