Christine Grahame
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding whether any of the support announced in response to the increased cost of heating oil will help the agriculture sector and other rural industries in Scotland that are dependent on that fuel. (S6O- 05695)”
“At a recent First Minister’s question time, I raised the matter of the successful prosecution against the Hamiltons, who are part of the cruel puppy- farm trade. That case was concluded after a five- year investigation by the SSPCA that started when 33 puppies were found in dreadful conditions.”
“Of course, some can go online or use an app, but there will be many who cannot, and for them, it is essential that they speak to a real person at the bank, not a chatbot. Therefore, I would impress upon the Bank of Scotland the need for it to take up my suggestion of reintroducing mobile services, which I understand it abandoned in 2024.”
“My first prize at school was for an essay on animal welfare, but being a vet was out of reach for a girl from a council house scheme. However, I got to the right place at last, chairing the cross- party group on animal welfare for more than a decade, with two acts of Parliament—the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Welfare of Do…”
“I made my first speech in June 1999, and one Mary Scanlon, a Conservative, broke my peroration—I thought that I was doing rather well—with a point of order that challenged the relevance of my contribution to the motion. I was devastated, but I ploughed on.”
“The Scottish Sentencing Council is developing guidelines for environmental and wildlife crime, but companion and farm animal welfare cases, which make up the vast majority of investigations, are not included.”
The complete record
Every one of 727 lines we hold for Christine Grahame, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 15.
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding whether any of the support announced in response to the increased cost of heating oil will help the agriculture sector and other rural industries in Scotland that are dependent on that fuel. (S6O- 05695)”
“Wait for it— there is praise coming. He is a thoroughly able and unassuming politician who quietly got things done—and that is high praise indeed. 18:46”
“Of course, some can go online or use an app, but there will be many who cannot, and for them, it is essential that they speak to a real person at the bank, not a chatbot. Therefore, I would impress upon the Bank of Scotland the need for it to take up my suggestion of reintroducing mobile services, which I understand it abandoned in 2024. There should, at the very least, be such facilities; after all, £137 billion of our own money was paid over to bail out the banks in 2007-08 because of their self-made economic mismanagement. One thing that we can do is move our accounts from the Bank of Scotland. It is the very least that we can do to show it that we mean business on behalf of those who cannot access it locally any more. Finally, I, too, give my best wishes to Richard Lochhead. We came together in 1999.”
“I have already had contact from constituents on behalf of elderly and vulnerable adults for whom that ‘solution’ is not sufficient but require the personal service you once provided so well. Indeed, one might say many, including myself aged 81, use online because there is no alternative—local banks having closed down, and even ATMs, right, left and centre. At one time, banks offered a mobile service, perhaps only weekly for a limited time, in some rural areas, and that would be a much better alternative. Is this something the bank would consider?” I have yet to receive a reply. Penicuik has a population of 16,500, according to the 2022 census, and it has no doubt expanded a lot since then. Around 20 per cent—that is, some 3,000—are over 60.”
“Options that have been offered by the bank are helping people with online or mobile banking via their app—whatever that is—or, recognising that not all customers bank digitally, particularly those who are older or have a vulnerability, it has offered telephone banking and the services that are available at the post office. That is all very well, but the post office in Penicuik, which is excellent, is always busy and probably does not have the time, staff or facilities to provide what is being lost: face- to-face meetings. By return, I wrote: “I recognise you will have had a flurry of contacts and while I note your alternative proposal , the nearby Post Office is frankly insufficient.”
“I, too, congratulate my colleague Clare Haughey on securing the motion for debate in the chamber. I said earlier during the debate on animal welfare that that was my last speech—well, that was a wee porky. This really is my last speech and, appropriately, it is about my constituency By email on 11 February, the Bank of Scotland advised me that its branch in Penicuik would close on 4 June. The reason that was given was that its customers are increasingly choosing mobile banking as their preferred way to bank. One could argue that they are given no other choice.”
