Official Report 951KB pdf
Our third agenda item is day four of stage 2 proceedings on the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. I begin by formally welcoming Liam McArthur, the member in charge of the bill, and a number of other members who have lodged amendments to the bill. Depending on the progress that we make, the committee may continue its meeting from 6pm this evening, with a view to completing stage 2 proceedings of the bill.
As members will be aware, the debate on the group “Reviews and assessments, commencement and expiry of the Act” was commenced, but not concluded, on day three of stage 2 proceedings. The debate on the group will continue where it left off, with Liam McArthur to speak as the member in charge of the bill, and Jackie Baillie to wind up.
I begin where I concluded at the last meeting by reminding the committee of my declaration of interests. I am supported by Dignity in Dying Scotland, Friends at the End, and the Humanist Society Scotland.
With regard to Jackie Baillie’s amendments 54, 55, 57, 64 and 61, I wish to express in general my support for any work that is undertaken to assess the status of palliative care, hospice and end-of-life services, and anything that seeks to support such services. With regard to the potential impact of the bill on palliative care, I again refer to the report on assisted dying that was published by the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee just under two years ago, which concluded:
“In the evidence we received we did not see any indications of palliative and end-of-life care deteriorating in quality or provision following the introduction of”
assisted dying. It goes on to say that
“indeed the introduction of”
assisted dying
“has been linked with an improvement in palliative care in several jurisdictions.”
Amendment 54 would require the Scottish ministers,
“as soon as reasonably practicable after Royal Assent, to carry out an assessment of”
and publish a report on
“the likely impact of the provisions of this Act on hospices and providers of palliative and end of life care services.”
Amendment 57 would require the review of the act to set out the impact of the act on hospices and palliative care providers.
An assessment of the likely impact of the act may be difficult at such an early stage but, from my engagement with Hospice UK and Jackie Baillie, I understand and am sympathetic to amendment 54. On amendment 57, I believe, and evidence suggests, that the bill will not negatively impact palliative care, hospice and end-of-life services. However, the existing provision requiring a five-year review of the operation of the act is intended to deal specifically with the function of the act—in other words, supporting terminally ill adults in being lawfully provided with assistance to end their own lives. The bill also provides that any concerns with the operation of the act that have been raised must also be covered in the report, alongside the Scottish Government’s response. That would allow for any concerns about palliative care, hospice and end-of-life services in relation to the act to be raised, reported on and for a response to be provided.
I am mindful that amendment 57 would add aspects that are not directly related to the legislation to the review of assisted dying legislation. Bringing in other matters may risk diluting the review process. I am also mindful that amendments 54 and 57 duplicate each other to a certain extent. I note the Scottish Government’s view:
“From a delivery perspective, it would be challenging to measure the impact of the Act on hospices and palliative care.”
It notes that that would be reliant on data from Public Health Scotland that it does not currently collect in the necessary manner. Furthermore, the Scottish Government adds that
“if any data collected were to show changes in relation to hospices in and palliative care, it may not be possible”
to attribute those changes to the act
“rather than other factors such as delivery of actions outlined in the Palliative Care Strategy Deliver Plan, the ageing population in Scotland, changes in the palliative care workforce, etc.”
Amendment 61, which seeks to prevent the substantive provisions of the act being commenced by the Scottish ministers until they publish a report as outlined in amendment 54, could delay implementation, even though all necessary measures are otherwise in place. Therefore, it would prolong suffering for people with terminal illnesses who wish to access the choice.
As I have said about other similar amendments, the bill provides for the Scottish ministers to commence the substantive parts of the bill by regulation. The Scottish ministers will have the necessary oversight, and I expect them to commence the various substantive parts of the act only once all relevant health, social care, social work and other services are appropriately prepared and all necessary measures are in place to allow assistance to be requested and provided in that way. Singling out in statute particular steps that must happen before the act can be commenced risks undermining that process and potentially delaying the availability of assistance for those who wish it.
Does the member recognise, however, that if social care services are not in place, there is a risk that some people who rely on them—even before they have a terminal illness diagnosis—might find life very difficult, which could be a factor in their decision making? Does the member not think that it would be useful to ensure that those services were in place and up to capacity before the act came into place?
I understand the point that Pam Duncan-Glancy has made, which is why I am supportive of the assessments being carried out. However, the assessments will not necessarily speak to the specific circumstances of any individual who is going through the process. As I have said, it is incumbent on ministers to ensure that all the requisite steps are being taken in relation to aligning health, social care, social work and other services to ensure that the provisions under the bill can be safely provided for and delivered. On that basis, I am content to support amendment 54 and consequential amendment 64 but urge the committee to resist amendments 57 and 61.
On Jackie Baillie’s amendment 55, as with amendment 57, I note that the Scottish Government has made some points in relation to data gathering responsibilities and resource implications; I share those concerns and do not support the amendment.
On Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 258 and consequential amendments 280 and 284, although I am fully supportive of anything that would assess and support the social care sector, I question whether that is best placed in my bill, the primary purpose of which is to allow mentally competent, terminally ill eligible adults to voluntarily choose to be provided with assistance by health professionals to end their lives. Again, the Scottish Government has identified the need for new processes and investment, and investment in supporting social care is almost certainly better targeted elsewhere.
With regard to amendment 284, which would prevent the bill being commenced before an assessment of social care services had taken place, I refer members to the previous concerns on such provisions in the bill and the comments that I have just made in response to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s intervention.
On Stuart McMillan’s amendments 259, 281 and 285, if the Parliament passes the bill after rigorous, thorough debate and amendment—which has been anything but rushed—I cannot see the case for holding a costly and time-consuming referendum on the act. As I recall, there was no call for such a referendum during stage 1. It is not a feature of our legislative process and would come at considerable cost while also delaying the ability of those terminally ill adults who meet the criteria and wish to access the choice of an assisted death from doing so.
If this is any consolation to Mr McMillan, I point him and members of the committee to the recent Scottish Parliament information centre briefing, which stated that
“public opinion polls and surveys”
since 2005
“have generally shown that a majority of adults in Scotland and the rest of the UK support a change in the law to allow assisted dying for someone who is terminally ill.”
