Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eleventh sitting)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateWednesday 12th February 2025
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesTerminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 February 2025 - (12 Feb 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
Danny Kruger
Okay. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
We have received significant written and oral evidence on how common it is, sadly, that vulnerable people experience this sort of subtle coercion—the undue influence from which we all want to ensure that people are protected. The lawyer Tamasin Perkins was referenced earlier, but not fully quoted. She is a private wealth disputes partner, so deals with a lot of complexities around people’s deaths. She has said:
“Coercion can be very difficult to spot as a legal professional (and for medical professionals too)…the real influence occurs behind closed doors.”
She went on to talk about
“frailty and vulnerability…a too close involvement in the decision-making process, or a sudden and inexplicable change of heart.”
All that is often teased out only through the course of the quite in-depth relationship that a lawyer can form in the course of supporting somebody to settle their financial affairs. That is not what is proposed in the Bill. The law firm Scott Bailey has made the point that
“sadly, we all too often speak to individuals who do not realise they are victims until they talk to us about their relationship”.
While the Bill correctly seeks to protect people from direct coercion, indirect coercion is much harder to spot, as is the coercion that people apply to themselves, which we will come to in the next group of amendments. I recognise that the Committee and the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, have taken pains to ensure that we prevent coercion. I put on the record my support for the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) about the importance of providing training to all the professionals involved with coercive control, but I am not sure that training will be sufficient. It is important to insist that doctors who assess such applications are required to look directly for these particular forms of influence.
Let me explain our concerns as crisply as I can. At the moment, encouraging suicide will remain illegal under the Bill. That is an important principle. Clause 24 specifies that to assist someone to die according to the processes of the scheme set out in the Bill will not be treated as assisting suicide. The implication is that encouraging assisted suicide remains illegal. To the point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, if we are worried that there might be a chilling effect due to the concept of encouragement still being illegal, logically the Committee should amend clause 24 to explicitly allow encouragement in order to prevent such a chilling effect. Either encouragement is okay, and we allow it as a concept, or we do not.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Forgive me, but I think my hon. Friend might have misunderstood me. My point was that the more we attempt to police discussions in families, the more guarded they will become; it was not necessarily that we should specifically authorise encouragement, or whatever he has suggested. He referred a moment ago to professionals being able to have conversations with individuals freely about their circumstances, their thinking, and how they had come to their decision. I am concerned—there are relevant amendments in the next grouping—that families will interpret these words in such a way that they start to talk about things they should not say. They might think, “I’ve got to be very careful not to do this or say that; because of the state of my body and the disease that is ravaging it, I am determined that I want an assisted death, and I am going to make sure that I do not say anything wrong in the discussion.” The more that we police it, the less likely people are to be open and free in their conversations, both within their families and with the professionals we want to assess them.
Danny Kruger
I recognise my right hon. Friend’s argument. The fact is that encouraging assisted suicide is theoretically illegal—in fact, it will be illegal under the Bill—so there is already that potential for the policing of conversations. If it is concluded that a family member has encouraged somebody to an assisted suicide, that would be illegal, because that has not been specifically allowed. The law already specifies that it is illegal; we are concerned about ensuring that that is fully checked for in the early conversations that people have with their doctors—that the applicant does not simply have to get over the coercion bar, but that they have to get over this lower but just as important bar around the potential for encouragement and undue influence. If my right hon. Friend is concerned that the concept of encouragement will have a chilling effect on family conversations, he should legislate accordingly, so as to prevent it from being used at the later, criminal stage.
Kit Malthouse
We need to think about this in practical terms. If the word “encouraged” is included in the Bill, a co-ordinating doctor may feel that it is their duty to say to somebody, “Has anybody encouraged you to take this decision?” They will use that specific word, rather than have a general conversation that is designed to detect coercion, which, as has been pointed out, covers the concept of encouragement or undue influence.
My hon. Friend may think that that point is semantic, but we have to remember that the words will be interpreted relatively literally, certainly in the early stages after the passage of this legislation. To ensure that they are within the bounds of the law, a doctor may feel that they have specifically to say, “Have you been encouraged to do this?” That will then start to be interpreted by families in the way that they respond. What we really want is instead a general discussion, which is where, in my experience, professionals are expert at teasing out the understanding and motivation of individuals.
