John Mason
Independent · Scotland
“I noted press coverage just yesterday of the vacancy level for both primary and secondary teachers in the Highland Council area, yet I get complaints from young teachers that they cannot get a job in Glasgow.”
“I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing the debate and other members for their kind words. Many people in Scotland’s urban areas and central belt still care deeply for our remote, rural and island communities.”
“[Laughter.] I was proved correct during Covid, when it was treated as part of the mainland. I can understand the desire to have causeways, bridges or tunnels linking islands to each other or to the mainland. That makes access to a range of services much easier, from shopping to medical services, weddings and funerals.”
“Land mass should be a factor, too. This is my last speech in Parliament, so I thank all those who make this Parliament work, including fellow MSPs—and especially those who are leaving. We are much smaller than Westminster, and that is a big advantage in my opinion.”
“In my opinion, that should be a higher priority than dualling the A9. I do not often agree with Scottish Land & Estates, but I agree with some of the key points in its briefing for the debate. Tackling depopulation in rural areas has to be a top priority; and as it says, “if rural Scotland does not thrive, Scotland does not thrive”.”
“That has clearly got me into trouble at times, but it has certainly been a huge privilege to serve here. I conclude by thanking you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and your two colleagues.”
The complete record
Every one of 652 lines we hold for John Mason, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 14.
“My amendment 298 would require the Scottish ministers to review the funding of palliative and end-of-life care and to examine whether charitable contributions had been affected by the operation of the bill as enacted. It would ensure that, where gaps emerged, the Government would have to step in so that such services would not be compromised. Amendment 298 is not about the Government replacing the role of charities; it is about recognising the extraordinary contribution that they already make and ensuring that their work would not be weakened by unintended consequences. Whatever view members take on assisted dying, we should never allow the care that we offer to people at the end of life to be diminished.”
“For many people, such reassurance is of vital importance, especially at a moment when they are at their most vulnerable. That will probably include many of us who are members of the Parliament at the moment. Amendment 298 therefore asks a straightforward question: if the bill changes the end-of-life care landscape, what impact might that have on the services that people rely on today? Some providers have already expressed concern that charitable income could be affected if assisted dying were to become part of the legal framework. If public perception shifts, donations may fall. If that were to happen, the consequences would fall not on institutions but on patients and families who depend on those services. That possibility deserves careful attention.”
“I say to members that we are all tired, but we have to abide by the rules, which call for courtesy and respect toward all members. We have to listen—Mr Adam—to the member who has the floor, which, in the instant case, is Mr Kerr. Please resume, Mr Kerr. Stephen Kerr: I did not realise that it would be so controversial to offer the words of my colleague in the debate, but I will certainly take a lesson from this. This is the third or fourth time that I have agreed with Bob Doris about that need. Is that enough agreement? Have I done enough damage to Bob Doris’s career in the Scottish National Party? I probably have. Bob Doris is right about the fact that the provision of palliative and end-of-life care services is not peripheral to this debate but central to it.”
“Please resume, Mr Kerr. Stephen Kerr: Bob Doris and I are completely at one on the need for considerably more investment. We also agree on the issue of equality, which has been the theme of some of my remarks during the stage 3 consideration of amendments. The need for people to have a fair opportunity— Sue Webber: On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am trying my best to listen to the remarks and the debate between Mr Doris and Mr Kerr, but all I can get in the background is another member who is chuntering away because they do not accept the order from the chair— [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Webber, please resume your seat. I am not going back on that issue. The position is very clear with regard to the rules.”
“It is essential that that is done in the next session of Parliament, irrespective of whether the bill before us is passed. Whether or not it passes, I expect to see a significant increase in palliative care funding from the Government. Does the member agree? Stephen Kerr: Bob Doris and I are absolutely at one— Christine Grahame: On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. Perhaps I did not phrase my previous point of order appropriately. Mr Kerr is reading out a speech verbatim for a member who is online and is therefore deemed to be present in the chamber. I cannot understand that. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Grahame, I have already ruled on the matter. I think that a refresh of the rules of our Parliament would be useful at this point—we are at 20:48, which is 17 hours and 52 minutes into our stage 3 proceedings.”
