Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do not feel that I know the answer but, with the amendments in this group, I am trying to ensure that patients and healthcare professionals who face this profound legal and ethical uncertainty, at what would be an extraordinarily difficult moment for everyone, have a clear line so that they know whether their actions are legal or illegal.

Families must also understand what the law permits. As Mr Kerr said, assistance must never become anything more than assistance. Patients could be placed at risk because the law offers no clear framework for how such a situation could and should be handled, and that is not how serious legislation should operate.

The amendments in the group highlight the wider concern and, alongside my colleagues, I have been presenting a series of amendments that would remove the legal ambiguity and provide certainty for doctors, carers, patients and families. I will press amendment 108.

There is a profound and dangerous omission in the bill: it is silent on what should happen if the lethal substance fails to end a person’s life. Section 19(3) offers immunity to those who assist a person in an attempt to end their own life in accordance with the legislation, but it provides no guidance on the limits of that protection. If a first attempt did not succeed, the law would be entirely unclear. Could a doctor intervene further without the risk of criminal liability, or would any subsequent action potentially be prosecutable? That is not a minor gap, and it would leave patients and healthcare professionals in legal and ethical uncertainty.

My amendments 108 and 109 attempt to address the ambiguity by specifying the boundaries of lawful protection. Amendment 108 would clarify that section 19(3) would apply only to assistance that was connected to the person’s original lawful request. It would explicitly exclude protection for any actions that were taken to complete a death once the initial attempt had begun. In other words, it would draw a line between lawful assistance and further intervention beyond the original request.

Even if my amendments are agreed to, the need for such clarification highlights the serious flaw in the bill. The current text fails to clearly define the scope of immunity, which could leave a potentially catastrophic gap. Doctors and carers could be left uncertain about their legal position in a situation in which a patient survived an initial attempt, and patients themselves might be exposed to risk, because the law offers no road map for managing a failed attempt.

It is a glaring example of how the bill, as drafted, is bad law. Legal protections must be precise, predictable and complete, especially in legislation authorising assistance in ending life. The fact that these amendments are necessary at all underscores the bill’s fundamental weakness. Instead of offering a coherent, safe and accountable framework, the bill leaves critical questions unanswered, creating both legal ambiguity and practical danger. On that measure, the bill fails. It does not provide clarity, it does not protect professionals and, more important, it does not safeguard patients. Its silence on failed attempts exposes an unacceptable and serious flaw.

I move amendment 108.

As we have heard, the issue in this group of amendments goes to heart of both the legal framework surrounding the bill and, frankly, the fundamental principles that underpin our criminal law.

In any other circumstance, taking a person’s life is a crime. Enabling or assisting a suicide is also a crime. Right now, our laws rightly contain strong protections to prevent anyone from encouraging, facilitating or enabling another person’s death. Those safeguards exist to protect the vulnerable and to ensure that the law remains firmly on the side of preserving life.

Stephen Kerr’s amendments have sought to reinforce the importance of those legal boundaries. Fergus Ewing’s amendments on lawful assistance would ensure a clear understanding of what lawful behaviour was and of the practical expectations in law. We have challenged Mr McArthur on his statement that the clinician would provide care and take steps to make the patient comfortable and on what would happen when the substance did not work, but I do not think that we have had that clarity from him today.

That is where my amendment and the other amendments in the group—

Frankly, yes, I agree, and law-abiding Scots across the country would also agree, and they would agree that free bus passes must be stripped from those who have used them as any excuse to act violently, whether they do so on a bus or whether they use their pass to travel to a location where they carry out antisocial behaviour and criminality at stations—bus or rail—retail venues or leisure facilities.

The Scottish Conservatives are on Scotland’s side and believe that any passenger who commits criminal or antisocial behaviour should automatically have their bus pass stripped from them. That is the least that passengers and bus drivers deserve. The SSI gets the ball rolling, but far more needs to be done to deliver safer buses for Scotland.

22:22

The bill is full of ambiguity, and there is not a lot of clarity in much of it. We need to ensure that patients who are perhaps considering an assisted death—which is not something that I would consider—are given the stark reality of what the process entails. I am sure that we will hear about some dignified deaths but not about the unpredictable reality of what administering those life-ending drugs might mean.

