Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting)

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

I recognise that, and that the Bill makes a distinction in respect of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, which would be the doctor doing it to us. The Bill specifies that the drugs must be self-administered. I do not understand the logic of that distinction, but I recognise that there is an attempt to make the Bill more palatable and that the distinction has been preserved. Nevertheless, the Bill would enable a doctor to prescribe lethal drugs with the purpose of ending a life. That is an act that is performed: a person is prescribed drugs to end their life. Whether they take the pills or press the syringe themselves, the act has been performed, and the prescribed drugs kill the person.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will recall the evidence from Professor Hoyano, who said she could not legally see the distinction between a doctor handing the pills to somebody to take themselves and the doctor pulling the plug out of the wall to turn off the ventilator or whatever machine might be keeping the person alive. Both of them are an act by a doctor at the request of the patient to foreshorten their death and avoid whatever they contemplate at the end.

I realise we are dealing with semantics here. We might have an irreconcilable difference about such an act, but I have to say that from the point of view of a patient—the person approaching their death—those two acts seem to be broadly the same. In both circumstances I am requesting that a doctor do something to hasten my death, because I do not wish to continue living in the circumstances presented to me.

[Danny Kruger]

My right hon. Friend articulates the point well. I do not think it is a semantic decision: there is a real distinction. The fact is that unplugging the ventilator leads to death, but what kills the patient is not the administration of any treatment or drugs that have been provided. The patient dies naturally, whereas the administration of drugs designed to kill them is a qualitatively different event. I agree that of course the ultimate effect is the same, but the act that is performed is qualitatively different, and indeed the intention of the doctor is different.

[Kit Malthouse]

Forgive me, but surely the whole point of what we are trying to do here is to give people the opportunity to avoid the natural death that is presented to them. We hear again and again, and we heard it from the families who gave evidence, that people profoundly wished to avoid their natural end because it was going to be degrading, unpleasant and profoundly painful on every level. That is the whole purpose of the act. To say that we should avoid that issue seems to me to negate our whole reason for being here.

[Danny Kruger]

We are trying to avoid suffering, pain and bad deaths. We all share that view. Indeed, later amendments look explicitly at the purpose of an assisted death and the question of the avoidance of pain. I am simply making the important distinction between the decision to withdraw treatment and the decision to administer fatal drugs, which, as I say, are qualitatively different—different in principle and different in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I know that my hon. Friend comes from a mental health background and has worked as a professional in this area. I absolutely agree that we need to strengthen the Bill, which is why I will support the amendment. I feel that we must strengthen it because the Secretary of State can make some interventions.

[Kit Malthouse]

I want to clarify what the Royal College of Psychiatrists actually said, because I realise that the hon. Member is relying a lot on that evidence. In an exchange with me in their oral evidence, the doctor from the royal college said that if I were to equate the decision to refuse treatment with the decision to request a hastening of my death in extremis as qualitatively the same, and of the same seriousness and outcome, then the Mental Capacity Act may well be appropriate for the decision. The difference was information. We would be relying on the notion of informed consent, and therefore on the information that the person was being given about the consequences of that decision.

We will be debating later in Committee the information that is given to a person to form that decision, but I do not think it is quite the case that the psychiatrist said that it could not be or was not fit for purpose. Actually, they said that it may well be sufficient if we equate those two decisions—and many of us do.

[Naz Shah]

I know the right hon. Member speaks with a huge amount of experience. I am very new to the subject, but I know that the evidence from the psychiatrist was very certain—not “may well be”. The language that they used, which I referred to earlier, was very clear that it is not a good standard. They said:

“We are in uncharted territory with respect to mental capacity, which is very much at the hub of the Bill”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 226, Q286.]

and there is an inequity in assessment using the Mental Capacity Act. There were other categorical statements made—there was no “maybe” in there. For me, a “maybe” does not cut it at this level; the test should be much higher in order to take the option of assisted death.

[Kit Malthouse]

If the hon. Lady goes to column 277 of Hansard from that oral evidence session, Dr Price said:

“You are equating a refusal of treatment, in capacity terms, to hastening death by assisted dying. If those two things are equated, in terms of the gravity and the quality of the decision, the Mental Capacity Act may well be sufficient, but there are differences. There are differences in the information that the person would need and what they would need to understand.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 277, Q361.]

It is clear what Dr Price said. To be honest, the question was partly prompted as we had become a little confused, because the whole practice of psychiatry in the UK is founded on the Act at the moment. She seemed to be implying that somehow the entire practice of psychiatry in the UK was on unstable ground—and I do not think anybody is claiming that.

[Danny Kruger]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Juliet Campbell]

I thank the Committee for allowing me to reiterate the importance of a stand-alone approach. The use of the Mental Capacity Act must be questioned, as the Act was never intended to legislate for assisted dying. Much of what has been said in favour of using the Mental Capacity Act has been about it being tried and tested, so people understand it and to use anything else would make life complicated for professionals who use it as part of their day-to-day activities in assessing capacity.

On the surface, those reasons do seem reasonable and make the Mental Capacity Act an easy option. If, however, the Act does not pass the threshold of meeting everyone’s needs, convenience should not be the deciding factor. Convenience cannot be considered a sufficient reason to use the Mental Capacity Act, as it is a fundamental element of the Bill. The Bill is in itself enough reason to have an alternative or stand-alone approach to determine an individual’s eligibility to be considered for an assisted death.

