Chamber and committees

There have been no official costings. I am sorry—“final” was probably the wrong word.

Before I decide whether to press my amendments, I want to ask the member in charge of the bill whether he is willing to have a discussion with me—as he is with Mr Doris—ahead of stage 3. I know that Mr McArthur has met SASW before and has a good working relationship with it. I would like to see whether something can be worked out in relation to my amendments and how they link with his own, whether they are agreed to or not.

I have completed my contribution. I just want to say to Ms Dunbar that I feel that I did give her an answer, but I am happy to speak to her at any time outside of this meeting, or when I come back in.

We do not believe that they would have any impact in that respect. I believe that SASW has spoken to the member in charge of the bill at various points of this process, too, and we believe that it is okay for these amendments to be built into the framework of the bill and that they should not result in any additional bureaucracy. This is all about putting an extra safeguard into systems that are already in place, as I have already highlighted. We are just asking that the good laws that this Parliament has passed—the good legislation that is already in place—be used for this, too.

Hello, can you hear me?

I think that I am unmuted now. Good morning. I apologise—

I have not had any direct discussions with COSLA, because of the timing of pulling together and lodging the amendments, and I do not think that, at that stage, SASW had had full discussions with COSLA, either. I believe from our discussions with its representatives that SASW was keen to have such discussions, but I do not have any update on those just now.

On the basis of the offer from Liam McArthur, I am inclined not to press my amendments in this group, as they need a wee bit of work. However, I would still like the principle of them to be embedded into the bill. I do not know that those that Liam McArthur has lodged go far enough to improve the safeguards, but I will work with him ahead of stage 3 to see whether there might be some sort of compromise position. Therefore, I seek to withdraw amendment 226.

Amendment 226, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 6—Medical practitioners’ assessments

Amendment 227 not moved.

Amendment 228 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

I am not sure what is happening. Can everybody hear me now?

Yes, thanks, convener. I apologise to you and the rest of the committee that I am not there in person for this meeting. Due to commitments with another committee, the best way to almost be in two places at once was to attend remotely, so thank you for allowing me to do that.

I will speak to amendments 226 and 233. I put on the record that, similar to the amendments that we discussed last week, these amendments have been worked up in collaboration with the Scottish Association of Social Work. The amendments are intended to strengthen the safeguards in the bill in relation to adults who might be vulnerable, lack capacity or be at risk of coercion or abuse. They do not seek to alter the principle or intention of the bill, but, rather, to ensure that any decision that is taken under the bill is fully informed and free from external pressure.

Amendment 226 would insert a new section after section 5 entitled “Indications of vulnerability”. The purpose of that new section is to ensure that,

“where a terminally ill adult makes a first declaration”,

the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner must check with the relevant local authority whether there are any indications from social work or adult protection records that the person might be vulnerable, lack capacity or be at risk of experiencing coercion or abuse.

Medical professionals are best placed to assess clinical capacity and consent, but they might not always have access to the wider social information that is held by local authorities. Local social work teams often have insight into whether an individual has previously been known to services or might have on-going vulnerabilities that are not immediately apparent in a clinical setting.

Under amendment 226, the local authority would have 48 hours to check its records and respond to the practitioner, either confirming that there were no known concerns or highlighting any matter requiring further assessment. If any concerns were raised, either by the local authority or indeed by a family member, friend or legal representative, a further assessment would have to be carried out within 14 days. Such an assessment, conducted by the relevant local authority, would make a recommendation on whether the individual could safely proceed under the bill or whether the process should be paused.

The approach draws on existing safeguarding practice established under legislation such as the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007, the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 and the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. In essence, it would ensure that the robust frameworks that are already in place for protecting adults at risk are properly integrated into this new and sensitive process. It is not about creating unnecessary bureaucracy, but about ensuring that all appropriate checks are made before any irreversible step is taken.

Amendment 233 would complement that by requiring that, when a co-ordinating medical practitioner considered whether to approve an assisted dying request, they would have to take into account any recommendation arising from that vulnerability assessment. It would tie the safeguarding process directly into the bill’s decision-making mechanism, ensuring that the professional assessing the declaration could not simply proceed without regard to the findings of a local authority review.

Taken together, the amendments aim to give greater confidence both to the public and to practitioners that every reasonable step has been taken to identify and address vulnerability. They reflect existing good practice in health and social care and have been developed following discussion with the professional Scottish Association of Social Work, as I said at the outset. Ultimately, this is about ensuring that any decision made under the legislation is truly autonomous, informed and unpressured. I believe that these amendments provide a proportionate and constructive way of achieving that, and I hope that colleagues will consider supporting them.

Finally, I know that it is difficult for people to intervene on someone who is online, so I will be listening to the points that people make in the debate. I apologise again for being online.

I move amendment 226.