Audrey Nicoll
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Some consider that mobile phone use by children is so ubiquitous that bans in isolation are not enough to tackle the negative impacts. It seems that there is still some way to go to find a clear, evidence-based approach that safeguards children.”
“However, Ms Gosal’s motion reflects the concerns of many—parents, teachers, legislators, police officers and children—that overexposure to the use of mobile phones carries risks. I commend the work of many organisations to safeguard children in that space.”
“What an utter privilege and an amazing experience it has been to be a member of our amazing Scottish Parliament. I thank a number of people for making it happen: my loving husband, Alex; my wonderful son, Sam; my parents, Bill and Jean; and my sister, Susan. I also thank Maureen Watt, who has been a mentor and friend throughout.”
“I thank Pam Gosal for securing this debate on a Scotland-wide ban on the use of mobile phones in schools, and I congratulate her on her powerful and comprehensive speech.”
“Having entered politics later in life, I have often found it hard to understand why we think fractious discourse and debate serve the people of Scotland.”
“Amendment 41 agreed to. 17:45 Amendment 143 moved—[Martin Whitfield]— and agreed to. Section 10F—Register of foster carers: procedure for regulations Amendment 42 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]— and agreed to. Section 10G—Register of foster carers: interpretation Amendment 43 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]— and agreed to. Amendment 144 not moved.”
The complete record
Every one of 432 lines we hold for Audrey Nicoll, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 9.
“Having entered politics later in life, I have often found it hard to understand why we think fractious discourse and debate serve the people of Scotland. Next session, I want to observe a Parliament that rejects that approach and instead engages in strong and collegiate scrutiny of the Government as an effective legislature that prioritises improving lives, particularly the lives of our children, above soundbites and partisan deadlock. I also hope that, in the face of a turbulent new geopolitical era, we finally deliver independence for Scotland. 13:06”
“What an utter privilege and an amazing experience it has been to be a member of our amazing Scottish Parliament. I thank a number of people for making it happen: my loving husband, Alex; my wonderful son, Sam; my parents, Bill and Jean; and my sister, Susan. I also thank Maureen Watt, who has been a mentor and friend throughout. I thank my brilliant constituency team, who went above and beyond to assist constituents who sought our help. I thank my wonderful committee clerks and the other Parliament colleagues who supported me through my five-year convenership of the Criminal Justice Committee. I thank my MSP colleagues and Parliament staff. Finally, to my constituents, I say thank you for the honour of representing you.”
“Some consider that mobile phone use by children is so ubiquitous that bans in isolation are not enough to tackle the negative impacts. It seems that there is still some way to go to find a clear, evidence-based approach that safeguards children. I very much acknowledge the proposal by colleagues, including Pam Gosal, that it could involve legislative provision. Another area of risk, which is often overlooked, is the exposure to extremist ideology that promotes violence, hatred and intolerance. The final years of my policing career were spent working in that space, supporting public sector organisations to understand their role in safeguarding children from exposure to extremist ideology. As I prepare to leave the Parliament, I reflect that never in a million years did I foresee my role shifting from enforcing the law to making the law.”
“However, Ms Gosal’s motion reflects the concerns of many—parents, teachers, legislators, police officers and children—that overexposure to the use of mobile phones carries risks. I commend the work of many organisations to safeguard children in that space. The harms and risks that flow from children’s mobile phone use can damage and, in some devastating cases, end lives. Those include unlimited screen time, exposure to inappropriate content and contact, bullying, peer pressure and group-based sexual abuse. In response, school bans, as part of a wider policy approach, have become more popular, with an ever-increasing number of countries introducing them. Others, such as Scotland, encourage schools to restrict and manage access. However, at the moment, it is unclear whether bans are effective.”