“I made my first speech in June 1999, and one Mary Scanlon, a Conservative, broke my peroration—I thought that I was doing rather well—with a point of order that challenged the relevance of my contribution to the motion. I was devastated, but I ploughed on. Later, at home, I took solace at the bottom of the garden with a large whisky—most unusual for me—and many tears, proclaiming that I did not want to be a politician. By the way, Mary Scanlon insisted on coming to hear my final speech, and she is in the public gallery now. So, I say to Scanlon, as I call her, that, 27 years on, I am a politician, and it has been an absolute privilege. [Applause.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: For the avoidance of doubt, Ms Scanlon will not be able to make a contribution from the public gallery. 11:05”
“At this point, I thank all the animal welfare organisations and individuals who have kept me informed and who do such amazing work in representing and protecting the wellbeing of animals. I also put on the record my thanks to all those across the Parliament who have helped me over 27 years and who, as my ability has reduced, have been so very kind and thoughtful. To my colleagues, I say au revoir, à bientôt, see you at conferences—at which I may even speak, goodness help you. I send my best wishes to my constituents in Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale and, most importantly, all my thanks to my excellent staff in team Christine. They gave themselves that name, and that mattered. One final word.”
“At a recent First Minister’s question time, I raised the matter of the successful prosecution against the Hamiltons, who are part of the cruel puppy- farm trade. That case was concluded after a five- year investigation by the SSPCA that started when 33 puppies were found in dreadful conditions. It was taken as a summary prosecution, however, and all that happened was that the Hamiltons were given community service and were banned from having more than one dog for five years. Those are minor penalties, in my book. We have come far. However, I note—while respecting the independence of the judiciary, of course—that there is work to be undertaken in the next session of Parliament on sentencing guidelines; on more cases, where it is appropriate, being taken under solemn procedure; and, in my view, on consolidating animal welfare legislation.”
“The Scottish Sentencing Council is developing guidelines for environmental and wildlife crime, but companion and farm animal welfare cases, which make up the vast majority of investigations, are not included. That can lead to variation in how similar cases are approached and sentenced across different courts, and there is a risk that similar offences may receive markedly different outcomes, and so undermine confidence in the justice system. In practice, most animal welfare cases are brought under summary procedure in the sheriff court, even when the level of harm, the scale of offending or wider concerns might suggest that a more serious approach is justified through the use of solemn procedure in the High Court. On summary prosecution, the available penalties are very limited.”
“My first prize at school was for an essay on animal welfare, but being a vet was out of reach for a girl from a council house scheme. However, I got to the right place at last, chairing the cross- party group on animal welfare for more than a decade, with two acts of Parliament—the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2025—under my belt. I am holding in my hand, as my first and last prop, the newly published “Certificate and Code of Practice for New Owners of a Puppy or Dog”. We have come quite a long way in recognising animals as sentient beings, but not far enough, in particular on the sentencing of those found guilty of cruelty. There are currently no specific sentencing guidelines for animal welfare offences relating to companion or farm animals.”
“Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Well, breaking news: Christine Grahame is at last retiring—some might say not before time— and I am proud that my last debate is on animal welfare. As a lass of 10, I made a phone call to the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, concerned that a lovely stray labrador running about our street was being tormented by children, and fearing that its happy, boisterous behaviour might just change. A family who lived a couple of doors down had taken it in—yes, they were feeding it, but then they just let it run loose. The SSPCA called me back—the dog was in good health, they told me, but they were missing the point, and, not more than a week later, it bit a child and was put down.”
“A number of people who responded to our call for evidence suggested that there should be recompense to reflect that workload. However, after discussion, we thought that that was a step too far and was too challenging at this stage. The process of electing conveners would allow for such a discussion in the future if members wanted to pursue it.”
