Meeting of the Parliament 13 March 2026 [Draft]
Colleagues will know that, in general, I am a big fan of data. It is important that, if the bill becomes law, we collect the right data.
Amendment 287 would require reporting under the act to include analysis of trends, patient safety risks and safeguarding concerns. There are international comparisons, which I have heard both sides of the debate—for and against the bill—pick apart and hold up as examples. We do not know who would access assisted dying in Scotland, how that would look for them or what impacts it would have. I expect that the picture would be different even in the Highlands and Islands compared with Glasgow. In the context of an island nation with pockets of deprivation, depopulation and even a lack of vitamin D, we do not know with certainty what impact protected characteristics would have on our population and the way in which it would seek to exercise rights under the bill if it is passed.
Undoubtedly, without data collection on equalities trends, there would be compelling anecdotal evidence on both sides to claim that there was no equalities impact or that there were extreme equalities impacts.
Amendment 287 would let us keep an eye on what was actually happening here, not on what we might think or claim or guess was happening and not on what was happening in only the best or worst cases, but on trends and biases over time. We would need to know whether groups with particular protected characteristics were using assisted dying more or less than expected in comparison with others. We have a duty to dig deeper into any trends and, to do so, we would have to know what those trends were.
UN experts have warned that disabled people and older people, especially older disabled people, might feel subtly pressured to end their lives prematurely because of the lack of appropriate services and support. That seems inevitable to me and I am deeply concerned about the inherent risk of ableism being promoted through the use of assisted dying, which is why I cannot support the bill. However, we know that those inequalities span more than disability.
If assisted dying were offered in Scotland, I would also want to know whether poorer people, women, carers and racialised minorities were using it more or less than others. I would want to know whether the known risks to those groups in healthcare generally, the difficulties that they face in accessing support services and the higher prevalence of disability, degenerative conditions, poverty and sexually transmitted diseases were having an impact on why and when assisted dying was used. What we did with that data would be up to us, but I hope that the Parliament can agree that we should at least collect it.
Amendment 284 would similarly require the collection of data on safeguarding concerns and ensure that, if the act worked as it should and resulted in referrals to adult protection, social work, police or other safeguarding authorities, the information on those referrals could be taken into account when any policy changes or adaptations were made to the legislation and how it operated in future.
Amendment 284 would also require a summary of the outcomes of those safeguarding investigations. Concerns would undoubtedly be raised that amounted to nothing, with no risk to the patient found. That would be great and would show that the system was working as it should. I would, however, expect those who are involved in delivering assisted dying to be cautious, to instigate investigations when there were slight concerns, and to allow those investigations to determine whether or not the concerns were founded. It would be important to collect these data so that we could see that the overall picture was as expected and hoped for by everybody who has spoken to safeguarding in these debates, regardless of their position on the bill itself. My amendments would ensure that we captured outcomes, too, and I hope that everybody would be reassured to know that people who were in a position to spot issues erred on the side of caution.
Audrey Nicoll’s amendments in the group are also important as they seek to ensure transparency. The group is essential. We must be able to accurately review and reflect on the operation of the legislation if it becomes law.
The intent of Bob Doris’s amendments is also important. I heard Elena Whitham’s arguments about the SIMD. However, knowing how unhelpful the SIMD can be in describing rural and island poverty, and knowing that I live in the highest-ranked SIMD area in the Highlands, I am not sure that that general data set is helpful in checking the socioeconomic status of people who would make use of assisted dying. We should not leave it to guesses and hope. We would have to know who was accessing it and what issues had come up as a result.