My amendments 213 and 215 to 217 address the ambiguity around self-administration. They would make it clear that no physical assistance may be provided at the point at which the substance is taken. Without clarity about that, there is a risk that what is described as assisted dying could in practice move close to clinician-administered euthanasia. The amendments attempt to protect the central claim made by the bill’s sponsor that the final act would be undertaken solely by the individual.

Amendments 99 and 100 deal with what would happen if the approved substance is not used. They would require the immediate securing, return or destruction of the drug, alongside written documentation. Given the potency of the substances, the bill should clearly address the risk of diversion, misuse or unsafe storage. On that point, I was pleased that one of Mr McArthur’s amendments in the previous group was not agreed to.

Amendments 106, 122 and 124 relate to reporting complications, because there will be complications. Provision of lethal medication in the NHS will place us in entirely new territory. If complications occur, particularly where distress or prolonged death is involved, it is vital that that information is recorded, analysed and reported to Parliament so that meaningful oversight is possible. We have to understand that people are individuals and that they all interact with and respond to drugs in unique ways.

Taken together, my amendments in the group highlight the number of practical and clinical questions that remain unresolved in the bill before us.

The deadline to lodge amendments was quite some time before that agreement. However, I am simply outlining the complexity of the legislation and its ramifications. I am not doubting what the cabinet secretary has been doing or what other members have said. I am here to sum up—I am trying my best to summarise what the debate has been about in the past two or three hours on this group alone.

I do not think that it is good enough that we are being asked to approve legislation on the basis of a hope that everything will simply fall into place. That is not the best way to make law, is it? It is not good enough, and I personally think that it is wholly unacceptable.

As I said at stage 1—I make no apology for repeating this point—one mistake in legislation is one mistake too many.

I am quite glad that we are not all clinicians, because I would be upset if we were not out there actually seeing patients, perhaps in a GP surgery or an out-patient clinic, which might make more of an impact on waiting lists. I know that that is perhaps a slight on your remarks, Mr Cole-Hamilton, but we are not all clinicians.

I am sorry. I would have taken an intervention if the member had jumped in a wee bit earlier.

I move amendment 90.

As members know, buses are central to Scotland’s transport network. Although most passengers just want to get on with their journey, it is clear to bus operators and other passengers that antisocial behaviour on our buses has been a growing problem for the past number of years. A small minority of disruptive passengers, whether they are aged under 22 or older, disrupt buses, commit verbal and physical assaults and put the safety of passengers and drivers at risk.

We all remember the tragic death of Keith Rollinson in February 2024. However, only a few weeks ago, the First Minister was unable to answer whether Rollinson’s killer would have had his bus pass removed under the Scottish statutory instrument that we are voting on tonight.

The Scottish Conservatives will support the SSI. However, although it is a step in the right direction, we believe that it does not go far enough. The fact that the minister, Jim Fairlie, had to appear before the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee twice to get the SSI passed demonstrates that.

Furthermore, the SNP’s plan to remove free bus travel from passengers who commit antisocial behaviour on buses is soft touch and full of loopholes, and it does not guarantee that criminals will have their bus passes removed.

I thank Ruth Maguire for that intervention, because these are not theoretical concerns, as we have heard time and again. There are fundamental questions about responsibility, legality and patient safety.

The fact that so many questions remain unsolved at this late stage should give every member pause for thought. I would like to know whether Mr McArthur agrees with the statement in the medical advisory group’s report that the doctor should be present to ensure that the patient dies peacefully, because we have heard about some rather unpeaceful deaths.

There are still too many what-ifs surrounding the bill. If Mr McArthur believes that raising such concerns amounts to hunting for reasons to oppose the bill, he is mistaken. These are legitimate and necessary questions that must be answered, given that we are dealing with a bill that would fundamentally change the role of the state, the medical profession and our approach to end of life.

For me, the uncertainties remain far too great, the safeguards remain far too unclear and the consequences remain far too profound. I urge colleagues across the chamber to think carefully as they vote on the amendments in this group.

I press amendment 90.