Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have not been given instructions.

I have been instructed to move the amendment.

Amendment 159 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

Good morning to the committee and others, and thank you, convener, for allowing me to comment on this issue.

The most recent concluding observation by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Canada, for example, said that track 2 MAID—or medical assistance in dying—is for people with disabilities whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. That is a similar situation, given that the bill currently going through the Scottish Parliament does not have a proximity-to-death definition. The CRPD committee says that that approach was based on

“negative, ableist perceptions of the quality and value of the life of persons with disabilities, including ... that ‘suffering’ is intrinsic to disability”

rather than the fact

“that inequality and discrimination cause and compound ‘suffering’ for persons with disabilities”.

Disabled people’s organisations in Canada said:

“The UN is clear that we must do better in upholding the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities”,

and the UN committee itself recommended repealing track 2, implementing “a co-ordinated deinstitutionalization strategy” and withdrawing the interpretative declaration under, and reservation to, article 12 of the convention.

A number of different concluding observations were made in relation to this specific aspect of the bill going through the Scottish Parliament. The only way that the UN committee, which is a committee of experts of disabled people, can give any advice to the Scottish Parliament is if a body such as either the committee or the Government makes that request. That is why it is important that the committee seriously considers the request that has been put to it today.

Claire Baker has asked me to say, “Not moved”, if that is helpful.

Again, I have been asked to move the amendment.

Amendment 160 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

I will press amendment 229. We have had much debate on the group, including from last week, so I will be brief in my remarks, but I will remind us of some of the discussion that we had last week, which is important.

Checks and balances in legislation, particularly in matters of life and death, are crucial. Members have asked whether the referrals in my amendments, which come at the end point, are too late, perhaps suggesting that there is an issue with the drafting. However, the fact is that referrals do not readily happen. Referrals to social work or to disabled people’s organisations, to help disabled people or terminally ill people understand what it could be like to have to live a life in which they have a loss of function of some description, do not happen all that readily.

That is why it is important that, in this legislation if in no other—it should be in other legislation, too, but we have one piece of legislation before us today—referrals must be in place. I seek to add them to the bill because, as a last resort, surely, in considering life and death, the Parliament must contend that such provisions are crucial, even if we cannot provide them before that.

Many disabled people talk about how disabled people’s organisations changed their lives and helped them to see that life was indeed worth living. I note some of the comments that were made last week, particularly by my colleague Liam McArthur, saying that that is subjective. That is true, but so is the level of tolerance that people have for loss, and so is the desire to live or die. People who are seeking to end their lives must have access to that emancipatory support. Without it, life may appear, for some, to be intolerable.

Right now, the organisations that provide such support are on their knees and there have been questions about capacity, but there is no requirement to meet requirements on social care or housing—nor, indeed, to prevent poverty. Liam McArthur was right, last week, to raise questions about local authorities’ ability to meet the requirements of article 19 of the UNCRPD. Indeed, I am sure that they readily fall short, due to the lack of resources that they get. My amendments are an 11th-hour attempt to force action on the human rights of disabled people, which, surely, the Parliament must ensure that we put in place, to make it easier to live if—should the bill progress to stage 3 and pass—we legislate to help people to die.

Furthermore, I suggest that, in the absence of solid mitigation against such intolerable circumstances, fears that are proffered—for example, that people will not declare money concerns or the feeling of being a burden, so that they may be supported to die—would be better addressed by ensuring that the amendments are made, so that it is easier to live, rather than rejecting them, as has been the case so far.

These are reasoned amendments. They would protect the human rights of disabled people and people with terminal illnesses, and I encourage the committee to support them.

I press amendment 229.

We touched earlier on the wider issues in schools and the impact of those. Daniel Johnson will be aware that some people have been a bit worried about the bill in relation to resources and the implications for schools. I note that the policy memorandum states that the member is alive to the issues. Based on what we have heard this morning, I do not doubt that. A number of people have said that a lack of resource could contribute to the unnecessary use of restraint and seclusion in schools in Scotland, particularly given the rising concerns about poor behaviour. What is the member’s response to that?

Thank you for answering the questions so far and for your passion and commitment to this issue. I know that many young people, parents and carers across the country take the issue seriously and will be grateful for the committee’s attention to it, which you have occasioned.

We have heard debate about the use of restraint and seclusion with disabled pupils, those with complex needs and care-experienced pupils. Is the bill equally applicable across all settings? Should there be additional protection for disabled pupils, pupils with complex needs and pupils who are care experienced?

That is much appreciated, thank you.

It is often said that, if we get it right for those children, we can lift others at the same time, which is the approach that the member is setting out. Throughout the committee’s evidence sessions, we have heard quite a lot from third sector organisations. Are you in a position to set out the sort of engagement that you have had with third sector organisations and where you see their role in the guidance and implementation of the bill?