Seòmar agus comataidhean

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 The Government previously said that it would extend the scheme, and it then rescinded that commitment.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?

We have heard from various stakeholders that support, information and resources are highly variable, particularly for neurodivergent people who are waiting for a diagnosis. To judge by the experiences that we have heard about, that seems to be a bit of a doom loop. We know that support should be available without the need for a diagnosis but, in practice, someone cannot get support without a diagnosis. We know that, for example, education authorities often use diagnosis as a gate-keeping tool in order to ration resources in the context of funding constraints.

How does the minister propose that we address that doom loop, which is a fundamental problem that repeatedly comes up as an issue? How do we open up a much wider discussion on the lack of support for neurodivergent people across the NHS? At the very least, we should be signposting people to the relevant support while they are waiting for a formal diagnosis.

The organisation child heads of psychology services in Scotland made the interesting point that there are areas of good practice. In its submission, it identified NHS Lanarkshire and NHS Lothian as having

“developed a bank of digital resources offered to those waiting to be seen, however this is not the case across the country”.

Do you share the view that a once-for-Scotland standard should be adopted? Do you agree that there should be rigorous benchmarking against good practice and that approaches should be brought under a national standard?

Will you elaborate on your point about how we ensure that that is delivered? What mechanisms are at your disposal in the civil service to benchmark, assess and hold accountable authorities for not complying with standards?