Capacity is a complicated issue and cannot be oversimplified for convenience. The MCA may be fit for its current purpose, but it is not fit for the purpose of the assisted dying Bill. I have spent more than 20 years working on the equalities agenda, and one of the things that I have learned—this has been a consistent shortfall—is that we try to address new challenges with old solutions, rather than trying to meet the needs of the people we intend to serve. That is the reason why I will be supporting the amendment.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. As was noted earlier, the Government remain neutral. My role here is not to offer a Government view on the merits of the amendments but to provide a factual explanation of their technical and practical effect, to assist the Committee in its scrutiny. This group of amendments focuses on the concept of mental capacity. As drafted, the Bill, in clause 3, states that

“references to a person having capacity are to be read in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005”,

with sections 1 to 3 of that Act establishing the principles and criteria for assessing a person’s capacity to make decisions. New clause 1, which would replace clause 3, and amendments 34 to 47, would collectively introduce the concept of an individual having the ability to make the decision to request assistance to end their life. A person’s ability would be determined by whether they could

“fully understand, use and weigh the relevant information in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

That is intended to replace the term “capacity”, used in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which provides a very specific definition of what it means to lack capacity in relation to a particular decision. A lack of capacity under this framework means that a person must be unable to understand, use and weigh information relevant to the decision, and that that must be directly caused by

“an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.”

The “ability” proposal, as drafted, deals only with the use and weight of information.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

To go back to the point I made this morning—I am happy to stand corrected, but nobody has disputed it—two issues continue to concern me in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and the code of conduct. The first is that the doctor would have a choice, under chapter 5 of the guidance, as to whether it is practical and appropriate to consult other people—with regard to learning disability, for instance.

Also, we have not discussed principle 2 in chapter 2, which says that the doctor has to do everything practicable to try to help the person to make the decision for themselves, before concluding that they do not have the capacity to do so. The principal concern for some Members remains those issues in relation to the Mental Capacity Act, which have not been considered for this scenario. I would like the Minister to address them and the fact that that Act, which was written 20 years ago, was not written for this scenario.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The fundamental position of the Government is that the Mental Capacity Act as it stands is a known quantity. It provides the legal base for a whole range of measures and interventions, and the Government’s view is that it would be an adequate legal base to operationalise the Bill should it receive Royal Assent. Our position on it goes no further than that; it is simply a matter of fact that there is a piece of legislation that is a known quantity.

[Naz Shah]

The Minister makes an important point. I just want to understand something. He speaks on behalf of the Government and says that the Mental Capacity Act is an adequate legal base as it stands. Perhaps the issue is just that I am new to the process—I am happy to be guided, Sir Roger—but we have not had an impact assessment. Normally, Bills do have impact assessments beforehand and the Government go out to consult; they have a consultation process. None of that has happened because the Bill is a private Member’s Bill. I am just trying to understand: is what has been said still true? How do the Government come to that conclusion without all those robust mechanisms that would normally go before a Government Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

As I set out from the Dispatch Box when we had the money resolution, the Government will publish an impact assessment before Report. Given that this is a highly dynamic Bill, with a whole range of amendments having been tabled, and that it is not really possible to publish an impact assessment on the basis of a Bill that has not cleared a Bill Committee, there is a simple point of sequencing. That is why we are going to publish the impact assessment after the Bill Committee has completed.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I was glad to hear what the Minister said about the Government accepting the Mental Capacity Act as a basis. We should remember that in 2005, that Act widened the availability of autonomy for individuals. We are discussing that here: how to enable autonomy for individuals. I also really welcome what the hon. Member for Bradford West said about impact assessments. Can the Minister commit now to an impact assessment specifically for Wales? The context of health and social care there is very different from that in England.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the right hon. Member for her intervention. We have had a conversation about the need to ensure that the impact assessment has a clear and specific focus on the impact in Wales. I can absolutely assure her that either there will be a separate impact assessment for Wales, or we will ensure that the impact assessment that we produce is absolutely clear in terms of the impact that it will have in Wales; it will be one of those two.

Personally, I am agnostic as to which of those it is. It is simply a question of what works best given the highly integrated nature of the conversation because the criminal justice aspects of it are a reserved competence, while health and care are a devolved competence. What is the best way to present that—having a single document or two separate documents? I am not entirely clear, but I have undertaken to check the matter with officials. I will get back to the right hon. Lady as soon as possible on that point.

[Danny Kruger]

I am very puzzled, on two grounds. The first is about the impact assessment. I simply do not understand the argument that the Government have to wait until the end of the Committee stage before they can have a view on the Bill and present it for Report. The fact is that the Bill could change again on Report, and the impact assessment would have to be updated further. Why on earth do we not have an impact assessment, which could advise the members of the Committee and the Government themselves on the appropriateness of the measures?

That brings me to my second point of confusion: I simply do not understand what on earth the Minister means when he says that he is neutral about the clauses. He has just given the view, from his position, that he objects to the amendment and that he supports the use of the Mental Capacity Act. He is basing his view— I had understood that, as a neutral member of the Committee, he was not going to express one—on something. What is he basing it on? Secondly, how can he express a view when he is supposed to be neutral?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Government choose when to bring forward an impact assessment based on the passage of the Bill through the House. We have had reports today about a very substantial amendment to clause 12 that may well be brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, for example. It is not possible for the Government to conduct and publish an impact assessment when quite significant changes are being made.

I also gently point out to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that this is not a Government Bill; it is a private Member’s Bill. It is also worth noting that it is unprecedented, as far as I know, to have oral evidence sessions for a private Member’s Bill, so we are already on relatively uncharted territory. It is also relatively uncharted territory to have, on a Bill Committee, Ministers who are neutral because the position of the Government is neutral. But that reflects the fact that this is indeed uncharted territory, so that is where we stand.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about our own positions on the subject; I speak also for the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green. It is a matter of public record that I supported the Bill on Second Reading. It is also the case that we vote, as members of the Committee, on the basis of our conscience because this is a matter of conscience; that is why the Government are neutral on it. There is no whipping from the usual channels.

