Meeting of the Parliament 17 March 2026 [Draft]
This is a significant moment for the Parliament, so let me start by acknowledging some of those who have played their part in getting us to this point: the non-Government bills unit, who, like colleagues in the legislation team, are unsung heroes of this institution; my team, Amanda, Niamh and Ashley, and, before them, George, Peter and Jack, who have had my back throughout; and Dignity in Dying, Friends at the End and the Humanist Society Scotland, who have run the most amazing campaign while also supporting me directly. I remind the chamber of my entry in the register of members’ interests.
I acknowledge, too, those who responded in record numbers to my original consultation, many with the personal stories of dying Scots that I firmly believe must be at the forefront of our minds as we come to vote this evening, and who are represented in the public gallery. I also acknowledge the stakeholders who have engaged with me while also supporting the scrutiny process through giving evidence to a Health, Social Care and Sport Committee that carried out its responsibilities superbly.
I acknowledge colleagues across the chamber who have given their time to have conversations with me over the past five years and who, regardless of their position on the bill, engaged seriously and respectfully. It is often said that Parliament is at its best when it speaks with one voice. I believe that it is at its very best if it can come together when debating an issue upon which there is profound disagreement, and I commend colleagues for rising to that challenge. For me, that has been exemplified by the amending stages of the bill. Of the 175 amendments agreed to by Parliament last week, half came from members whom I fully expect to oppose the bill at decision time. That speaks to a determination among colleagues across the board to ensure that the bill, if it is passed, is the best that it can be.
In drafting the bill, I drew on international experience to ensure that it was tightly drawn and heavily safeguarded, and that it balanced the need for choice with the protections that patients, medics and the public rightly expect. Quite properly, at the health committee, and again last week, MSPs have had the chance to amend the bill to introduce further guardrails, additional clarity and stronger restrictions and requirements in a wide range of areas. That is as it should be.
I may have introduced the bill, but it is very much Parliament’s bill now. It feels invidious to pick out individuals, but I will throw caution to the wind and refer to colleagues who, at stage 1, were either opposed to the bill or whose support was certainly caveated.
Jackie Baillie has successfully introduced changes that reflect the priorities of Children’s Hospices Across Scotland, the Royal College of Nursing and hospices. Fulton MacGregor has been tenacious in speaking up for social work, securing changes that reflect the important role that those professionals must play in assessments and wider safeguarding. Ruth Maguire helped Parliament to reinforce protections to address concerns about coercion.
Meanwhile, Bob Doris secured so many amendments at stage 3 that my office now refers to the bill as “Bob’s bill”. Together with Miles Briggs, Bob Doris has ensured that the needs of palliative care services have been reflected in the debate around the bill, recognising the inevitable interaction between the two. That has allowed a light to be shone on a sector that is crucial and often misunderstood and undervalued.
Brian Whittle led the way on advanced care plans and the importance of using the bill to promote much greater discussion and early planning of people’s wishes at the end of life. Paul Sweeney ensured stronger requirements around signposting to social work and mental health services, an area that he has commendably prioritised. Daniel Johnson, whose forensic scrutiny of international legislation I referred to last week, lodged amendments that enabled debate on key issues and put in place further safeguards, including a prognosis period, mandating in-person meetings and toughening up reporting requirements.
Finally, Ross Greer built in advocacy support for those who need it while also, crucially, supporting my efforts to ensure that fundamental protections and training for medical professionals will have to be in place before the provisions of the bill can be implemented.
On the issues of legislative competence, I again acknowledge the work of the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments. They are neutral on the issue of assisted dying. However, once this Parliament voted strongly in favour of the general principles at stage 1 last May, both Governments worked at pace and in good faith. In record time, they reached agreement on a way forward that respects both the will of this Parliament and the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998. That agreement allows issues around medicines and medical devices to be dealt with via a section 30 order. The no duty/no detriment protections, as well as training, qualifications and experience requirements, will be taken forward via a section 104 order.
I recognise that colleagues, and some in the sector, are anxious. However, the fact remains that the provisions of the bill cannot come into force unless and until the section 104 order is passed. Of course, there are different views on the constitution and how the 1998 act might work in future. We will have ample opportunity to debate those views in the run-up to May’s election. For now, the reality is that we must deal with the 1998 act as it is, not as we would wish it to be.