Meeting of the Parliament 13 May 2025
I thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for that intervention. I do not think that that is the case. Polling consistently shows support, not only in the population at large but across the disability community. That is not to say that there is not a very real need to open up that discussion in order to answer the questions that people have.
There are those who have a firm view in support and those who have a firm view in opposition, but many simply have questions about the practicalities of how assisted dying might work in practice, such as those that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care asked. Research by the University of Glasgow’s Professor Ben Colburn into the way in which assisted dying laws work in practice around the world found no evidence that they harm people with disabilities, undermine access to healthcare or promote disrespect of people with disabilities. However, if we have the opportunity, I will continue to engage with Pam Duncan-Glancy at stages 2 and 3, to address any other concerns.
I turn to the definition of terminal illness, which Liam Kerr mentioned in his intervention. The bill requires a person to have an illness, disease or condition that is worsening, will continue to worsen and is at an advanced stage. The illness must be one that a person will not recover from, and which is expected to result in their early death. I do not believe that the definition should include a specific period of life expectancy, and I note that the committee agreed. I remain confident that the definition gives clear effect to the policy intent, which is to cover terminally ill adults in the final stages of their illness. However, as I said to Liam Kerr in response to his intervention, those and other aspects are matters for debate and amendment at stages 2 and 3.
To those who argue that we should be focused solely on improving palliative care, I make the point that it is not a case of either/or—we need both. Investing in improved quality of and access to palliative and hospice care, as well as good social care, is imperative. It will be what the vast majority of dying Scots continue to rely on, even after any change in the law.
However, we know that there are those who find themselves beyond the reach of palliative care and who are desperate for more choice. We know, too, that in jurisdictions with assisted dying laws in place, not only have those laws often gone hand in hand with increased investment, but, as the committee heard, there has been improved understanding of and engagement with palliative care. Therefore, we can and must do both, and I pay particular tribute to the work of Miles Briggs in that area.
On the question of legislative competence, my view has not changed since the introduction of the bill, when, after careful consideration and advice from legal officers, I signed a statement of competence. That view is shared by the Presiding Officer. Should Parliament back the general principles this evening, I will engage with the Scottish and UK Governments and seek to facilitate discussions to ensure that the will of this Parliament can be delivered. I echo the committee’s report in welcoming the Scottish Government’s commitment, should the bill pass at stage 1, to open dialogue with the UK Government and keep this Parliament updated.
Today, we can take a significant step forward by giving terminally ill adults across Scotland more choice. Yes, it is a brave step, but it is a compassionate one, and it is a step that I believe Scotland is ready to take. As well as international evidence, my bill draws on understanding gained from previous attempts to change the law, led by colleagues including Jeremy Purvis, Patrick Harvie and the late Margo MacDonald.
Fifteen years ago, Margo MacDonald stood in this chamber, speaking in the stage 1 debate on her End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill. She said:
“We, the Parliament that represents the wishes, beliefs, hopes and determination of our fellow countrymen and women, are doing something today that Parliaments are meant to do: we are trying to find an honourable, fair and equitable solution to a problem”.—[Official Report, 1 December 2010, c 31042]
Fifteen years on, Margo’s words remain pertinent.
As I said at the outset, it is the voices of dying Scots and their families that must be at the heart of today’s debate. In bringing my remarks to a close, let me quote Ani, from North Uist, who was diagnosed with MND in 2022. She said:
“I am not afraid to die. I want to live, I want my life to continue, but right now I am living with extreme anxiety about suffering.
If I had the right to choose what is best for me I could let go of all the anxiety and fear. For me assisted dying is, funnily enough, a life line. I could let go of sleepless nights, stressed filled days, and constant anxiety ridden thoughts.”
Ani’s words show that there are consequences, too, to not changing the law: the horrendous decisions and bad deaths faced by dying Scots; the trauma for them and those left behind; the higher suicide rates that we see among those with a terminal illness; and people spending their life savings to go to Dignitas earlier than necessary and far from home at the end.
However, those are questions for another day and another debate, at stage 3, when the final detail of the bill will be known. For now, I ask members to back the general principles of the bill to allow it go forward for further scrutiny and amendment. In the context of the stories that we hear ever more often, ever more loudly and ever more painfully from our constituents, that is surely not an unreasonable ask. We cannot continue to leave this issue in the “too difficult” box. That would be unforgivable.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill.
14:40