Health, Social Care and Sport Committee 18 November 2025
I thank Mr Balfour for setting out the rationale for his position. I also thank the committee for the extensive scrutiny that it has undertaken throughout stage 1 and stage 2.
The stage 1 scrutiny included evidence on the bill’s protections for vulnerable groups in the context of the right to life under the European convention on human rights and the rights in the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, including article 12.
At stage 2, close to 300 amendments have been lodged, aimed at further strengthening the carefully considered safeguards in the bill. In the interest of time, I will not reprise those.
Stage 2 amendments relating to age, capacity, detection of coercion and palliative care have all already been debated, and many are still to be considered. An amendment raising the age limit for requesting an assisted death from 16 to 18 has already been agreed to. So, too, was my amendment to include a for-the-avoidance-of-doubt provision that no one can be considered as meeting the terminally ill definition only because they have a disability or a mental disorder.
Turning to the question of coercion, I point the committee to the part of the policy memorandum relating to equalities and the human rights issue. Paragraph 99 states:
“There have been various cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights ... arguing that the prohibition or lack of availability of assisted dying is a breach of the ECHR. Whilst these cases have not been upheld, the”
Court
“has not stated that assisted dying is either compatible or incompatible with the ECHR. The approach of the”
Court
“to date has been to recognise that countries/jurisdictions are better placed than the Court to decide on nationally sensitive issues (this is known as the ‘margin of appreciation’).”
I also remind members that I completed an equalities impact assessment for the bill, which was sent to the committee and is available on the bill’s web page.
Furthermore, extensive written and oral evidence was received at stage 1 on issues relating to people with a disability, which is reflected in the committee’s stage 1 report. I have also previously cited research by Dr Ben Colburn and others that concludes:
“1. People with disabilities are not generally opposed to assisted dying laws.
2. Assisted dying laws do not harm people with disabilities.
3. Assisted dying laws do not show disrespect for people with disabilities.
4. Assisted dying laws don’t damage healthcare for people with disabilities.”
On the issue of coercion that Mr Balfour raises, I refer members to my response to the chief executive of the Scottish Partnership for Palliative Care, which was copied to MSPs last week—again, that is a matter of record. It makes it clear that my intention and, indeed, understanding is that doctors will use the full extent of the General Medical Council guidance and relevant training and experience when making assessments. I therefore believe that the bill is consistent with other relevant legislation, and with professional practice. It ensures that safeguards remain robust, clear and enforceable, while allowing professional guidance to continue to support clinicians in identifying more subtle or indirect influences in practice.
Amendments to further refine the definition of “coercion” in the bill have been and will be debated and decided on by the committee. I believe, however, that the terms “coercion” and “pressure” are well understood. Indeed, I note that the Scottish Government commented that providing a definition of coercion that brings in broader internalised pressures could have the opposite effect and create uncertainty.
I endorse the role of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in monitoring the practical application of national legislation in the context of the convention. However, Mr Balfour’s proposal that a final vote at stage 3 not take place until the UN committee has certified that the bill aligns with the convention would not only interfere with decisions taken by this committee at stage 2 but pre-empt the legitimate scrutiny process of this Parliament, the remainder of stage 2 and the amending part of stage 3, which is still to come. It would not be appropriate to seek to interfere with the legitimate processes of this Parliament, including the lengthy and thorough scrutiny process at stage 1, which resulted in the Parliament agreeing to the general principles of the bill. Mr Balfour would still be free to engage with the UN committee, but I believe that this committee, Parliament and the public can have confidence in the robust process of scrutiny being applied to the bill.