Chamber and committees

Thank you.

Amendment 225 would make provision about training for medical practitioners who are providing assistance. It specifies that medical practitioners must undertake training or have qualifications that are

“related to ... knowledge of palliative care and alternative care options to providing terminally ill adults assistance to end their own lives ... understanding of independent living, in accordance with article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ... awareness and identification of coercion, pressure or undue influence”

and

“equality and non-discrimination principles, with specific reference to the rights and experiences of”

disabled people, terminal illness and socioeconomic disadvantage.

My amendments in the group are crucial to the bill because they would safeguard against the concerns that have been raised by many people, including some disabled people, that not having adequate information and support on the right to practical assistance to lead an ordinary life through things that support independent living can have a huge impact on their lives. It can mean that disabled people feel that they are a burden and that they do not have their care needs met. It can mean that they are frightened of what life could be like should they lose a particular function. In fact, when you meet other disabled people or understand what your rights are and what you should be able to expect, life can sometimes appear to be a lot more tolerable. It is crucial that people who are supporting people to carry out assisted suicide give that support and create that awareness in order to help people understand what their other options are.

The member is right, which is why we should be legislating to make it easier to choose to live than to choose to die. We have a bill in front of us that is not necessarily doing that.

Our constituents face significant barriers in accessing social work assessments, and some are waiting a considerable time for assessment. It is really important that social work assessments to support disabled people to live independently are provided in a timely fashion and backed up with the resources to meet their needs, as assessed. Amendment 225 would not specifically require a referral to social work, but such referrals should be happening. That is a separate issue from what my amendment requires, which is that people should be trained in and understand the law around social work access. The member is right to say that that is important but, as the Royal College of General Practitioners Scotland has pointed out, many professionals are doing a whole host of activities in their current role, and adding to that will require them to understand what responsibilities that includes, which should include the ones that are set out in my amendment 225.

Amendment 270 would establish an assisted dying training authority to develop and oversee mandatory training and accreditation for medical practitioners who were involved. The proposed ADTA would ensure that practitioners were trained in palliative care alternatives, in recognising coercion or undue influence, and in equality and non-discrimination principles. Only accredited practitioners could participate in the assisted dying procedure, which would ensure consistent standards, ethical awareness and public confidence.

Assisted suicide is irreversible—once it is carried out, it cannot be undone. That means that every decision to end a life must be made with complete information and with the confidence that those who are overseeing the process are fully competent in doing so and have all options available to them to explain to the person who is seeking access.

However, the bill does not currently require mandatory training for medical practitioners who are involved. There are amendments on regulation, including amendments in the name of Liam McArthur, but not on the detail. The detail is what matters in legislation such as this. There is no guarantee that individuals will be adequately equipped to detect coercion, undue influence or vulnerability, and there is no assurance that equality, non-discrimination and patients’ rights will be consistently respected. That is not a minor oversight—it is a profound gap in safeguards at the heart of a system that literally involves life and death.

Amendment 270 attempts to close that gap, uphold ethical standards and maintain public confidence in the process by ensuring consistency, professional competence and moral awareness at every step in the system. If the state decides to legalise assisted suicide, it has a duty to protect the most vulnerable from error, pressure and inadequate care. Amendment 270 would enshrine that duty in law and ensure that decisions about life and death were made responsibly, ethically and transparently.

Good morning. I will ask a question about aftercare—specifically housing—before I move on to another area. The young people who we spoke to about this legislation felt that some specifics were missing, such as action in certain areas. In some ways, this has been described as a framework bill. However, the young people also said to us, “What about education?”, “What about housing?”, “What about employment?”, and so on.

My colleague Willie Rennie started to ask about the question of housing. I note your response about North Yorkshire not being a country. However, our problem is that, if we do not do something that is quite specific and empowers local authorities to take action, including with resources backed up to do it, we are really just washing our hands of any responsibility. The response that you gave does not give us much reassurance that the Government is prepared to take the action that is necessary to support local government to do the right thing on the Promise bill. Is that accurate?

How?

Sorry, minister, they do not, because the bit that the bill refers to is outwith the scope of the UNCRC.

Good afternoon, minister—we are just into the afternoon.

I want to ask about children’s hearings and, specifically, single-member panels. Witnesses, including those from the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, Clan Childlaw and the Law Society of Scotland, said that more clarity is required on the proposals for single-member panels—for example, what is meant by “procedural”?—to ensure that children’s rights are upheld. Some young people who attended the committee’s evidence session with Who Cares? Scotland said the same and were not supportive of single-member panels. Our Hearings, Our Voice found that most young people it spoke to did not support the proposals, either. What is the minister’s response to that? Does the Government have any plans to address those concerns?

Could you not just write the gaps in? If the 1995 act has gaps—presumably it does—could you not just write them into this bill?

Perhaps we can do some of that just now, because it would be helpful to get your views on the record. Do you think that a single-member panel should be able to establish grounds?

Forgive me; I did not pick that up.

My next question is about the obligation on a child to attend a hearing. Generally, witnesses have supported the removal of the obligation, but a number of them felt that it could be replaced by a presumption of attendance, as was recommended by the hearings system working group. Why did the Government choose not to include a presumption of attendance in the bill? Do you feel that there is adequate provision to ensure that children’s voices are heard?