Chamber and committees

Is the committee content with the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.

Under agenda item 4, we are considering one document, on which no points have been raised.

Is the committee content with the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.

Is the committee content that no reporting grounds are engaged?

Members indicated agreement.

In relation to this document, does the committee wish to note that the original draft of the code of practice was withdrawn, as it appeared that one of the statutory preconditions had not been met, and that the present version has been relaid after the Electoral Commission formally consulted the Parliament?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning, and welcome to the 32nd meeting in 2025 of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I remind everyone to switch off, or put to silent, mobile phones and other electronic devices. We have received apologies from Jeremy Balfour.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Is the committee content to take item 6 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

Under agenda item 2, we are considering one instrument, on which no points have been raised.

My amendment 259 is a substantive amendment and amendments 281 and 285 are consequential to it. Fundamentally, the amendments provide for a referendum of the bill’s proposals if it is successful at stage 3. Scotland does not have a written constitution but, if it did, I would want constitutional matters to be decided by referenda of the people.

I have considered the engagement that takes place in other jurisdictions—Ireland and Switzerland are two examples—as well as elsewhere. That level of engagement is hugely important for the sense of local democracy, particularly when it comes to matters of such importance. As we are aware, those countries have had referenda on assisted dying, and I argue that the issues before us in the bill should be considered in that context.

As I have previously stated during stage 2, although this is technically a normal bill, the subject matter is not a normal issue. I am sure that we can all agree on those two points. I have long considered referenda to be essential exercises in democratic activity—long before I was elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2007. Just because there is no such tradition in Scotland or the UK does not mean that it is not the right thing to do. Early in this process, I suggested a referendum on assisted dying to Friends at the End, which was working with Liam McArthur, and I met the group online on 12 November 2021.

Prior to the stage 1 debate, more than 270 constituents from Greenock and Inverclyde directly contacted my office to ask me to vote against the bill; in contrast, 130 constituents contacted me to ask me to support it. In addition, I received emails from elsewhere across the country. The online situation was very different; I found that most people wanted me to support the bill, with a minority wanting me to vote against it.

When the previous bill—Patrick Harvie’s bill—came before the Parliament, I surveyed more than 10,000 constituents in Inverclyde, and I found that a slight majority of the respondents wanted me to vote against the bill. The figure was around 54 or 55 per cent. I am sure that, due to differing demographics, faiths, health inequalities and many other factors, the results in every constituency will be mixed, notwithstanding the poll undertaken by Dignity in Dying. So, I genuinely have no idea what the outcome would be in Inverclyde if a referendum were to take place.

My amendment 259 is a substantive amendment and amendments 281 and 285 are consequential to it. Fundamentally, the amendments provide for a referendum of the bill’s proposals if it is successful at stage 3. Scotland does not have a written constitution but, if it did, I would want constitutional matters to be decided by referenda of the people.

I have considered the engagement that takes place in other jurisdictions—Ireland and Switzerland are two examples—as well as elsewhere. That level of engagement is hugely important for the sense of local democracy, particularly when it comes to matters of such importance. As we are aware, those countries have had referenda on assisted dying, and I argue that the issues before us in the bill should be considered in that context.

As I have previously stated during stage 2, although this is technically a normal bill, the subject matter is not a normal issue. I am sure that we can all agree on those two points. I have long considered referenda to be essential exercises in democratic activity—long before I was elected to the Scottish Parliament in 2007. Just because there is no such tradition in Scotland or the UK does not mean that it is not the right thing to do. Early in this process, I suggested a referendum on assisted dying to Friends at the End, which was working with Liam McArthur, and I met the group online on 12 November 2021.

Prior to the stage 1 debate, more than 270 constituents from Greenock and Inverclyde directly contacted my office to ask me to vote against the bill; in contrast, 130 constituents contacted me to ask me to support it. In addition, I received emails from elsewhere across the country. The online situation was very different; I found that most people wanted me to support the bill, with a minority wanting me to vote against it.

When the previous bill—Patrick Harvie’s bill—came before the Parliament, I surveyed more than 10,000 constituents in Inverclyde, and I found that a slight majority of the respondents wanted me to vote against the bill. The figure was around 54 or 55 per cent. I am sure that, due to differing demographics, faiths, health inequalities and many other factors, the results in every constituency will be mixed, notwithstanding the poll undertaken by Dignity in Dying. So, I genuinely have no idea what the outcome would be in Inverclyde if a referendum were to take place.

Section 20 is designed to ensure that, if a person helps someone to end their own life in accordance with the processes that are set out in the bill, they could not be sued for doing so. The Salvation Army, with which I worked on the amendments, wants to ensure that, if a person helps someone to decide not to end their own life, they would be equally protected from being sued.

Such a situation might seem unlikely; it is a hypothetical situation. Let us say that, after the bill passes into law, a terminally ill adult is thinking of seeking assisted dying and they discuss the possibility with people whom they trust. As a result of one of those discussions, the person changes their mind and decides not to seek assisted dying but to let the illness take its course. Some members of the family do not agree with that decision. They do not understand how the person could have changed their mind and chosen a longer death, which they think will be less dignified and, perhaps, more costly, because of care expenses, than assisted dying would have been.

After the individual dies, family members blame the person with whom the individual had the discussion for persuading them to choose a way of dying that they believe was not in the best interests of the now deceased person. They try to sue the person for having made their relative’s death more distressing than, in their view, it could and should have been. No one knows how the court would respond to such a case. It might decide that the claim could not succeed or that there were no legal grounds for bringing it, but no one can be sure.

The Salvation Army proposed amendments 250 and 251 to make sure that such a claim could not be made. Rather than being about seeking special protections for anybody, they are about equal protection before the law. It would be perfectly reasonable for a terminally ill person who is thinking about seeking assisted dying to discuss the question with family, friends and other persons whom they trust. The amendments seek to ensure that everyone who is part of those discussions can exercise that privilege and responsibility without fear that a civil claim might later be made against them, as long as they act honestly, in good faith and otherwise in accordance with the law.

The bill gives that protection to people who help a terminally ill adult end their life. Amendments 250 and 251 are seeking equal protection for those who provide advice to the contrary.

I move amendment 250.