Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am wondering whether you have had discussions with Thornton about transitional arrangements, given—

It would be useful if, when you do that, you could drop us a line to let us know the outcome of those discussions.

There are no examples of the requirement to notify the EHRC in other legislation. Is there a possibility that that approach could become more common in future in other areas? If so, what impact would that have?

My amendments say that there should be a palliative care plan. They do not insist that the person take up that palliative care; they are simply about having a plan for palliative care. Discussing palliative care is totally different. A lot of my constituents have discussions about palliative care. Often, they are told, “What you want to happen won’t happen, because we don’t have the ability to do that.” However, having a plan in place is a guarantee to somebody that what they want will happen. Putting a plan in place gives them a choice, rather than their simply having a discussion and being told, “It’s unlikely to happen for you”.

I will speak to my amendments 25, 30 and 31. Amendment 25 would ensure that, in order to be eligible for assisted dying, a person must first

“have an anticipatory care plan ... which includes ... palliative care”.

Amendments 30 and 31 are consequential. Amendment 30 would include a statement to that effect in the assessment statement, and amendment 31 would include a statement to that effect in the second declaration.

It is important to put on record that I do not support the bill, and I have concerns that, should it become law, people will opt for assisted dying due to a fear of having little support at the end of their lives. Amendment 25 would ensure that they have in place an anticipatory care plan that includes a palliative care plan. That would empower people who are coming towards the end of their lives to plan ahead and to ensure that they have control over the care that they will receive at the end of their lives. If they choose to go ahead with assisted dying, they will, at the very least, have had all the options explained to them and laid out in detail.

I also believe that these amendments would ensure that those who fear the future and what may lie ahead will have information about that and will have input into the care that they receive. That would mean that every decision is informed, and no one should feel pressure to access assisted dying for fear of how they may die without the full knowledge of an anticipatory care plan.

I see my amendments as providing better protection. I have personal knowledge from looking at end-of-life care for relatives and from representing constituents who are in that position. I know that it is incredibly difficult to get a proper palliative care plan in place. I have had constituents who simply cannot get one, despite crying out for it and wanting it in place. I also know, from personal experience, that getting such a plan to hang together is very difficult. That, at the end of life, would cause fear to people about what lies ahead of them. At least if a plan is laid out and they know that that is what they are going to get towards the end of their life, they can make an informed decision about what they want to do. At the moment, a right to palliative care does not exist. My amendments would at least provide such a plan for people towards the end of life.

I will—I had actually just finished.

That brings me back to the previous crofting legislation. Prior to the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, the commission used to have a crofting development role, which was taken off it and passed to HIE. It seems to me that the people Donna Smith was talking about, out on the ground, were not only looking to see what was right and wrong; they were also advising people, working with communities and pointing them in the right direction for developing and growing their business. There was an education role as well as a development role.

When that role was taken away, I thought that it was perhaps a backward step. Should that role be resurrected for the commission to do? The commission is closer to the crofting communities. Sandra Holmes is here from HIE, and it would be interesting to hear from her, given her experience as a crofter, her experience in HIE and her knowledge of what the commission used to do. I am putting Sandra on the spot, which is perhaps not very fair, given that she is employed by HIE.

We know that there are issues with common grazings where the grazing share has come adrift from the croft. The bill tries to deal with that, but does it do so properly or does it need to go further?

The other issue is the use of common grazings. We have touched on use for environmental purposes, for example, but we have not really talked about who owns the carbon rights on common grazings. I am keen to get your views on whether the bill deals with issues around common grazings or whether it needs a lot more amendments. Donna Smith is smiling, so we will start with her.

Is there an issue with diversification and the fact that people are growing vegetables or whatever in that they are moving away from having animals and are not using their common grazing share?