Seòmar agus comataidhean

We should not be consenting to the SI for a number of reasons. The divergence from alignment with the EU, as I outlined in my questions to the minister, is a big concern. As Brian Whittle said in his questioning, the only piece that we seem to be removing from the puzzle is the 10-year re-authorisation. At the moment, those come to the Parliament as SSIs. Removing that process would remove parliamentary scrutiny of whether we want those chemicals to have another round of 10-year authorisation and whether we want them in our food environment. Taking that power away from the Parliament would be regrettable. We would also, potentially, not see the authorisations for new feeds coming to the Parliament. On that basis, we should not be consenting to the SI.

To what extent do the witnesses acknowledge the feeling of being a burden as an example of potential coercion, as defined in the bill, and the risk of such feelings being internalised coercion for some who might consider an assisted death?

I will go back to what Dr Wright said about the feeling of being a burden. I know that, towards the end of their lives, my grandparents felt like a burden regardless, and I do not think that anything would have resolved that. When I think about whether I would want an assisted death, feeling a burden would always be part of that consideration, but it would not necessarily force my hand one way or another. It is about how we divorce those feelings of being a burden, which I think are a natural human emotion at the point of needing such care, from the question whether that feeling has coercive capacity for those who are seeking an assisted death. It is actually about how, as a clinician, you drill into that and divorce the two from each other—how you divorce that coercive impact of feeling a burden from real coercion.

You spoke about taking a whole-family look, which witnesses in a previous session suggested as well. It is about looking not only at the individual but at the wider family dynamic. Is that something that you would want to see? I acknowledge that, ideologically, you are opposed to the bill, but if it was to go ahead, would you like to see a soft-touch whole-family evaluation, to make sure that coercion was detected?

Other than what Fraser Sutherland has just mentioned, does anyone have any suggestions for any other safeguards around coercion—in either direction—that they would like to be included in the bill?

We had a private session with a group of people with learning disabilities who were concerned about coercion and were equally concerned about the need to be taken seriously if they were to decide to opt for an assisted death. Dr McDougall, could you give your perspective on how we balance having stringent safeguards around coercion and feelings of being a burden and so on with the need to take people with disabilities seriously when they make that choice?

I have nothing to declare.

Mr Adam has, unknowingly, teed me up nicely for my questions. Paisley is a good example of a place where cultural venues are located along its high street. However, that is not the norm across a lot of the country. Across my region, we have seen the closure of town halls. Motherwell concert hall is closed because of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete within it, and it is very unlikely that it will reopen without major investment, which the local authority is not able to make.

Many local authorities offload cultural venues to make budgetary cuts across the piece. It is great that there is the Ravenscraig regional sports facility in North Lanarkshire, but that is not the same as having an accessible concert hall in the middle of the community in Motherwell.

The accessibility of culture is something that we need to consider. It is great to have the museums in Edinburgh and Glasgow that people are able to visit for free, but getting to Edinburgh and Glasgow is very expensive and time consuming for many people.

I know that the cabinet secretary touched on this earlier, but what other conversations can be held with, and what support can be given to, local authorities to ensure that we do not lose many important venues for smaller-scale cultural performances or whatever? If we lose those venues, the likelihood of their coming back and being there for future generations—and for future budgets to provide support to—is quite low.

We have touched on the issue of fluctuating capacity, but what might we need to include in the bill to adequately address that? What provisions should be added to ensure that individuals such as those with Alzheimer’s do not feel as though they are being forced to pursue assisted dying prematurely, because that is when they can demonstrate capacity?

Stephanie Fraser, do you want to come in?

Thank you, convener. You will be pleased to know that I will ask only one question. I will go to Tressa Burke first. We have already explored quite extensively the structural and societal barriers that disabled people face. As a disabled person, I recognise many of the things that have been spoken about. In terms of those structural barriers, could services ever reach a point where the witnesses would be satisfied that a decision to have an assisted death was entirely free from pressure and that the introduction of assisted dying legislation was taking place at the right time for disabled people? I appreciate that you might not have been able to put that to your members and you might be speaking in a personal capacity.