Danny Kruger
If my right hon. Friend just wants a free and easy, free-flowing discussion that has no specific questions that need to be asked or answered, there should not be any requirement for them to be testing for coercion. There is already a requirement to ensure that there has been no coercion and that the person is making the decision voluntarily. That imposes an expectation that they would be asking a specific question to the applicant. Personally, I think it is appropriate to ask the applicant, “Have you been encouraged? Has influence been put upon you?” If the answer is, “No, it’s all fine; my wife agrees with me, but I have not been encouraged to it,” then the test is passed.
The Chair
Before I call Minister Sackman, I remind Members that “you” refers to me, not the person they are speaking to. Can we be very careful with the use of “you”?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I know that Members will be eager to engage, and have already engaged, in a robust discussion about the issue of safeguarding, and how best to protect and prevent individuals from being forced or coerced into seeking assistance to end their life. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg has said throughout the debate, I will not be offering a Government view on the merits of any proposed amendments tabled by Members. Instead, I will offer some observations on the legal and practical effects of the amendments, to assist Members in undertaking line-by-line scrutiny.
As a starting point, we have heard a series of concepts discussed in this debate, including manipulation, pressure, coercion, undue pressure and encouragement with coercive ends. There is a range of terms that some Members have used interchangeably, and fairly so. It is important to say that there is a consensus that all those things are unacceptable; the point, and the Government’s view, is that the current provision in clause 1(2)(b) would cover that behaviour with the currently used terminology “coerced or pressured”.
Amendments 23 to 33 set out to include consideration of whether a person has been unduly influenced, in addition to having been coerced or pressured by another person, in the determination of whether that person is accessing assisted dying voluntarily. As I have already indicated, the Government’s view is that the terms “coerced” and “pressured” would cover the term “unduly influenced” as it is understood. If the Bill is voted into law, the guidance and training for the healthcare professionals who would apply the tests would need to be developed to cover that sort of behaviour in this specific context.
Similarly, amendments 82 to 92 and new clause 5 seek to introduce an additional safeguarding requirement that a person has not been encouraged into undergoing the assisted dying process. It is important to contextualise the amendments, which would introduce this new safeguarding requirement into all the relevant clauses of the Bill where a doctor—or a court or panel, if that is what transpires—must already make an assessment as to whether the person has the relevant capacity, has a clear and settled wish, is making the declaration voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it.
I have listened to the debates about what encouragement may or may not mean in this context. As I understand it, new clause 5 states that the definition of encouragement is that which would constitute an offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961. In reality, that Act does not specifically define encouragement in legislative terms, so there is a risk that the definition becomes somewhat circular. As I will come to in a moment, as with the terms “coercion” and “pressure”, the meaning given to “encouragement” by the courts, where it is not defined by Parliament, is its natural meaning.
I now turn to amendments 113 to 115 and 118 to 122. Let me deal first with amendments 113 to 115. As the Bill is currently drafted, registered practitioners who act as co-ordinating and independent doctors are required to establish that the person seeking assistance has not been coerced or pressured. People seeking assistance to end their own life are also required to confirm in the first and second declarations that they have not been coerced or pressured. The amendments seek to add an additional requirement to establish that the person seeking assistance to end their own life has not been manipulated by any other person into making the decision.
Naz Shah
Many of us on the Committee are first-timers. My understanding is that in a normal Government process we would have gone out to consultation. We are talking about coercion and undue influence, and undue influence in particular is not something that does not appear on the statute books in other legislation, as the Minister may recall I said earlier. We would normally go out and consult and speak to charities, particularly domestic violence charities.
As many Members have said throughout the last few days and this morning, we know that terminology changes. We did not previously have the vocabulary of coercion and the words that we have today. When was the last time, for any Bill—apart from in respect of Domestic Violence Act 2021 under the previous Government—that we actually went out to consult people? Given that there is no impact assessment, which we are so desperately missing and which is a huge chunk of this issue, I want to understand how we can be sure, and how the Government can come here and be absolutely sure, that this will work, given that this is a whole new concept.
This is not domestic violence, with which we have some familiarity. We had one Select Committee inquiry in 2015, and my understanding is that it did not produce anything conclusive either to support or not to support the concept of assisted dying. We have not had the debates to tease this out. Other Members may be much more familiar with these concepts, but will the Minister comment on that?