At the same time, we are articulating the position of the Government. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire asked how we come to that position. It is through the usual process of engaging with officials and experts in the field, and through taking into account all the considerations that the Government need to take into account for the operationalisation of the Bill. The Government then come to a view, and that is the view that I express when I am on the Committee.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Minister says that the Government have made their own choice about when to do the impact assessment on the Bill. Does he not accept that it would have made sense to have done it before the Committee stage? Then, any evidence that the assessment threw up could have given rise to amendments tabled during the Committee stage—that would have made it an appropriate time to have done the impact assessment. The impact assessment could then always have been updated depending on how the Bill was then amended during Committee.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I simply reiterate that this is a very dynamic Bill Committee; I believe that 362 amendments have been tabled. Given the Government’s focus on establishing the Bill’s implementability, the coherence of the statute, the legal dimensions and the complexity of what we are dealing with, we took the position that it was better to wait for the Bill to clear Committee stage before producing an impact assessment. To do otherwise could have involved a large amount of second-guessing based on radical changes that might well have come out of the Bill Committee. I reiterate the logic of that sequencing.

On the point about the established legal framework, which clinicians have been applying since 2007, “capacity” would still be used for other decisions about care and treatment.

I turn to amendment 202, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on the advice of the Government. It ensures that the assessment of “capacity” is utilised by the assessing doctor, and corrects a typographical error in clause 9 to ensure that an assessment of capacity will apply consistently throughout the Bill. As I said earlier, how and whether the law on assisted dying should change is a matter for this Committee and for Parliament as a whole. However, I hope that these observations are helpful to the Committee when considering potential changes put forward.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will try to keep my comments brief. It is excellent that we have had such a thorough debate on this particular issue, but I am also very conscious of time.

I will do the quick and easy bit first. As the Minister has just said, amendment 202 is to correct a typographical error in the initial drafting of the Bill—despite the high level of expertise involved in the initial drafting of the Bill, that one managed to sneak through. The amendment would simply change the word “capability” to “capacity”, to be consistent with the rest of the Bill.

I now come to amendments 34 to 47 and new clause 1. As we have discussed, those would replace the concept of “capacity”, which is based on the Mental Capacity Act, with a new concept of “ability”. I think that suggestion is coming from a good place and is made with good intention by the hon. Member for Richmond Park; I thank her for her positive engagement with the Bill. However, based on the oral evidence that we received, particularly from the chief medical officer and many other experts, the suggestion would seem unnecessary given that we already have—as has been discussed at length this afternoon—a very well established piece of legislation that is effective in this regard.

The primary purpose of the Mental Capacity Act is to promote and safeguard decision making within a legal framework. As the CMO and other colleagues have said, issues around mental capacity

“are dealt with every day, in every hospital up and down the country; every doctor and nurse above a certain level of seniority should be able to do that normally.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 31, Q3.]

That view was supported by Yogi Amin, an expert in Court of Protection work, human rights and civil liberties, who told us during the oral evidence sessions:

“It is well understood how capacity assessments are done, and it is ingrained”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 140, Q176.]

--- Later in debate ---

Division 2

Ayes: 8

Noes: 15

[Danny Kruger]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. I wonder whether you can advise me. I am perplexed about the position of the Government Ministers. It is an absolute pleasure to have them here, but I am confused by this Jekyll and Hyde character. They seem to have two personalities on the Committee, voting as private Members but speaking as Ministers. I wonder whether there is any precedent for that in any private Member’s Bill, or indeed any Bill, and whether Parliament admits the split personas that they have.

I totally understand the rationale for having Government Ministers here. It makes me query the whole concept of this being entirely a private Member’s Bill, but I recognise the role of the Government in it. However, if the Government want Ministers present at this Committee, there are Standing Orders that enable Law Officers to attend in their official capacity but not vote. That seems to me to be the appropriate way in which Ministers should be represented here. If they want to speak on the appropriateness of particular measures in terms of Government policy and applicability, that is perfectly appropriate, but I do not understand why they are also voting on this amendment in their capacity as private Members. I wonder whether you can advise me, Sir Roger.

[The Chair]

Happily, that is not a matter for the Chair. However, let me make it clear that the two Ministers present are members of the Committee in their own right as Members of Parliament and are therefore permitted to speak and vote, as are all other Committee members. Were any Minister to feel that there was a conflict between their personal view and the view that the Government wish to express, my understanding is that that would be a matter for discussion between that Minister and the Government. More than that I am afraid I cannot offer.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Further to that point of order, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for his question. Let us take this back to first principles.

This is a private Member’s Bill. A Bill Committee had to be formed. The Committee was formed in discussions between the Member sponsoring the Bill, the Whips and the House authorities. The principle of formulating the Committee was based in large part on the steer given by the debate and the vote on Second Reading, which delivered a majority of 55 in the House. The numerical composition of this Committee was therefore based on that majority of 55, broadly speaking. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley needed to put together a Committee that reflected that.

The position was also taken that there should be Government Ministers on the Committee who had to speak for the Government with neutrality. It is with those two factors in mind that the Committee was put together. The two functions that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green and I have reflect the two purposes that were in mind when the Committee was put together.

[The Chair]

Again, that is not a matter for the Chair. Points of order are not matters for debate; they are points of order.

[Stephen Kinnock]

My apologies, Sir Roger. It was just a point of clarification.

[The Chair]

That is all right. Nevertheless, I am minded to refer the matter to the Clerk of the House for his consideration. This is no reflection on either of the hon. Gentlemen, or indeed on the Committee, but there are issues here that I think the Clerk of the House perhaps needs to consider in the broader context.

[Kit Malthouse]

rose—

[The Chair]

No, I am not taking any further points of order on the subject. I have made my judgment. If it is on a different matter—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

indicated dissent.

