Seòmar agus comataidhean

What do you think, Liliana?

Thank you.

How would you police that if the bill were to be passed? I know that because Sharon Dowey touched on that earlier there is a risk of your repeating yourself in reply—I am sorry about that; it sometimes happens when you are asked to respond to the last questioner on the committee. How would you fill that gap?

I have a question for Dr Forbes and Liliana Torres Jiménez. As Jamie Hepburn pointed out, neither of your submissions commented on the proposal for a statutory right to assistance and support.

Dr Forbes, if the bill is enacted, would such a provision help with the other concern that you raised, which was about women being witnesses? If they were given trauma-informed support, would that help them to be witnesses?

I have a supplementary question on the exchange about sporting events. I want to home in on football in particular. We have heard about that issue at the Criminal Justice Committee for a long time, going back to the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, if you remember that. It always seems ridiculous that the police have to pick up the massive cost in resources for that.

The requirement for policing does not relate only to the events themselves—that is, the actual matches. There have been protests at Rangers and Celtic matches recently, which a police presence has been required for. What discussions are taking place with the clubs about them managing their fans? This might be more a question for the Government than for the police, but has there been any discussion about clubs picking up some of the cost of that?

The member raises a great point. If the bill becomes law, those decisions will need to be made by the Government and health boards in collaboration, as happens for other services. That is a good point well made.

The model also recognises the importance of choice for staff. I know that the committee has looked at that. The development of a single dedicated service would ensure that those who worked in it had actively chosen to do so, meaning that any staff who had a conscientious objection to assisted dying would not be placed in a position in which they felt pressured to participate, whether due to workplace expectations or out of a sense of duty to the people they were supporting.

At the same time, subsection (2) in amendment 257 would give the Scottish ministers the ability to “make further provision” by regulation about how such services were to be delivered. That would ensure that detailed operational guidance could evolve as needed, subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It could, perhaps, take into account how things were operating in practice, as Pam Duncan-Glancy mentioned.

Amendment 277 is a straightforward consequential provision that would simply add the regulation-making power under subsection (3) in amendment 257 to the bill’s main list of regulation-making powers. It is a tidy-up measure to make sure that all the delegated powers are properly captured.

Taken together, my amendments are not about altering the principles of the bill but about ensuring that, if the bill proceeds, delivery is effective, transparent and safely governed. They build on the model of partnership and integration that Scotland has spent years developing across health and social care, and they recognise that issues of life, death and wellbeing cannot be neatly separated between services that require collaboration, consistency and compassion. By placing assisted dying services within the existing framework, we can help to ensure that oversight is robust, that the public can have confidence that the law will be implemented, and that those who work in the system are properly supported. The measures in the amendments are proportionate, practical and responsible, and they are designed to strengthen the bill’s administrative foundations while maintaining the focus on dignity, safety and accountability that it has always had at its heart. I hope that members will support my amendments today.

This intervention is to ask for clarity. Are you saying that you support amendment 256 but you want to work with me on amendment 257? Is that correct?

Good afternoon, folks. Amendments 256, 257 and 277 have been lodged with the support of the Scottish Association of Social Work and, of course, the help of the legislation team—what would we do without it in such situations? I put on record my thanks to both.

The amendments are about ensuring that, if the Parliament chooses to legislate in this area, the practical delivery of assisted dying services is fully integrated with Scotland’s existing health and social care framework, using the structures that already exist to manage and oversee sensitive health functions rather than creating a new, stand-alone system.

I think that all members who are here will agree that the bill, by its very nature, demands clarity, accountability and public confidence in how it would operate in practice. My amendments in the group are intended to provide that.

Amendment 256 would make a small but important technical change to the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Prescribed Health Board Functions) (Scotland) Regulations 2014—that is easy for me to say. That set of regulations lists the functions of health boards that are included in local integration schemes—the partnership arrangements between health boards and local authorities that underpin how healthcare and social care are jointly delivered in Scotland. By adding the bill to that list, the amendment would ensure that any functions that health boards have under the bill were automatically captured within the existing integration framework. That means that the planning, oversight and reporting of any assisted dying service would take place within the same governance structures as other key health and social care services and would be subject to the same accountability mechanisms and local partnership scrutiny. That is important, because it would help to ensure that there was no fragmentation or confusion about who was responsible for delivering or overseeing those services. The amendment would situate them firmly within the public system, in which clear lines of responsibility and accountability already exist.

Amendment 257 would build on that by requiring each health board to establish a specialist assisted dying service for its area. Again, that is about consistency and quality of provision across Scotland. It would ensure that, wherever a person might live, a defined and accountable service would be in place to support individuals, co-ordinate with local partners and ensure that the requirements of the act were applied safely and consistently.

That just helps me to decide whether I will move the amendment.

The member might be interested to know that amendment 257 is strongly supported by the Royal College of Nursing, which states that it supports the requirement for each health board to set up specialist assisted dying services to deliver the functions of the act. He might also be interested to note that the Royal College of General Practitioners also strongly supports amendment 257, given its background. Those are two very strong endorsements.