“I have been a convener four times. I have long campaigned not only for conveners to be elected but for them to receive responsibility pay for the role. That is because a good convener makes for a good, effective committee. Conveners deserve that status. What were the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s reflections on responsibility pay for conveners? I have no idea what amount might have been discussed, but I wonder whether, in principle, the committee was agreeable to it. Martin Whitfield: Christine Grahame’s intervention picks up on the workload that conveners have to take on. As an innocent, naive convener at the start of the session, I had not appreciated the phenomenal workload. I accepted that as I became experienced, because, as Christine Grahame says, a good convener can make for a very good committee.”
“Midlothian Council, the relevant roads authority for the A7, advises that, at present, it has no plans to widen the road and that there is no accident history associated with the location. It was noted that any widening works would present engineering challenges as well as the need to engage with private landowners. Importantly, Midlothian Council also expressed concern that progressing with that work might ultimately prove not to be needed. In the interim, Midlothian Council has agreed to undertake further temporary repairs to ensure that the verge remains, and Transport Scotland will liaise with BEAR Scotland regarding any necessary repairs where the trunk road for the Sheriffhall roundabout ties in with the A7. Water Supply and Waste Water Treatment Services 5.”
“I use the A7 regularly and, like Miles Briggs, am deeply disappointed by the situation. The cabinet secretary knows, because I copied her in, that I wrote to Transport Scotland with regard to the idea of having a temporary third lane on the northwards A7 approach to the Sheriffhall roundabout. Transport Scotland told me that it was in touch with Midlothian Council, but I have yet to hear from the council. Does the cabinet secretary know whether they are liaising with each other? It would be good to find that out. Fiona Hyslop: Transport Scotland and Midlothian Council met on 23 February to discuss the feasibility of widening the northbound approach of the A7 to the A720, prompted by the exemplary and ever-diligent work of Christine Grahame on behalf of her constituents.”
“In the case of my unassuming, uncomplaining mother, the family made the choice for her. She had no right to choose. That is all I want—the right to choose. I do not want to be like my mother, who was drug stupefied. We did not know whether she could hear us. I hope that I will have some control and dignity and be aware of my surroundings, with my sons, Angus from Canada and Niall from London, by my side. That must be my choice. It is not for everybody, but I would like it for me. I say to members: please support the bill, and if you are in doubt, please do not stand in the way of it but abstain. 21:40”
“Mum had cancer for months. She worsened and, for the last three weeks, was in the Western general hospital in Edinburgh, just waiting to die. She was told practically on arrival that they could do nothing but would try to make her as comfortable as possible. I saw her with my father almost every day. Only once did she express her fear, when she whispered to me, out of his earshot, “Christine, will there be pain?” I said, “No,” of course, but there was. Near the very end, Jim, the wonderful and understanding charge nurse took Dad, me, and my siblings Tony and Catriona aside and asked if he could “up the morphine” to help with the pain, although it would probably accelerate death. Together, we said, “Yes,” and we thanked him. The First Minister knew my parents well, the good people who they were.”
“If the bill is passed, and even if it is not, I will campaign for better funding and provision of palliative care for everyone. The bill is about choice and neither of my parents had choice. One had a good death; the other had a very bad death. Dad got up one Monday morning, made his bed, placed his pyjamas neatly under the pillow, set the breakfast table then sat down in his armchair with his cup of tea on one arm and a digestive biscuit on the other. His last words were a phone call to my brother. He told Tony that he felt not right, and the phone hit the floor. He died with his cup of tea and digestive biscuit barely touched, in his own chair, in his own home and surrounded by a gallery of family photos. It was our pain to find him there, not his, and, although it broke our hearts, we were grateful that it had happened that way.”
