I have five amendments in the group, so I hope that colleagues bear with me. I will first speak to amendments 7, 8 and 20, on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland.

The amendments would replace the existing reference to a “specialism” in section 7 with a clear requirement for assessments under section 7(2)(b) to be carried out by psychiatrists drawn from a formal regulated register, which would be established by Scottish ministers and set out transparently in regulations. That would be a necessary and proportionate safeguard, because it would respond directly to concerns that were raised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland and other clinical experts, who have stressed the importance of ensuring that only appropriately qualified and experienced psychiatrists undertake capacity assessments in the context of assisted dying. The royal college notes that Scotland already successfully operates a national psychiatric register under the Mental Welfare Commission, which demonstrates that the model is familiar, workable and effective.

The new section that I propose in amendment 8 would oblige ministers to create such a register and set out the essential elements that must be included: clear eligibility criteria, the body that is responsible for maintaining the register, and a transparent process for applications for entry to and removal from the register.

Let me be absolutely clear about why that matters. First, amendment 8 would ensure consistency and quality. The assessment of capacity in this highly sensitive and ethically complex area must be undertaken only by clinicians who have the appropriate specialist training and experience. The amendment would make it explicit that only psychiatrists on the specialist register of the General Medical Council, or those who hold equivalent qualifications or have experience in the assessment of capacity, would be considered eligible.

Secondly, amendment 8 would strengthen oversight and governance. Expert bodies have warned of the risks that can arise internationally when a small number of clinicians undertake large volumes of assessments without adequate oversight. A formal register would provide a mechanism to ensure that minimum standards are upheld and that Scotland avoids those pitfalls.

Thirdly, a register would improve fairness and transparency. It would help to ensure that second opinions are allocated equitably and would prevent the possibility of what is sometimes described as doctor shopping. That would protect the individual seeking assessment and the integrity of the process.

Fourthly, it would support robust data collection and evaluation, which will be essential for the annual and five-year reviews that are required by the bill. Without amendment 8, gathering consistent, high-quality national data on psychiatric assessments could be extremely difficult—or even impossible.

Amendment 7, which is consequential to amendment 8, would replace the general reference to psychiatry with a reference to the new register of psychiatrists.

The amendments would not alter the principle behind the bill or place any barrier in the way of a person who meets the necessary criteria for assistance. They would ensure that the Parliament embeds in law a safeguard that clinicians themselves have told us is important for patient safety, public confidence and the integrity of psychiatric practice in Scotland.

Let me address what I suspect are the concerns of the Scottish Government and some members. First, on competence, we already successfully operate a register under the Mental Welfare Commission. We would not be changing how the GMC operates its register, because doing so would be constitutionally inappropriate. I do not believe that there are competence issues, because the proposal is to maintain a register, which we already do. In her earlier interventions, Clare Haughey outlined exactly why such an approach would be competent.

Secondly, because the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland already operates a register successfully, there are therefore no issues with deliverability, in my view. If the Parliament intends to legislate for assisted dying, we must legislate responsibly, with appropriate checks, safeguards and oversight. The amendments in my name provide exactly that, and I therefore urge members to support amendments 7 and 8, as well as amendment 20, which is consequential to amendment 8 and provides that the relevant regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

17:30

I will now move on to amendments 229 and 308, which I have lodged on behalf of Children’s Hospices Across Scotland—CHAS. The amendments recognise that institutions, as well as individuals, may have legitimate ethical grounds for not participating in assisted dying. That protection is needed because it ensures that the bill respects conscientious objection at an organisational level while still protecting individuals’ access to other legalised assisted dying services.

Amendments 229 and 308 would give care services and independent healthcare providers, including hospices, the opportunity to opt out of providing assisted dying where there are reasonable grounds, including where staff exercise conscientious objection.

Scotland has more than 10,000 registered independent care services, and not all of them will be suitable or appropriate settings for assisted dying. Those services already determine which healthcare interventions they provide, and they are required, through regulation, to set that out clearly within their organisational aims and objectives, to ensure that there is transparency for patients, families and professionals.

Amendments 220 and 308 would mean that those care services and independent healthcare providers would not be penalised for choosing not to provide assisted dying or for not allowing it to take place on their premises. They would also guarantee that patients and families using those services could still access assisted dying through an alternative provider, ensuring no loss of choice for the individual. They would protect the ethical integrity of care services and independent healthcare providers, including hospices and specialist providers such as CHAS. They would also maintain a rights-based balance through respecting organisational values while ensuring individual access. I therefore also urge members to support amendments 229 and 308.