Chamber and committees

I respectfully say to Mr McArthur that I do not agree with how that has been framed. In the stage 1 debate, I raised the issue of palliative care, as many other members did. At the subsequent meeting of the cross-party group on palliative care, I did not see members rushing to the CPG to declare their absolute support for how we expand all that. That simply did not happen.

Talking about assisted dying has caused many members to suddenly realise that we should be talking openly and honestly—perhaps on a cross-party basis—about the fact that much more has to happen on palliative care, including discussing how it should be resourced and the choices that we have to make as a Parliament and as parties within that Parliament. All that has been raised because the bill has been introduced, but it should never have been thus, Mr McArthur; we should all have been interested in palliative care, which has merits in its own right, irrespective of whether there is a bill on assisted dying. However, I absolutely acknowledge that talking about this issue is shining a light on palliative care. Passage of the bill is not required to secure additional funding for such care, but I acknowledge Mr McArthur’s point.

The final thing that I will say, given that Jeremy Balfour’s amendments in this group relate to vulnerabilities and capacity, is that, later, we will consider a group about vulnerable adults, at which time we can look more at coercion, vulnerabilities and individuals who are at risk. That might be a more appropriate point to have that conversation on a more rounded basis. I have no other reflections.

You are very popular this morning, Mr McArthur. I get the issues with having a timeframe in relation to prognosis. However, would Mr McArthur also accept that there are significant issues with having no timeframe at all and that wording such as “advanced”, “progressive”, “unable to recover” and

“reasonably be expected to cause their premature death”

could also all be seen to be very broad brush strokes? Where does the member sit between the open, broad-brush-stroke approach that is in the bill and the efforts to be more narrow and specific in the various amendments that we are discussing today, including my set of amendments in the group?

I appreciate the exchange between Mr McMillan and Mr McArthur. It is important that Mr McArthur says that he wants to align with the GMC guidance as it is. If Mr McMillan decides not to move his amendments, one solution would be to put the GMC guidance—we all agree that it is the correct guidance—in the bill in order to give the certainty that is required, rather than finding a workaround. If the definition exists, why not put it in the bill and apply it?

Primarily, I want to reassure Mr McArthur, notwithstanding his lack of support for my set of amendments, that the commencement order was not intended to cause any undue delay. Those were not wrecking amendments in the slightest. The underlying principle that I adhere to here is that we should decide what regulation looks like and bring it into force before assisted dying begins. Therefore, it is a sequential amendment rather than a blocking amendment. That is an important point to make.

I answer that in two ways. The first relates to Mr Balfour’s intervention earlier. Someone who may be a confident, enabled individual could get a terminal diagnosis, and everything that follows from that could lead to that person having less self-worth. That should not be so, Mr Harvie, but that could happen. They could have adult family members with caring roles for their primary care needs. They may think that they are a burden on those individuals, and their view of their own self-worth may be impacted by that. That is an anecdotal potential example, which I probably should not give, because that is not the intention of amendment 139. The intention of the amendment is to be consistent with how the medical profession and the General Medical Council define coercion. That is not my view in relation to how coercion should be defined. A definition exists in all other areas, and it seems to be remiss not to have it in this area of life and death.

I absolutely accept Mr Harvie’s point that it would be better to understand that a bit more. I agree with him, but I ask the rhetorical question of why we would use the GMC definition of coercion for everything else but not use it on assisted dying. My amendment would simply make sure that we are consistent in our approach.

Welcome back, everyone. We will continue with our questioning.

Thank you, Frances. It is almost as though you have seen my next question, which is on the national performance framework. Before I ask it, does Adam Milne want to come in?|

That is helpful. We have a variance of views across the panel, then. Adam was very clear that legislation is required, but our other witnesses were a bit more open minded.

We should probably take Frances Guy first to answer the next question. She mentioned the national performance framework. The Scottish Government’s proposals are aligned to Scotland’s national outcomes in the national performance framework that exists. Whether it is working well is another matter, but it exists. Is legislation required to bolster activity relating to sustainable development and wellbeing under the outcomes in the framework?

I will take a step back from that question and reword it slightly. Is there a framework there that could work very well if the Government used it properly and there was a proper focus?

Thank you. That is helpful, because it suggests that, whether or not we legislate, something has to change in relation to the framework.

Adam Milne, do you want to add anything?

Welcome back, everyone. I return to Mr Balfour.