Good morning. I want to follow up on some of the themes that colleagues have raised, and especially Willie Rennie’s point about the need for people to have a wider understanding of the benefits of the work that you do and the need to communicate that across Scotland, because we know that there are similar projects in every part of the country.

In my area, I do a lot of work with Mark Breslin, who runs Barrhead Amateur Boxing Club. He is also a senior lecturer in the school of education at the University of Glasgow. Mark has done an academic study on activity in the area, which you might be familiar with, which is entitled, “Beyond the classroom: strengthening pupil engagement, attendance and belonging through alternative education and community partnerships”. Many of the themes that you are talking about can be recognised in his paper. It is good to see that there is robust academic evidence for the impact that such work has.

I do not know whether you have engaged with that research. Debbi is nodding, which is a good sign. Do you feel that such research is helpful in enabling the committee and its successor to understand how we can do better when it comes to funding and supporting such work on a national level?

That is true, but it is extremely valuable in quantifying and qualifying what we are talking about. I should have mentioned that the piece of work to which I referred was co-produced by Jesse Mitchell, who is principal teacher in health and wellbeing at St Luke’s high school in Barrhead.

We talk about alternatives to school, but those alternatives do not sit in isolation from school. You guys will work in tandem and in partnership with schools, which is encouraging.

Mark, do you have any reflections on that?

That was useful. Again, it will be for our successor committee to reflect on that issue and take it forward.

Convener, I am happy to share the academic paper that I referenced with the clerks so that it can be shared with other committee members. Given that it was co-produced by a principal teacher of St Luke’s high school, I should declare that I am a former pupil of the school.

This is undoubtedly the most consequential decision that we will make in this session of Parliament, just five days before its conclusion. Indeed, it is one of the most consequential decisions that this Parliament has ever made in its relatively short existence. Many MSPs in the chamber will have made their final speech in the debate knowingly; we have heard about some of that already. Some in the chamber will make their final speech unknowingly. Some, of course, will return to the chamber to make speeches in coming years.

Nobody’s place in this Parliament and nothing that we do here is certain. As colleagues have already referred to, the only thing that is certain in life is death. Over these past days, weeks, months and years, we have debated what it is to die, what it is to have a good death, and how we support people in our society throughout their life and in its completion.

I want to begin, as I did at stage 1, by acknowledging the variance of views and experiences that have been shared with me by constituents and many others across the country—shared with genuine concern, passion and honesty. I will vote against the bill this evening, but I want people to know that I will do so with a genuine respect for those with whom I have found that I cannot agree, including Liam McArthur, the member in charge of the bill.

At stage 1, I set out my key concerns on coercion, and the deep concerns that disabled people have communicated to me in relation to the bill, not only during my time in Parliament but throughout my career working with people who have a learning disability and their families.

At stage 2, I followed growing concerns about the right of conscientious objection for healthcare professionals and organisations. As colleagues will know, in my amendments at stage 3 last week I sought to enhance protection from coercion, mandate training on it and provide an opt-out for organisations, particularly those with a faith ethos. I will dwell briefly on the failure of the latter amendment.

I cannot fathom why we would pass a bill that would not provide a sufficient safeguard and a right of conscience for organisations in this country that have provided care for hundreds of years. Those organisations and institutions are at the heart of our communities. Whether members have faith or not, they should recognise that those organisations and their staff have walked with, laughed and cried with, and held the hands and the hearts of people in our community in the darkest of moments. They cannot be allowed simply to be put into the annals of history. They have a place, they belong in our communities and they must be protected. My amendment that sought to protect them failed by only four votes, which was markedly different from the margin by which the general principles of the bill were agreed to at stage 1.

Of course, my opposition to the bill goes beyond just the amendments that were passed or not passed last week. I fundamentally believe that we do not debate the issue on a level playing field. We have heard a vast amount of testimony from disabled people about their fears of what would happen if the bill was passed. That is not imagined and it does not come from nowhere. It comes from the daily lived experience of disabled people and their families. In a country as rich, as democratic and as socially aware as ours, too many disabled people feel that they are not heard, not seen and not valued. They are our colleagues, our constituents, our neighbours and our friends. This is no longer a debate for the kitchen table, the pub or the radio. A monumental decision is before us, and we must hear their voices.

I come back to the comments that I opened with about certainty. Our time in this place will come and go, and the debates that we have, the victories that we mark and the disappointments that we experience will fade. However, the decision that we make tonight will be lasting and its impact will be wide. We must look disabled people in the eye and assure them that we can give them safety, dignity and protection—the things that they need to live their lives. I do not believe that we can do that. If there are colleagues tonight who, even now, at this hour, are unsure about that or any other aspect of the bill, they must join me and many others across the chamber at decision time and they must vote no.

19:47

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes.

Stuart McMillan referenced the Republic of Ireland. He would recognise that there is a constitutional provision in Ireland that says that, when there are to be amendments to the constitution, they are decided on by referendums. There is a variation of opinion in the state about whether that is the best way to decide elements of the constitution, which is obviously very different from the approach here. Crucially, a detailed citizens assembly process takes place before the development of a referendum there, which allows the question to be designed and the campaigning sides and all of that to be considered, for example. Does the member accept that we do not have that infrastructure here?

I do not intend to detain members for long by speaking on the broader issues and themes that surround amendment 157, because many of them were raised during the proceedings yesterday evening when we discussed the important role that social work and multidisciplinary approaches should play in the process.

The bill’s current wording states that a registered medical practitioner carrying out an assessment must

“consider making enquiries of a health professional, social care professional or social work professional with qualifications in, or experience of, a matter relevant to the person being assessed”.

Amendment 157 would instead make it a requirement for a registered medical practitioner carrying out an assessment

“to make enquiries of at least one health professional, social care professional or social work professional who holds qualifications or has demonstrable experience relevant to the condition, care needs or circumstances of the person being assessed”.

At a very basic level, my amendment seeks to strengthen the assessment process by replacing the discretionary power that is in the bill as amended with a mandatory requirement. That would ensure that assessments were being informed by appropriate multidisciplinary expertise. It would promote greater consistency in practice and reduce the risk that relevant safeguarding or welfare considerations might be overlooked. I lodged amendment 157 because of all the issues that I have raised and the need for expert professionals to be part of the assessment process of individuals who might demonstrate certain vulnerabilities.

Will the member take an intervention?

I agree with many of the amendments that Fulton MacGregor has lodged—indeed, I spoke to that yesterday evening.

I do not mean to conduct a debate through Fulton MacGregor in response to Emma Harper’s intervention, but—[Interruption.] I do not think that this sort of barracking is very helpful, given the seriousness of the issues that we are discussing.

I will not get into the debate about the Western Australian issue, because I did not raise it in the chamber. However, if we are talking about exam-level conditions for training—and all the things that Emma Harper has laid out, which she says that she has evidence of—none of that is in the bill. There is no requirement in the bill for education for professionals at any level. I would also put on the record that my amendment, which seeks to bring in mandatory training for practitioners, will potentially not be backed.

Does Fulton MacGregor, as a social work professional himself, recognise the concerns that social workers are raising that, if his amendments are not agreed to, the social work profession would not have confidence in the legislation—not because of their stance on assisted dying itself, but because the system would be wrong?

Mr McArthur seems to accept the broad concept that such inquiries are an important innovation for how we understand all the circumstances that surround a person’s life and their decision. I wonder why he thinks that they should not be mandatory. If there is nothing to worry about and we agree that they are a positive thing, surely they should be done as a matter of curse. If there are no concerns, that would be identified quickly and the person could move on.