[The Chair]

It is not on a different matter. I didn’t think so.

[Kit Malthouse]

I was just going to say that it is not unprecedented: it has happened before, in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.

[The Chair]

For the moment, we will leave it there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady might well be right. I totally take that point. I dare say it is people who are homeless. I think the question put was, “Should those who are homeless simply be able to ask for assisted dying?” People in this country say no. In Canada, asked the same question, a quarter of people say yes. The effect of the law has been to institute this principle of assisted dying being an acceptable choice under any circumstances, which is indeed, I am afraid, what happens.

I will end with a powerful quote from Fazilet Hadi, who spoke to us representing disabled people. She said:

“This Bill is not an abstract exercise; it will land in a society that is rife with inequality.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 185, Q242.]

She said that the society the Bill will land in is the thing that needs to change, not the Bill. She thinks we need to change our society before we do anything like introducing assisted dying. I agree.

[Kit Malthouse]

I should start by recognising that my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, who is my constituency neighbour, has devoted much of his adult life to public service. He should know that I have always admired him for that, and particularly for his work with the vulnerable and underprivileged in prisons. As he knows, I have spent much of my time in politics working with a similar population, so, like him, I understand their particular vulnerabilities. However, I oppose his amendments, and I hope he will bear with me while I enumerate why.

I believe that there are some definitional problems with the amendments, as well as some quite serious moral and ethical problems, and they compound into a practical difficulty. The first definitional one is who exactly my hon. Friend means by “prisoners”. As he knows, not all prisoners are the same. Would he seek to deny assisted dying to prisoners on remand who have yet to be found guilty of a crime but are being held in advance of the criminal justice process? Would he deny assisted dying—which will be available to everybody else if the Bill passes—to people who are held in prison for not paying their council tax, for example, or for contempt of court? There is a variety of vulnerability in the criminal justice system, and prisoners are inside for different lengths of time and in different institutions. Quite a lot of white-collar criminals go to open prisons, for example. Would he seek to deny them?

To me, if my hon. Friend’s objective is to protect vulnerable prisoners, the definition that he is using is far too wide. There are many people who may well find themselves in extremis while they are in prison and are likely to be released at some point, after a short sentence or because of the nature of their sentence, who would therefore have their ability to access assisted dying foreshortened.

Similarly, when my hon. Friend speaks of homeless people and uses the definition in the Housing Act 1996, I think he actually means rough sleepers. The definition of homelessness that he referred to includes people who are staying with friends, people who are moving between homes and people who are likely to become homeless at some point in the future. It is a very wide definition, which covers a large number of people, some of whom would not necessarily be classified as vulnerable and may well be assessed as perfectly capable and have the capacity to make this decision. So my first point is that there is a definitional problem with the broad terms that my hon. Friend has chosen.

[Danny Kruger]

I accept those points. Nevertheless, the Bill itself has broad definitions and large exclusions—people who have more than a six-month prognosis, and so on. The Bill, I am afraid, operates in pretty broad brush strokes in order to try to defend large categories of people, so I think it is appropriate to exclude all people who are currently incarcerated—people who are in prison—whatever the reason or the length of their sentence, until they are released, and then they can start the process if they wish to and if they qualify.

On homelessness, yes, we should use the official definition of homelessness, which basically means “in precarious housing”. The purpose of the Bill is to enable people who have full autonomy to make a decision in their own best interest. I think it is legitimate to ask whether people who are living in insecure accommodation, whose lives are in flux, who are experiencing extreme precariousness in their lives, should meet the appropriate criteria for autonomy that we wish to set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I was about to come on to the fact that those questions would indeed be asked through the assessment that takes place. As my hon. Friend knows—we have had a long discussion about it—the Mental Capacity Act relies to a certain extent on context to assess capacity.

Turning to my hon. Friend’s point on prisoners, this may come as a surprise to him, but some people who are held on remand are found innocent and are released from prison. During their period on remand, which could be quite lengthy, they would be denied access to something they would not otherwise be denied access to.

[Danny Kruger]

My objection is not on the basis of criminality, innocence or guilt. I would not deny criminals this right because they are criminals. I would deny them what I regard as a dangerous opportunity because they are vulnerable. Whether guilty or not, whether they are on remand or not, they are in an equally precarious position and equally vulnerable, and that is why they should be excluded.

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but we are talking about people who do not have much time. We have to remember throughout this debate that we are talking about people who have limited time; they have been diagnosed, and their prognosis is six months or less. In fact, the experience from overseas is that quite a lot of people come to assisted dying beyond six months. We are operating on the basis that suddenly everybody at six months decides they are going to apply for it. Quite a lot apply with just days or weeks to go; time is therefore important to them, and so it should be to us. I am concerned that the definitions interfere with that.

Secondly, there is a distinct moral issue about the denial of services, particularly medical services, to groups of individuals based on their circumstances. We do not currently do that. We do not deny medical services to prisoners because they are prisoners. We believe it is a sign of a civilised society that they access the same healthcare as everybody else through our national health service. The same is true of those homeless groups. That includes allowing them to make the kind of decisions that we have talked about in the previous debate: decisions about life-threatening surgery and about the continuation of their life. It is certainly the case, as my hon. Friend will know from his work in prisons, that a number of prisons have developed hospice facilities within the prison to deal with end-of-life issues. Indeed those that do not have hospice care work closely with NHS palliative care outside and very often bring in specialists to deal with end-of-life issues in the prison.