On Miles Briggs’s amendments 21, 22 and 23, the bill provides for the collecting and publishing of data. It is crucial that the assisted dying process be transparent and that relevant anonymised data be made publicly available. The collected data will help to inform understanding about the impact and effect of the bill. Amendment 21 might aid transparency and provide useful information, but it and amendment 22 appear not to link to the data-collecting requirements under the bill, which provide that declarations, doctor statements, cancellations and the final statement after a person’s death are recorded in the adult medical records. That is the information that is then drawn on by Public Health Scotland, as per section 24, for the purposes of the reporting provisions of the bill.
I am not opposed to amendment 22, but I note that it might place added burdens on healthcare professionals to research for themselves or even patients to assess what is available. There are some questions to consider, such as how quality would be judged and how healthcare professionals would investigate the distribution. Medical records might be useful in providing some of that information. Although I am not opposed to them, I feel that amendments 21 and 22 would benefit from further refinement ahead of stage 3.
I turn to amendment 23. Section 27 of the bill provides that the Scottish Government
“must, as soon as reasonably practicable”
after a review period, review and report on the operation of the act. That period is set at five years, beginning with the day on which section 1 of the act comes into force. Amendment 23 sets out that the report must include “the Scottish Ministers’ assessment” of matters relating to palliative care services, as described.
As I have stated, the bill provides for the collecting and publishing of data that is focused on the assisted dying process. That will assist the Scottish ministers in assessing how the legislation is operating. As for the last part of amendment 23, it is not clear how the methodology would show a direct correlation—that is, the impact of assisted dying on palliative care—given so many variables. That point has also been picked up—
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes, certainly.
I have some data showing that, when assisted dying was legalised in New South Wales, there was a commitment to spending an extra 743 million Australian dollars on palliative care over the next five years. However, when the decision was reviewed in 2023, the palliative care budget was slashed to 249 million Australian dollars in a single year. Bearing that in mind, and given some of the figures and the coverage that we have seen today about the pressures that our hospice services are under in Scotland, can the member not see that this bill poses a real risk to support for services and the expansion of palliative care that is very much needed right now?
On the specific instance in New South Wales that Sue Webber has raised, I have always argued that seldom is an increase in budget, were it to happen, a part of the legislation. That sort of thing tends to come in a separate decision taken by the Government or the Parliament.
The debate around my bill has allowed more of a debate on palliative and hospice care, and I very much welcome that. Ultimately, any additional resource that is delivered to the sector will come through budgetary decisions by the Scottish Government and this Parliament. Those of us who believe that additional resources are needed must continue to make that case, and we can make it on a cross-party basis—with an election forthcoming, I dare say that it will feature fairly prominently in the manifestos of each party. However, it will be delivered through a budgetary process rather than through the legislation.
The point that I was making, and the conclusion that has been reached by the Health and Social Care Committee in the House of Commons, is that no evidence has been seen of a deterioration in the delivery of palliative and hospice care. Indeed, in many instances, there has been an increase in not only the budget for but the quality of the engagement with palliative care, which the committee heard in evidence at stage 1, too. That has arisen from the processes put in place for those accessing assisted dying, who need to have discussions with medical professionals about all the options available to them. Too often, palliative care is not necessarily understood as well as it might be.
Do you want to make another intervention, Ms Webber?
We should bear in mind that the hospice budget, which delivers the majority of palliative care, is not really funded by Scottish Government funding decisions. Moreover, assisted dying legislation was not in the manifesto of anyone’s party. I see a bit of conflict arising there.
That is on us, Ms Webber. If we want to prioritise palliative care, there is an election coming up and each of us can make manifesto commitments. My point was in response to the earlier comment about a budget reduction in New South Wales, presumably by the Government in New South Wales.
And I also referred to the coverage in The Herald.
I can respond to your questions, Ms Webber, or you can continue to intervene.
The point that I was making was in response to your point about the budget allocation in New South Wales, which was a Government decision. If there is a feeling that the hospice sector—or indeed palliative care more generally—requires more resources, that is an argument that we can make. As I have said, it has been encouraging over the past two or three years to see not only the profile of the issues going up but more of a cross-party endeavour to highlight them and to press for additional resources.
As I have said, on the last part of amendment 23, it is not clear how the methodology would show a direct correlation. As sympathetic as I undoubtedly am to the arguments that have been put forward, I ask members to reflect on the extent to which the bill is the most appropriate place for the sort of process that amendment 23 sets out. Certainly, the first two parts of it seem distinct from the assisted dying process.
I am not opposed in principle to Daniel Johnson’s amendments 18 and 19, but I question how necessary the proposed commission would be, given the provisions that are already in the bill and the level of Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body resource and MSP capacity that are likely to be involved. The bill requires data gathering, reporting and review. There will be opportunities for the Parliament to consider monitoring and scrutiny through existing structures, such as the relevant committee considering the annual reports or undertaking any other scrutiny of the act that it wishes to do. Thus, I do not believe that a commission is necessary. I also note the drafting issues highlighted by Scottish Government, not least in relation to the interaction with the Public Finance and Accountability (Scotland) Act 2000 and the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010.
11:00Murdo Fraser’s amendment 199 is similarly well intentioned. Ahead of introducing the bill, I gave lengthy consideration to the issue of how best to provide for proportionate oversight. However, I am not convinced of the extent to which such an oversight body would provide an additional safeguard. I also note that its remit appears to overlap with that of the General Medical Council. As I did for Daniel Johnston’s amendments, I would argue that the balance is always to ensure that safeguards do not act as an unnecessary obstacle without providing any meaningful added protection. I am also mindful that various amendments have been lodged that propose different models of oversight.
In that context, I reiterate what the bill provides for and the processes that exist currently that would ensure that the act can be implemented safely and transparently. I have previously referred to the stage 1 evidence from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service’s Scottish fatalities investigation unit. The bill also provides for the collection of data, a publication of annual reports and a five-year review of the legislation—which amendment 199 also provides for.