“I thank Pam Gosal for securing this debate on a Scotland-wide ban on the use of mobile phones in schools, and I congratulate her on her powerful and comprehensive speech. As this will be my last speech before I step down, I hope that the Presiding Officer will afford me a few moments at the end of my speech to include some personal reflections on my time in the Parliament. Undoubtedly, mobile phones bring huge benefits to the lives of children and young people: staying connected with friends and family, learning, socialising and just chilling out. Often, a family’s decision to introduce a phone involves a fine balance between the benefits and the concerns—and, perhaps, timing and costs.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer : At this point, I give members the glad tidings that we will have a comfort break of 20 minutes. Therefore, we will see you back here at 18:15 after the suspension. 17:55 Meeting suspended. 18:19 On resuming—”
“Natalie Don-Innes: Although Mr Whitfield might be getting on to it, I want to point to the on-going work that is being done in a non-legislative space on the future of foster care. Martin Whitfield: I welcome the confirmation. I know that the fostering community is looking at that work as an opportunity to engage so that their voice is heard on a plethora of matters. It is about supporting an essential element of Scotland’s ability to keep the Promise. I am conscious of time, Deputy Presiding Officer. I seek the chamber’s permission to withdraw amendment 145. Amendment 145, by agreement, withdrawn. Amendments 146 and 147 not moved. Amendment 148 moved—[Martin Whitfield]— and agreed to. Amendments 149 and 150 not moved. Section 10I—Uprating of allowances Amendment 151 not moved. After section 10I Amendment 152 not moved.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Martin Whitfield to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 145. Martin Whitfield: It was my misunderstanding, but there is absolutely no intention for individual fostering families to be required to register as charities in order to be covered by the bill. I am sure that that is correct: charitable status relates to the IFAs. I thank the minister for her discussions at stage 2 and before stage 3, and I believe that she recognises the importance of fostering. Whoever is in the Scottish Government and has responsibility for keeping the Promise by 2030, more work will need to be done to support our fostering communities in the widest sense of the word. I welcome all the commitments that the minister has made on that.”
“It is not clear why that would be appropriate for the Care Inspectorate to undertake, nor what purpose that would serve. None of those amendments have been subject to the consultation or scoping that would be needed in order to assess workload, capacity or cost. Crucially, for independent fostering agencies, which will be required to be charities under the bill, financial oversight is already the statutory responsibility of OSCR. Placing parallel duties on the Care Inspectorate would duplicate responsibilities and risk confusing accountability. For those reasons, I would encourage Mr Whitfield not to press amendment 145 or to move amendments 167, 147, 149 to 152, and 210. If he does, I invite members not to support them. I encourage members to vote for amendment 148.”
“I am committed to engaging with stakeholders and those with lived experience to monitor implementation to ensure that the system remains fair, sustainable and centred on children’s needs. As I indicated, ministers already have the necessary powers to bring forward further provision on payments if that is shown to be required, and we will keep that under active review as part of wider reform. We also need to look at the bill as a whole, and remember that, under the provisions, all independent agencies would become charities, which will be subject to scrutiny by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator, including financial behaviours and information. Finally, amendments 149, 152 and 210 would significantly extend the Care Inspectorate’s remit and statutory role by asking it to monitor fee and allowance levels.”
“Ministers already hold broadened powers under the bill to regulate payments to foster carers, should policy work indicate that that is the right direction. Additionally, no amendment has been lodged to make a corresponding change to the uprating provision in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which relates to payments that are paid to kinship carers. If amendment 151 were to be passed, it could create an inequity in treatment of the financial support that is provided to foster carers and the support that is provided to kinship carers. That said, I know that it is important that we continue to consider how financial support for carers evolves over time.”
“Fostering services carry out functions towards looked-after children on behalf of local authorities; they are contracted under arrangements with local authorities for that purpose. Where ministers specify rates under the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 in respect of payments made by local authorities to carers, those rates will apply to all fostering services. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for ministers to interfere with the arrangements that local authorities make for fostering services. The written agreements, which are provided for under the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009, are the appropriate place for fee rates for fostering services to be dealt with. Amendment 151 would extend the new uprating mechanism in the 2007 act beyond allowances to include foster carer fees.”
“I start by saying that I echo Mr Whitfield’s comments: I absolutely acknowledge the immense contribution that foster carers make, and have made, in supporting our children and young people. However, amendment 145 is unnecessary. Ministers have already made regulations—the Looked After Children (Scotland) Regulations 2009—which make provision in relation to payments to carers, and they can utilise that power should policy development, informed by consultation, support a national fee framework. Amendments 146, 147 and 150 would enable ministers to make regulations about payments made by a fostering service to foster carers and would place a publication requirement on such services. I feel that that would be inappropriate and unnecessary.”
“The bill has provided an opportunity, for the first time in a long time, to acknowledge the contribution that foster carers make, and we must ensure that, whatever the outcome of these amendments, there is further work following the bill to appropriately recognise and support foster carers and to appropriately protect them in certain situations. I look forward to hearing, and I will welcome, any commitments that the minister can make before I consider whether to move and press these amendments, but, in order to start the ball rolling, I will move the lead amendment in my name. I move amendment 145. Natalie Don-Innes: I am happy to support Martin Whitfield’s amendment 148, which helpfully separates allowances, fees and other payments. However, I cannot support the other amendments in the group.”
