MSPs have said financial planning behind Scotland’s assisted dying bill is not “sufficiently comprehensive” and contains “potential gaps in information”.
In a letter to the Scottish Parliament's health committee – which is the lead committee scrutinising the legislation – MSPs on the finance committee have said they have found “underestimates” of the direct financial impact of the bill and potential wider societal changes.
The committee has said it is concerned that initial demand and costs may be significantly higher than anticipated “given the likely significant rise in public awareness around assisted dying as a result of the wider debate in Scotland and the UK”.
The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill has been introduced by LibDem MSP Liam McArthur and will allow terminally ill adults in Scotland who are eligible to lawfully request, and be provided with, assistance by health professionals to end their own life.
A Stage 1 debate on the legislation is expected in the coming months.
MPs at Westminster voted to support a proposal for a similar law in England and Wales last year.
The letter from the finance committee said: “As with any financial memorandum (FM) before us, the committee does not take a view on the policy set out in the bill other than to recognise this is a complex and sensitive area, involving deeply held views on all sides of the debate.
“It is this Committee’s role under standing Orders to examine the extent to which FMs ‘set out best estimates of the costs, savings and changes to revenues to which the provisions of the Bill would give rise, and an indication of the margins of uncertainty’.
“Our scrutiny of this FM has highlighted potential gaps in the information provided, including underestimates of the direct financial impact as well as of potential wider societal changes.
Our committee examines the estimated costs and savings arising from Bills. We've set out our findings on the Financial Memorandum (FM) for the Assisted Dying Bill. We’ve concluded that this FM is not sufficiently comprehensive. Read in full⬇️https://t.co/0ftzxmNCTI pic.twitter.com/ukm2x17pVU
— Finance and Public Admn Committee (@SP_FinancePAC) January 30, 2025
“We also found a lack of information on estimated savings that could arise from the bill. This has led the committee to conclude that the FM as introduced is not sufficiently comprehensive.”
The letter highlights that the choice of jurisdictions around the world used for comparison purposes has raised concerns, adding that the proposals in the bill are more expansive than legislation in many of the places examined.
“Some of the written submissions received by the committee, however, highlight that the proposals in the Bill are more expansive than the legislation in either Oregon or Victoria and that Canada may be a more appropriate jurisdiction to consider.”
The letter goes on to say the jurisdictions used for comparison has led to an assumption the number of assisted deaths will be low – about 25 – in the first years of operation and then rise in the years after.
However, MSPs have said stakeholders have suggested that, using the Canadian experience and adjusting for population numbers, “a wide interpretation of the law, which is possible as the bill is currently written, would mean Scotland could expect 170-180 deaths in year 1, rising to 780-790 in year 3, 1330-1350 by year 5 and continuing to rise steeply”.
MSPs also raised concerns about a “postcode lottery” where some where patients in some areas of Scotland may be unable to access medical professionals who can and are willing to provide the service, meaning additional funding may be required to address this.
The letter added there were several other potential costs not sufficiently outlined.
It said: “The submissions received also identified potential underestimates in relation to the amount of clinical time and additional staff involved in assessments, documentation, arranging independent doctors and liaising with legal authorities.
“Alongside these, stakeholders identified potential costs associated with setting up the place of death, setting protocols to deal with complications, indemnity and welfare support for professionals involved in assisted dying.”