Stephen Kerr’s amendment 129, which relates to his amendment 126 that was debated before, would provide for capturing information relating to the time between a person using the substance and dying, and to any complications. Amendments 183 and 184 in relation to that were passed last week, and I would expect the issues to be captured by those provisions.
Stephen Kerr’s amendments 201 and 204 to 206 would establish a rolling review period every two years. I consider that allowing for five years before a review of the legislation strikes an appropriate balance and allows the assisted dying process to have been operating for enough time to gather meaningful data, identify trends and draw conclusions or, if necessary, make recommendations.
Will the member take an intervention?
I certainly will.
The issue—which I think you appreciate—is that the bill represents a fundamental change in the relationship between patients and doctors, and between patients and lots of other people who are there to help them. Naturally, should the bill pass into legislation, the start-up phase would be a period in which we as legislators would be required to take a keen interest in how the law was working and the impact it was having on the very people that, I sincerely believe, you have at heart.
At least in the initial phase of the enactment of the law, would it not be a good idea—with that close inspection in mind—to narrow the five-year period to two years so that we get real-time information about what is happening because of the law? It will be an area that we have never gone into before. Assisted dying has not happened anywhere in the United Kingdom before, although it has happened in other places, and the need to pay close attention to it is met by amendment 206.
I agree entirely with the point that Stephen Kerr makes. In relation to the five-year review, there is a balance to be struck about the timeframe within which sufficient data can be gathered to make informed decisions about the way the act is operating: whether it is performing as intended, who is accessing it and for what reasons, what the experience is of medical professionals who are engaged with the process, and so on.
There is always going to be a balance—I recognise that. However, alongside that, there is also the requirement for annual reporting of data. As I said earlier, future health committees can look at the data annually and take evidence on it as required. I think that it is problematic to set on a two-year time horizon a full-scale review of how the act is operating in practice, not least because of what we know from other jurisdictions that have implemented similar legislation, which is that the number of people who access it in the early years is relatively small. It takes a number of years for the number to increase, and then even out.
There is a balance to be struck in relation to when we carry out the review. However, I have concerns that doing so after two years would leave a dataset from which some erroneous conclusions could be drawn about the way the act is operating in practice. As I said, the review also sits alongside the annual reporting requirements, which provide sufficient safeguards to address the concerns.
I am grateful to Liam McArthur for his response to my intervention. However, because of the expectation he outlined—which may or may not be met—of the number of people who will ask to have the procedure, I think that he made the case for a two-year review at the outset of the bill. The need for close inspection and careful and proper review is much greater during the initial phases and the initial experiences of patients, doctors and every other individual and organisation that is impacted by them.
I am not trying to read Liam McArthur’s mind or heart on these matters. However, there could be a real danger that the way in which the law is enacted will spiral in a direction that I genuinely do not think that he would anticipate. Having such a check and balance built in by way of a two-year review would satisfy that concern.
I understand the rationale; I even understand the rationale for setting the timeframe at two years. However, I go back to the point that the five-year review of how the act is operating sits alongside a requirement for the annual reporting of figures in relation to the number of people accessing assisted dying. The Scottish Government, Public Health Scotland and future committees of this Parliament will have oversight of that reporting.
We also had evidence from the Crown Office at stage 1 about the interest that it will take in each and every instance of an assisted death, certainly in the first five years. The regulatory professional bodies themselves will also take their own interest in what is happening and in how it is happening. I do not think that consideration of the act is solely reliant on the review.
There is a need for a wholesale review of how the act is operating in practice; that is required. However, as I said, there is a balance to be struck in relation to when we hold that review so that we have sufficient data to make informed assessments of what is happening without leaving it too long. The public need to have confidence that a weather eye is being kept on a process, which, I fully accept, is a new one.
Will the member take an intervention?
Mr McArthur is about to wind up.
Okay.
I am sorry, Mr Kerr.
My view is also informed by the experience in other jurisdictions. Two years would be too short for the first review, and a recurring review every two years thereafter would be excessive, particularly given the bill’s requirement—as I said—for annual reporting data. I do not think that a perpetual state of review is in anyone’s interests.
With regard to Brian Whittle’s amendment 202, I can see that the requirement in it could pose a number of difficulties. For example, who would carry out such a review, on the basis of what information, and from whom? I know that Brian Whittle has been rightly concerned to ensure input from, and the confidence of, medical professionals. However, I worry that the amendment may work against the latter.
In relation to Stephen Kerr’s amendment 130, I have already set out the purpose and scope of the provision in my bill that requires a five-year review on the operation of the act. I also refer members to my earlier comments in relation to amendment 57.
Murdo Fraser’s amendment 203 appears consequential to amendment 189, which has already been debated. Again, I refer members to my earlier comments.
On Stephen Kerr’s amendments 131 and 132, I observe that the bill does not prevent the Scottish Government from consulting any organisations or individuals that it considers relevant in undertaking the five-year review, and I would expect it to do so. As such, I do not believe that those amendments are necessary.
With regard to Daniel Johnson’s amendments 14, 15, 271 and 272, I am wary of adding a sunset clause to the bill, which could impact on both the engagement of health professionals and the views of some people who wish to request assistance to end their own lives. For example, people may feel that they need to make a more hurried decision based on a belief that assisted dying may be available for only a time-limited period. Evidence from other jurisdictions, such as California, has indicated that sunset provisions in assisted dying legislation are not helpful and end up being further amended or, indeed, removed—as has been the case in California this year.
Sunset clauses are not a feature of our legislative process, except in very limited circumstances that often relate to issues that are felt to be time-limited and over a short period. That is demonstrably not the case in this instance. I believe that it is imperative that the legislation be subject to detailed review, and I have provided for that to happen after five years. That is in addition to annual reporting, as well as any additional scrutiny that Parliament wishes to undertake.
I note that Mr Johnson’s amendments offer a range of timeframes for such a sunset clause—five, 10 and 15 years. The first of those timeframes would certainly be far too soon, but even the longer time periods appear problematic for a mechanism that is, so far, confined to matters affecting Parliament as an institution, such as MSP pensions and lobbying—as the Scottish Government has observed.