“Amendment 152 would require the Scottish ministers to ensure, either by regulations or otherwise, that Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland includes gathering information on fees and other payments as part of its inspections. Amendment 151 would include payments made to kinship carers in uprating requirements. I lodged these amendments because fostering, while hugely challenging, is incredibly valuable and is too frequently the forgotten profession that underpins care for care-experienced young people.”
“Amendment 145 would require the minister to make regulations about payments for foster carers. Amendments 146 and 147 seek to include payments to independent fostering agencies— IFAs—in the regulations, and amendment 150 provides a definition of “fostering service”, which would include such organisations. Amendment 148 would ensure that local authorities’ reporting duties in relation to rates and payments paid by them to foster carers are broken down by type of payment, because that would ensure that there is full transparency. Amendment 149 would require regulations on payments and fees to make provision for Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland’s duty to monitor and report on payments made by local authorities and IFAs.”
“Amendment 41 agreed to. 17:45 Amendment 143 moved—[Martin Whitfield]— and agreed to. Section 10F—Register of foster carers: procedure for regulations Amendment 42 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]— and agreed to. Section 10G—Register of foster carers: interpretation Amendment 43 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]— and agreed to. Amendment 144 not moved. Section 10H—Allowances and other payments The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 11 is on allowances and other payments. Amendment 145, in the name of Martin Whitfield, is grouped with amendments 146 to 152 and 210. Martin Whitfield: This is the second exciting grouping in which members have to listen to my dulcet tones, as I have lodged all the amendments in this group. Amendments 145 to 152 and 210 seek to address concerns that the fostering community has in relation to fees and other payments.”
“For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 85, Against 24, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 140 agreed to. Amendments 39 and 40 moved—[Natalie Don- Innes]—and agreed to. Amendment 2 not moved. Amendment 141 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to. Amendment 3 not moved. Amendment 142 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to. Amendment 41 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 41 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Nicoll. Your vote will be recorded. For Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 84, Against 23, Abstentions 0.”
“It would also require the capture of data on receipt of benefits—and we can imagine why one would want to know that. Furthermore, it would require the capture of data on the level of household deprivation and the person’s housing status. We would reasonably want to know whether there were patterns to all those things. I acknowledge that the data might be difficult to collect, but I have lodged the amendment nevertheless, as it would be worth while to understand any patterns among people who wished to seek and receive assisted death.”
“That might not happen, but it would be reasonable to gather that data anyway. Amendment 282 would require the gathering of data on the number of times that the period of reflection was less than 14 days. I am keen for all those amendments on data- gathering requirements, with reporting to the Scottish ministers, to be agreed to. In concluding, I will briefly mention my amendment 64, which Audrey Nicoll also mentioned. The details are important for a full analysis of the impact of the eventual act across our society, although I acknowledge the challenges of collecting such data. Amendment 64 would require the capture of data on whether a person who received assisted dying lived alone. We can imagine why one would want to know that.”
“Amendment 60 would ensure that we captured how many times medical practitioner reports had been completed and the reasons for approving or not approving an assisted death. Amendments 61 and 286 would ensure the collection of the number of applicants who were assessed as having or not having appropriate social care and palliative care, respectively. Amendment 62 would ensure the collection of the number of complications, adverse reactions and unintended effects reported under section 15, on the provision of assistance. Amendment 63 would ensure that data was collected on relevant professionals who had completed training requirements. Amendment 281 would require the number of assisted deaths involving each practitioner to be gathered, enabling the flagging of practitioners with unusually high rates.”
“That is the point that I would emphasise to Mr Hepburn. It might be a very small number, but it might not be. Why not bolt the provision in place and do the periodic case review to get a qualitative assessment of how the bill is working in practice? That is how I would respond to Mr Hepburn’s point—and it was a reasonable point to make. My other amendments in the group identify important data items without which it would not be possible to monitor and understand the eventual operation of the act adequately. I will run through the amendments as quickly as I can. Amendment 59 would ensure the collection of data on how many times the original medical practitioners conducting assessments took the steps provided for in section 7. For instance, were inquiries carried out with health and social care professionals?”
