Seòmar agus comataidhean

You are right that this is an on-going petition; it has been considered over some time. The same issues keep arising, and I currently have six individual casework items open on six different wind farms in the south of Scotland. I will not take too long on this, but the basic thread running through all of them is the inability of communities to be properly heard or to be involved in consultation. I have a whole list.

We considered all of the cases and the public’s response to the building of wind farms or solar farms. In one case, there were 57 against and two for; in the next one, there were 57 against and one for. There was a huge amount of consideration of the impact of the developments on the local environment. There was a huge amount of worry about that, and about the impact of the developments on the value of people’s houses.

When I meet wind farm developers, I always stress that the most important thing that they should do is to consult the local community at the earliest possible point. They all say, “Absolutely, that’s what we’re going to do,” but the overwhelming feeling from reports that I hear and constituency work that I have done is that they avoid doing that. The public believes that, even when there is a local vote against a wind farm, all the developers have to do is refer that to the Scottish Government and it will be passed. The overwhelming feeling is that public views are not heard at all.

I commend the petitioner. As I said, I represent an area with a high density of wind farms and plans for more in future, and there does not seem to be any change in how consultations take place or in the interaction between wind farm developers and local communities. I will end my comments there.

To follow up my question, I want to ask about advance directives. I do not know whether that falls within your capability. Say that there is a situation—it might be a comorbidity or a dementia-type scenario—in which someone lacks capacity. When they had capacity, they made an advance directive setting out what they wanted to do at a certain time, but enacting that would require the intervention of another party. Should such a scenario be considered?

Good morning. I appreciate the witnesses giving up their time to be here. I want to chat about the definition of “capacity” in the bill. Under the bill, it must be established that patients

“are not suffering from any mental disorder which might affect the making of the request”.

It strikes me that any terminal diagnosis will have some sort of mental health impact. In those circumstances, does the definition of “capacity” in the bill have the effect of excluding anyone with a mental disorder? How do we square that circle in relation to the definition of “mental disorder”?

Dr Neal has just said that doctors make decisions about capacity on a daily basis. In talking about the definition of capacity, and given what we are discussing, is that element of subjectiveness a problem?

Good morning. I think that the bill as drafted means that if you are going to access assisted dying, it has to be self-administered. That brings up the question of continued capacity throughout the whole process. Let us say that you decide that this is your direction of travel. You have a degenerative illness that you know will bring you to a position where self-administering will become more and more difficult. Is there a danger that that rushes people into making a decision and into accessing assisted dying before they potentially would like to?

Do I have time to ask another question, convener?

Dr Earle, I am looking for clarity on how we consider conditions such as Alzheimer’s. Someone who was deemed to have capacity to make the decision might develop a degenerative condition such as Alzheimer’s, which might mean that they slip below the level at which someone is deemed to have capacity. Where does the bill sit in that regard?

I will happily take any insights that you can give us.

I see Dr Green nodding in agreement.

Dr Coelho, do you have anything to add?