Seòmar agus comataidhean

Clearly, I am disappointed that Liam McArthur is not persuaded by the need for consistency and using the GMC definition of coercion, which is mentioned in the member’s policy memorandum but does not appear in the bill. My amendment 139 seeks to place that in the bill. Will Mr McArthur outline to me what is wrong with the GMC definition of coercion? It seems to be suitable for almost all other areas.

Elena Whitham said that she is not minded to support a six-month prognosis at this stage but indicated that, as the debate goes on, she could be persuaded otherwise. I point out that the next group of amendments, on eligibility, gives her the opportunity to do just that, because it contains an amendment on a six-month prognosis. I draw members’ attention to that, because there are two ways of approaching the issue, and they are not mutually exclusive.

Daniel Johnson’s amendment 4 would change the definition of terminal illness, and there is merit in that. We can also change the qualifying criteria, which is what my amendments in the next group seek to do. For the purposes of the debate on amendment 4 in this group, I should put on record paragraph 32 of the policy memorandum, which states:

“It is not the intention that people suffering from a progressive disease/illness/condition which is not at an advanced stage but may be expected to cause their death (but which they may live with for many months/years) would be able to access assisted dying.”

That seeks to strike a balance, but that balance does not appear in the bill. Daniel Johnson’s amendment 4 seeks to strike that balance in the bill.

There is a disconnect between the policy memorandum and what is contained in the bill. I will say more when I speak to my amendments in the next group.

I thank Patrick Harvie for that insightful intervention. I note that the bill takes quite a broad, permissive attitude in relation to where assisted dying can take place as long as the relevant procedures are followed. Therefore, I seek to bring in regulations that might decide whether it is or is not appropriate for a place to carry out such functions, even if there were to be a stand-alone body. It is important to consider whether an NHS facility or a care home that is run by the public sector could be used. We must also consider anything that might come up in relation to what best practice would look like and whether the process should be inspected when an institution is involved.

My amendment 128 is deliberately broad, Mr Harvie, and, having listened to what you said, I think that that remains the right approach. I will certainly move the amendment. However, given that it is so broad, I might hope to persuade the committee to agree to it at this stage by perhaps suggesting that there should be a super-affirmative process rather than an affirmative process, in order to get full buy-in and ensure that we look through all the possible permutations. As I said, the amendment is deliberately broad because the provisions in the bill are deliberately permissive. One complements—or counterbalances—the other in my view.

I will say a little about the other amendments in the group, particularly Murdo Fraser’s amendment 148, which seeks to set up a designated statutory body outwith the NHS that would be responsible for pretty much all aspects of assisted dying. We have heard some of the rationale for that body from Mr Fraser. As we go forward, we will have to tease out whether the NHS would still have a role and what the inspection and oversight of that body would look like, as well as whether NHS staff and buildings could still be used on a contractual basis. Much more information is required on that amendment. We also need to know how concerns could be raised regarding the operation of the new body’s functions and its carrying out of its responsibilities.

Jackie Baillie’s amendment 62 appears to have a similar policy intent to my amendment 128. It would require the Scottish Government to make regulations about the provision of assisted dying when that takes place outwith the NHS, including in relation to a role for Healthcare Improvement Scotland and the Care Inspectorate. Unlike Ms Baillie’s amendment, mine would make explicit provision for the raising of concerns, if I have captured that correctly. However, there appear to be no pre-emptions, so it appears that committee members do not need to choose between our amendments.

I will turn to Fulton MacGregor’s amendment 256. Actually, I will not progress to that at the moment, Pr—convener; I nearly upgraded you to Presiding Officer—but will rest my comments there, because of the time.

Will the member give way?

I say to Elena Whitham that the point about short timescales brings us back to prognosis issues. The member in charge of the bill and the committee are not really compelled by the arguments on including a timescale for a prognosis of death and fast-tracking the process.

I have later amendments on palliative care. I do not believe that there are safeguards on such care in the bill currently. Having a general discussion on palliative care is not a sufficient safeguard and—

I would say to any individual—those who are very supportive of Mr McArthur’s intentions with this legislation and others who are deeply concerned—that the Parliament needs to make legislation for everyone in society. Whether the bill goes on to the statute books or not, there will be many people who are deeply disappointed, worried and concerned. I do not envy Mr Gulhane’s committee’s challenge. It must take a balanced approach to find the correct legislative position on this. There are no easy answers, and I do not pretend that there are.

My proposed addition to the list of criteria in section 3(1) would have the effect that a person is eligible to be lawfully provided with assistance to end their own life only if they have a prognosis of six months or less to live. As we have heard from other members, I, too, do not pretend that any of this is easy, and it is clear that there are challenges regarding any timeframe for a prognosis. However, I firmly believe that having a timeframe is preferable to leaving the matter completely open ended.

I respectfully say to Mr McArthur that I do not agree with how that has been framed. In the stage 1 debate, I raised the issue of palliative care, as many other members did. At the subsequent meeting of the cross-party group on palliative care, I did not see members rushing to the CPG to declare their absolute support for how we expand all that. That simply did not happen.

Talking about assisted dying has caused many members to suddenly realise that we should be talking openly and honestly—perhaps on a cross-party basis—about the fact that much more has to happen on palliative care, including discussing how it should be resourced and the choices that we have to make as a Parliament and as parties within that Parliament. All that has been raised because the bill has been introduced, but it should never have been thus, Mr McArthur; we should all have been interested in palliative care, which has merits in its own right, irrespective of whether there is a bill on assisted dying. However, I absolutely acknowledge that talking about this issue is shining a light on palliative care. Passage of the bill is not required to secure additional funding for such care, but I acknowledge Mr McArthur’s point.

The final thing that I will say, given that Jeremy Balfour’s amendments in this group relate to vulnerabilities and capacity, is that, later, we will consider a group about vulnerable adults, at which time we can look more at coercion, vulnerabilities and individuals who are at risk. That might be a more appropriate point to have that conversation on a more rounded basis. I have no other reflections.

You are very popular this morning, Mr McArthur. I get the issues with having a timeframe in relation to prognosis. However, would Mr McArthur also accept that there are significant issues with having no timeframe at all and that wording such as “advanced”, “progressive”, “unable to recover” and

“reasonably be expected to cause their premature death”

could also all be seen to be very broad brush strokes? Where does the member sit between the open, broad-brush-stroke approach that is in the bill and the efforts to be more narrow and specific in the various amendments that we are discussing today, including my set of amendments in the group?

I appreciate the exchange between Mr McMillan and Mr McArthur. It is important that Mr McArthur says that he wants to align with the GMC guidance as it is. If Mr McMillan decides not to move his amendments, one solution would be to put the GMC guidance—we all agree that it is the correct guidance—in the bill in order to give the certainty that is required, rather than finding a workaround. If the definition exists, why not put it in the bill and apply it?

Primarily, I want to reassure Mr McArthur, notwithstanding his lack of support for my set of amendments, that the commencement order was not intended to cause any undue delay. Those were not wrecking amendments in the slightest. The underlying principle that I adhere to here is that we should decide what regulation looks like and bring it into force before assisted dying begins. Therefore, it is a sequential amendment rather than a blocking amendment. That is an important point to make.