Before I talk about amendment 247, I draw members’ attention, if they are not already aware of this, to the fact that the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland has just informed us in the past few moments that it has moved from a position of neutrality on the bill to a position of opposition. I hope that members will reflect on that when they reach a view on how they will vote on the bill in its entirety.

Amendment 247, which is in my name, would introduce a new subsection in section 21A that would create a mandatory requirement for all public-facing communications about assisted dying to include suicide prevention information. Its purpose is to ensure that vulnerable individuals, including those experiencing distress or suicidal thoughts, are provided with clear guidance and access to appropriate crisis support services.

Language is important in this debate. The bill that is before us is called the assisted dying bill, but we know that that language confuses people, because there are people who believe that the term “assisted dying” covers palliative care, the administration of pain relief and anyone’s life in a hospice. In reality, the bill is about assisting suicide. That is the legal reality. It has never been the case in Scots law that assisting someone to end their life has been legal, so the bill will represent a fundamental change in our law. On the two previous occasions when the Parliament has debated similar bills, those bills have been described as assisted suicide bills. There has been a deliberate change to sanitise the debate that we are having.

09:45

The change reflects another sanitisation. When the well-funded lobby group Dignity in Dying, which is promoting the bill, was formed many years ago, it was called the Euthanasia Society. In the 1970s, it rebranded itself as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society. Two decades ago, it rebranded itself again as Dignity in Dying. However, no one should be in any doubt as to the origins of the campaign group and its true agenda.

Suicide is a difficult subject for anyone to discuss. I know that those who support the bill do not wish to conflate what the bill seeks to do with suicide, but that is unavoidable for the reasons that I have outlined. Suicide is a terrible social curse.

I gently say to Clare Haughey that the legal reality is that the bill would allow, for the first time in our history, individuals to help another individual to commit suicide.

Let me explain my thinking on the subject. Every suicide is a tragedy. It is an enormous tragedy for the life lost, and it is a huge tragedy for those left behind, who often wonder what more they might have done to prevent the tragic loss of life.

Suicide is the biggest cause of death among young men in Scotland today. It is a huge societal problem. I know that the Government does a lot of work on suicide prevention, but, in my view, we should be doing more—we should be doing everything that we can to prevent suicide.

I talk from personal experience. Many years ago, when I was a much younger man, I lost a dear and close friend to suicide, in circumstances that I find extremely painful to talk about even now. There was no advance warning. We were not aware of any suicidal intent. There was no history of depression or mental illness. There was no indication that that would happen. It came completely out of the blue and was utterly shocking.

I saw the impact that that young man’s suicide had on his family and friends, who were all utterly devastated. That horror remained with them for the rest of their lives. The young man’s mother died just a few years ago, and I had kept in very close contact with her. The horrendous and devastating impact of the young man’s death on her still haunts me.

We must do everything that we can to avoid the prospect of suicide having an impact on anyone’s life. If the bill is passed, I do not want there to be any hint, suggestion or muddling of the messages in relation to suicide prevention, because we would be legislating for suicide in particular circumstances. Amendment 247 would make it clear that we must do more to promote suicide prevention and provide support for those in crisis.

I am reminded of the years and years that it took for campaigners to secure safeguarding warnings attached to advertising on gambling and smoking products, for example. Let us get the bill right at the outset. If assisted dying is going to be advertised, patient information must be available, if it is requested. In my view, that should include signposting to suicide prevention organisations and charities. People must know that there is somewhere else that they can turn to and that all options are open to them if they request assisted dying.

I want the bill to contain every possible safeguard. It must be clear about who, where, why and how. It must include details on everything; it must not leave the details to regulations. As MSPs, we must be confident that we have done everything possible to make the bill as safe as possible.

: I will respond very briefly.I appreciate that there are members who find it uncomfortable to talk about suicide in the context of this bill, but that is the reality of what we are facing. That is the practical impact of the bill before us. For the first time in our history, we would be legalising the assistance of somebody who was taking their own life.

As Ross Greer has properly identified, amendment 207 proposes the establishment of a new statutory entity to be known as the independent advocacy oversight body, which would be charged with the accreditation, monitoring, auditing and reporting of advocacy services operating under the act. It would replace what was inserted at stage 2, which was the ability of ministers to make regulations to establish advocacy services. Although that was an improvement to the bill, my concern is that it does not go far enough and that there is a need for independence.

