Health, Social Care and Sport Committee 04 November 2025
Good morning, convener. I thank all members who have lodged amendments to the bill at stage 2. The breadth of the amendments will allow most of the substantive issues that the committee wrestled with at stage 1 to be debated at stage 2, which is the purpose of the process.
I thank Jeremy Balfour and Daniel Johnson for setting out the rationale for their amendments and I agree with much of what they have said. In other jurisdictions, we see that people are accessing the choice that the bill would enable at the end of their life, but I understand why we are having the debate.
Before I touch on the amendments that have been spoken to, I will first address my amendments. My amendment 24 clarifies that,
“For the avoidance of any doubt, a person is not”
to be considered as meeting the definition of terminal illness as set out in section 2
“only because they have a disability or a mental disorder (or both).”
That does not, however, prevent a person from meeting the requirements as set out in section 2 from being regarded as a terminally ill person.
Amendment 26 is consequential and tidies up drafting.
I noted the concerns that were raised at stage 1 about the potential risk of a person with a disability or a mental disorder being assessed as meeting the definition of terminal illness as set out in section 2. I am clear that the bill, supported by its accompanying documents, does not permit a person to be assessed as being terminally ill for the purposes of the bill only because they have a disability, a mental disorder or both.
However, in order to provide further reassurance of policy intent and on the meaning of section 2, and to further inform any future guidance on and the practical operation of the act, I have lodged amendment 24. It is not a change of policy but it will remove any doubt. I remain of the view that, if it is their wish, a person must not be prevented from requesting assistance to end their own life because of a disability or a mental disorder, if they meet the requirements as set out in the bill and are assessed as being eligible.
Jackie Baillie’s amendment 73 relates to the amendments that I have lodged in this grouping. Amendment 73 and consequential amendment 84 duplicate the part of my amendment 24 that relates to mental disorder but do not include the part about disability. I am therefore supportive of the principle of Jackie Baillie’s amendments, but I ask her not to move them, and I ask that the committee supports amendment 24, given its application to mental disorder and disability.
09:15I turn to Jeremy Balfour’s amendment 143, which, as the convener said, pre-empts amendments 144 and 4. The first two parts of the amendment, which relate to the diagnosis of an
“irreversible and actively progressive disease, illness or condition”
for which
“no treatment is available that could reasonably be expected to prevent death or lead to recovery”,
are already provided for in section 2. On the proposal that terminal illness should be defined as a person being considered to have three months or less to live, as the committee heard during stage 1, there are risks in including a timeframe for a prognosis of death.