Seòmar agus comataidhean

I take the point. However, I think back to the death of my father, for example, and the detail that was on the death certificate. There were two aspects to it. I will not go into the detail—not necessarily because I do not want to, but in the interests of time—but the information on the certificate and the fact that we had a death certificate and could therefore move forward with all the processes that it allows were both quite important. The information allowed us to understand the circumstances in which my father died. Had we not seen the full detail on the death certificate—there was a primary and a secondary cause of death—we would not have understood the impact of some of the changes in his life that led to his death. It is about the fact that a death certificate is more than a perfunctory piece of paper that allows you to move on with a cremation or burial, for example; it is an important part of the grieving process.

In the instances that we are discussing, families will want to understand whether it was the terminal illness or their loved one’s choice to end their life that, ultimately, ended their life. Not accurately recording that could leave many questions hanging over family members for a significant time—

My amendment 258 requires that the Scottish ministers,

“as soon as practicable after Royal Assent, carry out an assessment of the capacity of social care services provided by ... local authorities, and ... organisations providing social care ... to support the functions under this Act.”

I want to make members aware that I had hoped that the assessment of capacity could go beyond the capacity within social care services, local authorities and other providers of social care, and could go beyond looking at only the functions under the act. My intention was to highlight the level of difficulty that there can be in accessing social care, which can, of course, mean the difference between life becoming tolerable or being intolerable. However, given the scope of the bill, my amendment is drafted specifically to address supporting the functions under the act, and despite that limitation, I think that that would be a very useful assessment of capacity.

The amendment specifies that the assessment

“must, in particular, consider ... staffing resource associated with provision of social care services, including the training and support that will be required,”

and

“existing funding streams for social care services and organisations supporting disabled people.”

It further requires that ministers lay the report before the Parliament and that, within six months of the report being laid, the Parliament must

“consider a motion to approve the report.”

My amendments 280 and 284 provide that the sections cannot be brought into force until that report on the assessment of capacity within social care services has been published.

As I have said before, and it is important to say again, I think that it is crucial that we send a signal that we are a country that seeks to make it easy to choose to live. Part of that is about having access to good social care when we need it, and all of us around this room will have inboxes full of casework that shows that that is just not the case. If we pass a piece of legislation that seeks to offer someone the alternative of ending their own life, in the absence of capacity in an essential system such as social care, which can make the difference between finding life tolerable or intolerable, we could be sending a signal—in fact, it would not be a signal; it could be easier to choose to die than to choose to live. The assessment and report are a crucial part of bringing in any legislation to support people to die.

My amendment 287 would specify that the act may not come into force

“a day before the day on which legislation is brought forward by Scottish ministers to remove charges for non-residential social care being provided to, or which would otherwise be available to, terminally ill adults requesting assistance”

under the act.

As I said about my previous amendments, I want the provisions to be broader, so that we are looking at the capacity in the social care system in order to be certain, or as certain as we can be, that a lack of capacity in that system is not impacting on somebody’s decision whether to continue with a loss of function at any point. I wanted that aspect to be much broader than only in relation to the bill.

It is also important to understand that the difference between accessing social care and not accessing social care is not only about its availability; for some, it is also about the associated charges. Some people might pay in excess of £700 or £800 a week towards their social care, which can be quite prohibitive. Some people decide to deny themselves access to social care based on its cost. The fact that they cannot afford to access social care as a result of the charges might mean that they can no longer engage in some aspects of their life.

Ending non-residential social care charges has been an ambition of the current Government for some time but it has not yet delivered it—that is not intended to be a political point, although plenty of political points could be made. The fact remains that the charges are not yet abolished and they are still causing some significant concern for people accessing social care. A barrier such as the cost of access to social care should not be in the way, particularly if legislation on the statute books gives people the option to have an assisted death. That is why my amendment seeks to say that we could not bring in the legislation in an environment in which some people have lost out on crucial social care. I can testify to how important access to social care is—I am sure that members have seen the difference that it can make to people’s lives.