I understand the rationale and accept that such provisions have been a feature of similar legislation elsewhere, but we would be interested in the views of committee colleagues on the principle. For much the same reasons, I do not support Stephen Kerr’s amendment 218, which includes a three-year sunset provision and might also conflict with the rolling review envisaged in Mr Kerr’s earlier amendments.
On Michael Marra’s amendments 280, 282 and 286, I note the Scottish Government’s view that, from a delivery standpoint, the timing of the review could be challenging. Should the bill pass, there would need to be a substantial implementation period and consultation with relevant stakeholders to develop the policy framework for the bill, during which the Scottish Government would undertake its own assessment of the financial impact of the bill. The review proposed by Mr Marra, therefore, could result in duplication and would be curtailed by decisions needing to be made on implementation. As far as I can tell, it is also out of step with the approach to any other piece of legislation, and it would have significant financial implications.
With regard to Paul Sweeney’s amendment—
Will the member take an intervention?
Very briefly, yes.
Mr McArthur has now been speaking for 26 minutes, so we need to come to a conclusion.
Does the member accept that significant variables exist in relation to the cost outlined in the financial memorandum, which would depend largely on whether this was in or out of the NHS? In both situations, a significant cost would be attached, which is why it would be useful to assess it ahead of time.
I had a lengthy exchange with the Finance and Public Administration Committee on my financial memorandum about my understanding of costs. I know that the Government has taken a different view, and it is for the Government to explain its rationale.
Paul Sweeney’s amendment 269 appears to relate to amendments 245 and 275 and the issue of complications, which we debated in the previous meeting. Although those amendments were not agreed to, others were. If I can do more on that particular issue ahead of stage 3, I will be happy to work with Mr Sweeney on that.
Finally, Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 287 seeks to delay the commencement of the act until legislation is introduced to remove charges for non-residential social care for terminally ill adults requesting assisted dying. I note and echo the Scottish Government’s concern that, from a legal standpoint, it is unusual to prevent provisions of any bill—other than provisions that come into force the day after royal assent—from being brought into force until some other action has been carried out. I do not believe that that would be appropriate in this instance.
With that, I bring my remarks to a close.
I call Jackie Baillie to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 54.
Thank you, convener, and my apologies for being slightly late. I missed Liam McArthur saying that he supports amendment 54, but somebody told me that he does. Unfortunately, he does not support amendment 55, and I fail to understand why, given that, should the bill pass, it is important that it fits into the landscape of palliative and end-of-life care.
All that amendment 55 seeks to do is to create a code of practice to ensure that assisted dying interacts appropriately with hospices and other providers of palliative and end-of-life care. All my amendments come from Hospice UK. Although it has taken a neutral position on the bill, it feels that sufficient safeguards are required for the smooth operation of the bill, should it pass. I therefore suggest that we should listen to the views of key stakeholders in that regard.
We all recognise that this is a significant piece of legislation. The Scottish Government has not yet fully engaged in the legislative process. I understand why—it is a member’s bill—but it is safe to say that this is probably the most significant member’s bill that we have ever considered in the Parliament, at this stage. I know that Patrick Harvie and Margo MacDonald introduced such bills previously, but this is the furthest that such a bill has ever got. It is really significant, and I hope that the Scottish Government engages soon.
It is important to be sure that the bill works effectively and, at the very least, does no harm. Therefore, scrutiny and monitoring will be essential to ensure that we get this right. I urge committee members to support amendments that advance reviews and assessment to assure people as to the suitability of the bill. I therefore press amendment 54.
11:15Amendment 54 agreed to.
Amendment 55 moved—[Jackie Baillie]—and agreed to.
Amendments 71 and 71A moved—[Jackie Baillie].
The question is, that amendment 71A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 71A disagreed to.
The question is, that amendment 71 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 71 disagreed to.
Amendment 80 moved—[Jackie Baillie].
The question is, that amendment 80 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 80 disagreed to.
Amendment 81 moved—[Jackie Baillie].
The question is, that amendment 81 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 6, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 81 disagreed to.
Amendment 128 moved—[Emma Harper].
The question is, that amendment 128 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 128 disagreed to.
Amendment 196 moved—[Brian Whittle].
The question is, that amendment 196 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 196 disagreed to.
Amendment 197, in the name of Miles Briggs, is grouped with amendments 261 to 267, 44, 44A, 56, 268, 212 and 278.
Good morning, members. I have the majority of the amendments in the group, so I apologise for the time that I might take to talk through them.
My amendments 197 and 212 relate to the provision of information and guidance, and I have taken the proposals forward on behalf of the British Medical Association Scotland and the Royal College of General Practitioners Scotland. The amendments would require the establishment of an independent information service to provide information and support to people who may be eligible for assisted dying and who wish to pursue the option to help them to navigate the process. The service that the amendments look to establish would provide factual information about the full range of options that are available to patients, which would help them to make informed decisions and ensure that doctors who did not wish to or did not feel confident about providing information to patients about assisted dying had somewhere that they could direct patients to, in the knowledge that they would receive accurate and objective information. Patients who may meet the eligibility criteria would be able to access the information that they need without the requirement to go through their doctor, and would also have support to navigate the process.
The Nuffield Trust report, “Assisted dying in practice: International experiences and implications for health and social care”, looked at the implications of assisted dying legislation in 15 jurisdictions. It recommended that policy makers consider examples from other countries, such as
“establishing dedicated care navigator roles to provide information on assisted dying”
and about how service information can be accessed and how people can be connected with eligible clinicians, and to
“offer support to families, carers and health professionals.”
The report concludes that there is evidence that such roles help to improve access and understanding.
I appreciate amendment 44 in Liam McArthur’s name, but I do not think that it goes far enough. Although it focuses on the provision of information, it does not focus on the aspect of support, which I would also like to be included in the bill. It is not clear whether amendment 44 would cover personalised information for patients or whether it could also take the form of generic leaflets setting out information for eligibility to access assisted dying. I welcome the amendments in Ross Greer’s name that were passed on advocacy services and care navigation services, which are really important and almost supersede some of what I am trying to create. My amendments are important, especially in providing clarification for healthcare professionals.