“Charitable organisations provide services that bring comfort, dignity and compassion to people in the final chapter of their lives. Those services are not peripheral to this debate—they are central to it. For many people, the reassurance that suffering can be managed and that compassionate care will be there at the end of life is deeply important. The strength of our palliative care system shapes how people think about dignity, choice and the support that is available to them when they are most vulnerable. Bob Doris: I am sympathetic to Mr Kerr’s amendment, but I want to give one note of caution. I hope that in the new session, the Parliament will come together, across party-political lines, to support significantly more investment in palliative care.”
“She will recall that, in fact, any member can move amendments on behalf of another member. That has been a long- standing rule of the Parliament. Mr Kerr, please resume. Stephen Kerr: I return to amendment 298. I think that I was talking about the importance of palliative and end-of-life care in Scotland—I hope that we will concentrate our minds again on the issues in group 15. Amendment 298 asks the Scottish ministers to review the funding of palliative and end-of-life care, including the impact that the act might have on the charitable donations that sustain so many of those services. That request is not made lightly. Across Scotland, hospice and palliative care exists today because of extraordinary generosity. Communities raise money, families organise events and volunteers give their time.”
“I therefore trust that all members, especially those who are fortunate enough to represent constituencies that include a hospice, will be sure to endorse the amendment today. I turn to my amendment 298. Group 15 allows us to consider something that sits quietly beneath much of the debate but that matters greatly to the people who will live with its consequences: the future of palliative— 20:45 Christine Grahame: On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I seek clarification. I have no problem with the member moving an amendment on behalf of Douglas Ross, but is Douglas Ross also voting in this debate? If that is the case, he should not be represented because, if he is voting online, he is, for all intents and purposes, in the chamber. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I thank Ms Grahame for her intervention.”
“Douglas Ross is saying that we have—whether that is right or wrong—an in-built tolerance of the high level of dependency on public donations to fund that end-of-life care. He is not wrong when he says that that is something that we would not probably tolerate in any other area of our healthcare system. Knowing, then, how vital public donations are to the on-going viability of the hospice sector, Douglas Ross’s amendment 252 would clarify that assessments under section 22A must explicitly consider “funding from charitable donations and other non-statutory sources”. By including those sources, the review would capture the financial realities of hospices and palliative care providers that rely heavily on public generosity.”
“Knowing, then, how vital public donations are— Neil Gray: I recognise the point that Stephen Kerr is making; however, would he accept that hospices, as valued as they are—I declare an interest as the fantastic St Andrew’s hospice is in my constituency—are not the only source of palliative or end-of-life care? Stephen Kerr: I do not think that Douglas Ross is insinuating in his remarks that that is the case, but he is pointing out that, as I think Neil Gray has just said, some very high-quality end-of-life care is available in hospices. I specifically mention the local hospice in my home area, Strathcarron hospice, which does an incredible amount of good work. I have had the opportunity to be a beneficiary of the excellent work that it has provided for friends and family.”
“I will first speak on behalf of Douglas Ross, who says that, in relation to his amendment 252, colleagues from across the chamber will know well the vital contribution that hospices, where we are blessed to have them, make to our communities and to the lives of our constituents. As is well documented, hospices are heavily dependent on charitable giving to provide the services that they do. Strangely, we tolerate a very high level of dependency on public donations to fund end-of-life care that we simply would not tolerate in any other vital area of healthcare.”
“As the anticipated costs of assisted dying have not yet been settled, we must take every precaution to ensure that there are no unintended consequences as a result of passing the bill, if it does pass. I trust that colleagues will feel able to support amendments 251, 253 and 254 as important additions to the bill. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Stephen Kerr to speak to amendment 252 and other amendments in the group. Stephen Kerr: I am grateful to Stuart McMillan for starting the group off. He provided us with a beautifully crafted diversion from the content of the bill with his discourse on referendums, which I am sure will not be the last time that we hear the word “referendums” in this place.”