We cannot put a piece of legislation on to the statute books that could assist people to die while some people are making the choice to do without social care on the basis that they cannot afford it, which puts them in such a situation that they find their life intolerable. That is why I have lodged the amendment to say that we must first end non-residential social care charges.

Together, the measures speak to an important point. At the risk of labouring said point, it is important that, if we are legislating for people to die, we ensure that we are doing so in an environment in which the choice to live is viable. As it stands, I am not sure that that is the case, given the situation in social care and with social care charges that can prohibit some people from accessing it. The amendments seek to protect against that, which is why I have lodged them.

Amendment 252 seeks to create an offence of advertising assisted dying. It will make it illegal for any person to “publish, distribute or display” material that promotes, encourages or solicits assistance for a terminally ill adult to end their life.

The amendment’s definition of “advertisement” is broad: it covers printed, electronic and social media communications, as well as other forms of public or private communication. The proposed penalties include fines on summary conviction and imprisonment of up to two years, a fine or both on indictment. The sentences are identical to those that have been proposed in similar amendments at Westminster. The section that amendment 252 proposes will not apply to professional or educational communications in which no encouragement or solicitation has occurred.

There is a striking omission from the bill—nothing in it prevents another person from encouraging someone to seek an assisted death. In our discussion on a previous group of amendments, we had a conversation about the role of health professionals. It is important for us to understand that, if we are trying to support people to live—which I think is what we, as a Parliament, are aiming to do—we need to have conversations about that, as opposed to conversations about assisting people to die. As we have just amended the bill to include some conversations initiated by medical professionals, I think that it is important that we look to prevent the advertising of assisted dying on any scale.

This is not just a small oversight. People who come under the scope of the bill are, by definition, at a very difficult and vulnerable point in their lives, whether physically, emotionally or, indeed, psychologically. They often put immense trust in others, including medical professionals, family members and carers, believing that they have their best interests at heart. However, even a gentle suggestion, or a question asked at the wrong time, could have a powerful and dangerous impact on someone who might feel as though they are a burden or who is struggling to find hope.

If the bill intends to be about choice, as advocates say that it is, that choice must be free from pressure, persuasion or professional suggestion. Anything less risks crossing the line from autonomy to influence. Amendment 252 seeks to provide such a safeguard by making it clear that any request for assisted death must be entirely self-initiated by the individual and must not be the result of encouragement, suggestion or inducement. It will protect people from subtle but powerful pressures, spoken or unspoken, that could lead them to see death as an obligation rather than an option.

I ask committee members to think about whether they have seen any examples of advertisements for assistance for people to live, advertisements for the great good that can come from having personal assistance and a really good social care plan, or advertisements for accessible homes where disabled people are living full and enjoyable lives. Such advertisements are few and far between, if they exist at all. I have always argued that, in this Parliament, we should be doing what we can to legislate to make it easier for people to choose to live rather than to die.

Amendment 252 seeks to make it clear that we cannot have adverts that would encourage people to have their lives ended, particularly in a context where we rarely see advertisements for a good life, in which disabled people’s rights to practical assistance and support enable them to participate in society and lead an ordinary life.

Of course, it is important to look at how the bill here interacts with the bill at Westminster. Given that both bills are going through at the same time, we must keep those discussions live, so I take the member’s point.

However, I see no harm in underpinning legislation in Scotland in a way that does not contradict what is being done elsewhere but which asserts that the Scottish Parliament means to protect against this sort of thing and to make it clear that we want to guard against it in the legislation. I see no reason why that would prevent such amendments from progressing, and I hope that committee members will take into consideration the fact that advertising can have a subtle but important impact on people’s choices. In the absence of the advertisement of the good life that can be experienced by people who lose function—including at the end of life—we need to put in this very important measure to protect against that.

I am happy to take a further intervention.

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?

Have they suggested any changes to the bill, or have they encouraged you to look at any different approaches during the next stage of the bill?

Does the member think that financial difficulty or the fact that someone is unable to get in and out of their own home—two examples of things that could make someone’s life intolerable when they have a terminal illness—are conditions for which it should be considered acceptable to seek assisted suicide?