Seòmar agus comataidhean

I start by thanking the committee for its forbearance last week. In particular, I thank Patrick Harvie for reading out my script, when I literally was unable to talk, which is a bit of an inhibitor in this role that we have all chosen.

My amendments in the group are intended in part to mitigate the potential risks of the system being dispersed rather than specialist. If the bill passes, we expect that a lot of non-specialist clinicians will be involved, particularly GPs, who, as we all recognise, are already under huge pressure. In particular, we will expect them to make really difficult non-clinical judgments about issues such as potential coercion.

Clinicians—GPs in particular—already make non-clinical judgments as part of their wider duty of care towards their patients; however, when it concerns the potential choice to end one’s own life, the stakes are, clearly, extremely high. My earlier amendments on independent advocacy, which Miles Briggs has referenced, alongside those that he has proposed, would go some way to addressing that and providing a safeguard, but it is also important that we set minimum standards for both clinical and non-clinical staff who provide the service.

I support Miles Briggs’s amendments 261 and 262 in particular, which would change “may” to “must” when it comes to guidance, and my amendments 263 and 267 would build on those. Amendment 263 would, effectively, set mandatory minimum standards to which people must be trained in order to carry out functions under the act, as well as setting up a system to ensure that such functions are carried out to the required high quality. That would go some way to addressing the concern that has been expressed by the BMA and others about having the proposed dispersed service model rather than a specialist one, because it would require those who wished to provide the service to opt in by meeting certain standards or undergoing certain training. We should want that kind of service to be provided only by those who absolutely know what they are doing. Why would we not set some minimum standards for something so significant?

The intention of amendment 267 is to ensure that professionals who are less directly involved in the provision of assisted dying must also comply with minimum standards, as would be set out in the guidance. That reflects concerns that have been raised—certainly with me and, I know, with others—by stakeholders and experts, around the importance that people such as GP receptionists and carers play in a person’s experience of requesting and being provided with assistance. Clearly, the training that would be required of a receptionist would be different and altogether much lighter than what would be required of a GP but, if the goal is to ensure that the whole setting is as safe as possible for the patient, everyone in that space has a role to play.

Training for non-clinical staff—training for all staff in any workplace—is perfectly normal. In some cases, it would involve things as simple as ensuring that staff do not make comments to patients that could make them feel as though they are a burden, such as expressing concern about the impact that their condition must be having on their family. However, for clinical staff, I envisage training and guidance going into much greater detail on matters such as spotting potential coercion.

It would not be appropriate to specify the details of the training and guidance in the bill, but we should ensure that material is produced and that it applies to everyone with a role to play in the service. That is why—

I do not think—and I certainly do not think that it would be Liam McArthur’s intention—that such decisions would be taken purely in the space of a 10-minute appointment. It would be an iterative process and would require a lot of engagement. That is why I am concerned.

We are asking an awful lot of GPs. That profession is under a huge amount of pressure, and massive demands are made on the time of its members, who also need to be masters of all things. People will come to them with all sorts of issues—with multiple issues in the same appointment and with complex social issues, not just health issues. That is why I say that, in this case, we need to set out minimum standards, the minimum training that should be achieved in the first instance, and on-going quality assurance, so that, alongside the issues of capacity that Sue Webber is perfectly right to raise, the required expertise and knowledge are there—which involves not just the GP but everybody in the setting. Much as the training requirements would be different for the GP versus the receptionist, everybody should have some level of awareness and understanding of what would be required to make the setting as safe as possible for those who are potentially considering the option.

I am happy to close there.

The same arguments were made and, as far as I am aware, no parent has been prosecuted for pulling their child out of the way of a moving vehicle.

That being said, you got into some really granular points, such as the distinction between holding a child for seconds or for minutes and the issue of on-going restraint. That all makes sense, but I am immediately struck by the fact that it would be impossible to put that level of detail in the bill and that it will have to be in the guidance and that, in turn, takes us back to the core argument about whether it is necessary to take a statutory approach via a bill when guidance already exists.

Some of the witnesses we heard from, particularly teachers, expressed concerns and fears about the fact that there will be something in law but that what will be in the law will not be specific enough to tell them what they should, or should not do, because that will be covered separately, in the guidance. Can you say a little bit more about how we can provide absolute clarity and confidence, particularly for teachers and other school staff, that they will be acting in compliance with the law even if there is quite a difference between what is in statute and what is in the guidance that is produced as a result of that?

Good morning. I will follow on from George Adam’s line of questioning in relation to the concerns, particularly about definitions, that the Government expressed in its memorandum on the bill. It is fair to say that quite a lot of the witnesses who have given evidence have also struggled with that issue. As you will be aware, the Government’s concern is that a very broad definition could capture things such as holding on to a child’s hand to cross the road safely and some of the support that is required for children with particularly complex needs. There is always a challenge in balancing how much detail we put in a bill with what we leave to regulations and guidance. I am keen to hear your response to the concerns that the Government has raised about the definition in the bill.

I am reflecting on a member’s bill from the previous session of Parliament: the Children (Equal Protection from Assault) (Scotland) Bill. A lot of the same suggestions were made at that point, particularly regarding holding a child’s hand or pulling them out of the way a moving vehicle if they jumped on to the road.

I appreciate that. Your answer is useful, though.

Good morning, cabinet secretary. Earlier, you flagged up some issues with regard to reporting in independent schools, and I just want to clarify the Government’s position on that.

There are three overlapping issues here, I think. First, if we are going to go forward with this, we will not want some two-tier system in which independent schools are not held to the same standard as state schools. However, the fact is that independent schools, in general, do not have a direct relationship with the local authority in which they are situated. Moreover, the local authority in which the school is situated might differ from the local authority that has placed a child in the school’s care, particularly if we are talking about an independent special school. It does not even have to be a special school; many of the pupils who attend private schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh come from surrounding local authority areas.

In its initial memorandum on the bill, the Government flagged up a couple of these issues as being worthy of consideration and scrutiny, but I am not entirely clear what the Government’s position is on them. Can you clarify it? Is it your position that the bill would have to be amended to resolve some of these issues, particularly the potential for dual reporting?

My other line of questioning is a bit different, but it goes back to the point that you have touched on a few times about industrial relations and the position of the trade unions. It is fair to say that, at the moment, the general area of focus for teachers’ unions is not pay, but conditions, workload issues and so on. Do you envisage the bill having any impact, adverse or positive, on industrial relations and the atmosphere in the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers?

I take on board your point that the unions have made their position pretty clear. In the discussions that you have had with them—and I accept that there will be a degree of confidentiality, up to a point—have any of the unions raised the prospect of the legislation becoming an issue in an SNCT setting or in a formal industrial relations context, instead of just being one of the many wider policy discussions that you have with them and which sit outside SNCT?

That last point concerns exactly the question that I was about to ask. Other committee members are certainly considering whether the Dundee situation has raised issues that we could resolve by amending the bill in relation to the SFC’s functions. From the Government’s perspective, and from your experience of engaging with the process, have you found limitations in the role of the SFC? Have you wanted the SFC to do things and discovered that legislation as it currently stands makes that impossible? Have you identified potential amendments to the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill in relation to the role and functions of the SFC that the Government could lodge at stage 2?