I am keen to understand a little more clearly what Miles Briggs has in mind and how he envisages an independent information service working.
Does he anticipate that it would operate within the NHS, or would the Scottish Government fund it through the voluntary sector? Can he tell us a little more about how he envisages that working, and, in particular, whether he considers that such an independent service could come under pressure because of contested views about what impartial or neutral information consists of?
It would have to sit in the NHS. Given the nature of our health service and how it is structured with the different health boards, we want to ensure that Scotland-wide information is provided. It is important that if someone requests information from a clinician, the clinician can refer them to a service with nationally shared information.
Guidance should be developed in partnership with representative bodies. That is why BMA Scotland and RCGP Scotland have asked me to lodge the amendments. I hope that that clarifies that the information would be a national resource. It is important to ensure that we have clarity and that there is no variation.
My amendments 261, 262, 264, 265 and 266 are lodged on behalf of the Royal College of Nursing Scotland. RCN Scotland maintains a neutral position on assisted dying, but the amendments address two separate concerns that it currently has in relation to the bill.
The bill outlines several distinct roles involved in the provision of assisted dying, but it remains largely silent on where legal and professional accountability lies. Care for an individual and responsibility for the approved substance can be transferred between the roles on a number of occasions. In particular, the bill is silent on the legal effects of a co-ordinating doctor appointing an authorised health professional.
The amendments ask three key questions. First, should that be seen as a delegation of a task to the authorised health professional? Secondly, what responsibilities does the co-ordinating doctor retain at that point? Thirdly, does the bill make any reference to whether the authorised health professional is a doctor or a registered nurse or their respective responsibilities?
RCN Scotland members must be clear about those issues if they are to have confidence that they can be involved in the provision of assisted dying. RCN Scotland is of the view that outlining legal accountability in the bill would be challenging. Amendments 261, 262 and 264 propose, as an alternative, that the bill should require Scottish ministers to publish statutory guidance that clearly outlines where legal and professional accountability lies at each step of the assisted dying process.
Given the subject matter, the guidance should have the input of the Lord Advocate, as outlined in amendment 266. In developing the guidance, consultation with relevant trade unions and professional bodies is important and should be required. That is covered in amendment 265.
Amendment 264 would also require the Scottish ministers to set out guidance on how assisted dying services should be arranged by health boards, including, as discussed earlier, through the development of patient pathways. The committee has already considered amendments setting out a stand-alone assisted dying service, and RCN Scotland has proposed that requirement, as it shares the concern that has been expressed by others that adding assisted dying to the workload of existing underresourced teams would not be sustainable.
Along with RCN Scotland, I believe that the amendments would introduce essential legal clarity for health professionals who are involved in each stage of service delivery, and that they would ensure that, if the bill is passed, assisted dying can be delivered safely and sustainably across Scotland.
I move amendment 197.
I start by thanking the committee for its forbearance last week. In particular, I thank Patrick Harvie for reading out my script, when I literally was unable to talk, which is a bit of an inhibitor in this role that we have all chosen.
My amendments in the group are intended in part to mitigate the potential risks of the system being dispersed rather than specialist. If the bill passes, we expect that a lot of non-specialist clinicians will be involved, particularly GPs, who, as we all recognise, are already under huge pressure. In particular, we will expect them to make really difficult non-clinical judgments about issues such as potential coercion.
11:30Clinicians—GPs in particular—already make non-clinical judgments as part of their wider duty of care towards their patients; however, when it concerns the potential choice to end one’s own life, the stakes are, clearly, extremely high. My earlier amendments on independent advocacy, which Miles Briggs has referenced, alongside those that he has proposed, would go some way to addressing that and providing a safeguard, but it is also important that we set minimum standards for both clinical and non-clinical staff who provide the service.
I support Miles Briggs’s amendments 261 and 262 in particular, which would change “may” to “must” when it comes to guidance, and my amendments 263 and 267 would build on those. Amendment 263 would, effectively, set mandatory minimum standards to which people must be trained in order to carry out functions under the act, as well as setting up a system to ensure that such functions are carried out to the required high quality. That would go some way to addressing the concern that has been expressed by the BMA and others about having the proposed dispersed service model rather than a specialist one, because it would require those who wished to provide the service to opt in by meeting certain standards or undergoing certain training. We should want that kind of service to be provided only by those who absolutely know what they are doing. Why would we not set some minimum standards for something so significant?
The intention of amendment 267 is to ensure that professionals who are less directly involved in the provision of assisted dying must also comply with minimum standards, as would be set out in the guidance. That reflects concerns that have been raised—certainly with me and, I know, with others—by stakeholders and experts, around the importance that people such as GP receptionists and carers play in a person’s experience of requesting and being provided with assistance. Clearly, the training that would be required of a receptionist would be different and altogether much lighter than what would be required of a GP but, if the goal is to ensure that the whole setting is as safe as possible for the patient, everyone in that space has a role to play.
Training for non-clinical staff—training for all staff in any workplace—is perfectly normal. In some cases, it would involve things as simple as ensuring that staff do not make comments to patients that could make them feel as though they are a burden, such as expressing concern about the impact that their condition must be having on their family. However, for clinical staff, I envisage training and guidance going into much greater detail on matters such as spotting potential coercion.
It would not be appropriate to specify the details of the training and guidance in the bill, but we should ensure that material is produced and that it applies to everyone with a role to play in the service. That is why—
Will the member take an intervention?
I was just about to close, but I will be happy to take one.
I have been contacted by a GP who is a bit concerned. You have spoken about the expertise that is needed and the training that is required. GP appointments are quite short—10 or 15 minutes, on many occasions. How do you foresee a GP being able to address some of the issues that you have outlined, given that sort of time constraint?
I do not think—and I certainly do not think that it would be Liam McArthur’s intention—that such decisions would be taken purely in the space of a 10-minute appointment. It would be an iterative process and would require a lot of engagement. That is why I am concerned.
