Chamber and committees

I am grateful for that.

I accept that there will be other significant differences in their legislative provisions and in the wider context, but you said that other jurisdictions that do not have such a timescale with regard to the diagnosis have seen a gradual increase in numbers, too. Are there any particular examples that you would cite in that respect, recognising that there will be other important contextual differences?

I totally understand why, if the bill were to be passed, there would need to be a transition period and a debate about how long that would be. I understand why the CMO, for example, would want it to be longer. However, that line of argument suggests that, at least initially, the system will not be able to meet demand, which would inevitably result in a significant amount of political pressure to increase funding to increase capacity.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of this particular proposal—I am genuinely undecided on the bill at this point—if the Parliament were to pass a law to give people the option of ending their own life, people would have an entirely reasonable expectation that they would be able to choose that option. If they were then to find that they could not choose it simply because the system lacked capacity for them to do so, that would quite understandably result in political pressure to increase funding to increase capacity. That leads me back to the core question on the financial memorandum, which is that costs might increase quicker than is projected, because there will be pressure to meet demand quicker.

Good morning—sorry, good afternoon. We have been here a while.

I will return to the timescale in the definition of terminal illness, because I did not quite follow your argument earlier, Liam. You project that the number of people who would choose an assisted death would start off small and then increase. That is based on the experience in Oregon and Victoria, but those jurisdictions have a definition of terminal illness that includes a timescale of six months or 12 months. At any given time, there is only a certain number of people with a terminal diagnosis that would see them likely to die within 12 months. Your proposal does not have that timescale.

My assumption would have been the opposite. If the bill were to pass, in the first year of people being able to access assisted dying, I assume that you would start off with a much larger number, being, for example, people with a prognosis that indicated that they might pass away in the next three to four years but who wanted to access assisted dying in case there came a point when they were no longer able to pass the capacity test. The number would therefore start off larger and might then decline for a couple of years before increasing again.

Will you talk us through why the projections are based on jurisdictions that have a definition that includes a timescale of six months, 12 months or, in another case, 18 months?

I have one other question on that. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that, in response to the convener’s initial line of questioning, you suggested that, in part, the ceiling on the number of people accessing assisted dying would be the capacity of and constraints on the system and the number of clinicians who are qualified, trained and willing to do it. Given that that is the case across a range of public services and entitlements that people have already, I found it somewhat strange that you were, in essence, arguing that the FM was based in part on an assumption that the system would not be able to meet demand. Will you elaborate on that a little? Is it that it might not be able to meet demand at least in the first few years?

Are there any examples of other jurisdictions that do not have a timescale but which are still quite similar to what you have proposed with regard to the definition of terminal illness, and which have seen a gradual increase rather than the inverse trend that has been suggested?

These amendments all relate to the duties of the relevant public authorities. I start with amendment 33. The current language in section 7 is that a relevant public authority

“must have regard to the desirability of—

(a) promoting, facilitating and supporting the use of the Gaelic language,

(b) developing and encouraging Gaelic culture.”

I think that “desirability” is too weak, frankly. The alternative wording that I propose is still caveated. It is:

“appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable”.

That is a more objective test than “desirability”. Desirable, to me, feels too subjective, because surely we are deciding that this is all broadly desirable, so the duties that we put in the bill should be about something that is a bit more objective and whether it is appropriate in the relevant public authority’s circumstances. We are the ones to decide on desirability here. The phrasing in the bill is a bit too weak for me, and with amendment 33, I propose replacing it with something more objective.

Amendment 54 is more substantive. It is about expanding to cover colleges, universities, ScotRail, the Caledonian sleeper and Scottish Water the obligations on public bodies that have existed since 2005 under the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005.

At the moment, there is ambiguity about whether colleges and universities are already covered by those obligations. If they are covered, the system is not working, because only a couple have effective Gaelic language plans, so it would be useful to clarify that.

The public companies—ScotRail, the Caley sleeper and particularly Scottish Water—are, in effect, public bodies for the purposes that we are talking about, so they should have the same obligations as other public bodies. That is the rationale for expanding the number of bodies that are covered by the provision in amendment 54.

The amendments are ultimately about teacher workload—an issue that the committee will be very familiar with, as it is a recurring theme in almost everything that we do. Teachers in GME schools face an additional and significant burden, because they have to do much of the work of translating materials that are produced in English by Education Scotland into Gaelic so that it is usable in their school settings. Education Scotland does some work, but, according to feedback that I have received from GME teachers, it is not routine enough.

We recognise the unsustainable workload across the teaching profession and it is only appropriate that we recognise the particularly acute additional workload pressures that GME teachers face. Amendment 61 in relation to Gaelic, and amendment 75 in relation to Scots, would simply put a duty on Education Scotland to consider whether any material that it produces in English should also be produced in Gaelic and Scots. They would not require it to do that in all instances—there will, of course, be instances where that is not necessary—but the amendments clarify that Education Scotland needs to take that matter into consideration. As far as I am concerned, Education Scotland has much more capacity to engage in that kind of work than a classroom teacher in a GME school does. That is the rationale behind the amendments.

I move amendment 61.

I am grateful for the debate on this group, and I am grateful to Emma Roddick for lodging amendment 34 and to Jackie Dunbar for explaining the rationale behind it.

For the sake of simplicity in relation to whether members should support amendment 34 or amendment 33, I am happy not to press amendment 33. However, I intend to move amendments 54 and 68, which the cabinet secretary supports.

Amendment 33, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 34 moved—[Jackie Dunbar]—and agreed to.

Amendments 35 and 80 moved—[Ross Greer]—and agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8—Reporting on Gaelic language strategy, standards and duties

Amendment 36 moved and agreed to.

Amendment 37 moved—[Michael Marra].

These amendments all relate to the duties of the relevant public authorities. I start with amendment 33. The current language in section 7 is that a relevant public authority

“must have regard to the desirability of—

(a) promoting, facilitating and supporting the use of the Gaelic language,

(b) developing and encouraging Gaelic culture.”

I think that “desirability” is too weak, frankly. The alternative wording that I propose is still caveated. It is:

“appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable”.

That is a more objective test than “desirability”. Desirable, to me, feels too subjective, because surely we are deciding that this is all broadly desirable, so the duties that we put in the bill should be about something that is a bit more objective and whether it is appropriate in the relevant public authority’s circumstances. We are the ones to decide on desirability here. The phrasing in the bill is a bit too weak for me, and with amendment 33, I propose replacing it with something more objective.

Amendment 54 is more substantive. It is about expanding to cover colleges, universities, ScotRail, the Caledonian sleeper and Scottish Water the obligations on public bodies that have existed since 2005 under the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005.

At the moment, there is ambiguity about whether colleges and universities are already covered by those obligations. If they are covered, the system is not working, because only a couple have effective Gaelic language plans, so it would be useful to clarify that.

The public companies—ScotRail, the Caley sleeper and particularly Scottish Water—are, in effect, public bodies for the purposes that we are talking about, so they should have the same obligations as other public bodies. That is the rationale for expanding the number of bodies that are covered by the provision in amendment 54.

I understand the Scottish Government’s perspective and the need to strike a balance, particularly for a relatively small public body. However, given the reason why we are debating the matter and the urgency of the situation, is there any scope for compromise at stage 3 to allow a reasonable level of discretion for the bòrd but perhaps set a minimum timescale—not necessarily a year, but perhaps no less than every two or three years? Would the Government be amenable to an amendment that would at least set a minimum standard?

I move amendment 38.