Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our next item is consideration of the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. I welcome Liz Smith MSP, the member in charge of the bill, and her supporting officials. I also welcome Jeremy Balfour MSP, who has amendments, and the Minister for Children, Young People and the Promise, along with her supporting officials. The officials seated at the table are here to support the member in charge and the minister, but are not able to speak in the debate on amendments. Members should therefore direct their comments or questions to Ms Smith or to the minister.

Before I begin, I will briefly explain the procedure that we will be following this morning. The amendments to the bill that have been lodged have been grouped together, and there will be one debate on each group of amendments. I will call the member who lodged the first amendment in a group to speak to and move that amendment and to speak to all other amendments in the group. I will then call any other members who have lodged amendments in that group. Members who have not lodged amendments in the group but who wish to speak should catch my attention. If the member in charge of the bill has not already spoken on the group, I will then invite her to contribute to the debate. The debate on each group will be concluded by me inviting the member who moved the first amendment in the group to wind up.

Following debate on each group, I will check whether the member who moved the first amendment in the group wishes to press it to a vote or to withdraw it. If they wish to press ahead, I will put the question on that amendment. If a member wishes to withdraw their amendment after it has been moved, they must seek agreement of other members to do so. If any member present objects, the committee immediately moves to the vote on the amendment. If any member does not want to move their amendment when called, they should say “not moved”. Please note that any other member present may move such an amendment. If no one moves an amendment, I will immediately call the next amendment on the marshalled list.

Only committee members are allowed to vote. Voting in any division is by a show of hands, and it is important that members keep their hands clearly raised until the clerks have recorded their vote. The committee is also required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed each section of the bill, so I will put the question on each section at the appropriate time.

Section 1—Provision of residential outdoor education

Amendment 15, in the name of Liz Smith, is grouped with amendments 3, 11, 4, 17, 5, 12 and 22 to 25. I point out that, if amendment 17 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 5, 12 and 22 to 24, due to pre-emption.

I have a relevant registered interest, so I was not allowed.

I understand the desire for privacy, but does Liam McArthur accept that international experience is that there have been instances in which people have not died as a result of the substance being used or have suffered significant complications? A person being in the same building does not mean that they are in the same room. A medical professional can provide privacy by standing well back while being present in the room and able to intervene if required.

I have lodged amendment 179 to highlight and address one of the most disturbing assumptions that is at the heart of the bill, as articulated by other members who have lodged amendments in the group, which is the belief that every death will be swift, smooth and certain. That will not be the case; we know that from international experience in countries such as Canada and the Netherlands, as other members have said.

In countries where assisted dying is legal, there have been cases where substances have failed to bring about death as expected; people have regained consciousness and have suffered for hours, and have endured distressing complications such as choking, vomiting or prolonged pain. I do not believe that anyone who supports the bill wants that to happen, but it is the reality.

Under the bill as introduced, no medical professional will be required to remain in the room when a substance has been taken. If the death does not occur, the person will be left alone, frightened, vulnerable and in pain, with no qualified person to intervene. Amendment 179 seeks to address that. It would require a medical professional to remain present until death occurs or until it is clear that the substance has failed to take effect.

Even for those who support assisted dying, that is surely the minimum of decency. If the Parliament sanctions the deliberate ending of a life, it must take responsibility for what happens if the process fails. I do not support the bill—I oppose it in principle, as I believe that it will place unbearable moral and practical burdens on individuals, families and our health service. However, if it is to proceed, it cannot do so under the false comfort that every death will be peaceful, because we know that that will not be the case. My amendment 179 is about facing the truth, which is that death might not come and suffering might follow, and that the state has a duty not to look away. For those reasons, I encourage members to support it.

As the convener alluded to, I will speak to amendments 126 and 188, in the name of my colleague Stephen Kerr, who apologises for not being able to be here. I will read his words, so bear with me.

The amendments address a critical gap in the bill, which is the absence of any statutory requirement to record and report what happens when an assisted death takes place. At present, the bill assumes that every death will proceed as planned, swiftly and without complication. However, that assumption does not align with the evidence that we have seen from areas where assisted dying has been legal for some time—in particular Canada and the Netherlands, where there have been documented instances of complications during administration, delays before death occurred and unexpected physical reactions, as well as distress for those who are dying and the professionals who are present. If Scotland is to legislate in this profoundly serious area, we must do so with our eyes open, guided by evidence of what has happened elsewhere.

Therefore, amendment 126 seeks to ensure that the final statement required under schedule 4 to the bill records two specific pieces of information: first, the time that elapses between the administration of the approved substance and a person’s death and, secondly, any complications that have occurred or have been observed during the procedure. That information should not sit in a drawer.