We are asking an awful lot of GPs. That profession is under a huge amount of pressure, and massive demands are made on the time of its members, who also need to be masters of all things. People will come to them with all sorts of issues—with multiple issues in the same appointment and with complex social issues, not just health issues. That is why I say that, in this case, we need to set out minimum standards, the minimum training that should be achieved in the first instance, and on-going quality assurance, so that, alongside the issues of capacity that Sue Webber is perfectly right to raise, the required expertise and knowledge are there—which involves not just the GP but everybody in the setting. Much as the training requirements would be different for the GP versus the receptionist, everybody should have some level of awareness and understanding of what would be required to make the setting as safe as possible for those who are potentially considering the option.
I am happy to close there.
I thank both Ross Greer and Miles Briggs for very thoughtfully setting out the thinking behind their amendments. I found myself nodding along to much of what they had to say. I may turn to their amendments after addressing my own.
My amendments 44 and 44A would require the Scottish ministers to make information available about the lawful provision of assistance, in an accessible and understandable format, to terminally ill adults, to health, social care and social work professionals, and to the wider public.
Section 23 of the bill allows ministers to prepare and publish guidance on the bill. Section 23(2) sets out the particular guidance that may be included. Having given further consideration to the issue during and since stage 1, I believe that that guidance should be strengthened and that there should be a stand-alone requirement for the Scottish Government to ensure that all relevant persons—terminally ill adults, medical, social care and social work professionals, and the general public—have the information that they require made available to them. That may, for example, be via a website that provides information, as well as a central contact point where inquiries can be made and information signposted.
Amendment 44 relates to my amendment 27, which requires a registered medical practitioner who is approached by a terminally ill adult who wishes to make a first declaration, but who is unable or unwilling to assist, to direct the person to a practitioner who may be able to or be willing to assist, and to a source of relevant information. Amendment 44 ensures that such relevant information will be available in an accessible and understandable format and can be easily pointed to by the professional.
I turn to the other amendments in the group. First, Miles Briggs’s amendment 197 would require the Scottish ministers to make regulations to provide for an independent service that would provide information and support to those who may seek assistance and, where requested, to support a person in navigating the process. I was interested in the exchanges with Patrick Harvie, because one of the issues that I too wrestled with was the extent to which that would be about the provision of information and the extent to which it would be about providing advice and guidance, which may be more appropriately picked up in the amendments that Ross Greer lodged earlier around advocacy. Miles Briggs’s amendment 212 would require such regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I think that my amendment, combined with Ross Greer’s amendments, perhaps address that sufficiently. However, if there are gaps in provision following today’s votes, I will be happy to work with Miles Briggs on those.
Jackie Baillie has not had a chance to speak to amendment 56, but I will offer some thoughts, and will respond in due course to what she says. I note that section 23 of the bill allows the Scottish ministers to make guidance relevant to the bill’s provisions and, in particular, allows for guidance to be made about the assessment process, which includes determining that an adult has a terminal illness in line with the definition in section 2. It is further expected that organisations such as the GMC will issue guidance relating to some of the clinical aspects of the bill, such as the terminal illness definition. I hope that, on that basis, Jackie Baillie feels that the bill already covers the issues that she has raised. She is shaking her head, so that hope has been frustrated.
Miles Briggs’s amendments 261 and 262 would amend section 23, so that the Scottish ministers “must”, rather than “may”, prepare and publish guidance on the act. Although I do not foresee a situation in which ministers would not issue guidance where there is a clear need to do so, I have absolutely no objections to those amendments.
Ross Greer’s amendment 263 would provide that the guidance that is provided for in section 23(2) of the bill may include provision on training and quality assurance to ensure the effective implementation of the act. I note that the list that is provided in section 23(2) of areas on which ministers may bring forward guidance is not intended to be exhaustive and that there is nothing to prevent guidance on training and standards being issued. I also note that, if Ross Greer’s amendment and those of Miles Briggs are agreed to, such guidance would be required, rather than being at ministers’ discretion. I also consider that the GMC and other professional bodies will have a role here. All that said, I have no objection to amendment 263.
I turn to amendments 264 to 268 and 278, lodged by Miles Briggs, Ross Greer and Paul Sweeney.
Miles Briggs’s amendment 264 would provide that the guidance should also set out
“how the provision of assistance to terminally ill adults in accordance with this Act should be arranged by Health Boards, including the development of patient pathways”
and
“where legal and professional accountability lies in relation to the provision of assistance”.
Miles Briggs’s amendment 266 would provide that the guidance in amendment 264 relating to legal and professional accountability should be developed in consultation with and approved by the Lord Advocate. I have no objection to the first paragraph of amendment 264, but I am wary about stipulating where legal and professional accountability lies. As with other amendments in the group, professional bodies will have a role in providing guidance and there may be a risk of duplication or confusion. That was acknowledged by Miles Briggs in relation to the acceptance by the RCN. Although there are challenges here, that is not to say that they cannot be addressed. However, I thought that it was important to flag that to the committee.
The bill requires ministers to consult with relevant persons when preparing guidance and Miles Briggs’s amendment 265 adds to that by requiring consultation with relevant trade unions and professional bodies. Again, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I draw attention to the existing requirement in section 23(3) for the Scottish ministers
“to consult such persons as they consider appropriate.”
I cannot foresee circumstances in which ministers would not consult such bodies.
Section 23(4) provides that a person carrying out a function under the act “must have regard to” the guidance. Ross Greer’s amendment 267 would add to that by requiring that a person
“who is otherwise involved in the process”
by which a terminally ill adult requests and is provided with assistance must also have regard to guidance. I think it likely that the provision as drafted would ensure that everyone who is involved in the requesting and provision of assistance, who would need to follow guidance from ministers, would be covered, meaning that the amendment is therefore not essential, although, once again, I have no strong objection to it.