“The thrust of my amendments is to ensure that we can monitor, using an on-going method, the impact of an assisted dying provision on palliative care. By linking to section 22A(2), the assessments would cover staffing, operations, funding streams and regulation. That would provide clear evidence of how the act affects end-of-life care services over time, and would enable policy makers and the public to identify and address any emerging pressures or issues. Given the heavy reliance of hospices and palliative care on charitable donations, which can fluctuate depending on factors such as cost of living and sustainability of Government funding, that is significant.”
“Where care funding has increased, it has not been anywhere near in line with funding in countries that do not have assisted dying. That has increased significantly. I take the point that the member made, and I agree with it. Rona Mackay: I will repeat an intervention that I made yesterday. A House of Commons inquiry found no evidence of palliative or end-of-life care deteriorating following the introduction of assisted dying, and it observed that assisted dying often acted as a catalyst for improvement. That was a 14-month inquiry by the House of Commons, so I am not sure what evidence you are referring to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Audrey Nicoll: I would not argue with those findings, and I am sure that that evidence is robust, but there is evidence elsewhere that reflects a very different picture.”
“Marie McNair: Does Audrey Nicoll share my concerns that the evidence clearly shows that there is no favourable impact from assisted dying on funding for palliative care? The law has led to the closure of hospices in Canada and the reduction of palliative care funding in other countries that have legalised assisted dying. Does the member agree that it is false to suggest that assisted dying has had no impact on palliative care funding? There is clearly anxiety across the hospice movement at the moment. Audrey Nicoll: I agree with the points that the member made, and the concerns about the impact of introducing assisted dying legislation on palliative care provision. I am aware that research in Europe shows that there has been a clear trend in palliative care funding being devalued.”
“As colleagues who represent constituencies that contain a hospice will know, they are very dependent on charitable giving; they rely on it for approximately two thirds of their income. Therefore, we must tread carefully in crafting the bill to ensure that the already delicate funding situation for our hospices is in no way weakened. Amendments 251, 253 and 254 would alter section 22A to require formal assessment of the act’s impact on hospices and palliative care every three years after it comes into operation. The amendments would ensure on-going monitoring rather than a single discretionary review and would require publication within six months, which would enhance transparency.”
“Does he have that information now that we have reached stage 3? Stuart McMillan: No. I purposely did not provide that, because I feel that, when it comes to referendums, the aspect of democracy and having the opportunity for the public to have their say far outweighs the argument about the cost. That was one of the considerations that the Government mentioned in its notes for stage 2. With that, I am happy to conclude my remarks. I move amendment 112. The Deputy Presiding Officer :I call Audrey Nicoll to speak to amendment 251 and other amendments in the group. Audrey Nicoll: During the consideration of stage 3 amendments, there has been on-going interest in how the bill might impact our palliative care provision, and not least our hugely valued hospices.”
“Miles Briggs rose— Stuart McMillan: I will take an intervention from Mr Briggs in a wee moment. This issue is engaging many people across the country. I feel that, if we do not have the opportunity to have a referendum in the future on the bill and the section 104 provisions after they pass through Westminster—provided that the bill passes next Tuesday—it could have a negative impact on many constituents. I will take Mr Briggs’s intervention now. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I ask Mr Briggs to be brief. Mr McMillan has been extremely generous in taking interventions, but I feel sure that he will very shortly—after Mr Briggs’s intervention—come to a conclusion. Miles Briggs: When a similar amendment was debated at stage 2, Stuart McMillan could not provide costings for holding a referendum.”
“The purpose of the amendment and the timescale would allow for that length of time. As I indicated in my opening comments, the section 104 process would normally take up to 18 months after the stage 3 process finished in the chamber. I considered that that length of time would be advantageous to allow for the section 104 process and for campaign teams to get together—whomever they involved—to have the opportunity to engage. It is fair to say that the population is engaged in the issue. I know that based on the folk who have been in touch with me, and I dare say that, based on discussions that I have had with colleagues, we have all had hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls coming into our offices, in addition to whatever is on social media.”
