Meeting of the Parliament 17 March 2026 [Draft]
This will be my last speech in this chamber, and I am proud that it is in a debate on this bill—one where we are all free to be colleagues acting on behalf of our fellow Scots, regardless of our view or our vote at decision time.
I will begin my remarks by considering the philosophical tension that underpins the proposed legislation. On one side, the proposals before us can be seen as a continuation of the individualism that is now described as agency, and, in the context of this debate, the ability to make choices about the manner and timing of one’s own death. On the other side, we are reminded by philosophers such as Marcus Düwell that
“in the concept of human dignity questions about the role of humanity, the rights of individuals, and the structure of our normative social and political orders are interconnected.”
In essence, we confront a profound fault line between two fundamental considerations: respect for individual choice and autonomy, and recognition of human vulnerability and the state’s duty to protect life. However, we will not settle that philosophical dispute this evening—certainly not through the binary vote that each of us must cast.
During the stage 1 debate, I said that, whatever our vote, harms will occur. They occur already. Terminally ill people sometimes starve themselves to hasten death. Others are slowly overmedicated until life ends. We have heard multiple such examples from colleagues. That is our status quo.
My greatest concern during this process has been the risk of coercion. Members know my particular interest in the protection of women. That concern led me to support many of the safeguarding amendments, even in the knowledge that such amendments would make the bill more complex and, at times, more unwieldy. That said, coercion cuts both ways. I have heard first-hand evidence of families exerting significant pressure on their loved ones not to go through with their final wishes.
A further significant concern relates to the decision that key aspects of protection and regulation will now be handled through a section 104 order rather than via section 30. Even though section 104 orders are commonplace, like others, I remain unconvinced by the UK Government’s reasoning. It is a sober reminder that power devolved is power retained. I caution those who believe that, should the bill pass, the choice that they hope for will be immediately and seamlessly available. Politics will not end with tonight’s vote.
If part of our job is to pass good legislation—and it is—we must recognise that no bill is ever and can ever be perfect. This one is no exception. What we can say is that the member in charge of the bill has conducted this process with courtesy, respect and a genuinely open mind. I also commend the Scottish Government and, in particular, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care for the way in which they have handled this difficult terrain.
For my part, I will vote for the bill. It is not an unqualified vote. It is an on-balance, all-things-considered and, I hope, reflective yes. For those who remain uncertain, let me offer one final reflection. Yesterday, I visited my doctor and then my elderly father, I spoke to his carers and I talked to local constituents. I asked people informally what they thought. That was by no means rigorous research, but every person I spoke to expressed support. I believe that the public are ahead of us on this matter, and they look to us to create the progressive, dignified, supportive and enlightened Scotland that they seek.
Whatever the outcome this evening, the margin must be clear enough to give people confidence that the Parliament has reached a decisive conclusion. Therefore, I urge members who might be considering abstaining to vote one way or the other, so that we have the clearest indication that we can get of the will of the Parliament.