Chamber and committees

I have a query further to the point that Mr Whittle raised in relation to malicious intervention. If amendment 189 was agreed to, how do you foresee that a case in which someone asked for a review would proceed? That process could open up information about the deceased person’s medical history that they might not have wanted the individual who requested a review to know. They might not have had a loving relationship with that individual. What safeguarding would be put in that would respect the deceased person’s wishes?

If we take the 32 local authorities as an example of the public bodies, how can we ensure that wellbeing and sustainable development are threaded into the local outcomes improvement plans that they put in place? Those plans are reportable to the community planning partnerships, which ensure that all the bodies in the local area are pulling in the same direction.

Good morning. Keeping on the topic of the national performance framework, can you give us any further information about the review that you mentioned is under way, specifically in relation to how sustainable development and wellbeing requirements will be bolstered to help to deliver the societal change that is needed? Although the 2015 act and the NPF have been in place for a long time, we are still not seeing that being pulled through as a thread into actual outcomes. How will that be bolstered with the review?

We have heard a few times from folk who have given evidence to the committee that the existing duties on public bodies through the NPF and related legislation are too weak. How would you respond to that, specifically in relation to the area of wellbeing and sustainable development?

I want to explore that aspect a little further. In relation to the review that is being undertaken of the NPF and the national outcomes, can you reassure the committee that you will ensure that wellbeing and sustainable development, which feature in many pieces of legislation but do not have firm definitions, will link further to the United Nations sustainable development goals, so that we can start to have a cohesive plan for ensuring sustainability for future generations?

I understand that the Government is not looking to legislate in that space at the moment, but can you reassure us that we will see such change happening as a result of the review, so that we can better align with the UN sustainable development goals?

Like you, I called the national performance framework the national planning framework last week.

I wonder whether you recognise that, if the amendment were agreed to, it would create difficulties for an individual who might be in a hospice setting at the end of life and be forced to move out. There has been testimony to that from across the world. When an institutional opt-out is in place, it creates a system in which the person who is at the centre of care is unable to realise their wishes. That can create a lot of stress and anxiety in their final hours.

I will further explore that point. The effect of the amendments proposing an institutional and organisational opt-out would be that somebody would not be able to avail themselves of an assisted death in what would essentially be their own home. Having been in and out of many organisational settings where people who are experiencing homelessness reside, I know that that is their home at that point. Is the Salvation Army talking more about its funding being at risk? You cannot uncouple those points, which is maybe where you are trying to go with the amendment. Should organisations have an organisational opt-out, those points would be inextricably linked.

I have a lot of sympathy with Jackie Baillie’s amendments, not least those related to domestic abuse, given that I used to work for Scottish Women’s Aid. However, do you think that stating in the bill that the training needs to be done in person will prove problematic for individuals accessing such training across the country, given our geography?

I thank the member for taking the intervention.

I want to explore the issue a little further. I am thinking about an individual who might avail themselves of a particular hospice or organisation in their area because that is the closest to them, and who might go there with no intention of ever seeking an assisted death, but who then might change their mind as they approach the end of life, depending on what circumstances are presented to them.

I have had that happen recently with a dear friend’s mum, who is very strongly of a Catholic faith and who, in her last days, decided to use medical assistance in dying in Canada. That would not have been foreseen.

Does the opt-out that the member and others describe in their amendments include any other practitioner from outside that organisation who has opted in going into what is effectively somebody’s home to provide them with a service that they would be eligible for should the bill pass? It is not just about the institution; it encompasses anybody else and prevents them from going in to provide that service.