“The member has had a few negative comments, so I will give him a positive reaction. Does he agree that one of the differences between the 2014 independence referendum and the Brexit referendum in 2016 was that in 2014 the whole population got really engaged, thought it through, discussed it on the buses, heard it everywhere and made an informed choice? I happened to disagree with that choice, but that process gave that referendum a legitimacy, despite what has been said. The Brexit referendum was very rushed and I would suggest that people had not thought it through. Does Mr McMillan agree that there needs to be a proper length of time for people to think the matter through, but that we could have confidence in the Scottish population to make a wise decision? Stuart McMillan: I thank Mr Mason for his comments, and I do not disagree.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether the current fiscal framework is biased against Scotland. (S6O-05629)”
“I largely agree with what Jeremy Balfour is saying, but we are where we are. Does he have a suggestion of when would be a better time for us to meet? Jeremy Balfour: I appreciate that we have to meet, but notice is the key factor. Moving business to Monday would have given people more time to get the appropriate care in place. To expect people who have caring responsibilities or those who care for them—”
“My reading of section 8 is that, once Dr Allan’s amendments were inserted, its provisions would relate only to the assessment between the medical professional and the patient; the consultation with other professionals would not need to be in person. Will Alasdair Allan clarify whether that is his intention? If it is, I would be keen to support his amendments. Alasdair Allan: That is my understanding of the way in which the amendments have been written. In my view, my amendments would at least ensure that the crucial decisions would be made with everyone in the same actual, rather than virtual, room. Therefore, I ask members to back my three amendments in the group. The Presiding Officer: I call Jeremy Balfour to speak to amendment 184 and other amendments in the group.”
“There is an issue in relation to detecting coercion and another in relation to the patient themselves. Nobody makes a decision by themselves—we are social beings— so it would be vital for the patient as well as for the doctor that there was good-quality interaction. Alasdair Allan: I fully agree. Anyone who has attempted to ask a question in a hybrid meeting will be able to readily identify with what Daniel Johnson has said. Ross Greer: I would very much like to support Dr Allan’s amendments, but I have a point of clarification on the assessments required under sections 6 and 7. Section 7 would require the co- ordinating medical practitioner not just to conduct assessments with the patient but to make inquiries with other professionals.”
“Identifying coercion over video must be extremely difficult—I would judge it to be impossible—because professionals cannot reliably see the subtle cues, hesitations or dynamics that indicate that someone is under pressure. That is not a theoretical concern. In a remote meeting, it is not even necessarily apparent to all participants who else is in the room or what is being said off camera, as Mr Greer pointed out. To be frank, regardless of whether a patient is in a city or on an island, the professionals involved— Daniel Johnson: Alasdair Allan makes an excellent point about the subtle cues in detecting coercion. Does he agree that the point about communication goes in the other direction, too, regarding the information that a patient might seek when communicating with the doctor before making a very difficult decision?”
“I wondered how the bill’s provisions would work in rural areas. Alasdair Allan represents quite a rural and spread-out constituency. Does he think that it would be okay for people in such areas to have in- person visits? Alasdair Allan: I do not think that there should be fewer protections in rural areas than there would be in urban areas. It seems to me that there should be a pretty basic obligation on doctors to visit patients in such circumstances and that that should apply throughout the country. At present, the bill seems to assume that consultations could be done remotely—or, at least, it does not rule out that possibility.”
“In conclusion, my amendment 17 seeks to strike a balance by enabling those organisations to opt out, and to carry on, in a way, but to uphold a degree of responsibility to those in their care who might choose to use the possibilities that the bill seeks to enact. I think, therefore, that it strikes a balance in comparison with the other organisational opt-outs, which are more categorical and do not strike the same balance. I believe that the considerations for an organisation are different from those of an individual in that regard. I will leave my remarks there.”
“Kate Forbes: I wonder whether the member will agree that one core element of choice is, of course, a well-resourced, well-provisioned service with staff. I know that Liam McArthur has suggested that nobody will leave, but a survey by the Association for Palliative Medicine found that 40 per cent of palliative care doctors would leave on account of that fundamental shift in the service. Of course, choice is strengthened by hospices being available. Have any hospices told the member that they will indeed close if they are forced to provide the service? Daniel Johnson: I have to say that I have not heard that from hospices, but I have certainly heard from practitioners who have indicated as much.”
