Chamber and committees

I did not want to interrupt in the middle, but I hope that Bob Doris could say a little more about what seem to me to be subjective issues in the definition, in particular about coercion including being

“unduly influenced ... by ... the person’s own beliefs about themselves”.

We are all very conscious that we are discussing a subject on which people in society have profoundly different values. There will be people around this table with very different values on how we make decisions in our own lives. Legislation of this kind needs to reflect and respect the fact that people have a right to make decisions in line with their own values, not in line with the values that are imposed on them by society. Can the member tell me what the difference is between legitimately making a decision in a way that is reasonably influenced by my beliefs about myself and what would be considered coercion by being unduly influenced by my beliefs about myself? It feels to me to be a subjective and difficult-to-define area.

The most important thing that we should bear in mind is that that is how people are overwhelmingly likely to use the right to seek assistance. The idea that somebody would seek assistance and say, “I want help to end my life,” two days after a diagnosis is a bit of a straw-man argument. It is highly unlikely for somebody to be in such a scenario after two days.

As Liam McArthur said, a range of other safeguards are in place. Discussions and conversations will have to happen with the patient and other professionals, some of which will likely be strengthened as we debate other groups of amendments at stage 2 that will ensure that the conversations happen in a sensitive and understanding manner. Principally, the decision and the judgment need to be driven by the individual. It is about giving people a degree of control.

I am not convinced by the time boundary amendments. As the member might be aware, I was not on the committee for the stage 1 inquiry and have joined the committee since then. However, I think that the committee got the judgment right in its stage 1 report in suggesting that a time-bound prognosis should not be required, so I will not support those amendments.

I hope that we would all agree that, if legislation of this kind is passed, we should try to avoid, as much as possible, individuals incurring any financial cost. Will there be a financial cost involved in notaries public providing such a service? If so, how do we expect that it will be met?

I am curious about the part of Bob Doris’s amendment that refers to regulations making provision about

“the type of settings or premises where functions under this Act”

can take place. That seems to be a very broad definition. There is a legitimate discussion that we might have about whether there ought to be regulations on the settings or premises in which the final action under the bill—the provision of an approved substance and its use by an individual—should take place and about whether that should be defined. However, it seems to me that it is quite broad to say that there should be regulations on the settings and premises for any functions performed under the act, including record keeping and the recording of statements, for example. Will Bob Doris explain why he has taken a very broad approach to that aspect?

I am sorry, but could you speak up a little?

Secondly, I would like to ask how you can reassure us, and by doing so reassure the public, that, as an organisation, you will have a zero-tolerance attitude to racism and other forms of prejudice, bearing in mind not only the special responsibility that all public bodies have but the particular role of your organisation in expressing something of Scotland’s essential identity, character and story? How can you reassure us of that?

Okay. There are two aspects to what I want to ask you about. One is about accuracy and, in particular, the accuracy of the suggestion that the allegation has damaged or ended a relationship that you had with the University of Glasgow on a project around slavery and empire. Do you know whether that suggestion is accurate and whether there is the potential to repair the damage to the organisation’s reputation so that such work can recommence?

Okay. Thank you.

Zero tolerance to me would mean that those who have been found to have expressed racist views or attitudes would no longer have a role in the organisation. Is that your understanding of what the phrase “zero tolerance” means?

Clearly, many aspects of the range of issues have been reported in the press, including different dimensions of the situation at HES, all of which will have compounded the damage done to the public’s trust in the organisation and its reputation. I want to move on to the allegations of racism.

You will be aware, I am sure, that we are in a very dangerous time at the moment as a society, with overt racism as well as other forms of prejudice—anti-immigrant prejudice, homophobia, transphobia, antisemitism and Islamophobia—being normalised at a very high level. It is hugely important that a public organisation—particularly one that has a role in telling Scotland’s story of itself to us and to the world—takes these issues very seriously.

I will obviously not press you to get involved inappropriately in individual staff management issues. However, my first question is whether you have rejected the accuracy of any of the media reports that have been published about the allegations of racism and, in particular, about the damage that those allegations have done to your relationship with the University of Glasgow, which, it is reported, has suspended a joint project that you were working on with it in relation to slavery and empire. Are those media reports accurate, or have you challenged their accuracy?