“I have listened to the concerns about capacity, undue influence and coercion, mostly in the context of disability, both physical and mental, or of domestic abuse. I say to members that I am satisfied that the bill provides barriers and protections for those vulnerable groups and that I certainly would not vote for it if that were not the case. Indeed, if it is passed, I predict that this will be the most policed and most closely monitored legislation ever, and I welcome that. The bill is about choice—the final choice for me and others who may wish to die if we have a terminal illness and are at the end of life. It is not about competing with or undermining palliative care. I am delighted that concerns about palliative care provision have been brought to the fore.”
“I begin by paying tribute to my late colleague Margo MacDonald and to Patrick Harvie, pioneers on the subject, to Liam McArthur, whose dignity has been extraordinary, and to all who have contributed so far. I am 81 and more aware of my mortality than most other MSPs. I think about it quite regularly. My power of attorney is in place, my will is in place and the wee purple file where I keep all my wee secrets about where the money is hidden is there for my boys to find. I repeat that I respect those with firm religious opposition to assisted dying but I know that, no matter how we amend the bill, they are never going to vote for it. That is it for them, so I want to speak to people who are on the cusp, or to the people who have said that they are in doubt and are not going to support the bill. I will speak to them.”
“On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you. I will make sure that that is recorded.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Can I make a plea at this stage, as I am conscious of the time and the number of members who still wish to ask a question, for more succinct questions and answers? Shirley-Anne Somerville: Christine Grahame points to the delivery by the Scottish Government and the real impact that it makes across Scotland. All members can reflect on the number of families who are benefiting from the Scottish child payment. The payment impacts on their wellbeing and, of course, there are implications for the future of Scotland as well.”
“There is much to welcome in the statement. I will focus on the Scottish child payment, which, from April, will be £28.20 per child per week in qualifying households and, in particular, on the targeted child payment premium of £40 a week for a child under the age of one. I will give the cabinet secretary the facts of real life. As at 31 December 2025, in Midlothian, 6,245 children were benefiting from the Scottish child payment; in the Borders, the figure is 5,775. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that is an investment for each child—12,020 children—in their wellbeing and their future prospects and, indeed, in the future prospects of Scotland itself?”
“To ask the First Minister what measures the Scottish Government can take, in discussion with the United Kingdom Government, to assist households in very rural areas that are wholly dependent on oil or liquefied natural gas for heating, and are not connected to the gas mains, to assist with increased costs. (S6F-04748)”
“I am a bit bewildered about the issue of caring responsibilities. I regard Friday as a working day, just as being in the Parliament today and tomorrow are working days. I do not have the obligations that Keith Brown has, which are much more important than mine, and so all that I have been required to do is cancel my surgeries and rearranged meetings that would have followed on from them. Because Friday is a working day, I always have arrangements to be in my constituency and to be about, as many of us do. Therefore, I do not understand the distinction between Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and Friday, which is just another working day for me. We have a responsibility in this Parliament. We have had very—”
“Daniel Johnson: Indeed, but I believe that my amendments would require that rationale. Rather than there being a full report, the rationale would be provided in the form of a statement. Having reflected on the stage 2 debate, I think that that would provide the required robustness and clarity. It always slightly concerns me when we leave things to regulations when we could provide clarity. However, if my amendments are not agreed to, I will support Mr Doris’s amendments.”
“It is important to evidence and record such things, so that we have clarity, robust evidence and accountable decision making on what would, ultimately, be an incredibly important decision by both the patient and the doctor. Bob Doris: Daniel Johnson referred to my amendment 37, on the medical practitioner’s report. He appeared to be supportive of it, but he was concerned that such provision could be overly burdensome or bureaucratic. I reassure him that amendment 67 would allow the Scottish Government to set out in regulations the details of such a report so that that would not be the case. I hope that, on reflection, he will support amendment 37 and its consequential amendments, because it would surely be important to have a rationale for the decision that the co-ordinating medical practitioner arrived at.”