The purpose of the body would be to ensure that all advocacy providers meet formal standards of competence, independence and accountability. Amendment 207 would oblige the body to enforce those standards, maintain robust records and produce an annual public report, all while maintaining appropriate confidentiality protections.

Crucially, the amendment would place on the Scottish ministers a statutory duty to provide sufficient funding to enable the body to discharge its functions effectively, which is the point that was raised a moment ago by Pam Duncan-Glancy. Without such funding, the safeguards that are envisaged here—which I know Mr Greer supports—could not be realised in practice. We have to ensure that the funding is in place.

I absolutely accept the principle of advocacy services and welcome the fact that Ross Greer’s amendments were agreed to at stage 2. However, the operation of such a service requires clear procedural frameworks and oversight. The establishment of a statutory body would provide precisely that structure, offering independent supervision of advocates within assisted dying services in the national health service, which is the point that Audrey Nicoll made in her intervention.

I very much agree with Rhoda Grant. If we are going to have advocacy, it needs to be available to everybody, and on a face-to-face basis. Part of the reason why I am lodging amendment 207 is that we need an independent body that is responsible for ensuring that advocacy is available. We could make sure that that applies throughout Scotland.

The amendment is not merely procedural; it is a fundamental safeguard that would ensure that those who are charged with supporting some of the most vulnerable individuals in our healthcare system are properly trained, accountable and subject to independent scrutiny.

I am afraid that I cannot give Mr Kerr a figure; nor could I give him a figure for what the cost of providing advocacy services under the bill as it stands might be. We are all in the same place in that respect.

I urge colleagues to support amendment 207, which represents a necessary measure to underpin the safe and effective operation of the legislation.

Mr Hepburn makes a reasonable point. Perhaps Mr McMillan can address it in winding up, because the amendment does not specify that.

People who vote in referendums sometimes cast a vote for different reasons. They will not always scrutinise in detail the issues that are before them. Whatever our views on the bill that is before us, we are now 18 and a half hours into scrutiny of amendments, so nobody could reasonably argue that the members of this Parliament are not doing their job properly in scrutinising the legislation. People who vote for us do so trusting us to take such decisions on their behalf. We should accept that responsibility and not try to pass the buck to somebody else.

I pressed my button to speak briefly on amendment 112, in the name of Stuart McMillan, but Dr Alasdair Allan has made nearly all the points that I was going to make, so I will not elaborate much further. I agree with him about the constitutional and political tradition that we have, in which we have referendums only to deal with major constitutional matters. To start proposing them on other matters—social matters or changes in the law—could take us down a different route.

We have a political tradition for elected members of Parliament that is best summed up by the writings of the Ireland-born philosopher and English politician Edmund Burke. Two centuries ago, he set out the responsibilities of members of Parliament. We come here not as delegates but as representatives. Members of Parliament are elected to exercise their judgment once they are elected. We are not here to represent exactly the views of everybody who votes to put us into Parliament; we are here to exercise judgment.

Dr Allan made a reasonable point as he concluded. We have seen it elsewhere that, sometimes, people will vote in referendums not on the topic that is on the paper in front of them but to cast judgment on wider issues—for example, on whether the Government of the day is doing a good job. We have seen that in referendums that took place elsewhere in Europe and, indeed, in Ireland, in which people voted not on the question that was before them but on different matters. That is what makes referendums on topics such as assisted dying dangerous.

We are so fortunate to have the national performing companies, but, as we have just heard, the standstill budget that the Scottish Government has handed down means that they are potentially having to cut back on some of their activities. In 2021, in the programme for government, the Scottish Government—indeed, the cabinet secretary himself—committed to three-year funding for the national performing companies. Five years later, that has still not been delivered. Why has that promise been broken, and what is the cabinet secretary going to do to make sure that it is now delivered?

On the sentencing point, will the member reflect that, first, there is a presumption against sentences of a year or less; and, secondly, even if someone were sentenced to a year, they would serve, under the current automatic early release arrangements, only 15 weeks in prison? Does he agree that that is little deterrent against coercion?