���˿���

On the principle of voluntarism, it is clear from the conversation that we have had that the evidence suggests that there will be teachers and staff in schools who are prepared to continue to support young people to access residential outdoor education. What is also clear, though—and I welcome some of the commitments that I have heard from the minister and from the member in charge of the bill around this issue—is that, if that were no longer to be the case, the right place for negotiations to take place would be the SNCT. With that assurance, I would be prepared not to move amendment 28.

It would be helpful if there were ways, between now and stage 3, that we could discuss even just a shorter but clear statement that, if that situation were no longer the case, the SNCT would be the place where negotiations should take place. However, there is now a commitment on the record on that, and there has been recognition from the Government and other members that the SNCT is absolutely the place to address such concerns.

I welcome the support for amendments 29 and 30, which seek to place in the bill recognition of trade unions and their importance in relation to consultation. I take the minister’s point that there are others who should be consulted, but it is important that we recognise the long-established structures that trade unions bring. That is why I lodged those amendments, and I am pleased to move them today.

On the points about data reporting and sharing, and understanding the impact on staff, again, they speak to the point about voluntarism and concerns about what we would do if pupils had a right to outdoor education in statute but, suddenly, nobody wanted to volunteer to help out. We are addressing that around the table just now—again, the place to look at that is in the SNCT. Nonetheless, it will be important to collect data collection in the same way that we have to gather other data in education to look at the experience of staff in schools. I welcome the minister’s offer to work on that between now and stage 3, and I would welcome tripartite engagement—if I can call it that—between me, the minister, and the member in charge to look at how we could create a workable amendment at stage 3, because it is important that we monitor that.

On that basis—let me consult the numbers so that I get them right—I will not move amendments 1, 2, 6, 7 or 28. I will move amendments 29 and 30.

Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 2 not moved.

I understand that my amendments could do that. In one sense, you could say that you would see that data on deaths from both approaches caused change. However, the problem that we have is that by not including the assisted death element of the death on the certificate, we could be suggesting that cancer—to use your example—was the cause. However, we would not know whether it would have been the cause, because the person has instead died as a result of ingesting the substance.

We could run the risk of underreporting the numbers of assisted deaths, but we could also run the risk of not reporting accurately the reason why the person died. A person might not have ultimately died from their terminal illness; something else could have ended their life. In the case that we are discussing, that something else would be the ingestion of the substance that they chose to take in order to end their life.

Including the terminal illness on the death certificate is important, and that is why my amendments do not say that that information would not be there; the amendments simply reflect that we could not accurately say that the terminal illness caused that death, because, at that moment in time, it would not necessarily have been the cause.

I do not think that recording something that is not necessarily accurate in such important documentation is right or proper.

I appreciate that this is a difficult issue, but accuracy and transparency are really important. If deaths were recorded in a way that did not highlight that they were a result of an assisted death, we would create difficulties in the future. Not only would the information not be accurate, but it would, to an extent, be difficult to evaluate the social, medical and ethical impacts of the legislation.

No, that is not my intention. My intention is to catch things that would be directive and which would encourage someone to actively make that particular choice. Social media is a space in which advertisements are used; in fact, a lot of adverts come through social media, so I think that it is particularly important that, if we are to regulate advertising, we include social media. If we did not do so, we would be precluding a large platform that is consumed by many people and which we know includes advertising. That is why it is important to include that in the bill.

I move amendment 252.

I thank the member for offering that information in response to my question, which I appreciate. On balance, having heard that response, it is worth testing the issue with the committee at this point. This is a matter of principle as well as a matter of detail.

The point that has just been made about the need for information is different to the point about advertisements, and the amendment tries to deal with that. I believe that we, as a Parliament, need to make a clear statement that advertising assisted dying is not something that we support, given that any kind of encouragement or suggestion could leave vulnerable people without key protections.

Advertisements are often subtle, but they can be really powerful, so it is important for us to make the point at this stage that we do not believe that advertising assisted dying should take place. Of course, there may be other opportunities at stage 3 to look at the technical details. However, this has become a question of principle again, and it is important that we address that here, so I will press amendment 252.