“My amendments are modelled on the New Zealand legislation, which clearly specifies what should happen if the co- ordinating medical practitioner decides that the person is not eligible or that the process should not proceed. Amendment 183 specifies that, in addition to the form that is set out in schedule 2, further details would need to be given in the form of an additional statement, which would need to be recorded. That statement would need to set out the nature of the relationship between the patient and the doctor, the doctor’s understanding of the nature of the patient’s condition, the co-ordinating medical practitioner’s understanding of the patient’s capacity and the steps that had been undertaken to assess that.”
“The particular point is that it must be recorded when a medical practitioner does not agree that the assisted dying process should proceed. Amendment 9 would ensure that a statement on the assessment is recorded and provided to the patient, which is important because, if the original decision is subsequently reversed, it must be referred to and the subsequent medical practitioner must explain why they have arrived at a different opinion. Given the nature and structure of the drafting, that is provided for in amendment 183A. It is important that the bill provides for what should happen not just if the decision was to proceed with the process but if the decision was not to proceed with it.”
“Sometimes, the nature and intensity of the diagnosis produce a very good-quality relationship, which is why, as I reflected at stage 2, the length of time is not a good proxy for that, because sometimes a short but intense doctor-patient relationship is much more valuable than a long but cursory one. Turning to my amendment 9, I reflected on some of the discussion at stage 2 between Liam McArthur and Bob Doris. Although there is much merit in Bob Doris’s amendment 37, which would introduce the requirement for a report, I worry that it might be burdensome, especially given the sensitive timing that is involved in the process. However, at the very least, a statement is required, which is what amendments 9, 183 and 183A would address.”
“I will comment on the face-to-face patient-doctor relationship, which Mr Whittle and Mr Johnson raised. I do not know whether Daniel Johnson agrees, but I surmise that, once a person is diagnosed with a terminal illness, the relationship becomes much more personal and face to face, and is not restricted just to phone calls between 8 o’clock and 10 o’clock and getting lines from the doctor. The issue has to be addressed, but the GP and the patient will, in many cases, have much more of a relationship once the diagnosis has been confirmed. Daniel Johnson: I agree with that.”
“Emma Roddick: Does the member share my concern, in listening to the debate, that, if we required people not to have suicidal ideation to access assisted dying, that would encourage people not to be open about the suicidal ideation that they understandably face when dealing with a chronic illness? Should we not be encouraging people to talk about that, so that they can be offered alternative support if that will address the feelings that they are having? Pam Duncan-Glancy: As many members across the chamber will know, thoughts of suicide and suicidal ideation are deeply complex and personal, and they can affect every aspect of people’s lives. Indeed, we rightly spend quite a lot of time looking to support people with such thoughts, including at the end. It is really important that that is considered in the bill.”
“Particularly given the exchanges that we have heard this afternoon on amendment 139, it is important to remind ourselves of the statement on the issue by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which has said: “suicide prevention remains a duty when someone is terminally ill”. That is incredibly important, and the amendment could help us to ensure that that is the case. The college went on to say: “For someone given a terminal diagnosis, the inevitable loss and grief associated with the end of life should be acknowledged and supported”. That is another reason why the amendment is important. However, I am still concerned that it would fall short of making the bill entirely safe.”
“Amendment 139 would make eligibility dependent on someone having been offered and having access to psychological counselling, and on whether they had previously been screened or treated for suicidal thoughts or ideation, or self- harm. That amendment is crucial. Illness and loss of function can lead to the experience of low mood and mental ill health. That is due to a variety of factors, including societal ones, but they are there nonetheless. We must recognise that there is a relationship between mental and physical health, and we have to support that. Amendment 139 tries to do that.”
“I listened carefully to the intervention from my colleague Liam Kerr about whether the decision should be based on support or illness. We are grappling with that very question throughout the discussion on the bill. Support is often what is needed and can be the difference between someone wanting to continue in a circumstance or not. Support is absolutely essential. Even if amendments 138 and 143 are agreed to, however, I do not believe that they go far enough. We know that thousands of people have already been assessed as needing support yet are still waiting for care packages to be put in place. We know from all the excellent organisations, hospices, palliative care specialists and many more how unequal access to palliative care is. The “Dying in the Margins” report from Marie Curie gives examples of that.”
