Meeting of the Parliament 10 March 2026 [Draft]
My amendments in this group are in the vein of other amendments on organisational opt-out. I accord with much of what has already been said about individual opt-out for medical professionals, not least doctors—which we have covered and will cover further—and about organisational opt-out, which is particularly important for organisations that hold a certain ethos, which is usually based on faith.
I followed the debate on this aspect at stage 2, when Stuart McMillan lodged amendments that were co-designed with the Salvation Army, which has been referred to again this evening. Exchanges in the stage 2 debate on this aspect and on the services that the Salvation Army runs are perhaps not the best examples for trying to understand what we are talking about here—the need for an organisational opt-out. That is not to do a disservice to the Salvation Army’s excellent work, though.
Instead, it would be really useful—both this evening and throughout our remaining consideration of the bill—to deal with clear examples of where there would be significant challenges and problems, rather than deal in broad concepts that lead to comments such as those Mr Greer made about people being left to die in car parks. I really do not think that that is helpful. We need to focus on what actually happens in practice just now and on where the potential pitfalls might be.
We can consider a clear example in the religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church that deliver social care, which they have done for centuries. To use the example of the Little Sisters of the Poor, such provision has happened in Scotland in various ways for well over 160 years. The Little Sisters of the Poor order has care homes in Greenock, in my region, and it has a presence in the city of Glasgow. It also had a presence in places such as Dundee and Edinburgh from about 1863 until recently.
The religious order provides such care within its charism, which means that the entire delivery of that care is in line with the vows that its religious sisters have taken. We cannot decouple the two things. The administration and running of the care homes are done by religious sisters—for example, the registered manager of Holy Rosary care home in Greenock is a religious sister—so it is not as though those two things are entirely separate and set apart; they are interwoven and interlinked.
Needing to offer assisted dying through health and social care frameworks, or to advertise or undertake any of the discussions that might be required through the health and social care partnership, would therefore be in direct conflict with the charism and the ethos of such an organisation and the vows to which the sisters have committed themselves. In such a situation, an opt-out for that organisation would clearly be required.
We need to ensure that, at the outset of someone choosing a care home or a hospice facility, they know what the ethos, direction and view on assisted dying in that facility will be. It rather misses the point to say that someone would need to leave that facility and find another in a short space of time; that would not be true if it were clear who was opting out and who was opting in.