Meeting of the Parliament 27 May 2015
I thank all the people who contacted all the members of the Parliament. I got my good share of post and emails from both sides of the argument. I hope that I answered them all, but some arrived at the last minute today and I did not have time to answer. Many of them came from my constituents in North East Scotland.
The lead committee examined the bill in its entirety, as we heard. I am a member of the secondary committee—the Justice Committee—which focused its scrutiny on the bill’s criminal and civil liability aspects, particularly the legal and practical application of its provisions on human rights issues.
From the outset, I had reservations about the bill. In our report to the lead committee, we noted the bill’s unusual approach in defining what is not a crime rather than what is a crime. That was always my main concern. I may not be against the honourable intentions of the many members who I am sure will support the bill, but I am definitely against its principle, which is
“an Act of the Scottish Parliament to make it lawful, in certain circumstances, to assist another to commit suicide; and for connected purposes.”
I shared my frustration with the member introducing the bill. Such important legislation requires to be drafted carefully, with appropriate protection levels. The bill did not satisfy all my concerns.
After reading the stage 1 report, it is my opinion that, despite Patrick Harvie’s willingness to listen—he has done a lot of listening—lodging amendments will not do. It is the bill itself that is not fit for purpose. The bill’s principle is flawed. The bill’s objective to provide
“a means for certain people who are approaching the end of their life to seek assistance to end their lives at a time of their own choosing, and to provide protections in law for those providing that assistance”
was never achievable. More research was undertaken to provide clarity, but more questions were asked. We sought more certainty; we found more incertitude.
I was pleased to read in the Health and Sport Committee’s stage 1 report that David Stephenson QC of the Faculty of Advocates made the following statement when he gave evidence:
“If we criticise the existing system for uncertainty, we should do our best to remove uncertainty when creating a legislative regime.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 13 January 2015; c 14.]
We have a system in place, and the lack of legislation on any matter should never automatically be seen as a problem.
The bill attempts to redefine law that does not exist in the first place. David Stephenson QC told the Justice Committee:
“My concern is that there would be a danger that individuals would fall through the gaps and would, due to uncertainty, find themselves exposed to prosecution.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 20 October 2014; c 12.]
I cannot see how people will know if they are protected when they act to assist in bringing about the end of a life.
The task that the member has given himself is impossible to complete, given how the bill was originally designed. The bill was flawed from the outset. If I could have helped, as Patrick Harvie repeatedly asked us to, I would have helped. The reality is that, historically in Scotland, there has been little prosecution of people who have assisted suicides. In England and other countries that is a statutory offence. We do not have such a law.
The bill does not provide a general clarification of the law on assisted suicide. The member in charge has clearly fallen at the first hurdle. The present law may not be perfect but, in my view, the bill is back to front and we must reject it at stage 1.
15:18