[Rebecca Paul]

Some incredibly important points have been made. I would like to give an example. Let us consider someone who is homeless. Perhaps they are staying with friends, as my right hon. Friend said. If they find themselves to be terminally ill, they may well face difficulties in accessing palliative care and getting the right treatments simply because they are homeless. This is about protecting that vulnerable group from choosing assisted dying simply because they are in a precarious and difficult situation and assisted dying seems like the best option in the light of lack of palliative care and their current circumstances. Would my right hon. Friend concede that that is what my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire is trying to address?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I would certainly concede that; absolutely, I agree. The whole purpose of the safeguards in the Bill is to protect those who would be vulnerable, to ensure they have the capacity to make the decisions they want to make, and to ensure that they are making them for the right reasons. However, I think a lot of people would find it unfair and immoral that they were excluded not because of their own sense of themselves and their ability and capacity but simply because of their circumstances. As I am trying to point out, those who are homeless or prisoners in the widest definition of those words can find their circumstances changing quite significantly within the timeframe of six months. Given that they have only got six months under this Bill, we should not interfere with that and say, “Well, you are in; you are out.”

This may seem like a narrow example, but imagine that somebody diagnosed with a progressive disease were to commit a criminal act and end up going to prison, and during their time in prison, they reach the six-month period. Are they to be denied assisted dying if it is available to everybody else in the population? To me, that would not seem morally right, particularly given that we have a duty to deliver, and we do deliver, end-of-life services to them in the prison to help them cope with those circumstances. As my hon. Friend will know, there are charities which provide end-of-life care in prison as well.

[Danny Kruger]

In the circumstances my right hon. Friend is describing, the prisoner would be eligible for the compassionate release scheme.

[Kit Malthouse]

They would, yes.

[Danny Kruger]

That is what I hope would happen if it was necessary for the prisoner to be released in order to avail himself of opportunities on the outside. If he is terminally ill, that is what should happen.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am very pleased my hon. Friend raised that issue, because I was about to come to the practical difficulties that this presents, for exactly that reason. As he rightly pointed out, for a large number of prisoners, subject to assessment of the safety of the public, if they contract a terminal disease in prison, as they reach the end of their life, they qualify for compassionate early release. Often, that is within weeks of their death—naturally, as one would expect. It is carefully reviewed by prison governors and, I think, has to be signed off by the Secretary of State, as a final control. The problem with denying them the services while they are in prison is that if they are eventually compassionately released, they may have only a matter of weeks or days to go through what will be quite an onerous process to avoid a horrible death.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I support the amendment for a number of reasons. I have a huge amount of experience of dealing with women, domestic violence and prisons. The first time I came to this House was to lobby the then Labour Home Secretary to reduce my mother’s tariff, because she served 14 years in prison. When my mother was in prison, I was left homeless, so I have experience of that as well. I have experience of, while I was homeless, attempting suicide on two occasions, and I ended up having my stomach pumped. I therefore speak with a reasonable amount of experience in dealing with this.

From a domestic violence point of view, which is why my mother killed an abusive partner, and having been a victim of domestic abuse, I also understand the vulnerabilities concerning women in particular—less so men, although I know the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has done a lot of work on that in his adult life. The majority of women who end up in prison—we have seen this from review of the courts, time and again—are victims of abuse, whether sexual, domestic or another kind. The majority of our women prisoners are in that position.

The suicide rate among the population in England and Wales is 11.4 per 100,000, but for prisoners, that goes up to 108 per 100,000, which is nearly 10 times as high. We also know from research that one third of female prisoners in England and Wales self-harm. We know from the Home Affairs Committee report in the last Parliament on health in the English prison system that standards of health deteriorated in recent years due to budget reduction, loss of prison officers, staff shortages and overcrowding. We know that the Government have had to bring forward early releases, because the prison system is not fit for purpose after the cutbacks of the last 14 years.

All this speaks to me of vulnerability. I hear the points that both the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire have made that, in an ideal world, people should absolutely have equal access to healthcare, but the problem is that we are not in an ideal world. From my perspective, we have a prison system that has had to have emergency interventions since the Labour party came into government, because it is not fit for purpose.

From a healthcare perspective, going back to what Dr Jamilla said and the numerous bits of evidence we heard about health inequalities, I know from a place such as Bradford West that people from ethnic minority backgrounds have less trust in healthcare services. I know that we do not have equity in healthcare services. As a former NHS commissioner, I know that those health inequalities impact on quality of life and that it is a postcode lottery. I am thinking about New Hall women’s prison in Wakefield and Armley prison, which is near Bradford. I am not familiar with London prisons, but I imagine the vulnerability of the women at New Hall. This comes back to the conversation about capacity: by some definition, they might have capacity.

However, we also heard from eminent psychiatrists that when someone has a diagnosis, it impacts on their mental health. In this instance, we are talking about six months, which the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire referred to a number of times. In that six months, access to visitors might not come for another few weeks. A person might not even have a member of their family next to them when they get that diagnosis. They could well be innocent; they could well have been a victim of domestic violence and ended up in prison because they killed an abusive partner after years of abuse.

They could be in a number of situations, but the one thing I concur with is the amount of vulnerability here, in particular for women, which speaks to the issues of capacity and coercion. It speaks to all the things that we are debating here, which is why I support this amendment: it would protect those who are vulnerable. If there was a diagnosis, prison systems would kick in. If someone was given less than six months to live, they would invoke compassionate grounds to leave the prison system, but I would be really uncomfortable seeing anybody in prison being given the option without that comfort.