Claire Baker has asked me to say, “Not moved”, if that is helpful.

Again, I have been asked to move the amendment.

Amendment 160 moved—[Pam Duncan-Glancy].

I will press amendment 229. We have had much debate on the group, including from last week, so I will be brief in my remarks, but I will remind us of some of the discussion that we had last week, which is important.

Checks and balances in legislation, particularly in matters of life and death, are crucial. Members have asked whether the referrals in my amendments, which come at the end point, are too late, perhaps suggesting that there is an issue with the drafting. However, the fact is that referrals do not readily happen. Referrals to social work or to disabled people’s organisations, to help disabled people or terminally ill people understand what it could be like to have to live a life in which they have a loss of function of some description, do not happen all that readily.

That is why it is important that, in this legislation if in no other—it should be in other legislation, too, but we have one piece of legislation before us today—referrals must be in place. I seek to add them to the bill because, as a last resort, surely, in considering life and death, the Parliament must contend that such provisions are crucial, even if we cannot provide them before that.

Many disabled people talk about how disabled people’s organisations changed their lives and helped them to see that life was indeed worth living. I note some of the comments that were made last week, particularly by my colleague Liam McArthur, saying that that is subjective. That is true, but so is the level of tolerance that people have for loss, and so is the desire to live or die. People who are seeking to end their lives must have access to that emancipatory support. Without it, life may appear, for some, to be intolerable.

Right now, the organisations that provide such support are on their knees and there have been questions about capacity, but there is no requirement to meet requirements on social care or housing—nor, indeed, to prevent poverty. Liam McArthur was right, last week, to raise questions about local authorities’ ability to meet the requirements of article 19 of the UNCRPD. Indeed, I am sure that they readily fall short, due to the lack of resources that they get. My amendments are an 11th-hour attempt to force action on the human rights of disabled people, which, surely, the Parliament must ensure that we put in place, to make it easier to live if—should the bill progress to stage 3 and pass—we legislate to help people to die.

Furthermore, I suggest that, in the absence of solid mitigation against such intolerable circumstances, fears that are proffered—for example, that people will not declare money concerns or the feeling of being a burden, so that they may be supported to die—would be better addressed by ensuring that the amendments are made, so that it is easier to live, rather than rejecting them, as has been the case so far.

These are reasoned amendments. They would protect the human rights of disabled people and people with terminal illnesses, and I encourage the committee to support them.

I press amendment 229.

I am listening carefully to the point that the member is making and I understand his concerns about restricting that sort of doctor-patient conversation.

His amendment proposes a framework. How does he imagine managing the issue that the quality of life of a disabled person, or of someone who has lost function—which is very likely in the case of people who are considering assisted dying—is often rated by other people, and, indeed, by health professionals, as being much lower than it would be rated by the individual themselves? There is a risk that someone could imagine that life must be so difficult that they would suggest that the person should consider assisted dying. Has the member thought about how to mitigate that in the context of his amendment?

I just want to finish this point first.

It could leave questions, such as how much longer the person might have had and whether or not they died of that condition. I think that that could be really difficult, so my amendments are important—yes, for data collection, but that is secondary to the convener’s point about the grieving process and the importance of families fully understanding what their loved one has gone through.

Good evening. Amendments 246 and 247 would ensure a transparent and accurate recording of deaths resulting from assisted dying. Amendment 246 would require that the individual’s terminal illness be listed as “an underlying condition”, while amendment 247 would require that

“the act of assisted dying”,

including ingestion or administration of the approved substance, is

“recorded as a direct cause of death.”

The amendments promote what I think is honest documentation that supports future public health monitoring and avoids misleading records. The bill as it stands instructs that, for someone who undergoes assisted dying, the cause of death be recorded simply as their terminal illness. That is problematic, not least because without a proximity-to-death test, it would be difficult to say whether the terminal illness was the direct cause of death at the time.