Seòmar agus comataidhean

I support the amendments that have been lodged by Jackie Baillie, which have the support of the Royal College of Nursing. We must have clarity on roles. The final provision of the substance is particularly sensitive. It is also important that we have clarity about not only the role of the registered medical practitioner but those of other medical professionals and in what combination those roles take place. The role of nurses and the points about accompaniment and supervision are very important.

I voted for the bill at stage 1 on the basis of the principle that people should have bodily autonomy, and because the bill is very much about people whose death is imminent and enabling them to make the final decision and to carry out the final act.

That last point is very important to me, which is why I have lodged amendment 10. Although I note the intent of the legislation and what is set out in the policy memorandum, I am concerned that there is not sufficient clarity that the final act will be that of the individual. My amendment seeks to specify that, for similar reasons to those that Marie McNair pointed out.

Throughout the discussion, great care has been taken about the language—whether this is assisted dying or suicide—and the bill very much rejects any notion that this could be viewed as euthanasia. I understand that. Those are important distinctions. It is important that this is about enabling someone to act for themselves and do this to themselves. It cannot be about enabling an act in which one person is administering a substance to another.

There is a big difference between enabling someone to end their life and enabling others to end others’ lives. One is about enabling one’s own death. The other is, quite simply—as a matter of moral distinction—killing another person. I use that word advisedly because there is an important moral distinction. It is easy in these settings to highlight the complexity and say that, in practical terms, there are not necessarily those distinctions, but the moral differences are important.

I also think that, practically, it is essential that an individual has the ability to withdraw their consent to ending their own life up until the very final moment, which is why self-administration is so important. My amendment seeks to clarify that, because there are also sensitivities about a person’s physical capacity to undertake that.

The amendment specifies that the act would be for the individual to carry out, and specifies that the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner may

“prepare that substance for use by the adult ... prepare a medical device which will enable the adult to use the substance”

and assist the adult for the final ingestion of the substance.

My amendment further clarifies that, those points notwithstanding, the final decision must be made by the individual themselves and, further, that the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner may not administer the approved substance to the individual directly.

Those are important clarifications that state clearly and specifically what the bill would authorise. As I have stated, I think that it is important that we have that moral clarity and that moral distinction, but, ultimately, it is vital that it is the individual’s choice and that they can withdraw their consent right up until the final moment. That is the reason for my amendment 10.

I wonder whether Brian Whittle would agree with me that there are two fundamental points here. First, it is important that safeguards are put in place, especially where those issues have been raised by the people who would be delivering the bill. Secondly, as we proceed, given the sensitivity of the issues, we have to be seen to be providing those safeguards. Those are two very important purposes. The second point is about providing strong signals and clarifying principles that we want to see if the bill is to be enacted safely with the confidence of the people who we are going to ask to deliver it. I wonder whether Mr Whittle would agree with those two distinct points.

Forgive me, convener. I move amendment 7.

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 7, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 112 not moved.

I will be speaking to three sets of amendments in this group. Amendments 260, 282 and 286 are in Michael Marra’s name, amendments 18 and 19 are in my name, as are amendments 271, 272, 14 and 15. I should say at this point that I have spoken to more amendments in my colleagues’ names than I have in my own. Members should intimate to them rather than to me whether that has been effective—it would be simply upsetting if they did so directly.

Michael Marra lodged amendment 260 with a view to the resource implications of implementation of the bill. The amendment is modelled on amendments that have been tabled in the Lords to Kim Leadbeater’s bill, which is proceeding through Westminster. The aim is to ensure that there is robust financial oversight and scrutiny before the act is implemented.

As we have seen throughout stage 2, should the bill pass into law, it will establish a number of duties, considerations and undertakings in respect of the many individuals and services that might be involved. Members are also very much aware that those self-same services are not always overburdened with finances and resources. Indeed, in many cases, they are stretched. It is therefore important that we look at what the impacts will be on public services, such as the health service, local government and social services. Amendment 260 seeks to establish those duties for making those assessments and for the Government to provide a report on the findings of that review. Amendments 282 and 286 are consequential to amendment 280.

Amendments 18 and 19 seek to set up a commission to provide oversight of the implementation of the bill, were it to become an act. Again, there has been much discussion about what it is right and proper to put in the bill and to what extent things should be left to practice, procedure, training and guidance. Quite rightly, many of those details are a matter of judgment and practice and it is right that much of the implementation should be left to that sort of approach.

However, as has just been alluded to, the bill is not a normal bill and it is not normal public policy. Some of the detail, subtlety and nuance is incredibly important. We in this place know that scrutinising, let alone amending, anything that is in the form of guidance or secondary legislation is incredibly difficult. Amendment 18 would therefore require the setting up of a cross-party commission, to sit independently, that would provide oversight and guidance to Government when it is drawing those things up. It would not provide a veto, but it would provide a mechanism whereby there is oversight of those important details in the legislation, which is particularly sensitive in that regard.

