Health, Social Care and Sport Committee 18 November 2025
My amendment 258 requires that the Scottish ministers,
“as soon as practicable after Royal Assent, carry out an assessment of the capacity of social care services provided by ... local authorities, and ... organisations providing social care ... to support the functions under this Act.”
I want to make members aware that I had hoped that the assessment of capacity could go beyond the capacity within social care services, local authorities and other providers of social care, and could go beyond looking at only the functions under the act. My intention was to highlight the level of difficulty that there can be in accessing social care, which can, of course, mean the difference between life becoming tolerable or being intolerable. However, given the scope of the bill, my amendment is drafted specifically to address supporting the functions under the act, and despite that limitation, I think that that would be a very useful assessment of capacity.
The amendment specifies that the assessment
“must, in particular, consider ... staffing resource associated with provision of social care services, including the training and support that will be required,”
and
“existing funding streams for social care services and organisations supporting disabled people.”
It further requires that ministers lay the report before the Parliament and that, within six months of the report being laid, the Parliament must
“consider a motion to approve the report.”
My amendments 280 and 284 provide that the sections cannot be brought into force until that report on the assessment of capacity within social care services has been published.
As I have said before, and it is important to say again, I think that it is crucial that we send a signal that we are a country that seeks to make it easy to choose to live. Part of that is about having access to good social care when we need it, and all of us around this room will have inboxes full of casework that shows that that is just not the case. If we pass a piece of legislation that seeks to offer someone the alternative of ending their own life, in the absence of capacity in an essential system such as social care, which can make the difference between finding life tolerable or intolerable, we could be sending a signal—in fact, it would not be a signal; it could be easier to choose to die than to choose to live. The assessment and report are a crucial part of bringing in any legislation to support people to die.
My amendment 287 would specify that the act may not come into force
“a day before the day on which legislation is brought forward by Scottish ministers to remove charges for non-residential social care being provided to, or which would otherwise be available to, terminally ill adults requesting assistance”
under the act.
20:15As I said about my previous amendments, I want the provisions to be broader, so that we are looking at the capacity in the social care system in order to be certain, or as certain as we can be, that a lack of capacity in that system is not impacting on somebody’s decision whether to continue with a loss of function at any point. I wanted that aspect to be much broader than only in relation to the bill.
It is also important to understand that the difference between accessing social care and not accessing social care is not only about its availability; for some, it is also about the associated charges. Some people might pay in excess of £700 or £800 a week towards their social care, which can be quite prohibitive. Some people decide to deny themselves access to social care based on its cost. The fact that they cannot afford to access social care as a result of the charges might mean that they can no longer engage in some aspects of their life.
Ending non-residential social care charges has been an ambition of the current Government for some time but it has not yet delivered it—that is not intended to be a political point, although plenty of political points could be made. The fact remains that the charges are not yet abolished and they are still causing some significant concern for people accessing social care. A barrier such as the cost of access to social care should not be in the way, particularly if legislation on the statute books gives people the option to have an assisted death. That is why my amendment seeks to say that we could not bring in the legislation in an environment in which some people have lost out on crucial social care. I can testify to how important access to social care is—I am sure that members have seen the difference that it can make to people’s lives.
We cannot put a piece of legislation on to the statute books that could assist people to die while some people are making the choice to do without social care on the basis that they cannot afford it, which puts them in such a situation that they find their life intolerable. That is why I have lodged the amendment to say that we must first end non-residential social care charges.
Together, the measures speak to an important point. At the risk of labouring said point, it is important that, if we are legislating for people to die, we ensure that we are doing so in an environment in which the choice to live is viable. As it stands, I am not sure that that is the case, given the situation in social care and with social care charges that can prohibit some people from accessing it. The amendments seek to protect against that, which is why I have lodged them.