Seòmar agus comataidhean

Forgive me—I had not realised that Ms Harper was just concluding. Can she say something about the types of costs and say in which part of amendment 13 she can see any scope for a reduction in costs?

I genuinely understand Fulton MacGregor’s intention, particularly in relation to amendment 257, given the points that I made on the record earlier about the Royal College of GPs. However, does he worry that having such a duty around assisted dying under the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014 would mean that there would be a lot of scrambling for funding with the other services that are also subject to that act? It could mean that some money would be moved from social care services to services that assist people to die.

Will the member take an intervention?

I understand Sandesh Gulhane’s background in the area, so I know that he will be aware of all the significant research that shows that non-disabled people’s opinion on disabled people’s quality of life differs hugely from disabled people’s opinion on their own quality of life, and that that difference means that the bill could pose a risk.

I recognise the member’s commitment to and support for the bill. If there was no time limit, what would be the difference between a person living as a disabled person and a terminally ill person?

If I had not thought—wrongly—that Bob Doris’s amendments 139 and 140 were in another group, I would have said at the outset that I think that they are incredibly important. Together with Stuart McMillan’s amendments 216 and 217, they get to the heart of some of the concerns that disabled people have about the internalised ableism in society. I have to say that a rejection of them, a rejection of any definition of coercion and a rejection of any other process to determine that coercion is taking place, including that in Brian Whittle’s amendments, would be quite concerning. I hope that the committee will therefore support some of the amendments on that.

I draw the committee’s attention to the evidence from the Royal College of General Practitioners Scotland, which challenged the assumption that discussions about assisted dying could take place at regular GP appointments. It said:

“This is a complex process, morally and emotionally, involving considerable time for technical assessment of capacity and coercion which can be challenging. We do not believe that this work can or should be incorporated into an already very busy and stressed service, without potential detriment to patient care”

That is an important reflection from front-line professionals for us to bear in mind. When we are considering the definition of coercion, the clearer we can be in the legislation, the better.

The committee is grappling with two aspects. One is the definition of coercion. There are several options available to the committee in the amendments. Some of them include the broader aspects, which I think are essential to include, and some of them are more narrow but nonetheless still define coercion. Given what the Royal College of General Practitioners said about the ability of professionals to reach such a difficult decision without clarity in legislation, I would like to think that committee members will support the amendments.

I will comment briefly on the point that amendment 13 might not be moved at this stage because of concern about training health professionals and the cost of that. Concern about the cost of training health professionals on the legislation is legitimate. For people to be able to do this work, not only will they have to have time to do it but they will have to be trained to do it. There is a question whether we should bear the brunt of that cost. Training will cost money. I would like to think that, if the bill is to include the safeguard that such professionals will be able to make such decisions, surely they will have the appropriate training. Even if my colleague Emma Harper does not press amendment 13 at stage 2, I would like to think that something similar will be lodged at stage 3, regardless of the cost.

I press amendment 220.

Is the member suggesting that he would support the provisions of the act being operated in an unregulated way?

Forgive me—I thought that you had reached the end of discussing my amendments.

I am not sure that I fully follow the argument about access to social care not having been offered, or, indeed, the previous argument about palliative care. I do not understand why the requirement would create an additional barrier, unless the member admits that social care and palliative care are in such a poor state in Scotland that the timescales involved would be difficult and the money involved prohibitive.

Will the member take an intervention?

I understand the member’s view, but surely it is not an unacceptable delay but a necessary delay to have in place those regulations before the act commences.