Chamber and committees

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 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.

I recognise that Friday is a working day, and I think that colleagues would all recognise that they work on Fridays. However, people were planning to do something different on Friday and had made arrangements based on that. Part of my day on Friday involved caring for my son. I will now not be able to do that, because it would preclude me from doing my job here. The arrangements that I have in my region would be different because I would be closer to home.

The point that Jeremy Balfour and other colleagues have made is that they have made arrangements in relation to their caring responsibilities that keep them more local. Coming to Edinburgh is different from those arrangements, and I ask Christine Grahame to reflect on that.

Will the member take an intervention?

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.

Dr Bloomer, do you have a view on whether we need to revisit much of the debate around the role of the chief education officer in local authorities, with a direct read-across to the curriculum?

That is helpful. There is a lot in there to reflect on, which will take us into the next parliamentary session. These are issues that clearly should be addressed, and it was interesting to hear the witnesses’ different perspectives.

12:15

I do not want to seem flippant, but that is the sense that I get when I talk to professionals: there is a balance of feeling frustration but also a sense of opportunity.

It was interesting to hear what you said about the tangential issues that sit around the CIC. When Mr Rennie, Mr Briggs and I were at the EIS manifesto launch, a contributor from the floor said, “If, as a primary teacher, I’m given another thematic week to deliver, I’m just gonnae go mad. I’m trying to engage in a curriculum improvement cycle, look at my Es and Os and do all that, and then I keep getting these thematic weeks.” Those weeks are supposed to enhance the experience of young people, but they actually clutter the landscape to some extent. Would you recognise that that is something that we need to look at in tandem with the CIC?

I will move the discussion on slightly into a different area; I may be about to open—or reopen—a can of worms. During the passage of the Education (Scotland) Act 2016, there was a wide discussion about the role of the chief education officer and statutory powers. However, those were not defined with regard to what further role the chief education officer might have in this area, for example. Without relitigating, if you like, much of that, I would be keen to get a sense of whether you think that there is a wider role for the chief education officer in this space at a local level. I am not asking you to define what that would be today, but should we be having that debate once again, in the light of wider curriculum improvement? I appreciate that the witnesses may take different views.

10:15