���˿���

Amendment 100 seeks to ensure that any co-ordinating medical practitioner carrying out an assessment must request a statement from the local authority where the applicant resides about whether it knows or believes that the person is an adult at risk, within the meaning of section 3 of the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007.

For clarity, section 3(1) of the 2007 act defines adults at risk as adults who are

“unable to safeguard their own well-being, property, rights or other interests”,

are

“at risk of harm,”

and

“because they are affected by disability, mental disorder, illness or physical or mental infirmity, are more vulnerable to being harmed than adults who are not so affected.”

Crucially, all three of those criteria must apply. I believe that that is a reasonable prerequisite before any co-ordinating medical professional can consider taking an informed position on whether to progress further any application under the assisted dying legislation that we are considering.

Amendment 101 seeks to ensure that a co-ordinating medical practitioner carrying out an assessment must refer the person for a social work assessment if the person says that they want one, if a statement from the local authority raises a concern or if the co-ordinating medical practitioner has any doubt as to whether the person is being coerced.

That last point is crucial, because balance comes into play right across this legislation. The co-ordinating medical practitioner would not take an on-balance position on whether there was coercion. Rather, if there was any doubt, a social work referral would have to be made.

Amendments 102 and 103 would give powers to the Scottish Government to specify timelines for local authorities to produce a statement and to conduct any assessment. I have heard the interaction between Fulton MacGregor and other ���˿��� on the committee and I think that that is a very reasonable way to do it—with no timescale specified and using the affirmative procedure to introduce more details. That would allow discussions to take place with COSLA, the Scottish Association of Social Work and others, as you would expect. I think that the convener has made that point during her observations.

More generally, however, Scotland has a well-established legal and procedural framework for protecting adults who might be vulnerable, including the maintenance of records of such individuals. My amendments and the substantial amendment by my colleague Fulton MacGregor—to which I am sympathetic, as I can see what Mr MacGregor is trying to do—should be viewed in that context.

The Scottish Partnership for Palliative Care and its membership are clear that such protections should be put in place as a key safeguard in the legislation. The partnership takes no view on whether the bill should pass or otherwise—this is about putting in place a robust series of protections. The SPPC has noted that, in addition to pre-existing vulnerabilities, a terminal diagnosis can often create new vulnerabilities, which might be due to physical, psychological or circumstantial changes. Elder abuse, for instance, is distressingly common, and care costs might provide a motivation for implicit or explicit pressure towards assisted dying. I will not list other factors that can be taken into account, because of time constraints, but you can see the importance of ensuring that there is not a vulnerability.

As drafted, the bill leaves the potentially difficult assessment and judgment as to whether any individual seeking assisted dying is being coerced to the co-ordinating medical practitioner and the second medical practitioner.

May I nudge you more on that helpful answer? Is there a possibility of attributing some of the responsibilities of the commissioner that would be established to existing commissioners and broadening their remits, rather than setting up a new commissioner?

I thank all four of you. However, you are not finished yet. Sarah Boyack, the member who is in charge of the bill, has sat patiently throughout all of this. I know that she will be bursting to ask you lots of questions, and we have a wee bit of time.

I am just showing my ignorance, but who would seek the judicial review?

Could any other bodies reflect on that idea? For example, we have the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Environmental Standards Scotland, so we have a pretty cluttered landscape in that regard. Do you have further reflections on that?

I am not trying to put words into your mouth, but both you and Ellie Twist mentioned putting things on a statutory footing. Is the culture change the most important aspect, or is it the statutory footing?

The underlying question was about the Welsh experience. Do other witnesses have any comments on the Welsh experience and what we can learn from it? Have I misinterpreted the evidence that we have had to date? I am more than happy to be contradicted.

That is helpful.

I will stick with you, Emma, for the next question. We will also explore some of those areas later in the evidence session.

The policy objectives are very desirable. However, the committee has to wrestle with the question of whether they can be delivered without legislation. Are there other ways of achieving those policy objectives? The committee has a choice to make.

I am sorry to pick you, now, Ellie.

That is helpful.

I am hearing yes to policy cohesion, but also that the bill itself must be consistent in relation to that.