Chamber and committees

That is helpful. Fiona McIntyre, do you want to respond?

I want to ask about coercion—we almost just went to that area. Coercion is one of the big issues that even people who support the bill are concerned about. First, do you think that health professionals have the skills to identify whether coercion is happening? Secondly, is the model that is suggested in the bill the best way forward? Last week, witnesses suggested that a better, alternative system would be to use independent assessors—similar to those the Human Tissue Authority uses to ensure that coercion is not happening in relation to living donors—which would provide stronger safeguards. Is it necessary to have those stronger safeguards, or do you already have the skills in your team? Dr Provan, you almost went to that area.

Thank you.

Although some of this area has been touched on under Gillian Mackay’s question at the very start, I want to ask about the requirement for self-administration. The member in charge is very clear in his explanatory notes that the policy intention is that patients accessing assisted dying would have to “self-administer the substance” used to end their life.

However, there is some suggestion that perhaps the wording in the bill is less clear. Is the wording clear enough to meet the member in charge’s policy intent—and is that a good thing? Last week, we heard from colleagues in Australia, who were concerned about making sure that everyone had access to the new right; physician-assisted means were important to people who would not be in a position to take a substance themselves.

First, is the wording clear? Secondly, is there a concern over the human rights of people who might not be able to take a substance themselves to access that end-of-life choice?

Perhaps you would write to us on that. There is some suggestion that it may not be as clear as the member intended, so it would be useful to hear from you. It is in section 15(1).

An argument that is sometimes made in support of assisted dying is that, without a lawful alternative, people might choose to die by suicide. Indeed, I think that Dr Coelho touched on that. Have you seen a difference in that respect? Has there been a reduction in folk using suicide as a way of ending their lives now that there is a legal alternative?

As you mentioned the point, Dr Coelho, do you want to answer that question first?

I am sympathetic to Ross Greer’s point in relation to amendment 68, despite the fact that we have just won a by-election in Dundee that gives us three out of four of the seats in the Lochee ward. However, the proposal represents a significant change, and I do not see how we could make such a change at this stage or at stage 3 and still manage to have the necessary discussions with local government colleagues in particular, who might feel that the change is a case of the Parliament doing something to them rather than engaging with them in order to do something. It is good that the proposal has been aired, but I hope that Ross Greer does not pursue the issue at stage 3, because I think that it is something that requires a bit more discussion with local government colleagues.

Before we move on, I want to ask some questions about your amendments in the group. We took evidence from Police Scotland last week, and the police were clear that there is not a register or a list, as such. SONR stands for “sex offender notification requirements”, so the term concerns someone who is subject to requirements. Last week, we asked the police about their ability to enforce and be part of the process and to ensure that any law in this area is practical and enforceable. The police were comfortable that they and other multi-agency public protection arrangements—MAPPA—partners would be able to comply with what the minister is suggesting.

Annie Wells’s suggestions go further because, as the police said, there is no list or register. You would be asking someone—potentially the police—to take action on people who are no longer under the sex offender notification requirements.

Obviously, randomisation in the way that Mr Greer has mentioned would lock in another disadvantage, because there would still be somebody at the top. There has been a fair bit of discussion and debate about the issue, and it is really difficult to find an answer. Would it be possible for Mr Greer not to press his amendment 66 today, but to have a discussion with the minister about finding a way that the issue can be looked at properly?

When I had Mr Hepburn’s role in Government, the issue was looked at, and I fell on the side of thinking that the practical solution is to have two ballot papers—one going from A to Z and one going from Z to A. That would mean that, those who were in the middle would be in the middle. However, some people would be at the top of half the ballot papers and at the bottom of the other half, so the advantage would be removed.

Like Mr Greer, I do not want to be prescriptive. The changes would absolutely have to be taken forward in collaboration with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local government colleagues, because local government is where the proposal would have the most impact. Particularly when there are two members of one party on a ballot paper, it is a big issue.

There is an issue. Perhaps we could introduce a power, so that the change could ultimately be taken forward without waiting for another bill. Maybe we can jointly have a discussion with the minister about a stage 3 amendment.

I want to ask about how the legislation has developed since it has come into force, particularly in Victoria, where it has been in force for nearly five years. Some people are concerned that, if the legislation is introduced in Scotland, there will be an inevitable, as they would say, slippery slope to expansion. On the other hand, when we pass legislation in a new area, we would expect that legislation to be reviewed and finessed.

Perhaps you can tell us about how the law has developed in Victoria in particular, and elsewhere in Australia. Have there been changes to the eligibility criteria? Have the criteria expanded or contracted? Have the safeguards that were included in the legislation in Victoria when it was first brought in been made more robust or relaxed? Finally, how have the numbers changed over time? Has there been a massive increase, or have the numbers stabilised?