Hansard

Good morning. I start with a declaration of interests and remind the committee that I receive support from three separate campaign organisations—Dignity in Dying, Friends at the End and the Humanist Society Scotland—that have helped in supporting the costs of a website during the consultation on my bill and of a staff member who works on the bill.

As I did last week, I will start with my amendments before moving on to the considerable number of other amendments in the group.

My amendment 65 seeks to allow the Scottish ministers to regulate any training that the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner, the independent registered medical practitioner and the authorised health professional must have completed in order to carry out their roles under the bill. I made clear throughout stage 1 that training will be required for those health professionals who are directly involved in the assisted dying process. A specific requirement for training was not included in the bill because I believe that the profession is best placed to devise, develop and roll out the training that it considers most appropriate and that training does not require to be mandated in the bill. Further, the bill already sets out qualifications and experience requirements for medical professionals, which I am seeking to extend to authorised health professionals. It is also worth acknowledging that the Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019 already places a duty on health boards and the Scottish health service to ensure that staff are suitably trained.

However, after further reflection ahead of stage 2, I have lodged amendments 65, 67, 34A, 35A, 35B, 46A and 47A to add the provision of training to the existing regulating powers that the bill confers on the Scottish ministers with regard to the qualifications and experience that the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner, the independent registered medical practitioner and, if my amendments 34 and 35 are agreed to, authorised health professionals should have. That would allow the Scottish ministers, after consultation with relevant partners, to regulate the training, qualifications and experience that those health professionals must have in order to participate in any assisted dying scheme.

Amendment 65 therefore seeks to add training to the matters that the Scottish ministers may make regulations on, in addition to the qualifications and experience that are required to take on the role of co-ordinating registered medical practitioner. Amendment 67 seeks to do likewise for the role of independent registered medical practitioner, and amendment 34A seeks to do the same for the role of authorised health professional by adding the word “training” to my amendment 34, which seeks to allow the Scottish ministers to make regulations setting out the qualifications and experience that a registered medical practitioner or a registered nurse should have in order to take on the role of authorised health professional.

Amendments 35A and 35B are consequential. They seek to add the word “training” to amendment 35, which requires regulations that are made under amendment 34 regarding the authorised health professional to be consulted on before they are laid or made.

Amendments 46A and 47A are consequential. They seek to add the word “training” to amendments 46 and 47, which require first sets of regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure and subsequent regulations to be subject to the negative procedure.

Amendment 48, which is also consequential, clarifies which regulations under section 15(8) are which, as there are two regulation-making powers in that subsection.

I note that amendment 47 would be pre-empted by amendment 59, which we will come to in a later group.

Paul Sweeney’s amendment 34B seeks to amend my amendment 34 to change the word “may” to “must” and require the Scottish ministers to make regulations. That links to certain other amendments in the group, which I now turn to. Although I have always considered those who work in healthcare to be best placed to determine training factors and I therefore want to allow some flexibility as to whether that is determined by Government regulation, I am open to amendments 34B, 224 and 230, which would make it a requirement for such regulations to be introduced.

I note that the Government suggests that amendment 34 might be defective, so Mr Sweeney might wish not to move it at this point, pending further discussions with the Government ahead of stage 3.

Ms Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 225, in relation to the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner, sets out that Scottish ministers

“must, in particular, specify training or qualifications related to”

a range of matters, namely:

“knowledge of palliative care and alternative care options to providing terminally ill adults assistance to end their own lives ... understanding of independent living, in accordance with article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ... awareness and identification of coercion, pressure or undue influence”

and

“equality and non-discrimination principles, with specific reference to the rights and experiences of persons with ... disabilities ... terminal illness, or ... socio-economic disadvantage.”

I note that that provision would extend only to the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner and not to the independent registered practitioner.

Again, I am of the view that those who work in healthcare are best placed to determine what training would be required and most useful. I agree with Ms Duncan-Glancy on the importance of doctors being appropriately trained on all relevant issues, including in areas such as palliative care and the rights of disabled people, but I do not consider that that sort of detail would be appropriate in the bill.