Chamber and committees

This intervention is to ask for clarity. Are you saying that you support amendment 256 but you want to work with me on amendment 257? Is that correct?

Good afternoon, folks. Amendments 256, 257 and 277 have been lodged with the support of the Scottish Association of Social Work and, of course, the help of the legislation team—what would we do without it in such situations? I put on record my thanks to both.

The amendments are about ensuring that, if the Parliament chooses to legislate in this area, the practical delivery of assisted dying services is fully integrated with Scotland’s existing health and social care framework, using the structures that already exist to manage and oversee sensitive health functions rather than creating a new, stand-alone system.

I think that all members who are here will agree that the bill, by its very nature, demands clarity, accountability and public confidence in how it would operate in practice. My amendments in the group are intended to provide that.

Amendment 256 would make a small but important technical change to the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Prescribed Health Board Functions) (Scotland) Regulations 2014—that is easy for me to say. That set of regulations lists the functions of health boards that are included in local integration schemes—the partnership arrangements between health boards and local authorities that underpin how healthcare and social care are jointly delivered in Scotland. By adding the bill to that list, the amendment would ensure that any functions that health boards have under the bill were automatically captured within the existing integration framework. That means that the planning, oversight and reporting of any assisted dying service would take place within the same governance structures as other key health and social care services and would be subject to the same accountability mechanisms and local partnership scrutiny. That is important, because it would help to ensure that there was no fragmentation or confusion about who was responsible for delivering or overseeing those services. The amendment would situate them firmly within the public system, in which clear lines of responsibility and accountability already exist.

Amendment 257 would build on that by requiring each health board to establish a specialist assisted dying service for its area. Again, that is about consistency and quality of provision across Scotland. It would ensure that, wherever a person might live, a defined and accountable service would be in place to support individuals, co-ordinate with local partners and ensure that the requirements of the act were applied safely and consistently.

That just helps me to decide whether I will move the amendment.

That is really positive. Thank you.

Good afternoon. As in the previous evidence sessions, we have heard two strong arguments for and against the bill. In general, opponents of the bill seem to imply that its implementation will put women at more risk—that seems to be the general feeling from the witnesses on the previous two panels who are opposed to the bill.

Although this is not my final position, at this point I am not overly convinced by that argument. I find myself inclined to identify with what Ruth Breslin said: that prostitution is inherently dangerous and violent, regardless of any legislation.

I want to look at the other side of the question. You might have a view on whether or not the bill should have been introduced, but it has been, by the member in charge, and it is here in front of us. If the Parliament does not pass it, what are the implications? What would that say to vulnerable women and girls, to those who are currently sex workers and to those who purchase sex? In addition, what message does it send to our young men and boys in Scotland? I have real concerns about that, because we now have the bill in front of us.

To go back to what the convener said earlier, I will pick one person on each side of the debate. What, in your view, are the implications of starting a conversation on this issue in our national Parliament and then not acting?

As I mentioned you, Ruth, I ask you to come in as somebody who is for the bill.

I go to Dr Sandy next. While I am not opposed to the bill—it would not be right to say that I am opposed to it—I have some concerns about it as currently drafted.

I have a follow-up question to Pauline McNeill’s earlier line of questioning. It is about the changing demographics in prison. I have brought that up before, both in committee and in the chamber.

An older prison population has significant health and social care needs. Some governors—most recently, the governor of Glenochil—have publicly expressed concerns about whether typical prisons are suitable for those prisoners, and best placed to house them, or whether more of a healthcare setting is required. By that, I mean healthcare in a prison context, because obviously there are different risks. Has any further work been done on that or has there been any consideration or assessment by the Government, in conjunction with the Scottish Prison Service, about how making changes in that area might impact the prison population beneficially and perhaps relieve some of the pressure that we are experiencing?

Good afternoon, and thank you very much for your very strong evidence so far.

Amanda Jane Quick, who was on the previous panel, told us that if she had been in front of us 10 years ago, she would have been saying something very different. Presumably, she meant that she would have been against the criminalisation of buyers at that point, but now that she is out of it—to use her words—she realises that that is what is needed.

I know that this panel of witnesses are clearly representing the views of women who are currently working, but is there a risk that many of those women will one day change their mind, because of, say, a change in life circumstances, a specific traumatic event or an accumulation of trauma over the years? Is it perhaps better to make a mark just now and draw a red line, instead of waiting for that cycle to potentially repeat itself?

I am not saying that that will happen, or that I have a view on it just now—after all, we are just starting to take evidence on this. There are strong arguments to be made for both cases, as we have heard today. I thought that Amanda Jane made a very powerful point, but what do the witnesses think about it?

Thanks to everyone on the panel. Your evidence has been very, very powerful—I want to put that on the record. My first question is not something that I planned to ask, but it comes from something that Amanda Jane Quick mentioned much earlier. It was a reference to child sexual abuse and children carrying out the abuse. I chair the Parliament’s cross-party group on adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Recently, we did a very harrowing piece of work on sibling sexual abuse, which we brought to the chamber for a members’ business debate. I will read some small extracts from the motion that we debated.

Okay, convener. I draw members’ and witnesses’ attention to the motion. It is a major and complex issue and something that even professionals perhaps do not fully understand. It is much more common than is perhaps recorded, so I want to ask what role you think prostitution has in this unspoken shame that is happening in our communities, and do you think that the bill can help to address that?