“What does Bob Doris say about the concern that we could veer into making it very clear who the individuals were, which would open up issues around privacy and so on? 13:00 Bob Doris: I thank Jamie Hepburn for his intervention. He should not worry about intervening on me—it is not a problem. My first point in response to that is that the Government and public bodies have great experience in publishing only data that is statistically and appropriately anonymised. If a body cannot do that, it cannot publish it. There are clear rules on that. I have not set out how often periodic case reviews should be; I have left that as a matter of generality. I hope that they would form the annual reports as well as the overall review of the eventual act. Clearly, however, we do not know how many people will avail themselves of assisted dying.”
“How adequate did they find the public information that is provided for in the bill? The Scottish Partnership for Palliative Care has told me that a case review process in Ontario, Canada, proved to be vital in identifying deficiencies in assessments and the safeguarding of vulnerable people, so why not have such a process in the bill? Jamie Hepburn: Having intervened on my friend Stuart McMillan yesterday, I will intervene on my friend Bob Doris today. If we had been talking about a mechanism that resulted in many hundreds of cases, I could see some sense in the proposed provision. However, I am slightly concerned about it—and the Government’s commentary makes the same point—because we are likely to be talking about a very small number of cases.”
“Therefore, amendment 278 and related amendment 285 require periodic detailed reviews of a representative sample of cases, so that qualitative evidence is available on the bill’s operation if it becomes law. That is aided by the Parliament having agreed to my amendments on the medical practitioner’s report requirements earlier in our deliberations. After stage 2, the bill required only basic statistics to be gathered. Those statistics are important but mainly quantitative and, on their own, cannot shed light on some aspects of the bill. For example, what is the experience of registered medical practitioners in assessing people for capacity and coercion? What works well and what have they found difficult? What is the experience of family members who are involved in the process? Were there difficulties that could have been avoided?”
“The only amendment on which I seek some clarity is Liam McArthur’s amendment 57, which relates to reporting on assessments broken down by eligibility or otherwise. It seems straightforward, but I am keen to hear the context and rationale for that amendment from Liam McArthur. All the amendments in the group are about safeguarding. They would enhance reporting, which would allow for effective scrutiny and monitoring of the bill’s operation. I move amendment 275. Bob Doris: My amendments in this final group relate to the review of the operation of the bill, which will be essential if the bill is passed. It will be possible to review the bill’s operation effectively and meaningfully only if adequate data is gathered while it is in operation.”
“Amendment 287 would require reporting to go beyond just raw numbers and include a full analysis and comparison of data—for example, trends over time, risks to patient safety and whether the provision of assisted dying is creating or worsening inequalities for particular groups, such as older or disabled people. Bob Doris’s amendment 64 would insert additional characteristics, such as deprivation and housing status. Murdo Fraser’s amendment 295 would insert a requirement to report on the impact of assisted dying provision on suicide prevention services, while Stephen Kerr’s amendment 296 would insert a similar provision that relates to the impact of assisted dying provision on palliative care services.”
“Stuart McMillan’s amendment 279 would strengthen the reporting requirement that is placed on Public Health Scotland by removing the reference to information being provided only “in so far as known to Public Health Scotland”. I strongly support that amendment. Amendments 280, 59 to 61, 115, 62, 281 to 283 and 63 would all extend reporting by Public Health Scotland on matters including the assessment process, first declarations, the provision of social care, side effects and adverse reactions, clinical recommendations to ministers and the operation of the period of reflection. Emma Roddick’s amendments 284 and 287 would require reports to include detailed information about safeguarding concerns, including the outcomes of any safeguarding investigations.”
“It would establish procedures to correct deficiencies, which would prevent the provision of incomplete or biased information and guarantee that all recipients, including terminally ill adults, professionals and the public have access to accurate and comprehensive guidance. Therefore, it is a simple improvement that would give section 23A of the bill greater effect and I commend it to members. Although section 23A is an important provision in principle, as it stands, it is too weak and poorly defined to be of greatest effect as a safeguard. Therefore, I trust that members will feel able to support amendments 275 to 277.”
“Again, accessible and balanced information is important for vulnerable individuals, particularly those with learning disabilities, given the general misunderstanding among the public about what assisted dying means. Polling by Whitestone Insight shows that around one in three people who support assisted dying believe that it would mean hospice or palliative care, or the right to stop life-prolonging treatment. Clear, direct, balanced and non-euphemistic language is essential for any Government guidance. Amendment 277 would require Scottish ministers to monitor and report on compliance, and it would ensure that information is regularly reviewed, updated and publicly reported.”
