Seòmar agus comataidhean

Both would be required. There are amendments in later groups—including amendments in my name and, I think, in the member’s name—that would cover that. Amendments that we have previously discussed would also have encouraged such assessments, which are absolutely essential to safeguarding people throughout the process.

As committee members and others have noted, the point about identifying coercion is that coercion is a difficult concept to appreciate fully. From previous work that the Parliament has done on coercion, particularly in relation to gender-based violence and domestic abuse, it is clear that a specific, nuanced approach is required, so that people can understand the experience of each individual. In this matter, it is also important to understand the effect of societal pressures that can be considered to be coercive. Through time, the internalised ableism that I have mentioned in the past and which I spoke about in the stage 1 debate can begin to infiltrate into disabled people’s minds and lives, including people who are seeking assistance under the bill. Those areas are really important.

We know that training on the UNCRPD, on disability equality and on what is available to support disabled people to enjoy their lives in the same way as others, with freedom, choice, dignity and control, is hugely undervalued and not often provided, especially in financially constrained situations. That is important, which is why I have asked that it be included in the bill.

We are discussing not just aspects of independent living such as self-directed support, which is a right under the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013, but whether somebody will be assisted to die. Everybody around individuals needs to fully understand what resources are available to support disabled people in those contexts.

As it stands, there is no right for individuals to get a referral to such organisations, nor are such organisations resourced to the extent that many members in the room would hope or expect that they might be. We exist in a situation where that support is not readily available to disabled people. That is one of the reasons why I and others worry about the bill.

Sandesh Gulhane’s point is about difficulty with breathing. Many people have difficulty breathing, and it can cause great distress. My mum had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and died as a result of it, and I saw some of the incredible distress that that caused. There are also people who live with support to help them breathe, such as Baroness Jane Campbell, who sometimes uses a ventilator while she is giving speeches in the House of Lords. With the right information, support and care in place, people have different tolerances of what they are able to live with or not live with. Having advice and support on what is available to people is incredibly important, which is why I think that amendment 229 is really important.

I move amendment 229.

I understand the concerns around that. However, most of those things are very important. The member will know that, if something is not in legislation, it becomes very much at the discretion of the co-ordinating bodies. When resources are tight, some of those things might not be supported or funded. Does the member agree that it is crucial to set out in the bill any aspect of what the amendment seeks to do, in order to protect against it being ruled out because a body does not have enough money to provide the training?

It is one thing to have those discussions, but it is quite another for those issues to be resolved. Nothing in the bill says that such issues must be resolved in order to consider that the decision is being made with all things being equal. Surely, a protection against such circumstances driving somebody’s decision to end their own life is an alternative to a provision saying that such situations—for example, financial or housing situations—must be resolved.

No, it is not. There is no requirement on practitioners to refer to such organisations, nor for those organisations to be supported to exist. That is one reason why I find the legislation to be particularly worrying and why my amendments could be quite important. Some of those organisations could really open the consciousness of someone who is experiencing a loss of function that could be associated with an illness, terminal or otherwise.

In my experience, those organisations have been hugely important in helping people to understand the emancipation and, conversely, the oppression that is experienced by disabled people. It is those organisations that often support disabled people to participate in society and lead an ordinary life. A referral at the point when things have reached the extent that somebody wishes to die, if not before, is really important.

The amendments would act as safeguards to ensure that the person requesting an assisted suicide had been able to access, or had been offered, appropriate support that allowed them to live a full and independent life.

Amendment 236 would require the Scottish ministers to ensure that disability organisations are properly resourced to provide further advice and support to individuals to live with their condition. That is really important, because those organisations are already hugely stretched by existing legislation, some of which does not support disabled people’s rights to independent living to the extent that we around this table might expect. Nonetheless, those organisations are working tirelessly, day in, day out, to support disabled people to live independent lives. It is important that, if the bill is added to the statute books, such organisations are supported to help people understand the consequences of their choices in that context.

Finally, with third sector organisation on their knees, it is pivotal that sufficient resources are in place to allow them to provide support and advice. That would provide another opportunity to ensure that individuals are aware of the support that they can access to help to live with their terminal illness. Many organisations operate without the back-up of necessary funding; nonetheless, they are crucial. If we are looking to legislate to support people to take their own lives, we should be genuinely looking to support and resource organisations to help them make that decision.

