Seòmar agus comataidhean

My amendments 245 and 275 aim to strengthen the practical framework for the administration of assisted dying safely and responsibly. They would require the Scottish ministers to provide proper training for doctors and to publish detailed guidance on what to do if complications arose, including what constitutes a “reasonable period” before death and how to respond to side effects or even failed medication, however rarely such issues might occur.

Without those provisions, clinicians could face serious medical legal risk if problems arose during the final stages of the assisted dying process. The amendments would also create a duty to report any such problems to Public Health Scotland, ensuring that issues of safety were captured and analysed to inform on-going review and improvement of the assisted dying service.

Together, I believe that those measures ensure safety and consistency during the most sensitive stage of the assisted dying process. I am also aware that the member in charge of the bill will be seeking engagement with UK Government ministers on safeguards. Such safeguards will certainly be being sought by ministers at UK Government level.

Amendment 269 would strengthen the practical framework for administering assisted dying safely and responsibly. The amendment would require the Scottish ministers to provide necessary structure for medical professionals to enable them to respond to side effects or even failed medication. Without that, clinicians could face serious medical legal risks arising from problems during the final stages of the assisted dying process.

The amendment would ensure that issues of safety are captured and analysed to inform on-going review and improvement of the assisted dying service. Passing the amendment would strengthen the practical framework for administering assisted dying safely and responsibly.

I will speak to amendments 239, 240 and 241. If passed, those amendments would ensure that the bill works in practice. That means ensuring that doctors feel that they can participate safely and confidently without undue risk of criticism. At present, the bill places a heavy burden on doctors to make all the key judgments about eligibility. The concern of the Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland is that that could create a significant legal risk that would deter clinicians from participating at all.

My amendments would create a multidisciplinary panel to act as the final assessor of a patient once the statements from both the co-ordinating and independent doctors have been submitted. That panel would review all evidence, confirm that the person met the criteria, and issue a certificate of eligibility if satisfied that that was appropriate. The intention of my amendments is not to obstruct the bill but to ensure that decisions are consistent and transparent. In effect, the panel would offer a final level of assurance for both patients and clinicians, confirming that all the necessary conditions have been met before assisted dying can proceed.

Yes—the Government at the time identified a risk that the rules on no recourse to public funds, which contain an explicit list of prohibited benefits, could be extended to include such a scheme if it were introduced. That comes across as being a bit of a bad-faith and vindictive thing to do. I do not think that, politically, it is a real risk now, certainly with the change in Government.

I think that it is worth exploring the matter again. The Government previously said that it would extend the scheme, and it then rescinded that commitment. It has now reinstated it, but we are still stuck on the issue of when an extension is going to be implemented through a statutory instrument. It would be helpful if the committee could press the Government further on its timetable for the statutory instrument. There is no real rationale for further delay and hindrance—let us just get on with it.

I pay tribute to Maryhill Integration Network and the VOICES network for their persistence in that regard; Doaa Abuamer and Pinar Aksu have been excellent advocates on behalf of their membership. The need for such an extension is well established, from a health perspective as much as for any other reason. I hope that we can get on with it without further delay, and I think that there is the political will to do so.

One hopes so.

As you know, the petition has been part of a long-running campaign that began in December 2021 around the extension of free concessionary travel to people seeking asylum, who are often the most destitute members of the community, with an income of less than £50 per week. The rationale for extending the existing concessionary travel schemes to a relatively small group of the population made sense. The Government accepted that rationale but, as you have said, convener, we have been caught in the teeth of the logistics of how to best implement such a proposal.

The preferred solution is a straightforward extension of eligibility under the existing concessionary travel schemes. The Government intimated that it was piloting a project, and I believe that a pilot in Aberdeen was very successful, but that was based on the ad hoc issuing of bus passes through charitable organisations, which is not really the systemic approach that would be the ideal.

In this group, I will address two sets of amendments—three of the amendments deal with capacity, and two deal with practicalities. I will therefore address them in their two sections.

In relation to the capacity amendments, which are amendments 224, 230 and 34B, I note that assessing capacity is an extremely complex task that requires specific expertise and careful judgment. That is one of the reasons why the Medical and Dental Defence Union Scotland has recommended the creation of a multidisciplinary panel. It also means that we need to be clear about who is qualified to make those assessments in the first place.

Amendments 224, 230 and 34B would legally require, rather than simply allow, the Scottish ministers to set out by regulation the qualifications and experience that are needed for doctors taking part in the assisted dying processes. That would ensure that only appropriately trained and experienced practitioners were involved, strengthening the safeguards for both patients who seek to access the service and participating clinicians.

The amendments are about giving clinicians the tools and confidence that they need to carry out their duties responsibly, and ensuring that patients receive careful assessment. Amendments 224 and 230 therefore propose to leave out “may” and insert “must”, which would strengthen the language.

I note Mr McArthur’s comments on his amendment 34 and I am happy to rest on those at this stage, depending on further discussions.

Turning to practicalities, my amendments 254 and 255 seek to strengthen the practical framework for administering assisted dying safely and responsibly. The amendments would require the Scottish ministers to provide proper training for doctors. That would guarantee a high standard of care, creating a better working environment for medical staff and reassurance for patients. Together, those measures would ensure safety and consistency during the most sensitive stage of any assisted dying process.

Amendment 248 reflects the themes that have been broadly discussed by colleagues. As it stands, the bill does not offer enough protection for doctors and other clinicians who, for personal or professional reasons, might not wish to take part in the assisted dying process. Amendment 248 would therefore add a clear statutory protection that would ensure that no individual would face any detriment in relation to employment, regulatory or disciplinary matters for choosing to participate or not to participate in the assisted dying process. Fundamentally, that is about respecting professional judgment and ensuring that doctors and other clinicians can act according to their conscience, without any fear of adverse consequences.

I am, however, mindful of what Mr McArthur said about on-going discussions in relation to the intersection of devolved and reserved competences and the technical detail that needs to be matured, so I am not minded to move amendment 248 at this stage.

Is there a balance to be struck around the clinical nature of diagnostic pathways? Are there examples from around the world of alternatives that could offer a better structure for Scotland?

Are you aiming to get a clear picture of what the national baseline should be and of how each local authority or integration joint board is performing against that national baseline? Is that your ultimate goal as minister?