Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, thank you. We may be in touch with you with some further questions.

I will come back to Dr Patrick for a moment. You touched on the Law Society’s submission and used the word “incremental”. Does the Law Society consider that, if the bill in front of us deals only with certain remedies for breach of contract, it could lead to fragmentation and legal uncertainty?

The bill is quite limited in scope, as we discussed with the previous panel. Your written submissions are quite clear about what you think about that, but it would be useful to get on the public record your thoughts and views with regard to the limits of the bill. Should the bill be broader, or should a different approach taken with regard to wider contract law?

Professor Brown.

Professor Bogle.

Until we had some type of written or formalised constitution, these things would have to be looked at on an issue-by-issue basis. We also have this Parliament, and it would be up to the politicians of the day to agree, or not, that a referendum should, or should not, take place on any issues going forward.

It is common knowledge that some colleagues across the chamber voted for the bill at stage 1 but were quite clear about reserving their right to offer support later in the process, depending on amendments at stages 2 and 3. I genuinely feel that, if a referendum were to take place, that would be a genuine reflection of a citizens assembly.

I have noted the Scottish Government’s consideration of what such a question would be in the documentation on the committee’s web page, but I do not, for one minute, believe that concerns about whether the question would be fair or unfair are realistic. I would make one suggestion, which is this: “Do you support the provisions in the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, as passed in the Scottish Parliament on whatever date? Yes or no?” That is not a leading question. Obviously, other suggestions would be available.

As for timescales, if the bill were to pass, that would happen at some point early in 2026, so no referendum could take place before the Scottish elections. I think that having a referendum of any type within the first two and a half years of the next parliamentary session would be a logical timescale, but if it were to happen in the early part of that two-and-a-half-year period, that would be fine, too. I am very relaxed about that, as long as it happened within that period of time.

I am happy to end there, convener.

Section 20 is designed to ensure that, if a person helps someone to end their own life in accordance with the processes that are set out in the bill, they could not be sued for doing so. The Salvation Army, with which I worked on the amendments, wants to ensure that, if a person helps someone to decide not to end their own life, they would be equally protected from being sued.

Such a situation might seem unlikely; it is a hypothetical situation. Let us say that, after the bill passes into law, a terminally ill adult is thinking of seeking assisted dying and they discuss the possibility with people whom they trust. As a result of one of those discussions, the person changes their mind and decides not to seek assisted dying but to let the illness take its course. Some members of the family do not agree with that decision. They do not understand how the person could have changed their mind and chosen a longer death, which they think will be less dignified and, perhaps, more costly, because of care expenses, than assisted dying would have been.

After the individual dies, family members blame the person with whom the individual had the discussion for persuading them to choose a way of dying that they believe was not in the best interests of the now deceased person. They try to sue the person for having made their relative’s death more distressing than, in their view, it could and should have been. No one knows how the court would respond to such a case. It might decide that the claim could not succeed or that there were no legal grounds for bringing it, but no one can be sure.

The Salvation Army proposed amendments 250 and 251 to make sure that such a claim could not be made. Rather than being about seeking special protections for anybody, they are about equal protection before the law. It would be perfectly reasonable for a terminally ill person who is thinking about seeking assisted dying to discuss the question with family, friends and other persons whom they trust. The amendments seek to ensure that everyone who is part of those discussions can exercise that privilege and responsibility without fear that a civil claim might later be made against them, as long as they act honestly, in good faith and otherwise in accordance with the law.

The bill gives that protection to people who help a terminally ill adult end their life. Amendments 250 and 251 are seeking equal protection for those who provide advice to the contrary.

I move amendment 250.

I thank Liam McArthur for his comments and for acknowledging what is behind the amendments, which is the dialogue that I had with the Salvation Army. I genuinely did not fully take on board the issue initially, but even without the discussion that we had, I recognised that we do not know what is ahead of us and that the law can change. The purpose of the two amendments is safeguarding and protecting individuals who might be involved in the type of dialogue that I mentioned. It is really just about safeguarding.

Can I come back in briefly, convener?

If Mr McArthur is content to have further dialogue, I am content not to press amendment 250 and not to move amendment 251, although I could do so at stage 3, depending on the conversation that we have with the Salvation Army.

Amendment 250, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 251 not moved.

Section 20 agreed to.

After section 20

Amendment 62 moved—[Jackie Baillie].