Chamber and committees

My amendment 125, and the consequential amendment 136, address a gap in the bill regarding the duties placed on health and social care practitioners in the event that a person, following the planned ingestion of an approved substance provided to end their life, does not die within a reasonable timeframe.

Amendment 125 states:

“The Scottish Ministers must by regulations make provision about the management of cases where a terminally ill adult has used the substance provided to end their own life in accordance with this Act, but has not died within a reasonable period.”

What constitutes a “reasonable period” must also be specified in the regulations.

I do not wish to speculate on how often that scenario might arise. I suspect that there will be various opinions. We heard some of those during exchanges on day 2 of the committee’s deliberations at stage 2. There was an almost four-way discussion between Sue Webber, Emma Harper, Brian Whittle and, I think, Joe FitzPatrick about how often such things might happen.

However, that is to miss the wider point. Since the scenario will happen—if only occasionally—there is a need for guidance so that professionals and the public know what process should be followed in such circumstances. Such a scenario raises many complex and difficult questions of a legal, ethical and practical nature. Indeed, colleagues have been wrestling with all those questions with great thoughtfulness this morning.

For example, if the person is unconscious, should they be killed by the administration of further lethal or other substances, which, after all, would be euthanising that particular individual, against the policy intent of the legislation? Should or could such a step be taken without consent? What should the approach be if the person does not have capacity? What information should be given about such scenarios to people who request assisted dying?

I would not like to say that I was caught out there, convener. Could you please give me the number of that amendment again? If you give it to me slowly, I will read the correct bit of my notes.

Crikey, Ms Webber. I feel as though I am playing devil’s advocate on both sides of the debate. I believe that a framework is required for clinicians and that there should be supporting guidance for them but, ultimately, that a degree of discretion and professional judgment has to be used in those circumstances.

However, that professional judgment cannot be exercised in a vacuum, and I feel that Mr McArthur’s bill would lead to some of it being made in a vacuum. Similarly, although I agree with Sue Webber’s point, I am not sure that the framework should be too stringent. I will therefore go back to my amendments and say that that is why the issue should be dealt with not in the bill but by regulation and consultation. That is important.

Thank you, Mr FitzPatrick. I am not really on both sides of the argument, because the bill does not contain provisions on this issue. The member in charge of the bill says that we should not put that sort of detail in the bill. I agree with him to a large extent. I want it to be in regulations, and my amendment says that it should be in regulations. I intend to move the amendment to see what the committee’s views are. If it is not agreed to, I can always bring it back at stage 3, at which point I would be delighted to work with Mr McArthur to get the balance right in relation to that issue.

I return to my pre-prepared reflections. Complex questions such as this are best dealt with through detailed guidance—I have tried to make that point—rather than in the bill. However, the requirement for guidance must be in the bill, and that is what my amendment seeks. Those complex questions must be worked through, and the amendment places a duty on the Scottish ministers to consult on such matters before laying draft regulations under the affirmative process. For fairly obvious reasons, such regulations must be in place before applications for assisted dying are to be made, should the bill become law.

I am reminded of the exchange between Douglas Ross and Liam McArthur about whether the clinician should be inside or outside the room so that they can attend and take action as required. We are not sure what action would be permitted, so that has to be clarified before we have a debate about whether the clinician should be inside or outside the room. Amendment 125 and its consequential amendments would provide the certainty of a framework under which medical professionals should operate on such occasions. With that, I draw my remarks to a close.

It is obvious that the Government has followed the progress of Ms Boyack’s bill carefully, as much of your opening statement reflects some of the specifics of the bill.

People who are watching these proceedings will see that the Government agrees with the policy objectives, and the vast majority of the people who have contacted our committee support the policy objectives. Initially, it was the Government’s intention to legislate in this area. You have made a lengthy and informative statement, but the core question is, why has the Government changed its mind? I do not want to go into the detail of what you said in your opening statement, but at the heart of the matter is the fact that there has been a change of mind. What led to that change of mind on the part of the Government?

I have made a similar mistake.

Agenda item 2 is our fourth evidence session on the Wellbeing and Sustainable Development (Scotland) Bill, which is a member’s bill that has been introduced by Sarah Boyack, who will give evidence to the committee at next week’s meeting. I welcome Richard Lochhead, the Minister for Business and Employment, and Scottish Government officials Iain Stewart, who is team leader in the strategy division, and Kirsten Simonnet-Lefevre, who is a solicitor. Thank you for joining us.

Minister, I do not know whether you were given advance notice, but you would be welcome to make some opening remarks.

I will follow up on a couple of points about potential overlap.

I think that it was last week when we heard a wee bit from someone from the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland who was concerned about overlap and how some of the proposed new commissioner’s responsibilities could duplicate those of the children’s commissioner.

It has also been suggested, partly by myself, that other public bodies and offices out there are actively doing some of the work that we are discussing. I went on to my phone to check on Environmental Standards Scotland’s goals as an example, and it says that it promotes national sustainability goals by investigating non-compliance in the environmental field.

Is it possible for a new commissioner to be created and have what we might call a protocol so that overlap and duplication do not happen, or does the situation simply mean that there is no need for a new commissioner?

Mr Torrance’s question gets to the heart of a lot of this. If the national performance framework and the national outcomes are reformed in a way that means that they can be used to scrutinise public bodies effectively to ensure that they are meeting their obligations, that would be very welcome. The committee would welcome hearing a bit more detail—if not this morning, at a later point—about how the Scottish Government is seeking to do that. There is quite a strong argument that that could work well, but, in the absence of information on how the reform process is going, the committee is left with a bit of a gap in respect of how we can take an informed view on that. Perhaps you could provide us with that detail, either this morning or by coming back to the committee in writing.

I come to Sarah Boyack—thank you for your patience, Sarah. You have listened to the committee members asking questions, so there is a bit of time for you to ask some questions if you wish.