The situation with Paul Sweeney’s amendments is the same as the situation with Jackie Baillie’s. I have yet to hear him speak to them, but I will offer the following thoughts in relation to his amendment 268 and consequential amendment 278. Amendment 268 would require ministers to
“prepare and publish guidance for coordinating registered medical practitioners and authorised health professionals”
regarding
“the provision of assistance under section 15.”
Amendment 268 also sets out what should be included in that guidance and would provide that ministers must consult such persons as they consider appropriate and that those carrying out functions in relation to section 15 must have regard to the guidance. That guidance should also address
“the management of cases where a terminally ill adult has used the substance, but has ... not died within a reasonable period”.
The amendment would also require ministers to set out in regulations what is meant by a “reasonable period”.
I believe that the existing guidance provision in the bill, which makes specific reference to the section 15 provisions regarding the use of a substance, is sufficient and I have some concern, as I have said in debates on previous amendments, about including a reference to a “reasonable period” in statute. I appreciate that there is a sizeable list on the agenda for my further discussions with Paul Sweeney ahead of stage 3, but at the risk of overloading it, I will add that issue to it.
I conclude my remarks, convener, by offering further thanks to the committee for its painstaking work. It has allowed detailed scrutiny and probing of a range of issues that were raised at stage 1. I know that it has been a pretty herculean task, but I thank you very much for your forbearance, not least in allowing me far more time than you probably felt was necessary.
I speak to amendment 56, which I lodged on behalf of Children’s Hospices Across Scotland. I think that we would acknowledge that one of the central problems with the bill as drafted, as identified in the committee’s stage 1 report, is the definition of “terminal illness”. It is extremely complex to diagnose and assess, particularly in young adults. There is a genuine feeling that there is a need for further definition in the bill about young adults specifically and not just about adults in general.
The bill’s definition of a terminal illness does not recognise the significant clinical differences between a young person with a life-shortening condition that might meet the bill’s definition of terminal illness and an older adult with a terminal prognosis. The current definition would bring into scope young people who potentially have years of stable life left to live, which goes against the stated intention of the bill that it should be reserved for those at the end of life.
An example is a young person with complex Duchenne muscular dystrophy, for which medical advances can delay an ultimately inevitable death for years or even decades.
Other conditions such as—[Interruption.]—I am having a problem pronouncing words today; I did not lose my voice as Ross Greer did and I kept going, but sometimes I wonder whether I should have done so. I will try again.
For other conditions, such as spinal muscular atrophy, treatment options are increasingly becoming available that might alter prognosis and quality of life to such an extent that the position of the young person in relation to assisted dying would change dramatically.
Key terms such as “advanced and progressive” do not have accepted standard definitions or interpretations in the clinical context. There are multiple ways to define premature mortality, especially in the context of a young person with a life-shortening condition who, by definition, is likely to die young. My amendment 56 is essential if we want to safeguard young people and provide certainty and clarity to medical practitioners about how they must interpret the act in their clinical assessment of a young person. I believe that a guarantee is needed within the bill. Making provision for such guidance within the bill will help to ensure that young people are not at risk of being approved for assisted dying prematurely.
11:45
My amendments 268 and 278 aim to strengthen the practical framework for administering assisted dying safely and responsibly. The amendments would require the Scottish ministers to publish detailed guidance on what to do if complications were to arise, including on what constitutes a “reasonable period” before death and how to respond to side effects or even failed medication. Without such guidance, clinicians could face serious medical legal risk if problems were to arise during the final stages of the assisted dying process. I believe that, together, the amendments are a reasonable measure to ensure safety and consistency during the most sensitive stage of the assisted dying process.
I call Miles Briggs to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 197.
I should have said earlier that I welcome Jackie Baillie’s amendments in the group. Given what I said about Ross Greer’s amendments in relation to advocacy services, I will not press amendment 197 or move amendment 212, but I intend to move all the others in the group.
Amendment 197, by agreement, withdrawn.
Amendment 198 moved—[Miles Briggs].
The question is, that amendment 198 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 198 disagreed to.
Amendment 254 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 254 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 254 disagreed to.
Amendment 255 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 255 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 255 disagreed to.
Amendments 256 and 257 not moved.
Amendment 258 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].
The question is, that amendment 258 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 258 disagreed to.
Amendment 259 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].
The question is, that amendment 259 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 0, Against 10, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 259 disagreed to.
Amendment 260 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].
The question is, that amendment 260 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 260 disagreed to.
Section 23—Guidance
Amendments 261 and 262 moved—[Miles Briggs]—and agreed to.
Amendment 263 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.
Amendment 264 moved—[Miles Briggs].
The question is, that amendment 264 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 264 disagreed to.
Amendment 265 moved—[Miles Briggs].
The question is, that amendment 265 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Abstentions
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 7, Against 2, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 265 agreed to.
Amendment 266 moved—[Miles Briggs].
The question is, that amendment 266 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Abstentions
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 2, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 266 agreed to.
Amendment 267 moved—[Ross Greer].
The question is, that amendment 267 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Abstentions
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 5, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 267 disagreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
After section 23
12:00Amendments 44 and 44A moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 44A be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Against
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 44A agreed to.
The question is, that amendment 44, as amended, be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division
For
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Against
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 44, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment 56 moved—[Jackie Baillie].
The question is, that amendment 56 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Abstentions
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 4, Abstentions 2.
As the vote is tied, as convener, I will use my casting vote to vote for the amendment—sorry, I meant to say that I will vote against the amendment. [Inaudible.] I have to be consistent in my voting, Ms Baillie.
Amendment 56 disagreed to.
Amendment 268 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 268 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 268 disagreed to.
Section 24—Provision of information by Public Health Scotland to Scottish Ministers
Amendment 21 moved—[Miles Briggs].
The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 21 disagreed to.
Amendment 269 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 269 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 269 disagreed to.
Amendment 22 moved—[Miles Briggs].
The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 22 disagreed to.
Sections 24 and 25 agreed to.
After section 25
Amendment 18 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 18 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 6, Abstentions 3.
Amendment 18 disagreed to.
Amendment 199 moved—[Sue Webber].
The question is, that amendment 199 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 199 disagreed to.