“Amendments 138 and 143, in Douglas Ross’s name, seek to ensure that terminally ill adults are eligible for assisted dying only if they have been “offered, and have access to, a fully costed palliative care pathway”. That is really important, given what we know about the significant unmet need that exists and the impact that that can have on quality of life. The point about the pathway being costed is important, because we know that, often, people have identified what they think are their needs—or had their needs identified by other people in an assessment—but those things are not funded or provided. Support that is identified as needed but not provided is not support at all. That can be the difference between someone choosing to continue and not.”
“They do not just compel a discussion or a recording of the discussion—as the bill currently provides for and as later amendments, particularly in group 7, suggest—but specifically require the delivery of support or that inequalities be addressed. A discussion or a signpost is not sufficient, and a plan that is not costed or funded—this speaks to some of the debate that we have had earlier about the bill—is not delivery of support. In a bill such as this, we need a high bar, because it is a matter of life and death. If we do not require those issues to be addressed, we risk making it easier to choose to die than to choose to live. The question facing us is whether we believe that such support—crucial healthcare, social care and psychological support—is likely to be available, and available to all equally.”
“doctors’ assessments of which patients are likely to die in six or 12 months are correct less than 50% of the time.” Therefore, although we attempt to narrow eligibility—I take on board the points that my colleague Daniel Johnson has made about the need to have something in the bill that does narrow eligibility—it is very difficult to make that happen, so I am left worried that people could still end their lives prematurely. I move to amendments in the group that seek to address the wider societal pressures that could drive someone to choose to die. The amendments in the group that make provision available are important.”
“In evidence to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, Dr Sarah Mills said: “Any doctor who feels that they are able to adequately predict somebody’s prognosis in months and years is usually mistaken. . . . Until we improve on the precision and accuracy with which we can identify somebody’s prognosis, it is meaningless to include a timescale in the bill”.—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee,19 November 2024; c 44.] Similar concerns have been raised more widely, including ones that are supported by research from the Association for Palliative Medicine, which says that “across thousands of prognosis assessments . . .”
“I will address those amendments in turn. First, I will talk briefly about the amendments in the name of Daniel Johnson and Bob Doris that would introduce a six-month timeframe until death. I would also like to associate myself with some of the comments that Bob Doris has just made on the record about what is in the policy memorandum for the bill, and I would note that, as the bill stands, it does not deliver on that. I know that the amendments in this space are well intentioned. However, throughout committee scrutiny of the bill, we heard from a number of experts—whose evidence has been repeated in the chamber this afternoon—about the difficulty and indeed, the near impossibility, of accurately predicting how long someone has left to live.”
“Without support to ensure the equality and human rights of all, we could end up legislating to make it easier to die than to live and to deepen some already entrenched inequalities. Some amendments in the group highlight the societal factors that could lead to someone believing that it is easier to die than to go on living: a lack of care, poverty or financial hardship, social isolation or loneliness, feelings of being a burden, breakdown or loss of significant personal relationships, inadequate or unsafe and insecure housing, pain that is untreated, palliative support that is not there, or inequalities denying access to that support. I recognise that members have lodged amendments in the group with the intention of tightening the criteria and clarifying them in an effort to strengthen safeguards in the legislation.”
“It would require the Scottish Government to prepare and publish guidance on “how to interpret and apply in practice the eligibility requirement that the terminally ill adult can reasonably be expected to die within 6 months.” It is important to make members aware of that amendment now—we will discuss the merits of it later, when we reach group 19—because it acknowledges the complexities involved for registered medical practitioners in this area, and the importance of the challenges that specific conditions present for non-specialist practitioners. It also illustrates why amendment 162 is of such importance. Pam Duncan-Glancy: Amendments in this group get to the heart of some of my concerns about the bill as drafted.”