My amendments 271, 272, 14 and 15 relate to the creation of a sunset clause. I note that the committee recommended that such a sunset clause should be considered during the amending stages of the bill. I think that it should be an important feature of the bill. I do not normally have much time for thin-end-of-the-wedge arguments, but it is very important that, in such important legislation, we provide some guarantees to people that, should a situation arise where the legislation ends up leading to unforeseen circumstances or expanding in ways that we had not intended when passing it, there is an emergency break, or in other words, a release valve.

That said, I was not entirely clear on precisely what length of time would be appropriate. The original amendment 14 sets a time period of five years, but I recognise that that might be too short, so I have tried to create a set of options for the committee. In terms of sequencing, amendment 271, which provides the option of a sunset clause set at 15 years, should be taken first; followed by amendment 272, which would set it at 10 years; and then finally by amendment 14, which would set it at five years. Amendment 15 would apply the affirmative procedure, in other words, that there would have to be a Parliamentary vote in order for the legislation to continue. That would be a one-off decision by the Parliament; it would not reoccur or repeat. I hope that it would provide the Parliament with the ability to have a say, to ensure that what was intended is what has come into effect, and to provide reassurance to people who have concerns about what effect the bill might end up having in future years. I will close my remarks there.

My bill is not prescriptive on precisely how those figures would be reported. It is important to point out that collection would take place at local authority level. Local authorities would be required to provide those figures to Scottish ministers, and it would be up to Scottish ministers how the data would be provided.

Let us be clear about what the definitions would and would not do. It would not be appropriate to put that level of specificity in the bill. The definitions are there to provide a scope of behaviours within which we must have guidance, and it is for the guidance to provide such level of clarity about when seclusion is seclusion and when it is not.

Let us also be clear about what the definition specifies. Seclusion is about putting a child in a space that is separate from other children in such a way that they do not have the choice as to whether to stay in that space. The definition makes that relatively clear. It is not just about a child being brought to the front of a class or put to a corner; it is about separating them from other children and putting them in a separate room from which they cannot remove themselves. That may not be natural language, but it is pretty clear. As a matter of practice, the guidance needs to start zooming in and narrowing in not just on how a decision gets made but on what is the appropriate form of seclusion.

Let us also be clear that seclusion is quite serious. If any of us were to be placed in a room that we could not remove ourselves from and where we were separated from other people, it would be clear that that would be a deprivation of liberty. We know that that practice is going on. From the various reports that the various organisations have provided, we know that there are children who have found themselves, on more than one occasion, put in cupboards, and in such a way that they cannot remove themselves.

Does the wording in the bill provide absolute precision? No, it does not, nor should it. The definition is a matter for guidance, and I would absolutely expect there to be such guidance. However, what is specified in the bill is something that we would all agree is quite a serious situation.

I believe that it should be reported on at local authority level, because reporting in more detail than that would be problematic for two reasons. First, we would not want school-by-school information, for exactly the reasons that have been outlined. Secondly, I hope that the numbers either would be or would become small. In that case, if we were to report at school level, we would run the risk of jigsaw identification. That would be a real concern, particularly in certain school settings with small numbers of children or young people attending. Reporting at local authority level would allow issues to be identified at that level, which would allow further questions to be asked by both ministers and parliamentarians.

It is important to acknowledge that the collection process would not provide the level of detail that would allow for league tables. It would be a matter for the Government to decide precisely how to report those figures.

I am sure that we will get into definitions. However, I note that the bill as it stands would enable the definitions to be elaborated on and thus more precision and categorisation of different types of intervention and the collection of such data. I am very open to tightening up the definitions, especially around the reporting requirements, to make that more precise.

Apologies for that.

I do. I note that it has now been more than a year since the guidance was issued. It is more than possible to consider its effect, but that guidance does not stand in isolation. It is not the case that there was no guidance before that guidance was issued; guidance was issued in 2011 and in 2017. The most critical point for me is that, although the guidance that you mentioned was issued only a year ago, we have been discussing this topic in the Parliament for more than a decade. If the current guidance has not been out for a sufficiently long enough time for us to contemplate its effect, that is a question for the Government rather than for me.

In 2019, a commitment was made to take urgent action and to provide written guidance. Five years ago, it was observed that it was likely that that guidance would need statutory underpinnings. We are now a whole parliamentary session on from that, so, if now is not the time to legislate, when will be? I am perhaps slightly forcing the pace, but I worry that, if I do not do that, nothing further will happen.