Chamber and committees

As no other member has indicated that they wish to speak, I invite the minister to wind up and to press or withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3, in the name of the minister, is in a group on its own.

Good morning, and welcome to the sixth meeting of the Economy and Fair Work Committee in 2026. This morning, we have three items for consideration: the Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill at stage 2; and agenda items 2 and 3, which will be taken in private.

I welcome the minister and his officials. I will briefly explain the procedure that we will follow. Members should have with them a copy of the bill, the marshalled list and the groupings. For anyone who might be observing, the documents are available on the bill’s page on the Scottish Parliament’s website.

I will call each amendment individually, in the order on the marshalled list. The groupings paper sets out the amendments in the order that we will debate them. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. In each debate, I will call the minister to move and speak to the lead amendment—today, all the amendments are Government amendments and there are no others. At my discretion, I will then call other members who wish to speak; they should indicate to me or to the clerk that they wish to do so. I will then call the minister to wind up and to either press the amendment or seek to withdraw it. If the amendment is pressed, I will put the question. If there is a division, voting will be by a show of hands. It is important that members keep their hands raised until the clerk has recorded their names. If there is a tie, I will exercise a casting vote. The committee is also required to consider and decide on each section of and schedule to the bill and on the long title. I will put the question on each of those provisions at the appropriate point.

Section 1—Meaning of digital asset

That ends consideration of the Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. Although we did not quite meet his five-minute challenge, I thank the minister.

10:10

Meeting continued in private until 10:36.

Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 2 and 4.

As no members have indicated that they wish to speak, I invite the minister to wind up, if he wishes to do so, and to press or withdraw amendment 1.

The Official Report is a written record of what was said in public meetings of the Scottish Parliament and in committee meetings. It is a substantially verbatim report. This means that repetitions and redundancies are omitted and obvious mistakes are corrected. Official Report staff exercise editorial judgment to convey the spoken word in written text while maintaining the flavour of the speech.

Theis a written record of what was said in public meetings of the Scottish Parliament and in committee meetings. It is a substantially verbatim report. This means that repetitions and redundancies are omitted and obvious mistakes are corrected. Official Report staff exercise editorial judgment to convey the spoken word in written text while maintaining the flavour of the speech.

Theis a written record of what was said in public meetings of the Scottish Parliament and in committee meetings. It is a substantially verbatim report. This means that repetitions and redundancies are omitted and obvious mistakes are corrected. Official Report staff exercise editorial judgment to convey the spoken word in written text while maintaining the flavour of the speech.

Theis a written record of what was said in public meetings of the Scottish Parliament and in committee meetings. It is a substantially verbatim report. This means that repetitions and redundancies are omitted and obvious mistakes are corrected. Official Report staff exercise editorial judgment to convey the spoken word in written text while maintaining the flavour of the speech.

Theis a written record of what was said in public meetings of the Scottish Parliament and in committee meetings. It is a substantially verbatim report. This means that repetitions and redundancies are omitted and obvious mistakes are corrected. Official Report staff exercise editorial judgment to convey the spoken word in written text while maintaining the flavour of the speech.

Theis a written record of what was said in public meetings of the Scottish Parliament and in committee meetings. It is a substantially verbatim report. This means that repetitions and redundancies are omitted and obvious mistakes are corrected. Official Report staff exercise editorial judgment to convey the spoken word in written text while maintaining the flavour of the speech.

Theis a written record of what was said in public meetings of the Scottish Parliament and in committee meetings. It is a substantially verbatim report. This means that repetitions and redundancies are omitted and obvious mistakes are corrected. Official Report staff exercise editorial judgment to convey the spoken word in written text while maintaining the flavour of the speech.

Scottish Government Theis a written record of what was said in public meetings of the Scottish Parliament and in committee meetings. It is a substantially verbatim report. This means that repetitions and redundancies are omitted and obvious mistakes are corrected. Official Report staff exercise editorial judgment to convey the spoken word in written text while maintaining the flavour of the speech.

Theis a written record of what was said in public meetings of the Scottish Parliament and in committee meetings. It is a substantially verbatim report. This means that repetitions and redundancies are omitted and obvious mistakes are corrected. Official Report staff exercise editorial judgment to convey the spoken word in written text while maintaining the flavour of the speech.