“The more important point is that there is a flipside to the situation that Mr Harvie has set out. If we oblige organisations to take part in this, we are essentially putting professionals and other patients in a context in which they might be confronted with a practice to which they have fundamental moral objections. That might result in those people avoiding those institutions and, in turn, result in those organisations finding it difficult to operate in a way that they are comfortable with. Some organisations, especially those with a religious foundation, might feel that they cannot continue to operate at all. We have to acknowledge that a great number of hospices have a religious foundation. For some, that might be in the past, but for others, it is very much in the present.”
“If the Parliament decides that we should pass legislation that allows a degree of choice to access assisted dying in those circumstances, the implication of an organisational opt-out is that somebody reaching the final stages of a terminal illness, often with highly complex care, would effectively be told that they would have to move to another location in very difficult circumstances in order to exercise the choice that the Parliament decided they have a right to exercise. Surely that is the unintended consequence of an organisational opt-out. 18:15 Daniel Johnson: I do accept that there are some very finely balanced judgments to be made here. I acknowledge the points that have been made in that regard, but I do not necessarily think that what I am proposing will prevent an organisation from providing access.”
“I believe that organisations have a right to opt out because of the wider implications, and there is an inner obligation to provide them with the ability to opt out. However, it would not be fair to exclude individuals from using the provisions of the legislation simply because of the hospice that they chose—or found themselves in—due to particular circumstances, when those circumstances have changed. I am happy to give way now. Patrick Harvie: I wonder whether Daniel Johnson would reflect on one of the other objections to the idea of an organisational opt-out. He said that it should really be about the patients.”
“The considerations for organisations differ from those of individuals. It is deeply problematic to obligate individuals to do anything, including signposting, and I agree with Michael Marra’s amendments in that regard. For some of the reasons that Liam McArthur alluded to, if we are going to provide an opt-out for organisations, it is important that we provide some ability for individuals to be signposted to other organisations or services that might be able to help them if they choose to avail themselves of the provisions in this bill. Patrick Harvie: Will the member take an intervention? Daniel Johnson: I will give way in a moment, if I can first complete the point. People might find themselves in hospice, having not contemplated using the provisions of the legislation, and then they might change their mind.”
“Ruth Maguire: Will Mr Johnson accept the point that, although folk who work in hospices have dedicated themselves to a career, this proposition is quite a different thing for them? That needs to be acknowledged. Not for everybody, but for many people who work in palliative care, this is almost the opposite of what they are doing at the moment. Daniel Johnson: Ruth Maguire makes the point excellently. Many people will be able to incorporate assisted dying into their practice. It would be wrong to say that it is a binary issue, but many people will be deeply troubled by it. What is more, many people working in a small environment with a small number of patients and colleagues would be troubled. Those organisations need to reflect that. I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, but amendment 17 is different.”
“I am not going to repeat many of the arguments on individual opt-outs that we have heard so far in this grouping, but organisational opt-outs are equally important. I do not think that there is as hard a distinction as is being set out by Liam McArthur. In particular, when we think about hospices, we are not talking about large, impersonal institutions. By their very nature, they are small, intimate and personal. It is up to each hospice—as an organisation—to think about how including assisted dying might impact on its practice and influence the people who work in that organisation and, indeed, the patients in the hospice. I acknowledge that not all hospice patients stay there, but many do.”
“I find it difficult to see a situation in which practitioners, who have been committed to a sector and to the delivery of palliative care all their lives, will walk away from a profession on the basis of the availability of a choice in which they do not need to actively participate. Ruth Maguire: Will the member take an intervention? Liam McArthur: No. I also note the Scottish Government’s concerns on legislative competence. For all those reasons, I ask Mr Marra not to move amendment 148 and, if he does, I urge Parliament not to agree to it. Daniel Johnson: We are dealing with profound moral issues that are issues of conscience. Therefore, individual opt-outs and, indeed, organisational opt-outs are absolutely fundamental.”
