SpeechHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I take your point before the dinner break about speaking to the parts of the bill. So in Part 3 I'd like to particularly talk to clause 20 in regards to the review committee and I will speak in particular to that.The sponsor of the bill has talked about this being one of the key safeguards. I want to raise a concern in this regard especially when we've looked at other jurisdictions that have used a form of a review committee. So the question is: is it safe? Will it ensure that—the SCENZ as we know is different. That's a role around the registry for medical and health practitioners; where the role of the review committee in particular is around where there's compliance to the laws that have been set in place.So the trouble that I have with this is that there seems to be a lack of visibility because and it has been noted there is no access to the client data. The amount of data is critically important. If we look at Belgium for instance where there is a review committee that's been put in place what's happened there is that when they look at the review committee and the roles that it plays as mentioned here in clause 20 you'll see that the three clauses actually talk about the actual functions of the review committee but it does not give the details in regards to requiring those review committees to have access to the client data.Now both in the Netherlands and also too in Belgium it's quite clear that access to the data is important because once you anonymise the data then you lack to get an understanding of actually were there cases of coercion? So if we look at actually in Belgium for instance in that regard where initially it started off the safeguard was there and people were reporting. What they found is that there was a number of misreporting. In fact there was an external review which happened in regards to the Belgium situation with the review and the federal state committee that was put in place. What was found was that there were at least 78 percent of cases the doctor said that they did not regard as an act of euthanasia. So already there were breaches in there. Why? Because there was a lack of specificity in regards to what data was required.So I want to go on the record. The fact is that David Seymour might say this is safe enough. We've got two jurisdictions: the Netherlands who's been acting since 1973. We heard from Dr Theo Boer who would have reviewed almost 5000 cases and specifically said If there is a lack of data then surely there will be cases that would not be reported." This is the case in this regard as well. So I want to ensure and put that through.With that I want to commend Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 348 where it clearly states and I review this here adding extra subsection (3)(a) and (b): "(3) Subject to this Act the Review Committee must—(a) regulate its own procedures for performing its functions and duties (including without limitation its procedures for handling any complaints about its actions processes or procedures); and (b) make its procedures publicly available in the manner it considers appropriate." These are important and I would hope that members across would see that actually voting for this SOP is critically important. If we are talking about safeguards then this review committee needs as much scope and ability to be able to enable it to do its job as stated by the member and also too as has been stated here in review in clause 20.I also too want to point out that one of the critical areas is that a number of the worst cases will not be reported. We've already heard that internationally—and especially in the Netherlands and in Belgium the estimated number of cases where there is non-consent. In fact they've talked about voluntary euthanasia: non-voluntary and involuntary. In that case what's been estimated is the fact there are at least 300 of those cases where there is non-consent because of the lack of data that is there. And hence the reasons why it's important to have—what I believe in this SOP is critically important—the scope and the appropriation that the review committee will be able to have at its disposal as well.In my final moments I want to again go over the other parts of this SOP which is critically important in regards to the breakdown around ethnicity and socio-economic. The member and others have talked in this House about those who are vulnerable and the impact that they will have. A lack of data that is not at the disposal of the function and role or responsibility of the review committee means that this critical data will not be informed. That means the public won't be able to report on it. We could have a number of cases as already stated in those jurisdictions where there is non-consented euthanasia that's happening there and particularly to those who are vulnerable in those countries."