Meeting of the Parliament 12 March 2026 [Draft]
Amendment 190 relates to section 12 and concerns the responsibilities and potential criminal liability of proxies who are involved in the assisted dying process. My amendment addresses a matter that goes to the integrity and safety of the system that would be established under the bill’s framework.
I wonder whether, in winding up, Liam McArthur will tell me what happens if someone falsely signs by proxy. From reading the bill, I see no punishment or anything that would happen if such a situation happened, so I would be interested to know his reflections on that at the end of the debate on this group.
The bill allows, in very specific circumstances, for a proxy to act on behalf of an individual who is making a decision. The measure is designed to assist a terminally ill adult who might be physically unable to sign or communicate, while ensuring that the decision reflects their true voluntary intent. However, as with any process that allows a person to act on behalf of another, there is a risk of abuse, coercion or falsification. A declaration that is made falsely or under pressure would completely undermine the safeguards that we all want in the bill, and the amendment seeks to put such safeguards in place. Such a declaration would strike at the very principle that assisted dying is a choice that is made freely and by the person themselves.
Amendment 190 would establish clear and enforceable criminal offences for any proxy who knowingly contravenes section 12(4). That is because, as I said a moment ago—again, I would be happy if Liam McArthur could clarify this point when summing up—there seems to be no punishment for someone who falsely signs by proxy. That includes signing a declaration in contravention of the law or making a false statement about their capacity, disqualification status or understanding of the person who is making the decision. We are not talking about technical or minor offences—they involve serious risk to life, so the amendment would put in place appropriate penalties to reflect that gravity.
Importantly, the amendment would also clarify that, even if the person who is seeking an assisted death does not proceed to the point of death, such a falsification will have placed the adult at serious risk and should be treated as such. That is crucial, because it would prevent a potential loophole whereby a proxy could force a declaration but avoid accountability simply because the process was interrupted by a third party.
The amendment is about more than just rules on paper; it is about protecting vulnerable individuals at the moment of profound vulnerability. It would ensure that proxies cannot act without accountability, that the integrity of the declaration process is preserved and that the safeguards that Parliament has sought to put in place can never be bypassed.
In a debate such as this, it is right that much attention has been paid to the role of doctors and to assessment and eligibility criteria, but the responsibility of proxies is just as crucial. A single forced declaration could fundamentally undermine the system, place a terminally ill adult at risk and erode public confidence in the legislation.
Amendment 191 would complement amendment 190 by ensuring that the professional integrity and conscience of solicitors and legal professionals is fully respected. Although the law should require oversight in such a delicate matter, no professional should ever be forced to act as a proxy against their conscience or professional judgment. Amendment 191 would remove any ambiguity about that from the bill by ensuring that legal professionals would not have to do that. I have seen what the Scottish Government says about risks around employment law, and Mr McArthur has picked that up as well, but I would be interested to hear from the cabinet secretary—in his speech on the group or in an intervention—whether this issue will be part of the negotiations with the UK Government.