Seòmar agus comataidhean

The clerks have passed me a wee note, given that I was unsure about what the evidence from the office of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner said and did not want to misrepresent it.

The evidence said:

“’Wellbeing’ is a relative concept ... and challenging to define in law.”

The commissioner recommends

“embedding a human rights-based approach across public authorities.”

I make no comment on that; I just put it on the record because I cast a bit of doubt about what the commissioner had said.

I was not going to say, “That’s outrageous, it is actually 132—how dare you mislead the committee?” That is not why I asked what the number was. I asked because that is a lot of bodies for a commissioner to scrutinise, hold to account, investigate, look at, monitor and so on. If this is not mainstreamed and made part of the day job of those bodies with an existing oversight role—I know that you think that there is a gap there—we could create quite a substantial bureaucracy in relation to a new commissioner. Can you see that that might be a concern?

I am very supportive of Mr Briggs’s amendment 195. Fundamentally, however, one of my issues with the proposed legislation is that it could change that doctor-patient relationship. Not being compelled to raise assisted dying is an important protection.

Mr Briggs, clearly you do not want to restrict GPs from being able to raise assisted dying if they feel that it is appropriate, but should GPs be exploring palliative care options, pain management and social care provision that could be improved before they raise the subject of assisted dying? At what point during the conversation should GPs raise it, or should that simply be left to their professional judgment?

I chair the cross-party group on palliative care in the Scottish Parliament, and the amendments that I have lodged have come from working in partnership with the Scottish Partnership on Palliative Care.

I would stress to Jackie Baillie and to Liam McArthur that the case for more strategic, structural funding that is embedded in palliative care and the hospice movement in general is absolutely core to the civilised society that we all want to see, irrespective of whether the Parliament passes the bill.

Does Jackie Baillie agree that, although there is a variance of views about whether palliative care will be enhanced or undermined by the bill, the bottom line is that we should support palliative care and our hospices, irrespective of this proposed legislation?

I press amendment 117, convener.

Will the member take an intervention?

To make sure that I do not conflate Mr McMillan’s amendments with my own, let me start off with Mr McMillan’s amendments 184 and 187. I make a point that is similar to Mr Harvie’s when he spoke to Ross Greer’s amendments earlier: the words that I am using are Mr McMillan’s views rather than my own—some of them I agree with; others, perhaps not, but let us see how that goes.

The bill gives responsibility for approving substances to be used in assisted dying to the Scottish Government ministers. That sounds simple but, in practice, it creates two serious problems. First, if the ministers of the day are opposed to assisted dying, they could entirely frustrate the operation of the law by approving no substances at all.

The second and more concerning problem is that if substances are approved, the bill contains no mechanism to ensure that they are safe, effective or humane. International experience has shown us the dangers of that omission. It is contended that, in other jurisdictions, poorly monitored substances have led to choking, vomiting, pulmonary complications and tragically prolonged deaths, lasting many hours or even days. Parliament cannot, in good conscience, legislate for assisted dying while leaving the safety of such substances to ministerial discretion alone.

Amendment 187 establishes a framework for proper oversight and accountability. It requires that any substance approved for use under the act must receive parliamentary approval and renewal every three years. Before renewal, ministers would be required to lay a detailed report before Parliament on the safety, side effects and on-going suitability of those substances. In addition, amendment 184 would require co-ordinating registered medical practitioners to record and report any complications or deviations from the expected outcome.

Those amendments would ensure that the Parliament, and not ministers alone, retains responsibility for the integrity of the process. They would also ensure that, where substances have caused unnecessary suffering, action is taken quickly and transparently.

In the light of the reporting and better understanding of the safety of the drugs involved that would be ensured through amendment 184, amendment 187 would require Parliament to undertake a review after three years to ensure that the drugs are being used safely and effectively and that side effects are properly understood and monitored. That is vital to ensuring that deaths are not lingering, painful or distressing for the patient or their families.

From research in other countries, and as the committee heard at stage 1 and last week, the drugs used are potent and can have significant side effects. Monitoring their impact is the only responsible course of action for a Parliament that cares about how the legislation will work in practice. Allowing the Parliament to review after three years would give us the safeguards that we need to ensure that the legislation is working as intended.

Those are the comments from Mr McMillan in relation to amendments 184 and 187.

Do you wish me to move on to my comments, convener?

Unfortunately, Mr McArthur, you will be taking a lot of amendments from me during this stage 2 process.

My intervention is in relation to death happening “within a reasonable period” and the challenges in how we would arrive at that conclusion. Surely to goodness, if someone has ingested a substance and three hours have passed—and then four or five hours pass—there must be some guidance for the medical professional on when and how they should intervene and what powers they have to do it. I will say more about that when I get to my amendments, but there must, surely to goodness, be some kind of framework for medical professionals to operate within.

As keen as I am, I will not move amendment 121.

Amendment 121 not moved.

Amendment 169 moved—[Brian Whittle].

Thank you for reflecting on my heroic efforts this morning. [Laughter.] At this point, I should put on the record that I agree with Brian Whittle, who said that he cannot imagine a situation in which a clinician would raise the option of assisted dying. My view, however, is that to absolutely bar clinicians from doing so would be an undue restriction, which is why I think that the issue is a bit nuanced.

Liam McArthur and Miles Briggs mentioned a framework. The amendments in my name that we discussed this morning were designed to create such a framework but, unfortunately, none of those held sway with the committee. I hope that the exchange that we are having opens the space to include a framework in the bill at stage 3, as it is absolutely required. How does Mr McArthur feel about that?