Chamber and committees

The new legacy commission’s core functions will be to investigate conduct associated with the troubles that caused death or serious harm and to conduct inquisitorial proceedings into the circumstances of certain deaths that were caused as part of the troubles. Can you help us to understand the distinction between those two functions?

Is that clear?

Mr Mountain, would you like to come in?

Thanks very much.

My final question relates to some of the information in the memorandum. It seems to suggest that certain clauses confer powers on UK ministers to act in devolved areas but make no provision for the involvement of Scottish ministers. If I am reading it correctly, it seems that the rationale for the Government still recommending that the LCM be agreed to is that the clauses in question are unlikely to be applicable in Scotland, due to there being no known troubles-related deaths or serious injuries in Scotland that we are aware of. How can we be sure that that would remain the case and that, in the passage of time, we would not find such cases being uncovered?

Our next item of business is an oral evidence-taking session on an affirmative Scottish statutory instrument that has been relaid by the Scottish Government. We are joined by the Minister for Victims and Community Safety. I also welcome Robert Wyllie, policy lead in the safer communities division, and Fiona McDiarmid, unit head in the safer communities directorate, both at the Scottish Government. I refer members to paper 3. I intend to allow up to around 15 minutes for this item.

I invite the minister to make some opening remarks on the SSI and perhaps to set out the reasons for its being relaid.

Thank you, minister. The committee is grateful for the update that you have provided, for the explanation that you have given and for some of the detail on the provisions in the SSI.

I now invite questions from members.

I see that no other members wish to come in. Our next item of business is to consider a motion to approve the affirmative SSI on which we have just taken oral evidence. I remind officials—not that you need reminding—that only MSPs can speak in a debate on a motion.

I invite the minister to move motion S6M-20475, in her name, and to make any brief additional comments that she wishes to make.

I invite the minister to wind up and press or withdraw the motion.

I thank the cabinet secretary for attending. We will now suspend briefly to allow a changeover of officials.

10:17

Meeting suspended.

10:23

On resuming—

This group of amendments largely seeks to strengthen recording and reporting provisions in sections 23A, 24 and 26 of the bill. Safeguarding is at the heart of the amendments. I will begin with my amendments, before speaking to other amendments in the group.

My amendments 275, 276, and 277 relate to duties on Scottish ministers to provide accessible information about assisted dying in the event that it becomes legalised. Amendment 275 specifies the content of the information that Scottish ministers must provide in the important section 23A of the bill. It seeks to ensure that all information is comprehensive, accurate and balanced and that it must include guidance on independent advice, safeguards against coercion or abuse, available alternatives such as palliative care, and resources for suicide prevention and immediate support.

Building on the concerns that were raised by my colleague Emma Roddick in discussion of group 2, bolstering suicide prevention in the context of assisted dying is highly relevant for vulnerable individuals such as people with disabilities, who are more vulnerable to suicide ideation due to their disability. I draw members’ attention to the legal opinion by leading lawyer Tom Cross KC, who found the bill to fall short of safeguarding those individuals. Amendment 275 seeks to clarify what accessible information must be provided by Scottish ministers, and it would require information to be set out on suicide prevention, including how to access immediate support. That will be essential for vulnerable people such as those with depression, who may be eligible under the bill if they fit the eligibility criteria. Along with amendments 276 and 277, the amendment promotes informed decision making and seeks to ensure that lawful assistance to end-of-life services is accompanied by clear guidance on support and protection, as well as going some way to offering a level of protection to vulnerable individuals.

Amendment 276 would require that all information provided under section 23A is comprehensive and that it explicitly covers the legal, medical, social and ethical aspects of assisted dying. It would ensure that terminally ill adults, health professionals and the public receive full and balanced guidance, preventing selective or partial information and supporting informed decision making. Again, accessible and balanced information is important for vulnerable individuals, particularly those with learning disabilities, given the general misunderstanding among the public about what assisted dying means. Polling by Whitestone Insight shows that around one in three people who support assisted dying believe that it would mean hospice or palliative care, or the right to stop life-prolonging treatment. Clear, direct, balanced and non-euphemistic language is essential for any Government guidance.

Amendment 277 would require Scottish ministers to monitor and report on compliance, and it would ensure that information is regularly reviewed, updated and publicly reported. It would establish procedures to correct deficiencies, which would prevent the provision of incomplete or biased information and guarantee that all recipients, including terminally ill adults, professionals and the public have access to accurate and comprehensive guidance. Therefore, it is a simple improvement that would give section 23A of the bill greater effect and I commend it to members.

Although section 23A is an important provision in principle, as it stands, it is too weak and poorly defined to be of greatest effect as a safeguard. Therefore, I trust that members will feel able to support amendments 275 to 277.

Stuart McMillan’s amendment 279 would strengthen the reporting requirement that is placed on Public Health Scotland by removing the reference to information being provided only

“in so far as known to Public Health Scotland”.

I strongly support that amendment.

Amendments 280, 59 to 61, 115, 62, 281 to 283 and 63 would all extend reporting by Public Health Scotland on matters including the assessment process, first declarations, the provision of social care, side effects and adverse reactions, clinical recommendations to ministers and the operation of the period of reflection.

Emma Roddick’s amendments 284 and 287 would require reports to include detailed information about safeguarding concerns, including the outcomes of any safeguarding investigations. Amendment 287 would require reporting to go beyond just raw numbers and include a full analysis and comparison of data—for example, trends over time, risks to patient safety and whether the provision of assisted dying is creating or worsening inequalities for particular groups, such as older or disabled people.

Bob Doris’s amendment 64 would insert additional characteristics, such as deprivation and housing status. Murdo Fraser’s amendment 295 would insert a requirement to report on the impact of assisted dying provision on suicide prevention services, while Stephen Kerr’s amendment 296 would insert a similar provision that relates to the impact of assisted dying provision on palliative care services.

The only amendment on which I seek some clarity is Liam McArthur’s amendment 57, which relates to reporting on assessments broken down by eligibility or otherwise. It seems straightforward, but I am keen to hear the context and rationale for that amendment from Liam McArthur.

All the amendments in the group are about safeguarding. They would enhance reporting, which would allow for effective scrutiny and monitoring of the bill’s operation.

I move amendment 275.