I cannot imagine being in the position of, say, my mum. I cannot imagine—I would not dare imagine; I do not think I could handle it—the idea of being taken away from my family and being incarcerated, rightfully or wrongfully, guilty or not guilty. I would be in a place, a system and an institution where, depending on which category of prison I was in, the institutional wraparound and the interventions are very different. It depends on the stage of the sentence that somebody is in. If they are in at stage 1 at a category A prison, there are much stricter rules and regulations. Imagine a person being faced with all that and finding out that they have six months to live. As the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said, there is no guarantee that it is six months—more than 40% of those diagnoses do not turn out to be correct, and they could live longer. What would the impact be on that person? Could they make that decision? From a capacity point of view, I am not sure that that would exist.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady is feeling towards the point I was trying to make, perhaps slightly incoherently. The point is that in my view, whether or not those people have access to this service, it should be based on an assessment of them as themselves, including their mental capacity, particular characteristics and their settled will, just as it would be for everyone else under the Bill. The fact that they are, at that point, a prisoner impacts on the context in which their capacity is assessed, which must be the critical factor. Having a blanket ban on all prisoners, capable or otherwise, seems cruel, if I am honest.

We know that prisons have to assess capacity in difficult circumstances. There are prisoners who decide to decline food and water and starve themselves to death. They are assessed as having capacity, if that is not the case, and in certain circumstances they are force fed, if it is seen that they do not have the capacity to take that decision themselves. In fact, the reason why prisons have created hospices within prisons is to deal with exactly such end of life decisions.

If we are doing it for non-assisted dying, why would we deny people the choice and autonomy, having been assessed as capable of making the decision, to do it in prison? Worse than that, if we are going to release them on compassionate grounds, why would we give them a shorter period to access the service than anybody else?

[Naz Shah]

I appreciate where the right hon. Member is coming from—I sincerely do. It comes back to the heart of the issue around capacity. We heard from the psychiatrist—her name escapes me, but she was on the right-hand side—that, where there is an increase of vulnerability, if somebody is told they would get pain relief, they would choose an alternative path. Those were similar words, and I will find the reference.

My point is that we do not have equal healthcare access in prison. We provide prisoners with healthcare, but it is in no way equitable. The health inequalities that exist outside prison are bad enough. Palliative care is not fit for purpose in our country—it is a postcode lottery. Depending on which prison someone goes to, that will determine what kind of access they have to palliative care. It is not a level playing field.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Yes, I think there should be a deprivation of that final act, because there are vulnerabilities with that prisoner while they are inside a prison. What they need is not an option of assisted death at that point. That speaks to the amendment that I tabled, which is about making sure that we do not have the conversation in the first four weeks in any case, because a diagnosis of terminal illness affects people’s mental capacity and mental health. We know that: we have heard it from the psychiatrists. It is common sense; it does not take a genius to work it out.

We know that people in prison have additional vulnerabilities. We are having a debate about the issue of capacity, which we have clearly not agreed on. A person-centred care package needs to be about supporting the person, removing vulnerabilities, giving autonomy, and offering choices around accessing palliative care and medication, so that they are in a much stronger position to make an informed choice.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene again. Can she not see that by supporting the hon. Gentleman’s amendment she is basically defining all prisoners as de facto vulnerable? It is not the case. Although many are vulnerable, both my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire and I have met a lot of criminals and prisoners in our time, and quite a lot of them are smart, capable people who made a stupid decision. They are not vulnerable; they deeply regret what they did and go on to live perfectly functional lives.

We should be applying to prisoners exactly the same criteria of assessment—around capacity, vulnerability and settled will—at the time they are diagnosed with a terminal disease as we do to everybody else, because if we are not going to differentiate among prisoners, in many ways we are dehumanising the entire population. We are saying, “You are all vulnerable—no question—and we are excluding you completely on that basis.” As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, that is in many ways a fundamental denial of a basic human right.

[Naz Shah]

The idea that it is the fundamental denial of a human right is not quite correct. We are talking about the denial of a provision in a Bill that has not come into law. It is a potential legal position; it is not necessarily a human right yet. If the Bill comes into force, at that point it becomes an option that could be denied. There are many prisoners. Prison serves many purposes, one of which is to reform. There will be many prisoners who go in there and get a degree in criminality because they are surrounded by other prisoners. There are people who make choices.

In the first four weeks we should not have the conversation around assisted death in any case. I have tabled an amendment to that effect and will speak to it when we come to it. In the meantime, a person has an added layer of pressure if they are in prison. It does not mean that everybody is necessarily vulnerable from a starting position. I agree that there may be prisoners who are not vulnerable, but there is an added pressure if somebody is homeless or in prison, not having family or security, that would no doubt compound their mental health. Whether that is a slight or a large impact is for somebody else to assess, but as it is I support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph]

I want to contribute to this discussion based on my experience as a mental health nurse. I worked in mental health services for 22 years, including managing a medium secure forensic unit. I have worked with many homeless people and people who were detained under the Mental Health Act by the criminal justice system in those medium secure units and who had been involved in criminal activities.

With my experience, I can categorically say that that group of people is very vulnerable. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said, self-harming and suicidal tendencies are very high among that group. As part of the risk assessments that we carry out in the mental health system, one of the questions is whether they are homeless. That question is asked to identify that vulnerability.

These amendments bring up the importance of a psychosocial assessment, which was highlighted in many pieces of our oral evidence. If we are looking to bring more safeguards into this Bill, that is something we should consider to safeguard this group of people.

I want to make one more point about what the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said: not all homeless people are homeless in the same way; some people choose to sleep rough. I am not clear whether, if somebody is sleeping rough and is diagnosed with a terminal illness, we are looking to bring them back into an NHS bed to assist them to die. I do not know whether there is a provision to identify how we would manage those sorts of situations.

[Kit Malthouse]

I was not necessarily saying what the hon. Member said that I said—that all homeless people are the same. However, it is the case that, for rough sleepers in particular, a number of charities, such as St Mungo’s, have had to develop on-street palliative care services for the rough sleepers who sadly do contract terminal diseases or are reaching the end of their lives. Very often, part of that service is to try to encourage them to come into some kind of institutional environment, such as a hospital, where their healthcare can be better served. It is a particular difficulty with that group, and there is a high incidence of mental health problems among the street homeless—not homeless people generally, but the street homeless—but that, in my view, would be caught by the general assessment that takes place.