“Enabling the dying person to continue to seek legal assistance under this legislation, by referring, directing or signposting them to another practitioner who may be willing, or by directing them to information about assisted dying, appropriately and effectively balances and protects the rights of all those involved. Michael Marra: Does the member recognise that, if my amendment is not agreed, fewer people will be working in our palliative care sector? Liam McArthur: I do not accept that at all. It is not something that we have seen in any other jurisdiction where concerns were raised in advance of the legislation being passed. The expression of the strength of that feeling, I understand, is measured in the threats to leave the sector.”
“Michael Marra’s amendment 148 is concerned with section 4A on the duty to direct registered medical practitioners who are unable or unwilling to act. It seeks to enable doctors not to signpost. That position is out of step with current practice in other areas of medicine. I fully support the right of any registered medical practitioner not to participate, for whatever reason. However, that right should not create an absolute barrier to access to assistance and support for the terminally ill adult, which would be the effect of the amendment.”
“I am aware that she has worked closely with the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland on the amendments. Indeed, in my discussions with the royal college, I acknowledged the potential benefits of such a register. However, as well as the legislative competence issues, I note that the Scottish Government, in its commentary, flagged issues to do with potential misalignment with existing professional regulatory frameworks. That said, it may well be that any such issues could be ironed out prior to commencement; that might also be the case with issues arising in the context of Miles Briggs’s amendment. For now, however, I cannot support amendments 7, 8 and 20 in Jackie Baillie’s name or amendment 142 in the name of Miles Briggs.”
“That said, I hope that Miles Briggs can be reassured that, once the section 104 order is made and in light of the commitments that both the Scottish and UK Governments have given, the Scottish Government would, ahead of commencement, engage with the health sector on matters such as the best way to ensure effective protection for medical professionals. It is likely that that would include consideration of registers such as the one proposed in this amendment and other amendments that were lodged at stage 3. Perhaps the cabinet secretary will refer to that when he comments. Those comments also apply to Jackie Baillie’s amendments 7, 8 and 20, which deal with the provision, by regulations, for a register of psychiatrists who are eligible to undertake assessments for the purposes of section 7(2)(b).”
“The professionals would be included in the register only if they have opted in to assist eligible terminally ill adults to end their own life, have obtained any qualifications and experience that is required under the bill and are willing to carry out the role. For reasons that I have outlined previously in connection with the removal of section 18, along with the forthcoming debate on training-related amendments—I expect that issue to be covered in the section 104 order—I cannot support the amendment and urge members not to do so. Such matters should be left to the section 104 order process, and amending the bill in the proposed way risks legal challenge, should it be passed.”
“This bill is about choice—for individual patients, as well as for medical professionals—and that choice cannot be reflected in an organisational or institutional opt-out. For the same reason, I cannot support John Mason’s amendment 231 and Paul O’Kane’s amendment 232 on the same issue, or Jackie Baillie’s amendment 229, which also addresses that issue as well as other reasons by which a person may not participate. Likewise, for these and other reasons, I do not support Fergus Ewing’s amendment 230. Amendment 142, in the name of Miles Briggs, would add a new section to require the Scottish ministers to establish and maintain a register of health professionals who can carry out the functions under the bill.”
“Martin Whitfield: I rise to give reassurance to those who are concerned about the extent of your amendment 133: the term “individual” includes health professionals, so it is potentially broader than was indicated in the debate this afternoon. Liam McArthur: I am grateful to Mr Whitfield for that very welcome point. I strongly urge members to vote for the amendments in my name, without which, as mentioned, the Scotland Act 1988 order process cannot take place. On that basis, I cannot support, and urge members not to support, Pauline McNeill’s amendment 226; Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 227; Fergus Ewing’s amendment 228, which seeks to amend section 18; or Daniel Johnson’s amendment 17, which seeks to establish an opt- out for organisations, to which I remain firmly opposed for the reasons that I set out at stage 2.”
“It was suggested by the BMA, and it would ensure that the bill, if passed, could not be substantively commenced unless and until appropriate protections for medical professionals are guaranteed. It is worth noting that the substantive provisions of my bill are commenced by regulations, as I think Pauline McNeill was alluding to. As such, the Scottish ministers will already be required to be satisfied that all necessary arrangements are in place before commencement. However, in light of concerns about the protections being reinstated only after my bill is passed—concerns that I fully appreciate—I wanted to go further. Amendment 133 should provide further reassurance to members of this Parliament, as well as to practitioners and their representatives, that they will not be left without protection.”
