���˿���

On amendment 139, I think that the problem is one of ambiguity and what could come off the back of it. I talked about the incompatibility with ethical commissioning and procurement and the recommendations of the Scottish Parliament’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. In paragraph 89 in the summary of recommendations in the stage 1 report on the bill, the committee says that there is

“an inherent contradiction between reserving the right to participate in procurement by type of organisation, and the principles of ethical commissioning.”

I understand what the minister is trying to do with the provisions, but we have to remove the ambiguity and the potential off the back of that.

I have to say that the attempt to tag on to the bill Anne’s law and rights for unpaid carers is quite disturbing. We all support Anne’s law 100 per cent—we all recognise the need for unpaid carers to have a break—but trying to force the bill through on the back of that is, frankly, disgraceful. If the public knew the way in which the bill has sometimes been dealt with, they would be up in arms. As my colleagues have said, Anne’s law and unpaid carers breaks could have been introduced in secondary legislation three and a half years ago. There is no need for the bill.

The reason why I am asking for the bill to be started again is that I do not believe that, as it is drafted, it will do what it could and should do for those whom it pretends to support.

I press amendment 123.

You highlight the issue of those who have a terminal diagnosis. That will inevitably have some impact on their mental health, and, as you say, the suicide rate among that cohort is about two and half times the norm. I will push again on the issue of access—or lack of access—to other services. Are you concerned that the lack of access to other services would inevitably lead people down a certain path?

Good morning, Mr McArthur. I have a quick supplementary around the vulnerable disability group. We had a round-table session in the Parliament with a variety of really excellent contributors, one of whom was the father and guardian of an adult son who had a learning disability. He pressed us really hard around the human right of his son should he request assisted dying—however, he has guardianship of his son. Where does the bill fit with that scenario?

I will move to the topic of unassisted suicide. Some people have told us in evidence that the bill might have a positive impact in reducing the number of unassisted suicides, although others have said that it will have no impact.

I have a practical question. Have you discussed that with insurance companies and do you know their take on whether assisted dying would be deemed to be suicide and might therefore make insurance policies unworkable or those deaths ineligible for insurance payouts? Have you had that conversation?

I want to explore a little bit further the issue of palliative care that Dr Gulhane raised earlier. I hope that I am not putting words in your mouth, Mr McArthur, but I think that you would agree that the ideal scenario is for people to have access to palliative care as well as assisted dying. However, we know that that is not the case; indeed, one in four Scots is not getting access to palliative care. As you have highlighted, the bill is shining a light on the provision of such care, and I think that that is very welcome.

The other thing that we have heard about is the inequality of access to palliative care between Scottish index of multiple deprivation level 1 and SIMD level 5 areas. My question, then, is this: do you want the bill itself to guarantee access to palliative care alongside access to assisted dying?

You are absolutely right that palliative care is not for everybody and that, if the bill passes, the fact that someone does not access palliative care should not prevent them from accessing assisted dying. I fully understand where you are coming from with that. The concern is that if someone seeks palliative care and it is not accessible, the pressure towards assisted dying grows. That is the concern. If somebody speaks to their GP and requests more information on or to start the process of assisted dying, at that point, should the GP discuss palliative care options and what happens if they are not available?

I think that there is a difference between the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which is going through the United Kingdom Parliament, and this bill, with the UK Parliament bill containing a wider range of offences than the Scottish bill. Should we be closer to what the UK Parliament is looking at, or would that cause us more issues?

You will recognise that, as many have said and as a number of witnesses have made clear in evidence to us, the concern is that those who might not have or get access to palliative care are pushed, unnecessarily, down the route of assisted dying. Do you share that concern?

No, I completely understand.

If coercion is not currently an offence, I presume that it would become an offence within the context of the bill. We would be asking members of the medical profession, who are not members of the legal profession, to make a judgment on something that might break the law. Is that a fair comment?