Seòmar agus comataidhean

I wish to press amendment 189, but if members are not inclined to support it, I encourage them to support the amendments in the name of Miles Briggs.

I think that that is because those who had the closest interest in the matter would be members of the family of the person who had opted for an assisted death. They would have the closest knowledge of the individual and, therefore, the biggest interest in the matter. One could conceivably extend the provision to any person, but it would be unreasonable to expect a review to be carried out at the request of anyone. The amendment is quite narrowly drawn, so it relates only to next of kin or family members, as they are defined under the original legal definition.

The member makes a reasonable point. The family would have to have a genuine concern that something had happened that was improper in order to be able to ask for a review, but that could happen in such a case.

I have taken a lot of interventions, and I think that I have come to the end of my remarks. I note that my colleague Miles Briggs has two amendments in this group, which I encourage committee members to support.

I move amendment 189.

The purpose of amendment 189 is to allow the next of kin or a relative to request an independent medical review if they believe that the deceased did not meet the eligibility criteria in the bill, in which case two independent doctors who were not involved in the original case must examine all relevant records and, if they find evidence of a breach, refer the matter to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The number and outcome of such reviews must be included in the statutory review under section 27 of the bill.

The reason for the amendment is that, when we legislate on life and death, we have a duty not only to write laws that are clear but to ensure that they can be trusted. As it stands, the bill contains no mechanism for what happens when an assisted death may have taken place outside the law. There is no mechanism for families to raise concerns, no means to review what has happened and no pathway to justice if something has gone wrong.

I think that Mr Whittle perhaps misunderstands amendment 189, which relates to a situation in which an assisted death has taken place and the family has concerns that the criteria were not met. In effect, it would enable a family that was concerned to ask for a review of the assisted death process at that point, after the event. It would not impact on the situation to which Mr Whittle refers.

I have two amendments in the group—amendments 199 and 203. Amendment 199 deals with the issue of independent oversight. It proposes the creation of an

“Assisted Dying Safeguards and Oversight Body.”

I am grateful to Daniel Johnson for making the arguments as to why some independent oversight is required, although I think that my solution is better than his—he proposes a parliamentary body to oversee operation of the bill, and I propose an independent body. Members will see from the wording of the amendment how that body would be made up.

As Daniel Johnson alluded to, the reason why that is necessary is that, as it stands, the bill relies entirely on internal reporting and ministerial review but does not provide for a permanent independent authority that is charged with monitoring how the bill will operate in practice, ensure compliance with safeguards or investigate when things go wrong. When we are dealing with a new law on life and death, it is essential that we have those safeguards in place. Indeed, as we have seen in other jurisdictions where such oversight is missing, there are risks of a slippery slope, where regulations become loosened over time, eligibility expanded and terminology blurred.

Amendment 199 seeks to prevent that. It would establish an independent safeguard and oversight body with clear and enforceable duties. Its responsibilities would include the need to review every case within 14 days after the substance was provided, maintain a national register of authorised medical professionals, investigate concerns about conduct or competence, audit compliance with law and regulations and publish anonymised data on every assisted death, including demographic and clinical information. The body would be composed of legal, medical, ethical and patient advocacy experts. Crucially, none of its members could be involved in providing assisted suicide themselves. Everyone acting under the act would be legally required to comply with the directions of the independent body.

The amendment is about vigilance. If the Parliament is determined to cross the moral line into assisted suicide, it must not do so blindly or complacently. An oversight body is the minimum protection against the erosion of safeguards and the slow normalisation of assisted suicide that could happen under the bill.

Amendment 203 proposes an adjustment to section 27 of the bill. It would provide that review reports specify how many medical reviews took place, what they discovered and whether any cases were referred for potential prosecution. It would add real transparency and accountability to how the act will operate in practice.

That is a reasonable point. The amendment has been crafted in such a way that it would be for two independent doctors to review the evidence; it would not be necessary to discuss that with the person who made the complaint. I hope that that answers the member’s point.

The two medical professionals concerned would be ones who were unconnected to the death. They would have full access to the deceased person’s medical records and declarations. If the review found that the eligibility criteria had not been met or that the law had been broken, the case would have to be referred to the procurator fiscal.

Amendment 189 is about providing accountability, transparency and respect for both the living and the dead. It would ensure that, in granting the most serious of powers, Parliament also guarantees the highest standard of oversight.

That is correct. However, this is about taking a belt-and-braces approach by formalising that position and putting something in the bill that makes it absolutely clear what the route is for a family to go down in the event that they have concerns. We are all very much aware of the pressure on the police, the justice system and the procurator fiscal service. Creating a specific mechanism is a way in which those concerns can be raised on a much simpler basis and it ensures that, when complaints are made to the procurator fiscal, they are backed up with the appropriate medical evidence, which is what we are trying to achieve.

Okay. Well, it is called “Working with AI: measuring the applicability of generative AI to occupations”. It is quite a detailed and interesting report that looks at occupations in which AI has the highest applicability and, therefore, is potentially the largest threat to people working in those sectors. Among the top five, we have passenger attendants and sales representatives of services, as you might expect. I will not name them, but I know of at least one local high school that I have been to that prides itself on its vocational training, which provides youngsters with the skills to work in call centres, doing sales-type jobs. That will be reflected right across Scotland. Do we have the right skills training available, either in schools or further up the chain, to equip young people—or people at any point in their career—with skills that will not be made redundant by AI? If not, what should we be doing instead?

Thank you. That was bit of an aside, really, but it is quite interesting, and, as it was on the front page, I thought I would ask you about it.

I want to talk about AI changing the nature of work and skills. I know that we touched on this earlier, but I want to probe a little bit further. I am looking at a report that Microsoft did on 17 October. Steven Grier, I do not know whether you have seen this.