“I note that amendments 316 and 322, in the name of Daniel Johnson, have a similar policy intent, and I am content to support them. I do not intend to move my amendments 317 and 323, assuming that Daniel Johnson will move his own amendments It is important that I draw members’ attention to amendment 262, which will be debated when we reach group 19—my goodness, that seems like a long time away.”
“As the bill stands, a registered medical practitioner “carrying out an assessment under section 6 must … if they have doubt as to whether the person being assessed is terminally ill, refer the person for assessment by a registered medical practitioner who holds qualifications or has experience in the diagnosis and management of the terminal illness involved”. Amendment 162 would ensure that, if the registered medical practitioner has any doubt that the person “can reasonably be expected to die within six months,” they must make a similar referral. Amendment 162 would, therefore, give the full policy intent to the substantive amendment, which is amendment 2. Amendments 317 and 323 would ensure that both medical practitioners’ declarations include the six-month requirement.”
“As those provisions are drafted, assisted dying would likely include some people who would otherwise live for a considerable period, which would be at odds with the stated policy intent behind the bill. That is the point. I do not pretend that any of this is easy, and, as we have heard, there are also challenges regarding a timeframe for any prognosis. However, I firmly believe that having a timeframe would be preferable to leaving the matter completely open ended. In that regard, my amendment 162 will be crucial if the policy intent behind Daniel Johnson’s amendment 2 is to be fully delivered.”
“Maggie Chapman has perhaps identified one, but a series of unintended consequences would also flow from not having some form of time restriction. I also wrestle with the issue that Maggie Chapman raises, but I must say that, on balance, I do not think that it is appropriate for a bill whose policy intent is to apply to people in the last months of their lives not to specify how long they might have left to live if its provisions are to apply to them. That it is not an appropriate way to pass legislation, if it is to be passed. It is clear that the current definition and eligibility criteria are not an effective way to identify a narrow group of people who are near the end of life.”
“That is why, as imperfect as Daniel Johnson’s amendment 2 is, it is very important for realising the policy intent of the member in charge of the bill. Maggie Chapman: I pose to Bob Doris the same question about the six-month period that I posed to Daniel Johnson earlier. What if someone who seeks an assisted death has other conditions that would limit their capacity to make that decision within the six-month period, but they know full well what is coming and would want to make that decision outwith that period? Bob Doris: Maggie Chapman is right to put that to me. I will answer in this way: irrespective of how the bill is passed—if it is passed—and irrespective of which amendments are agreed to, there will be a whole series of unforeseen, unintended consequences.”
“At stage 2, Daniel Johnson sought to bring the six-month threshold into the definition of a terminal illness, which I disagreed with. I am pleased that the member lodged his amendment 2 under the section on eligibility, which means that I did not have to do so. It is the correct place for such a provision to sit. Therefore, I urge members to support amendment 2. I remind members that paragraph 32 on page 8 of the policy memorandum that accompanies the bill—this is important—states: “It is not the intention that people suffering from a progressive disease/illness/condition which is not at an advanced stage but may be expected to cause their death (but which they may live with for many months/years) would be able to access assisted dying.” That is in the policy memorandum, but the bill says something completely different.”
“It has widely consulted its members—who will have their own views on the legislation—but what I am presenting is the partnership’s balanced view on how to improve the bill, while its overall stance remains neutral. I also put it on the record that I am the convener of the Parliament’s cross-party group on palliative care. In speaking to my amendments 162, 317 and 323, I offer my support for the substantive amendment in this group, which is Daniel Johnson’s amendment 2. It is almost identical to an amendment that I lodged at stage 2, when I sought to introduce a condition that a person applying for assisted dying must reasonably be expected to die within six months. I sought to make the case that that reasonable expectation should sit within a section on eligibility criteria.”