I think that Sandesh Gulhane wants to intervene.

Thank you.

Amendment 225 would make provision about training for medical practitioners who are providing assistance. It specifies that medical practitioners must undertake training or have qualifications that are

“related to ... knowledge of palliative care and alternative care options to providing terminally ill adults assistance to end their own lives ... understanding of independent living, in accordance with article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ... awareness and identification of coercion, pressure or undue influence”

and

“equality and non-discrimination principles, with specific reference to the rights and experiences of”

disabled people, terminal illness and socioeconomic disadvantage.

My amendments in the group are crucial to the bill because they would safeguard against the concerns that have been raised by many people, including some disabled people, that not having adequate information and support on the right to practical assistance to lead an ordinary life through things that support independent living can have a huge impact on their lives. It can mean that disabled people feel that they are a burden and that they do not have their care needs met. It can mean that they are frightened of what life could be like should they lose a particular function. In fact, when you meet other disabled people or understand what your rights are and what you should be able to expect, life can sometimes appear to be a lot more tolerable. It is crucial that people who are supporting people to carry out assisted suicide give that support and create that awareness in order to help people understand what their other options are.

The member is right, which is why we should be legislating to make it easier to choose to live than to choose to die. We have a bill in front of us that is not necessarily doing that.

Our constituents face significant barriers in accessing social work assessments, and some are waiting a considerable time for assessment. It is really important that social work assessments to support disabled people to live independently are provided in a timely fashion and backed up with the resources to meet their needs, as assessed. Amendment 225 would not specifically require a referral to social work, but such referrals should be happening. That is a separate issue from what my amendment requires, which is that people should be trained in and understand the law around social work access. The member is right to say that that is important but, as the Royal College of General Practitioners Scotland has pointed out, many professionals are doing a whole host of activities in their current role, and adding to that will require them to understand what responsibilities that includes, which should include the ones that are set out in my amendment 225.

Amendment 270 would establish an assisted dying training authority to develop and oversee mandatory training and accreditation for medical practitioners who were involved. The proposed ADTA would ensure that practitioners were trained in palliative care alternatives, in recognising coercion or undue influence, and in equality and non-discrimination principles. Only accredited practitioners could participate in the assisted dying procedure, which would ensure consistent standards, ethical awareness and public confidence.

Assisted suicide is irreversible—once it is carried out, it cannot be undone. That means that every decision to end a life must be made with complete information and with the confidence that those who are overseeing the process are fully competent in doing so and have all options available to them to explain to the person who is seeking access.

However, the bill does not currently require mandatory training for medical practitioners who are involved. There are amendments on regulation, including amendments in the name of Liam McArthur, but not on the detail. The detail is what matters in legislation such as this. There is no guarantee that individuals will be adequately equipped to detect coercion, undue influence or vulnerability, and there is no assurance that equality, non-discrimination and patients’ rights will be consistently respected. That is not a minor oversight—it is a profound gap in safeguards at the heart of a system that literally involves life and death.

Amendment 270 attempts to close that gap, uphold ethical standards and maintain public confidence in the process by ensuring consistency, professional competence and moral awareness at every step in the system. If the state decides to legalise assisted suicide, it has a duty to protect the most vulnerable from error, pressure and inadequate care. Amendment 270 would enshrine that duty in law and ensure that decisions about life and death were made responsibly, ethically and transparently.

Good morning. I will ask a question about aftercare—specifically housing—before I move on to another area. The young people who we spoke to about this legislation felt that some specifics were missing, such as action in certain areas. In some ways, this has been described as a framework bill. However, the young people also said to us, “What about education?”, “What about housing?”, “What about employment?”, and so on.

My colleague Willie Rennie started to ask about the question of housing. I note your response about North Yorkshire not being a country. However, our problem is that, if we do not do something that is quite specific and empowers local authorities to take action, including with resources backed up to do it, we are really just washing our hands of any responsibility. The response that you gave does not give us much reassurance that the Government is prepared to take the action that is necessary to support local government to do the right thing on the Promise bill. Is that accurate?

How?