In fact, the hon. Member may be interested to know that there is quite a lot of on-street mental health assessment taking place for people. People who are living on the street develop all sorts of disorders—indeed, there are often people with quite significant mental health problems on the street—and they are dealt with as closely as possible to the front end.

Therefore, it would not be beyond the capability of the state to make assessments about individuals that are appropriate to the context. I am trying to stress the point that we need to see the person as an individual, as well as within their context. With a blanket ban on particular groups, the human right that I was referring to is denied—it denies them the right to be seen as an individual and assessed as an individual, which is what we do in every other service that we provide to them.

[Sojan Joseph]

I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. To clarify, not all patients who are diagnosed as terminally ill are necessarily bedridden. They may be capable of carrying out their day-to-day activities as normal, even though they have been diagnosed with a terminal illness and have been given a prognosis of six months. They may still be walking around. Not everybody needs palliative care, in fact.

My question was: if somebody who is a rough sleeper is diagnosed with a terminal illness and they want help with assisted dying, will we make provision to bring them back into an NHS bed to facilitate their dying? It would be great to have that clarification. I support the amendment, as I have seen many highly vulnerable people who would be more likely to choose the path to end their life if they were given the option.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The amendments relate to the criteria that individuals would need to meet to request assistance to die under the Bill. All the amendments seek to amend the eligibility criteria in some manner. To reiterate, the Government have no view on the policy questions pertaining to the amendments, and my role here is to offer observations on the legal and practical impact of amendments tabled. The legal impact of these amendments will be the main focus of my remarks.

Amendment 353 seeks to make prisoners ineligible for assisted dying services even if they meet the definition of having a terminal illness. Amendments 354 and 355 are consequential amendments that would make it a requirement for the co-ordinating doctor in the first assessment and the court process to ascertain whether a person seeking assistance to end their own life is a prisoner.

Aside from the right to liberty, article 5 of the European convention on human rights requires that prisoners should have the same rights as those who are not prisoners. The rights engaged by the amendment are article 8 on the right to respect for private and family life and article 14 on the protection from discrimination. Making prisoners ineligible for assisted dying would, on the face of it, lead to a difference in treatment between prisoners and non-prisoners that would need to be objectively and reasonably justified. The justification test requires that the treatment in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

[Naz Shah]

I note that the Minister used the word “treatment” twice, but we are not talking about a treatment; we are talking about assisted death. I think someone mentioned earlier that it is a treatment, but it is not a treatment, is it? I would welcome his clarification on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. My understanding is that it is termed as a treatment under the law. The Government do not take a view on the semantics of the word; my understanding is that that is how it is classified under the law.

[Sarah Olney]

It is really important that we establish whether this will be defined as a treatment or indeed as something quite distinct in law. My understanding is that the word “treatment” should never apply to assisted dying. I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I apologise; I think I misunderstood the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, so my comments were not clear. I meant the treatment of this matter under the law. As I said, the justification test requires that the treatment in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That means the way in which the matter is treated under the law. That is what I meant; I think we got our wires crossed.

Finally, let me address amendments 356, 357 and 358, whose purpose is to exclude those who are homeless within the meaning of section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 from the definition of a “terminally ill person”. The effect of amendment 356 would be to amend the definition of a “terminally ill person”, as set out in clause 1 of the Bill, to expressly exclude a person who, notwithstanding that they met all the other requirements set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1), was homeless within the meaning of section 175 of the Housing Act 1996.

Amendments 357 and 358 seek to make consequential amendments to clause 7 on the first doctor’s assessment and clause 12 on court approval. These amendments would require the co-ordinating doctor and the court to be satisfied that, in their opinion, the person was not homeless within the meaning of section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 before making their statement or declaration to allow the person to proceed to the next stage of the assisted dying process.

Article 14 states that the rights set out in the ECHR should be secured for everyone without discrimination on any ground. This amendment engages article 8 on the right to respect for private and family life. Making those who are homeless ineligible for assisted dying would lead to a difference in treatment that will need to be objectively and reasonably justified. The justification test requires that the treatment in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

I hope these observations may be helpful to Members in considering these amendments and making a determination about who should be eligible for accessing assisted dying services, should the Bill pass.

[Danny Kruger]

What an interesting debate—I am grateful to all hon. Members who participated.

I am interested in what the Minister was saying about the ECHR. Notwithstanding my general point about the sovereignty of Parliament, when Lord Sumption gave evidence to the Committee two weeks ago, he stressed the wide margin of appreciation given to member states on the ECHR. Does the Minister think that that will apply in this case to ensure that the British Parliament could vote to exclude these categories of people? If his view is that the Bill could be subject to challenges on discrimination grounds, however, particularly under article 14, I think we will have a lot of problems in applying the Bill. I wonder whether, in due course, we will be able to tease out how the ECHR will intersect with the Bill.

As the Minister says, the crucial point is that any discrimination must be justified on the basis of achieving a legitimate and proportionate aim. My suggestion is that there is an absolutely legitimate aim, and that this is a proportionate means of achieving it.

The debate got quite philosophical, which I found very interesting. I observe that my constituency neighbour, esteemed colleague and great Conservative, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, has a vision of our particular political creed that is entirely individualistic. He stresses the absolute importance of individual autonomy, treating everybody as an individual without reference to the context in which they live. I suggest to him, and to the Committee, that our freedom and autonomy depend on our relationships. Our autonomy proceeds from our socialisation. We do not emerge fully formed into the world with all our values and attributes; we acquire them by virtue of the people around us.

