Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning. I want to follow up the earlier line of questioning around data centres. Peter, you were talking about grid issues. I met SSE Transmission on Monday and we were talking about that. Its view is that, right now, Scotland is not a greatly attractive place to put data centres due to what it called the latency of the grid, by which it means the reliability. We can get there, as you fairly said, but that will require huge upgrades in transmission and much more battery and pump storage. That is years away and will come at massive cost. I do not know whether you have any thoughts on what the likely timescale is for getting a data centre built here. From what the SSE people were saying, we are talking five or 10 years at least.

For now.

You have given us a lot to think about. Thank you very much.

Okay, that was it, unless anybody else wants to add to that.

I am grateful to Mr McArthur for setting out his arguments. I reiterate that my amendments apply only in the event of an individual appointing a proxy. There is a need for an additional safeguard in that circumstance but not when somebody is declaring on their own behalf.

On that basis, I press amendment 149.

I have two amendments in this group—amendment 148 and amendment 208, which is consequential to amendment 148.

Amendment 148 seeks to establish a new statutory designated agency, which would be responsible for administering and overseeing the entire assisted dying process under the legislation. The agency’s duties would include managing declarations, co-ordinating medical assessments, authorising practitioners, arranging assistance, maintaining records and reporting. The designated agency would operate independently of the NHS, with its powers, governance and procedures further defined by Scottish ministers through regulations. Functions performed by medical practitioners in the process would generally be under the agency’s authority or delegation.

Amendment 148 would address one of the deepest contradictions in the bill—the expectation that assisted suicide will be carried out within the framework of our national health service. The NHS was founded, in the aftermath of the second world war, with a singular moral purpose, which was to preserve and protect life—without distinction. It was a national affirmation that every life, regardless of age, ability or circumstance, was worth saving. To ask that same institution now to facilitate the deliberate ending of life would be to abandon that founding principle. Doing so would blur the moral and professional boundaries on which public trust in the NHS depends. Patients turn to doctors and nurses in the belief that their sole purpose is to heal, comfort and preserve life. If the state asked them also to provide the means to end life, that trust would be fundamentally—and perhaps irreparably—weakened.

Yes—that is correct. That is the purpose of amendment 148.

Amendment 148 would create a new stand-alone body, regulated by Scottish ministers, that would have the responsibility for conducting assisted death.

I believe that, in creating an independent agency, we would create a clear moral distinction between the NHS and a new body that was established with a different purpose, which would be to end life. I do not believe that the NHS should be asked to bear the burden of bringing in assisted dying.

I urge members to support amendment 148 in order to protect the integrity of our health service and the trust on which it rests.

I move amendment 148.

My amendments in this group seek to replace previous provisions on proxy signing and limit the signing of declarations under the bill to the declarant or, where the declarant is physically unable to sign, to a notary public acting as a proxy.

The notary public must verify identity, ensure comprehension and voluntariness, affix their notarial seal and record their involvement in the person’s medical records. Those safeguards aim to ensure the integrity, authenticity and legality of the declaration process.

I should declare a partial interest in that I am a member of the Law Society of Scotland. I used to be a notary public but, because I do not have a practising certificate, I no longer hold that office. I can therefore reassure members that this is not a job creation scheme for notaries public.

The amendment intends to address a fundamental weakness in the bill, which is the dangerously low threshold that it sets for proxy signing. Under the bill as it stands, a declaration to end one’s life can be signed on an individual’s behalf without the involvement of a notary public or any equivalent legal safeguard. That might be acceptable in routine matters of administration, but not in a matter of life and death.

I thank colleagues who commented on my amendments. I am grateful to Bob Doris for his comments; he made a reasonable point about the additional detail that might be required. Should amendment 148 be successful at stage 2, there would be an opportunity to address some of those concerns with amendments at stage 3.

There is an important point of principle in relation to the correct placing of an assisted dying service and whether it should be within the NHS. I am aware that there are many practitioners in the NHS who are deeply uncomfortable with the concept that the NHS, which they joined to save and preserve life, would have, as part of it, a service that is committed to helping people to end their lives. There would be many in the NHS who would be much more comfortable if there were to be a separate, stand-alone service providing assisted dying, rather than it being part of the NHS.

I remind members, as I am sure that they are aware, that the Dignitas service that operates in Switzerland—which people in this country sometimes avail themselves of—operates not in the public health sphere but as a private service. Therefore, there is precedent for services to be provided in different ways elsewhere. The amendment provides an important point of principle. For that reason, I press amendment 148.