Seòmar agus comataidhean

I appreciate the opportunity to speak about the legislative consent memorandum that was lodged by the Scottish Government on 27 August, which recommends that the Scottish Parliament gives its consent to clause 43 of Kim Leadbeater MP’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

Let me be clear that I am here due to the provision described in the LCM and my recommendation for it. It is not, in any way, a comment or opinion on Ms Leadbeater’s Bill, which is for the UK Parliament to decide upon. The committee will be aware that nothing in Kim Leadbeater’s bill has any effect on Liam McArthur’s bill in the Scottish Parliament, which is going through an entirely different process. The LCM process is part of our constitutional settlement, and that is what I am here to provide information on, namely the effect of clause 43 in Scotland and why I am recommending support.

Turning to the LCM, clause 43 of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill imposes a duty on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in the UK to make regulations to prohibit the publication, printing, distribution or designing of advertisements whose purpose or effect is to promote the England and Wales voluntary assisted dying service. The purpose of clause 43 is stated to be to prevent pressure from being put on vulnerable people or the undermining of national suicide prevention strategies through the unethical advertisement of the England and Wales service.

By consenting to that provision, the Scottish Parliament would be agreeing that the service introduced could not be promoted in Scotland. That is the wish of the UK Parliament, which I believe should determine if and where the English and Welsh assisted dying service is to be advertised. The Scottish Government’s view is that clause 43 is for a purpose that falls within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, considering the schedule 5, section C7 reservation in the Scotland Act 1998, which covers the regulation of, among other things,

“misleading and comparative advertising, except regulation specifically in relation to food, tobacco and tobacco products”.

It does not reserve advertising generally. As such, we believe that the Scottish Parliament’s consent is required for clause 43, and that it should be given so that we do not find ourselves in a situation where the English and Welsh assisted dying service can be advertised in Scotland but not in England and Wales.

I hope that the committee finds that explanation and outline of the Scottish position helpful, and I am happy to answer the committee’s questions.

That is my expectation. As it is legislation in the United Kingdom Parliament, it is not an area that I have control over—it is for members of the UK Parliament to determine—but my expectation would be as Mr Harvie has outlined. We have lodged the LCM to ensure that we are in line with other parts of the UK on advertising and promotion as opposed to the production of factual information.

I do not think that there is a lot that I can add to that, given the Government’s position on the bill at this stage. I cannot comment on the specifics of the bill. All that I can set out is the wider work that we are doing at the minute, which I described to Ms Mochan in answer to her first question.

We need to ensure that we have coherent support in place for those with a drug or alcohol dependency. We must take further action, because the drug and alcohol-related harms in Scotland are far too high. Progress has been made, but my interest is in ensuring that we go further with the social infrastructure that is available and the destigmatising of access to support services. That needs to be done in a co-ordinated way that works for individuals and how they wish to access services. Demonstrably, certain interventions will not work for everybody, so we need to ensure that we have breadth of intervention as well as depth of availability. That is what the work that is currently under way is seeking to address.

I have seen that point being raised in other evidence sessions. For the reasons that Ms Zeballos set out in response to Ms Harper and were set out in my written statement to the committee, we have a concern about that issue. Some people who have given evidence have said that the approach could be exclusionary. I know for a fact that the last thing that the member in charge of the bill would want is for there to be any unintended consequences that would result in people feeling excluded or being practically excluded. It is important that we have due regard to that.

Ultimately, it is for the member in charge to discuss that matter more substantively, and the Government will take a more formal position once the committee has completed its work.

I have set out my position in that regard. The bill specifies a particular treatment pathway. I will rest there.

I will bring in Ms Davidson to provide more detail on that in a second. Ms Whitham is correct in her assessment of the intended direction of travel of the charter and legislation. Along with the First Minister, I was at the launch of the charter, which is an internationally recognised piece of work that further embeds service users’ understanding of their rights to access treatment and services and the greater support that those things should provide. I cannot take a position on the potential impact of the bill, but the committee has heard evidence that suggests that it has the potential to conflate some the elements of rights and the treatment that is available. Should the bill be enacted, I believe that it would be the first time that a right to a treatment would be provided in legislation. That is not incorporated in any other aspect of health and social care. In and of itself, that is a potential challenge.

As there is legal interaction on the matter, I will defer to Ms Davidson.

We do not have a timescale for that at this stage. Work is under way to review not only the national mission on drugs and drug-related harm but where we are with alcohol services. We have had a number of sessions with a wide variety of stakeholders, including those with lived and living experience of substance dependency—alcohol and drugs—to look at the areas that Ms Mochan is interested in. Our intention is to set out our plan at the conclusion of the national mission, which will be at the end of this parliamentary session. We are cognisant that the work is demonstrably not complete and that we still have much work to do. Although the national mission is coming to a conclusion, there is still work to be done. We are embarking on a review of the efficacy and performance of various aspects of the national mission, as well as our alcohol interventions. We will set out our plans for both before the end of this year.

It is for the member in charge of the bill to discuss some of those elements rather than for the Government to take a position on them at this stage.

I have read with interest some of the evidence that has been taken. Concerns have also been expressed about the need for a diagnosis to access services, as opposed to those services being available for anyone seeking help. I stress the importance of making sure that we get this right for everybody. We want to meet people where they are—I return to that phrase—and make services accessible, rather than exclusionary, at all points. Those points have already been made in evidence to the committee.

I cannot comment on what should be in the bill, but, as somebody who grew up in an island community, I recognise the challenges of rural service delivery.

Ms Mackay talked about recognising the importance of the multidisciplinary team, and that importance extends to the community and voluntary sector groups that Ms Harper referenced. A number of organisations in rural and island communities can be the first point of interaction and can provide the first opportunity for engagement on a recovery pathway, so it is important that we continue to ensure that that breadth of opportunity for engagement exists through support for community and voluntary organisations. That point has certainly come through in the round-table discussions and stakeholder interaction that I talked about in response to Ms Mochan’s question. That work will continue over the coming months.

I will bring in Ms Zeballos at this point.