Chamber and committees

I thank Liam McArthur for his comments and for acknowledging what is behind the amendments, which is the dialogue that I had with the Salvation Army. I genuinely did not fully take on board the issue initially, but even without the discussion that we had, I recognised that we do not know what is ahead of us and that the law can change. The purpose of the two amendments is safeguarding and protecting individuals who might be involved in the type of dialogue that I mentioned. It is really just about safeguarding.

Can I come back in briefly, convener?

If Mr McArthur is content to have further dialogue, I am content not to press amendment 250 and not to move amendment 251, although I could do so at stage 3, depending on the conversation that we have with the Salvation Army.

Amendment 250, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 251 not moved.

Section 20 agreed to.

After section 20

Amendment 62 moved—[Jackie Baillie].

Until we had some type of written or formalised constitution, these things would have to be looked at on an issue-by-issue basis. We also have this Parliament, and it would be up to the politicians of the day to agree, or not, that a referendum should, or should not, take place on any issues going forward.

It is common knowledge that some colleagues across the chamber voted for the bill at stage 1 but were quite clear about reserving their right to offer support later in the process, depending on amendments at stages 2 and 3. I genuinely feel that, if a referendum were to take place, that would be a genuine reflection of a citizens assembly.

I have noted the Scottish Government’s consideration of what such a question would be in the documentation on the committee’s web page, but I do not, for one minute, believe that concerns about whether the question would be fair or unfair are realistic. I would make one suggestion, which is this: “Do you support the provisions in the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, as passed in the Scottish Parliament on whatever date? Yes or no?” That is not a leading question. Obviously, other suggestions would be available.

As for timescales, if the bill were to pass, that would happen at some point early in 2026, so no referendum could take place before the Scottish elections. I think that having a referendum of any type within the first two and a half years of the next parliamentary session would be a logical timescale, but if it were to happen in the early part of that two-and-a-half-year period, that would be fine, too. I am very relaxed about that, as long as it happened within that period of time.

I am happy to end there, convener.

I listened to Liam McArthur’s comments, but it is still worth while to speak to my amendment 249, which was drafted with the Salvation Army. The stage 1 report noted in paragraph 356 a “widespread view” that there needs to be more clarity about how institutions could reasonably be expected to respond to the legalisation of assisted dying if the bill were to pass.

The Salvation Army is a key provider of social services across the country, including in my Greenock and Inverclyde constituency. It provides 16 residential and non-residential services for people who are experiencing homelessness. It has informed me that, in countries in which assisted dying is legal, such as Switzerland, Government funding and commissioning for its residential services in particular was put under threat because it had not wished to provide facilities for assisted dying on its premises.

Section 18 of the bill recognises that individuals who are working with a terminally ill person may have a personal conscientious objection to assisted dying. It respects their right to hold that objection by saying that nobody should suffer any detriment because they cannot, in conscience, take part in the assisted dying process. However, the Salvation Army—which I support in this aspect—believes that organisations, too, can have a conscience that is based on their ethos. Many organisations that provide care and support to vulnerable people, including people who are terminally ill, do so because the people who founded the organisation had a set of moral beliefs that impelled them to provide care for people who need it. Those beliefs have entered into the conscience of that organisation. They provide the moral and ethical basis for its continued work. They are the reasons why the organisation continues to do what it does.

Sometimes, those beliefs will support or be neutral towards the idea that terminally ill adults should be able to choose to have help to end their lives. In such cases, the organisation will be able to accommodate the legalisation of assisted dying with little difficulty. However, that will sometimes not be the case; sometimes an organisation will have a view of human life, or of its role at the end of life, that will not be able to accommodate legalised assisted dying. If such an organisation is told that it must accommodate legalised assisted dying or it will lose public funding for its services, it will face a very difficult dilemma of a kind that the bill says that an individual should not be exposed to.

The Salvation Army is calling for a clear statement in the bill that organisations should have the right to exercise conscientious objection to participation in assisted dying. No organisation or individual should be penalised for their conscientious objection to assisted dying. [Interruption.] Sure, I was just coming to an end.

No, that is certainly not the purpose of amendment 249. I am not sure whether the Salvation Army operates in your constituency, Mr FitzPatrick. I know from the engagement that I have had with it over many years, because of the range of services that it operates, that that is certainly not where it is coming from. I go back to the point about Switzerland that I referred to. In the end, the Salvation Army had to operate within the new law that was introduced in Switzerland, but it found it difficult to undertake that.

Regarding the situation in Scotland with this legislation, the Salvation Army would not want to be in a position in which people would have to leave its premises. At the same time, it is an organisation that clearly does not believe in the premise of assisted dying.

The issue is clearly a concern for the organisation because of the experience that it faced in Switzerland. Fundamentally, it will abide by the law in any country in which it operates, which I am sure that we would all appreciate and expect. However, as an organisation, it does not support the legislation that is being proposed. If the bill were to pass, it would be difficult for the organisation to operate the bill’s provisions, particularly in its residential settings. However, it would not break the law.

I listened to Liam McArthur’s comments, but it is still worth while to speak to my amendment 249, which was drafted with the Salvation Army. The stage 1 report noted in paragraph 356 a “widespread view” that there needs to be more clarity about how institutions could reasonably be expected to respond to the legalisation of assisted dying if the bill were to pass.

The Salvation Army is a key provider of social services across the country, including in my Greenock and Inverclyde constituency. It provides 16 residential and non-residential services for people who are experiencing homelessness. It has informed me that, in countries in which assisted dying is legal, such as Switzerland, Government funding and commissioning for its residential services in particular was put under threat because it had not wished to provide facilities for assisted dying on its premises.

Section 18 of the bill recognises that individuals who are working with a terminally ill person may have a personal conscientious objection to assisted dying. It respects their right to hold that objection by saying that nobody should suffer any detriment because they cannot, in conscience, take part in the assisted dying process. However, the Salvation Army—which I support in this aspect—believes that organisations, too, can have a conscience that is based on their ethos. Many organisations that provide care and support to vulnerable people, including people who are terminally ill, do so because the people who founded the organisation had a set of moral beliefs that impelled them to provide care for people who need it. Those beliefs have entered into the conscience of that organisation. They provide the moral and ethical basis for its continued work. They are the reasons why the organisation continues to do what it does.

Sometimes, those beliefs will support or be neutral towards the idea that terminally ill adults should be able to choose to have help to end their lives. In such cases, the organisation will be able to accommodate the legalisation of assisted dying with little difficulty. However, that will sometimes not be the case; sometimes an organisation will have a view of human life, or of its role at the end of life, that will not be able to accommodate legalised assisted dying. If such an organisation is told that it must accommodate legalised assisted dying or it will lose public funding for its services, it will face a very difficult dilemma of a kind that the bill says that an individual should not be exposed to.

The Salvation Army is calling for a clear statement in the bill that organisations should have the right to exercise conscientious objection to participation in assisted dying. No organisation or individual should be penalised for their conscientious objection to assisted dying. [Interruption.] Sure, I was just coming to an end.

Good morning and welcome to the 30th 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 MSP.

Under agenda item 1, we are considering three instruments, on which no points have been raised.

Is the committee content with the instruments?

Members indicated agreement.