“Along with amendments 276 and 277, the amendment promotes informed decision making and seeks to ensure that lawful assistance to end-of-life services is accompanied by clear guidance on support and protection, as well as going some way to offering a level of protection to vulnerable individuals. Amendment 276 would require that all information provided under section 23A is comprehensive and that it explicitly covers the legal, medical, social and ethical aspects of assisted dying. It would ensure that terminally ill adults, health professionals and the public receive full and balanced guidance, preventing selective or partial information and supporting informed decision making.”
“Building on the concerns that were raised by my colleague Emma Roddick in discussion of group 2, bolstering suicide prevention in the context of assisted dying is highly relevant for vulnerable individuals such as people with disabilities, who are more vulnerable to suicide ideation due to their disability. I draw members’ attention to the legal opinion by leading lawyer Tom Cross KC, who found the bill to fall short of safeguarding those individuals. Amendment 275 seeks to clarify what accessible information must be provided by Scottish ministers, and it would require information to be set out on suicide prevention, including how to access immediate support. That will be essential for vulnerable people such as those with depression, who may be eligible under the bill if they fit the eligibility criteria.”
“This group of amendments largely seeks to strengthen recording and reporting provisions in sections 23A, 24 and 26 of the bill. Safeguarding is at the heart of the amendments. I will begin with my amendments, before speaking to other amendments in the group. My amendments 275, 276, and 277 relate to duties on Scottish ministers to provide accessible information about assisted dying in the event that it becomes legalised. Amendment 275 specifies the content of the information that Scottish ministers must provide in the important section 23A of the bill. It seeks to ensure that all information is comprehensive, accurate and balanced and that it must include guidance on independent advice, safeguards against coercion or abuse, available alternatives such as palliative care, and resources for suicide prevention and immediate support.”
“As I said, we are wrestling with the question whether we trust medical professionals to exercise their judgment in the circumstances that they would face. Carol Mochan illustrated that in her interventions both earlier in this group and in previous groups. I understand the motivation for wanting to protect patients from any suggestion that there is an inference that a particular treatment option is preferred or recommended by the medical practitioner. Nevertheless, I think that there are risks in putting in place a ban on a doctor using that judgment in particular circumstances. I wonder whether that may be better reflected through the guidance, which is where most of these matters already sit.”
“I seek clarification of the member’s earlier response to the Deputy First Minister on the question whether assisted dying is understood to be a “reasonable” treatment option under the Montgomery ruling, which says that, by law, a doctor must offer all reasonable treatment options. I am concerned about the member’s response to that query. Some of that concern is driven by a conversation that I had with a consultant in my constituency, who is very anxious about this proposal in the context of the impact that it would have on the doctor-patient relationship. Liam McArthur: I am not sure that I am able to add anything to what I have already said in response to Kate Forbes. Ultimately, the decision would be a matter for the courts to determine.”
“For that reason, I ask Murdo Fraser not to move amendment 207, and I ask members to support all my amendments in the group. I move amendment 198.”
“I checked with Dr Lucas and Dr Winnington, who are the experts in such advocacy services across the world, based on their professional experience of operating within those services, not only as clinicians but, more recently, as academics. They said that all other advocacy systems have that governmental approach, and it would risk increasing complexity in the scheme if we were to establish another body that is responsible for it. The current model mirrors provisions in existing legislation for independent advocacy. The advocacy service standards in the Social Security Scotland context are being mirrored. That approach ensures consistency when we are talking about independent advocacy, what it means and where the standards of provision are set out.”
“It is designed to ensure that, ultimately, it is entirely down to the patient. If a patient embarks on the process and starts those discussions with their doctor, the decision about whether they receive advocacy would be only the patient’s. That is why it is at the patient’s request and nothing else. I will try to draw my remarks to a conclusion. Before I close, I want to speak briefly to Murdo Fraser’s amendment 207. That amendment would have the Scottish Government create an independent advocacy oversight body and an accreditation scheme, rather than what is currently proposed, which is a model in which the Scottish Government sets the advocacy service standards and any provider is mandated by their contract to comply with those standards. I understand the intention of Murdo Fraser’s amendment, but I am afraid that I cannot support it.”