Amendment 200 moved—[Miles Briggs].
The question is, that amendment 200 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 0, Against 8, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 200 disagreed to.
Amendment 270 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].
The question is, that amendment 270 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 270 disagreed to.
After schedule 5
Amendment 19 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 19 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 19 disagreed to.
Section 26—Annual report
Amendment 129 moved—[Stephen Kerr].
The question is, that amendment 129 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 129 disagreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
Section 27—Review of operation of Act
Amendment 201 moved—[Stephen Kerr].
The question is, that amendment 201 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 7, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 201 disagreed to.
12:15Amendment 57 moved—[Jackie Baillie].
The question is, that amendment 57 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 57 disagreed to.
Amendment 202 moved—[Brian Whittle].
The question is, that amendment 202 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 202 disagreed to.
Amendment 23 moved—[Miles Briggs].
The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 23 disagreed to.
Amendment 130 moved—[Stephen Kerr].
The question is, that amendment 130 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 130 disagreed to.
Amendment 203 moved—[Sue Webber].
The question is, that amendment 203 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 8, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 203 disagreed to.
Amendment 204 moved—[Stephen Kerr].
The question is, that amendment 204 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 204 disagreed to.
Amendment 131 moved—[Stephen Kerr].
The question is, that amendment 131 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 131 disagreed to.
Amendment 132 moved—[Stephen Kerr].
The question is, that amendment 132 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 132 disagreed to.
Amendment 205 moved—[Stephen Kerr].
The question is, that amendment 205 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 8, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 205 disagreed to.
Amendment 206 moved—[Stephen Kerr].
The question is, that amendment 206 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 8, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 206 disagreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
After section 27
Amendment 271 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 271 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 7, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 271 disagreed to.
Amendment 272 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 272 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 272 disagreed to.
Amendment 14 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 7, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 14 disagreed to.
Section 28—Regulation-making powers
Amendment 58 moved—[Jackie Baillie].
The question is, that amendment 58 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 58 disagreed to.
Amendment 45 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 45 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Against
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 45 agreed to.
Amendment 46 moved—[Liam McArthur].
Amendment 46A moved—[Liam McArthur]—and agreed to.
Amendment 46, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment 207 moved—[Brian Whittle].
12:30
The question is, that amendment 207 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 207 disagreed to.
It is clear from the number of amendments that we still have to vote on that the committee will have to sit this evening. Therefore, I will suspend the meeting now, and the committee will reconvene to continue stage 2 proceedings on the bill at 6 pm this evening.
12:31 Meeting suspended.
Good evening. Welcome back to the reconvened meeting and to stage 2 of the Assisted Dying (Scotland) Bill.
Amendment 208 moved—[Sue Webber].
The question is, that amendment 208 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 208 disagreed to.
Amendment 59 not moved.
Amendment 47 moved—[Liam McArthur].
Amendment 47A moved—[Liam McArthur]—and agreed to.
Amendment 47, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments 209, 133, 134, 210, 135 and 273 not moved.
Amendment 274 moved—[Patrick Harvie]—and agreed to.
Amendment 275 moved—[Paul Sweeney].
The question is, that amendment 275 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Abstentions
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
The result of the division is: For 5, Against 4, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 275 agreed to.
Amendment 48 moved—[Liam McArthur].
The question is, that amendment 48 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 0, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 48 agreed to.
Amendment 136 not moved.
Amendment 60 moved—[Jackie Baillie].
The question is, that amendment 60 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 60 disagreed to.
Amendment 211 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].
The question is, that amendment 211 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
18:15
There will be a division.
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 0, Against 8, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 211 disagreed to.
Amendment 72 moved—[Jackie Baillie].
The question is, that amendment 72 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 72 disagreed to.
Amendment 82 not moved.
Amendment 63 moved—[Jackie Baillie].
The question is, that amendment 63 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 63 disagreed to.
Amendment 137 not moved.
Amendment 276 moved—[Sue Webber].
The question is, that amendment 276 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 276 disagreed to.
Amendments 138, 212, 213, 277, 278, 214 and 15 not moved.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
Section 29—Interpretation
I remind members that amendments 1 and 215 are direct alternatives, and that the text of the last agreed of them is what will appear in the bill.
Amendment 1 moved—[Brian Whittle]—and agreed to.
Amendment 215 not moved.
Amendment 139 moved—[Emma Harper].
The question is, that amendment 139 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 139 disagreed to.
Amendment 216 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].
The question is, that amendment 216 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 216 disagreed to.
Amendment 217 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].
The question is, that amendment 217 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 217 disagreed to.
Amendment 140 moved—[Emma Harper].
The question is, that amendment 140 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 4, Against 6, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 140 disagreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
Section 30 agreed to.
After section 30
Amendment 218 moved—[Sue Webber].
The question is, that amendment 218 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Abstentions
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 8, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 218 disagreed to.
Section 31 agreed to.
Section 32—Commencement
Amendment 279 moved—[Patrick Harvie].
The question is, that amendment 279 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 8, Against 2, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 279 agreed to.
Amendment 64 moved—[Jackie Baillie].
The question is, that amendment 64 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Abstentions
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 6, Against 2, Abstentions 2.
Amendment 64 agreed to.
Amendment 141 not moved.
Amendment 280 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].
The question is, that amendment 280 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 280 disagreed to.
Amendment 281 not moved.
Amendment 282 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].
The question is, that amendment 282 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 282 disagreed to.
Amendment 283 moved—[Patrick Harvie].
18:30
The question is, that amendment 283 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
The result of the division is: For 1, Against 9, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 283 disagreed to.
Amendment 61 moved—[Jackie Baillie].
The question is, that amendment 61 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 3, Against 7, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 61 disagreed to.
Amendments 142, 284, 285 and 286 not moved.
Amendment 287 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].
The question is, that amendment 287 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
For
Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 2, Against 8, Abstentions 0.
Amendment 287 disagreed to.
Section 32, as amended, agreed to
Section 33 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
That ends stage 2 consideration of the bill.
Meeting closed at 18:34.Previous
Subordinate Legislation