Theis a written record of what was said in public meetings of the Scottish Parliament and in committee meetings. It is a substantially verbatim report. This means that repetitions and redundancies are omitted and obvious mistakes are corrected. Official Report staff exercise editorial judgment to convey the spoken word in written text while maintaining the flavour of the speech.

Theis a written record of what was said in public meetings of the Scottish Parliament and in committee meetings. It is a substantially verbatim report. This means that repetitions and redundancies are omitted and obvious mistakes are corrected. Official Report staff exercise editorial judgment to convey the spoken word in written text while maintaining the flavour of the speech.

The Official Report is a written record of what was said in public meetings of the Scottish Parliament and in committee meetings. It is a substantially verbatim report. This means that repetitions and redundancies are omitted and obvious mistakes are corrected. Official Report staff exercise editorial judgment to convey the spoken word in written text while maintaining the flavour of the speech.

Members.

Although I very much appreciate having a group entirely to myself, I think that, in some ways, these amendments should be considered with the amendments in the previous group.

To my mind, there are two hugely important elements to the bill. The first is the judgment that will be made by medical practitioners as to whether an individual meets the criteria set out in the bill: that they are terminally ill and unable to recover. In those circumstances, they would meet the criteria for assisted dying.

The other really important element is that individuals will have to fully consider all the options that are available to them. To that end, the 14-day period is doing an awful lot of work, and I am not sure whether it provides a sufficient safeguard. It is an arbitrary time period. It is neither short enough, if death is imminent, nor is it long enough to provide a genuine period of reflection if an individual’s death is not imminent and they are planning ahead of time.

I will not move the amendments, which are probing. I wanted to draw to the committee’s attention the fact that the 14-day period is doing an awful lot of work. There need to be more safeguards to ensure that the individual makes a clear decision. Facing the end of life is clearly going to be difficult and, as human beings, we often find it difficult to make fully rational judgments.

I note that the committee has rejected a large number of amendments that seek the provision of additional information. This is an area that needs to be considered at stage 3 to ensure that people have full information, can reflect and can make a careful and considered decision.

I will not move the amendments at this time.

I support the amendments that have been lodged by Jackie Baillie, which have the support of the Royal College of Nursing. We must have clarity on roles. The final provision of the substance is particularly sensitive. It is also important that we have clarity about not only the role of the registered medical practitioner but those of other medical professionals and in what combination those roles take place. The role of nurses and the points about accompaniment and supervision are very important.

I voted for the bill at stage 1 on the basis of the principle that people should have bodily autonomy, and because the bill is very much about people whose death is imminent and enabling them to make the final decision and to carry out the final act.

That last point is very important to me, which is why I have lodged amendment 10. Although I note the intent of the legislation and what is set out in the policy memorandum, I am concerned that there is not sufficient clarity that the final act will be that of the individual. My amendment seeks to specify that, for similar reasons to those that Marie McNair pointed out.

Throughout the discussion, great care has been taken about the language—whether this is assisted dying or suicide—and the bill very much rejects any notion that this could be viewed as euthanasia. I understand that. Those are important distinctions. It is important that this is about enabling someone to act for themselves and do this to themselves. It cannot be about enabling an act in which one person is administering a substance to another.

There is a big difference between enabling someone to end their life and enabling others to end others’ lives. One is about enabling one’s own death. The other is, quite simply—as a matter of moral distinction—killing another person. I use that word advisedly because there is an important moral distinction. It is easy in these settings to highlight the complexity and say that, in practical terms, there are not necessarily those distinctions, but the moral differences are important.

I also think that, practically, it is essential that an individual has the ability to withdraw their consent to ending their own life up until the very final moment, which is why self-administration is so important. My amendment seeks to clarify that, because there are also sensitivities about a person’s physical capacity to undertake that.

The amendment specifies that the act would be for the individual to carry out, and specifies that the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner may

“prepare that substance for use by the adult ... prepare a medical device which will enable the adult to use the substance”

and assist the adult for the final ingestion of the substance.

My amendment further clarifies that, those points notwithstanding, the final decision must be made by the individual themselves and, further, that the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner may not administer the approved substance to the individual directly.

Those are important clarifications that state clearly and specifically what the bill would authorise. As I have stated, I think that it is important that we have that moral clarity and that moral distinction, but, ultimately, it is vital that it is the individual’s choice and that they can withdraw their consent right up until the final moment. That is the reason for my amendment 10.