“I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer, so I will try to round off after that. Brian Whittle: I apologise to the member—I just want clarity on that issue, because advocacy is paramount and crucial in the bill. On Bob Doris’s point on amendments 199 and 200, I want to clarify that the intention of the amendments is to ensure that people who seek assisted dying or consider assisted dying should be able to get advocacy services. It does not quite say that, but is that the intention? Ross Greer: The short answer to that is yes. Apart from the ones that I have spoken to in detail, the amendments are based on advice that we have had from the Scottish Law Society and the Government and so on, on making sure that the definitions are legally clear and operable. Amendment 200 is the most critical of those.”
“I am keen to ensure that we have a proper definition somewhere in the bill that avoids, for instance, undue influence. Does amendment 204 remove that definition, or have I misread it? Ross Greer: That is what I was referencing a moment ago: the amendments move some of that from the bill to the statutory guidance. I ask Dr Allan and any other member who is interested in that issue to cross-reference amendment 204 with amendment 259, which we will come to in group 19. That moves the definition into the guidance, and it is about making sure that we can keep the definition up to date. It would not be locked into primary legislation. There would be a definition, but we would put it in the guidance so that we can keep it up to date as the system develops. Brian Whittle: Will the member give way? Ross Greer: I will take Mr Whittle again.”
“For example, the advocacy is not provided by one of the practitioners who is making the clinical decisions around things such as prognosis. The advocate is someone entirely separate to that. Their job is purely to advocate on behalf of the patient, unaffected by the other decisions that are being made, particularly on any judgment that may be clouded—not clouded, as that is negative—or affected if they are also making clinical decisions. This approach separates the advocate out from the clinical element of the process. Alasdair Allan: I wonder whether the member could reassure me about amendment 204. Am I incorrect in reading that to mean that it would remove the provisions that define in detail what the advocacy service is to do?”
“I am interested in the issue around the word “independent”. I understand the rationale for the member’s amendments, but I am interested in what reassurance can be provided that an independent advocacy service is truly independent. That circles back to the issue of coercion, which has cropped up regularly over the past few days. Ross Greer: I am grateful to Audrey Nicoll for making that point. The definition of independent advocacy is one that we are debating across several bills in the Parliament right now, particularly in relation to care-experienced young people. The concept of advocacy being independent is to ensure that the patient does not feel that it is provided by somebody who is otherwise already engaged in the process.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to colleges and universities to address skills shortages in the defence, aerospace and space sectors. (S6O-05637)”
“An anorexia charity has found from whistleblowing doctors across the US at least 60 confirmed cases of people struggling with anorexia—mainly young women—being given drugs to end their lives under assisted dying laws. 17:00”
“That is where patients are turned down for assisted dying because doctors who know them and their conditions well deem that they do not qualify, but those patients keep applying to different doctors until they find one who applies the eligibility criteria liberally—for example, by approving a disabled person who has many comorbidities. That might explain why, in places where the law has not technically expanded beyond the terminal illness eligibility criteria, people with non-terminal conditions have nonetheless been approved for assisted dying. In Oregon, Government data shows that people with conditions such as arthritis and anorexia have been approved.”
“There are also issues such as the postcode lottery that exists in the provision of palliative care. Some people have excellent care at the point of need, but others receive too little, too late. Given such factors, it is incumbent on us to ensure that robust information is recorded so that the potential reasons driving the choice of an assisted death have been discussed fully; so that all possible help is provided to ensure that someone is not driven to take their life when they otherwise would not consider it; and so that the process does not become a tick-box exercise. We have heard evidence from abroad of what is called “doctor shopping”.”
“That would cover all inquiries made of other professionals; discussions with the person being assessed; explanations that have been provided regarding diagnosis, prognosis, treatment options, palliative care and the nature of any substance that might be provided; and advice given, referrals made and the clinical reasoning for decisions, including any instances in which inquiries or referrals were not completed. There is a high prevalence of people choosing to die because they feel that they are a burden on others. For example, in Oregon and Canada, close to 50 per cent of people cite that as one of their main reasons for wanting to take their life early under assisted dying provisions. That raises serious questions about the prevalence of coercion.”
“Before I speak to my amendment 173, I say that I fully support Fulton MacGregor’s amendment 171. It is a practical provision that shows the intersection between issues such as adult support and protection and observing the rights of adults with incapacity, on the one hand, and the legislation that will be enacted should the bill be passed, on the other. Amendment 173 is designed to improve transparency and accountability and to promote robust record keeping. It would introduce a mandatory requirement for registered medical practitioners who carry out assessments under section 6 to prepare and retain a comprehensive written record of the assessment process.”