Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, I do. I also acknowledge that there are issues with timing in relation to other amendments, so I do not intend to press amendment 26. However, I think it would be helpful to have further conversations on the matter before stage 3.

With regard to amendment 27, we need to find a way to ensure that changing places toilets are provided. I accept Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point that two years might be a bit tight, so I will not move amendment 27. However, I will seek to lodge an amendment at stage 3 to ensure that such facilities are provided.

Amendments 26 and 27 are my final two amendments. I will be leaving the meeting shortly. I am not going off in a huff—I have another meeting to go to. Please accept my apologies for that.

I seek the committee’s permission to withdraw amendment 26.

Amendment 26, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 27 not moved.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

Section 4—Commencement

I thank the member for her positive comments. As with everything in my amendments, I am open to persuasion on whether the period needs to be longer than two years. I look forward to hearing what Liz Smith and the minister have to say on the matter. If we could get the principle agreed today, I would be happy to come back at stage 3 with a slightly different timescale if the majority of members feel that that should be the way forward.

For those who do not know, a changing places toilet includes a hoist, room for a carer to be in attendance, suitable doorways and a shower. I have long campaigned for such toilets to be more readily available, and I am pleased that in the previous session we got an amendment on planning agreed to so that changing places toilets now have to be part of certain new developments.

I am very grateful that the Scottish Government has made a £10 million fund available to organisations to help fund the installation of changing places toilets, as I recognise that they come at extra cost.

If no changing places toilet is provided at an outdoor centre that would undoubtedly prevent some young people from going there. Whether the specified period were to be two years, five years or somewhere in between—I hope that it would be for no longer than five years—we should be encouraging outdoor centres to go ahead and get such facilities in place as soon as possible, and we should set a deadline for that.

If I could make a bid for Government money, I would ask for it to be ensured that the changing places scheme remains open, and not just for this year: I hope that new money can be allocated in future years.

I move amendment 26.

I appreciate that, but does the minister recognise that guidance does not have any legal authority behind it, and that, if, for whatever reason, a local authority went against that guidance, the parent would have no legal right to challenge that?

It will come as no surprise to the committee that I am not a great fan of guidance. It has its place, but I worry that, too often, we put things into guidance then forget about it, which leaves parents and others without a statutory authority to enforce something. I will not labour the point, but we are future proofing the bill for when we might have Governments or local authorities that are not supportive of it in principle, and there needs to be some kind of backstop for parents and young folk to have it enforced. Having said that, I will not press amendments 20 or 21 today but will take up the offer of both Liz Smith and the minister to engage with them.

As I have said, I welcome amendment 16 in the name of Liz Smith. Maybe we can look at whether we can strengthen it slightly more. I would also be interested to know how the provision would work in practice for a school such as James Gillespie’s high school in Edinburgh, which has a number of pupils who are doing Gaelic-medium education although the main school is doing English. Would delivery be done bilingually? Again, no doubt, that will all be set out in guidance in due course.

With that, I seek the committee’s leave to withdraw amendment 20.

Amendment 20, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 16 moved—[Liz Smith]—and agreed to.

Amendment 4 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

Amendment 21 not moved.

Amendments 29 and 30 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy]—and agreed to.

I am sure that the committee will be glad to hear that my amendments in this group are the last ones that I will be speaking to, so members will not hear my voice again.

Amendment 157 follows on from other amendments in the group that have been debated already. It seeks to strengthen the assessment process for anyone who is requesting assisted dying. Amendment 157 would mean that, before approval of that request, the person must be seen by a psychiatrist and a social worker. The doctor leading the process would then take into account what both of those professionals say before making a final decision.

The amendment is about making sure that the decision to die is made freely and with full understanding of what it means. Such situations are deeply complex and emotional, as we all acknowledge. People might be facing pain, fear, isolation or pressure, and those factors can affect how they think and feel. A psychiatrist can help to identify whether someone’s judgment is being clouded by depression, anxiety or another treatable condition. A social worker can help to uncover whether a person is feeling lonely, unsupported or under pressure, and perhaps feeling that they are a burden to others.

Bringing in those perspectives does not delay or deny a choice; it protects the choice and makes it more safeguarded. The amendment gives the public reassurance that the process will be careful and humane. It ensures that every request is looked at from all sides, so that any decision that is made truly reflects the individual’s own free and informed will.

Amendment 159 addresses another issue that is essential when it comes to life and death. Doctors need to know exactly what the law expects of them. If wording in the legislation is unclear, it can lead to hesitation, mistakes or uneven interpretation, and ultimately that could lead to lots of legal cases happening in Scotland. Amendment 159 removes any doubt about the responsibility of medical practitioners and makes that responsibility clear and unambiguous. We owe it to the professionals and the lawmakers that no doctor should ever have to guess what Parliament meant or have to see whether they can interpret it themselves. A clear law is safe law for everyone involved.

Amendment 160 would remove the phrase “in either case” from section 7. On the face of it, that might sound like a very small change, but I believe that it is an important one. The current wording could be read to suggest that doctors have different responsibilities in different circumstances. I do not think that that is what Mr McArthur has intended. The duties of medical practitioners to check that someone has capacity, is acting voluntarily and meets eligibility criteria should apply equally in every case. By removing those words, we would make the law clear and more consistent, ensuring that there is no room for confusion or uneven treatment between different cases, whether that is due to geography or the type of condition. If amendment 160 were accepted, the bill would be stronger, simpler and faster. It would help doctors to follow the law with confidence and it would give reassurance to the public that the same high standards would apply to every person in every case, whoever they are, wherever they live and whatever their condition.

I do not have the detail on that, but each piece of legislation will be different, and what the UN committee comments on is whether it is in line with disability rights issues.

Yes, it has, is the answer to your question. I understand Mr McArthur’s point, but the only point that I was trying to make—and Mr FitzPatrick is correct to some extent—is that, if the bill goes through and we get to stage 3, I want to ensure that it is competent and that we do not, as Mr Harvie alluded to, have to face legal action afterwards. I think that this approach will give the UN committee an opportunity not to tell us what to do but simply to point out any areas that it thinks might require stage 3 amendments. After all, we could end up with the bill being passed by this Parliament and then the courts striking down the whole law on the basis of one or two amendments, which would put us back to stage 1.

My suggestion seeks to be helpful, in some respects, to Mr McArthur by making sure that the sign-off takes place and that any issues can be debated at stage 3 rather than in the courts post this whole process. That is my simple suggestion, but if, as I have said, the committee is not for it, I absolutely understand that.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I will keep my remarks brief, as I know that you have a long day ahead.

My letter suggests that, once stage 2 has been completed, the committee writes to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to ask whether it believes that the bill is in line with the convention and that persons with disabilities are not ill affected by it. The advantage of doing so is that, if that committee comes back and gives a clean bill of health, that will give reassurance to the Parliament. If that committee comments on the bill, that will give members the opportunity to lodge amendments for clarification at stage 3.

The reason for suggesting that is that none of us would want to get to a point where the bill is passed and then challenged in the courts on any grounds at all. It is a belt-and-braces approach to give the whole Parliament confidence that persons with disabilities are not going to be coerced as a result of the bill, and that, if they are at risk of that, amendments could be lodged.

Ultimately, it is for the Parliament and us, as MSPs, to make the final decision, but the UN committee is there to advise and help, and it is my suggestion that, once stage 2 has been completed, the convener writes, on behalf of the committee, to seek clarification, so that amendments can be lodged if required.

Can I bring in my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy to answer that? She has more knowledge about this particular area than I do.

Thank you.