The crucial thing about the prison experience is that it disrupts the relationships that can make an individual genuinely free. Homelessness does likewise, and it sets up all sorts of new relationships and new socialisations that can often be very negative.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind words, but he will know that the foundation of our beliefs stretches from Magna Carta through to Mill and is based on a legal notion that I am to a certain extent my own island—that I have autonomy over myself. From habeas corpus to making decisions about my own medical treatment, I should have rights. That is not to say that my decision-making capacity should not be assessed within the context in which I live.

What I was trying to communicate to my hon. Friend and his supporters in respect of this amendment is that I think it profoundly wrong to paint all prisoners with the same brush and see them as a homogeneous whole, rather than seeing them for the individuals they are, specifically when they are taking a very individual, personal and private decision about their own life and death.

[Danny Kruger]

I trace our liberties to an evolution of British law, and of English law, that recognises the essential nature of our individuality as being socialised. We belong to one another and we derive our freedom from other people. Our autonomy, Magna Carta and all the liberties of the individual proceed from that. None of us, no man, is an island. That is what I suggest to my right hon. Friend. His point was about treating everybody as solitary individuals, making independent private decisions. That is not the way any of us operate; it is certainly not the way people in the most vulnerable circumstances operate. What actually happens is that we are heavily influenced by the people around us, by our circumstances and by the choices before us.

To descend from the abstract, let us consider an actual case, albeit a hypothetical one. Someone is in prison. They have committed some crime, or they have not committed a crime but have been remanded. Their whole family life has been smashed to pieces over the years, or just recently. They then get the terrible diagnosis of a terminal illness. A doctor says to them, because they are allowed to do so under the Bill, “You know, one of your options is an assisted death.” I think that that would be incredibly influential, to the point of serious concern, for those of us who know how vulnerable people in prison are. The same applies to people living on the streets, the people my right hon. Friend was describing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand what the hon. Member for Broxtowe is trying to achieve, but I believe that her amendments are unnecessary. “Demonstrably” is a word that is commonly used in British law, effectively to emphasise that something is important, but also to ensure that something is proven. She will have seen that I have tabled amendments to the Bill to require two declarations to be produced: one by the patient, to say that they have had the conversation about all their options, understand their options and understand what their prognosis is likely to be; and one by the co-ordinating doctor, to say that they have had the conversation and that the patient is in full possession of all the facts they need and understands what has been communicated to them.

My view is that those declarations, as well as the assessment that the doctor has to go through to confirm that the person has a settled wish to do this, are enough to show that the person demonstrably wants to access the service for themselves. I am concerned that amendment 109, like other amendments that we will debate later, would insert into the Bill a series of individual words that will unnecessarily complicate its contemplation by doctors. We heard in evidence that for the Bill to work, it needs to be simple and understandable by everybody who is dealing with it. The more we can minimise the number of words that may be open to interpretation by lawyers —and we certainly have plenty of lawyers in the room— the better. From that point of view, I will oppose the amendment. I understand what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, but I believe that we have achieved it by different means.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe relate to an individual who seeks to access assisted dying services demonstrating their wish to end their own life and demonstrating their understanding of the process by which that happens. To support the Committee’s deliberations, I will briefly summarise the Government’s analysis of the effect of the amendments.

Amendments 109, 110 and 111 would modify the requirement that the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor must undertake an assessment to ascertain whether, in their opinion, the person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life. That would be amended to require the person to have a clear, settled and demonstrably informed wish. The term “demonstrably” would not provide further practical guidance beyond the words already in the Bill and could create uncertainty as to what constitutes being demonstrably informed.

I turn to amendment 112. Clause 9 currently provides that the co-ordinating and independent doctors must explain and discuss a number of matters with the person being assessed. These matters are set out in clause 9(2)(b), (c) and (d). In the interests of time, I will not go through each of those matters, but they include an explanation and discussion of the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, any treatment available and the likely effect of it, and the further steps that must be taken before assistance can lawfully be provided to the person under the Act.

The amendment would create an additional requirement for the co-ordinating and independent doctors. It would require them both to be satisfied that, in their opinion, the person seeking assistance has demonstrated their understanding of the matters that have been discussed under clause 9(2)(b), (c) and (d). The amendment does not specify in any further detail what the doctors would be required to look for to satisfy themselves that a person has demonstrated their understanding. That would be left to their professional judgment, with training, support and guidance, as with other concepts in the Bill. The amendment would leave it to the co-ordinating and independent doctor’s professional judgment to determine what “demonstrated their understanding” looked like in respect of each individual person.

I hope that those observations are helpful to the Committee.

[Danny Kruger]

I have just a few points to make. I very much applaud the hon. Member for Broxtowe for her amendment, which would genuinely—demonstrably, I might say—strengthen the Bill. It does not seem in any sense hostile to the principle or purpose of the Bill; it supports it.

To make a gentle criticism, I think that there is a concern about the lack, throughout the Bill, of a proper trail of documentary evidence following the applicant through the process. For example, the two conversations with the doctor would take place behind closed doors, and no record of their discussion would be made. I do not think that conducive to trust. There is no way to assess whether the safeguards are actually in operation.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am afraid that that is not actually correct. If my hon. Friend is willing to look at my amendments—I appreciate that he might not have got to them yet—he will see that one of them would require the doctor to produce a report on their assessment of the patient. Obviously a two-way declaration would also be required that the conversation pursuant to clause 4(4) has taken place and that in the doctor’s view the person is in possession of all the facts that they need in order to make the judgment that we are asking them to make. That detail and documentation will be inserted into the Bill if my amendment is agreed to.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I particularly applaud his amendment’s aspiration to ensure that the doctors’ conversations are properly recorded.