Amendment 188 complements amendment 126 by requiring that the information be included in the annual report prepared under section 26 of the bill. In other words, Parliament and the public should be able to see transparently, year by year, what has actually occurred under this legislation.

The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s stage 1 report acknowledged the issues of information reporting and review and suggested that the provisions might require to be strengthened at stage 2 to ensure appropriate detail and transparency. The amendments from Stephen Kerr would directly meet that recommendation. They do not challenge the principle of the bill but insist that if Parliament chooses to legislate for assisted dying, it must also commit to rigorous, honest monitoring of the real-world outcomes.

This is not a partisan matter; it is about integrity in law making. If the bill is to command public trust, it must be built on full disclosure and a willingness to learn from experience. Transparency is the foundation of public confidence. Recording what happens at the point of death is not morbid bureaucracy; it is an essential safeguard that would ensure that the law operates safely, humanely and truthfully.

If the bill is passed, it will touch on the most sensitive boundary of human life and medical ethics. It must therefore be governed by truth, not by assumption, and by evidence, not by expectation. For those reasons, I, and Stephen Kerr, urge members to support amendments 126 and 188, which are modest, reasonable and necessary proposals that would strengthen accountability, uphold honesty and protect the integrity of our law.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to amendments 129, 201, 130, 204, 131, 132, 205, 206 and 218, in Stephen Kerr’s name, which collectively seek to strengthen transparency, accountability and parliamentary oversight in the operation of the bill.

The amendments focus on three interrelated objectives—ensuring that reporting is evidence-based and complete, that reviews are meaningful and inclusive, and that the Parliament retains a firm focus and control of such a grave and irreversible policy.

Amendment 129 would expand the requirement for annual reporting to include aggregated data

“drawn from final statements under section 16”

—specifically,

“the average and range of time ... between provision of the approved substance and death and the nature and frequency of any complications recorded”.

Those details are not mere statistics. They are the only way Parliament can judge whether the law, if enacted, truly achieves what it claims to achieve—a swift, humane and safe end of life for those who choose it.

Amendments 201 and 204 to 206 clarify and tighten the framework for periodic reviews by requiring that each review be distinct, regular and informed by appropriate consultation. Amendment 206, in particular, shortens the review cycle from five years to two, recognising that the early years of operation will be crucial in detecting any problems or unintended consequences. These are not bureaucratic exercises, but acts of vigilance.

Amendments 130 to 132 ensure that those most affected by the operation of the act—hospices, palliative care providers, faith-based and charitable organisations and advocacy bodies—are consulted and protected. Amendment 130 explicitly requires reporting to be carried out on whether any hospice or institution has experienced direct or indirect pressure, whether financial, regulatory or reputational, to participate in assisted dying. It also asks whether the quality or availability of palliative care has been affected and whether further safeguards are needed to protect conscience, ethics and institutional independence.

Finally, amendment 218 introduces a sunset or continuation clause to ensure that the Parliament returns to review and reauthorise the legislation after a defined period. A law that changes the relationship between medicine and mortality cannot simply be left to drift; it must be re-earned through evidence and accountability.

These amendments in Stephen Kerr’s name do not undermine the purpose of the bill; instead, they dignify it. If Parliament chooses to legislate for assisted dying, it must also choose to face, without evasion, the full reality of what follows—the data, the consequences and the moral responsibilities. I therefore commend the amendments in Stephen Kerr’s name to the committee as essential instruments of transparency, integrity and parliamentary control.

I would usually call that a politician’s answer, but I suppose that that is allowed from a politician. The point that I am trying to get at—I am speaking from the experience of my own member’s bill—is that there is an opportunity here for the Government, in that there is a period when it can take on a non-Government bill if it supports it. Was there any discussion that the Government could take the bill over from you?

Thank you. We have come to the end of the committee’s questions. Mr Johnson, is there anything else that you want to put on the record ahead of our stage 1 report?

Thank you for that opening statement, Mr Johnson.

I will start there, because I asked a number of our witnesses about the very point that you ended on: why do I, as a father of two young boys, constantly get updates that they have tripped in the playground and so on, while we have witnesses and written testimony—through both your own, and the committee’s, calls for evidence—telling us that parents whose children have been restrained or secluded are never informed?

Quite often, parents know that something has happened, because their child’s behaviour has changed significantly between their going to school in the morning and their coming home. However, because of some of their own problems, the child cannot express that themselves. For those children, it is even more important that interventions are recorded and reported and that parents are informed.

Why is that not happening? In your deliberations on the bill, have you found any reason why that is not happening at the moment?

You detail very well the history of getting to this point. You also call restraint and seclusion a very serious intervention. Given how serious this is and how much history there is, including the campaigning by Beth Morrison, Kate Sanger and others, why has it taken so long, and a member who is not in Government, to introduce this bill? Should we have been at this point before now? Why are we here in 2025 and not years earlier?