“Similarly, they have agreed a way forward through the section 104 order process to address issues relating to training, qualifications and the regulation of professional bodies. I have confidence in that mechanism, which is used routinely, and I am not aware of any instance in which an order that has been agreed by both Governments has not subsequently been taken forward by the UK Government. That is why I have decided to make way for the process to take place through the removal of the provisions that will then be taken forward through the section 104 order route. I therefore urge members to vote for these amendments, and similar amendments, in my name so that the necessary protections that members wish to see in place for health professionals can be provided. I also refer members to amendment 133 in this group.”
“I note the strong commitments that have been given by both the UK and Scottish Governments that such protections as are set out in my bill as amended at stage 2 will be reinstated through the order process under the Scotland Act 1998. I recognise that we are in territory in which recent experience may colour the perspective of colleagues, depending on where they sit in the chamber. However, I point to the fact that both the Scottish and UK Governments have—as I said— already shown a commitment to respecting the will of the Parliament and to making any act workable and defensible to legal challenge on legislative competence grounds. They have worked at pace and promoted a section 30 order, which has been passed here and at Westminster, to transfer competence to specify substances and devices for the purposes of lawful assistance.”
“Is the member now of the view that anyone who has an objection, whether they are a secretary or another person such as a pharmacist, should be allowed to opt out, or is he still of the view that that option should apply only to doctors and nurses? Liam McArthur: I still believe that it ought to be those who are directly involved in the process. I also believe that it should be an individual conscientious objection, rather than an institutional one; I will touch on that in a second—[Interruption.] I want to make a little more progress, if I may. In this case, the intention is that both Governments would supplement my bill in order to make the provision that is considered necessary within the identified reservations.”
“Liam McArthur: Opponents are already fundraising and organising to challenge the legislation that has already been passed in the Isle of Man and in Jersey, and I think that it is safe to assume that the same will happen should this Parliament pass the bill. We need to ensure, therefore, that what we put in place is robustly safeguarded but also defensible in the light of any legal challenge. I will take a brief intervention from Jeremy Balfour. Jeremy Balfour: I wonder whether I could bring the member back to a particular point in my amendment 227. I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, to allow secretaries and other people also involved in the process to opt out, but he and the committee said no to that amendment, and it was rejected.”
“We are talking about the elements of no duty and no detriment, and the training, experience and qualification provisions, as reflected in the way in which other legislation relating to health and care professions currently operates. The content that needs to be in the section 104 order is very clear. I have no doubt whatsoever that the health secretary and the Scottish Government after the next election will be committed to taking forward that process in the same way in which it has been taken forward to date. I understand the frustrations, but—as I said— that is the process for the will of Parliament to be reflected. The bill, if it is passed, will come under legal challenge—there is no doubt about that. Jeremy Balfour: Will the member take an intervention?”
“I have always been clear that, in taking forward my bill, I would seek to maintain it within the competence of this Parliament, and that was the Presiding Officer’s judgment in allowing the bill to be introduced in the first instance. As I said, once the Scottish Parliament took a view on the general principles of the bill, the elements that fell outwith legislative competence— which I was told at the start of the process would take 18 months to resolve, as Stuart McMillan just alluded to—have been expedited in short order. Arrangements have been put in place to ensure that the will of this Parliament is reflected and taken forward in a section 104 order.”
“However, given the substantial nature of what we are legislating for, he must at least recognise and understand that, because there is no clarity, this puts many of us into a position of great unease. I do not doubt that there has been good faith interaction between the Administrations, but the simple matter of fact is that we do not know what will be contained in that section 104 order. That is a very frustrating place for us to be as a Parliament. Liam McArthur: I acknowledge the frustration, and to some extent I share it, but there are enough sensitivities around the issue of assisted dying without using it to stretch the parameters of the constitutional settlement. I have always taken the view— Alasdair Allan: Will the member take an intervention? 18:00 Liam McArthur: In a second.”