Sarah Sackman
To bring it back to the specific debate about the amendments, the terms “coercive” or “coerce” and “pressure” appear in the criminal law and have broad definitions. That is how they have been interpreted by the courts. Others have referred to section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, which created an offence of controlling or coercive behaviour. In that context and the relevant Bill, Parliament chose not to make a specific legislative definition, but the way in which it has been interpreted, in accordance with its natural meaning, has vindicated the proposition that a broad meaning is given to those terms. For example, that offence could include coercive behaviour such as repeatedly putting somebody down, telling them they are worthless, seeking to control their daily routines or isolating them from friends and family to put pressure on them. As my hon. Friend says, we understand those sorts of behaviours in a much broader way in a changing society.
Sarah Sackman
I am going to make a little more progress; we will come back to that in a moment. It is really important that we have these concepts in other parts of criminal law and other parts of our legislation. I come back to the point that we run a risk, which runs counter to the intent that lies behind the amendments, if we add additional language into the Bill. I will develop that point and then take further interventions.
As we have seen, clause 1 includes the terms “pressured” and “coerced”. The ordinary meaning of the word “pressure” is the use of persuasion or intimidation to make someone do something. There are broad types of behaviour, many of which have been eloquently brought into this debate, that would come within that. The ordinary meaning of the word “coerce” is to persuade someone to do something against their best interests by using force or threats. That could be subtle or it could be very blatant, but the word “coerce” is understood in that way by our courts and in other areas of our legislation. One can readily see how an act of manipulation such as in the examples used earlier, or the exertion of undue influence—I think the term “unduly pressured” was used—would all fall within the terms “coerced” and “pressured”. That is the settled view of the Government.
There is a consensus that none of these things, including applying undue pressure, are desirable or acceptable in this or any other context, but there is a risk that adding terminology does not do what hon. Members intend, which is to create more safeguards. The risk is that by adding new words, those tasked with applying and interpreting legislation, if it comes to court, will assume there must be some specific reason for their inclusion. They will assume that the words must have some meaning distinct from the other words in the list—coercion and pressure—notwithstanding the fact that, on their natural meaning, the terms overlap and, in the Government’s view, are inclusive of those sorts of behaviours. That risks the effect of narrowing the interpretation of the words used rather than inviting our courts to give them their usual expansive meaning.
In turn, that risks casting doubt on the current interpretation of those words in existing statutes such as the Serious Crime Act, which created an offence for coercive and controlling behaviour, and limits any read-across on interpretations from previous decisions into the application that we are debating. In short, it may actually serve to limit, not to add, to the safeguards in the process. It may risk adding confusion and uncertainty where what is already provided for in clause 1, with the words “coercion” and “pressure”, are simple, readily understood, expansive definitions that would cover precisely the behaviours that I think the hon. Members who tabled the amendments are concerned about.
Danny Kruger
I think the Minister just suggested that if we were to amend the Bill, there would be some kind of unfortunate knock-on effect with other legislation, which would thereby be weakened. I hope the argument being made is not that we should leave this Bill weaker in order to protect other legislation. We need to get this right.
I have another suggestion, which I would be grateful if the Minister could elucidate a little more. The fact is that no official definitions of coercion or pressure that exist in statute either. The definition of coercion that she used—what case law has taught us coercion means—and the examples she gave of people essentially exerting coercive pressure on partners would, of course, be captured by the Bill currently but, as we have heard, there are circumstances that would not meet that threshold but that we all agree would be unacceptable. The only way to capture properly those examples of people being encouraged and unduly influenced into an assisted death is by making it clear that that is what doctors are required to look for.
I revert to the point I have made a number of times; I would be grateful for the Minister’s response to it. The Suicide Act, which the Bill amends, explicitly uses the term “encouragement” for what people should not be subject to, and pressure is a subset of encouragement. It is not the other way around. Encouragement is not captured in pressure; pressure is captured in encouragement. Why do we not acknowledge that encouragement is the correct catch-all term for all the sorts of undue influence we are trying to protect against?
Sarah Sackman
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, there is no suggestion that we should somehow accept any weaker form of provision in this Bill to protect other parts of the law. Having said that, he would well expect me, as a Government Minister, to be concerned with the integrity of our statute book as a whole.
It is because the Government take a holistic view of how the criminal law and other areas of our law operate and define these concepts, and how they are read across the piece, that we make our contention in respect of these particular provisions, because the terms “coercion” and “pressure” are given their natural meaning and are expansive. In the Government’s settled view, they would be inclusive of the types of behaviour that are described in the amendments before us—namely manipulation, undue pressure and the sort of encouragement that I think, when he keeps coming back to it, the hon. Gentleman is referring to, which is not encouragement in a benign way as might exist between two perfectly supportive family members in a normal conversation, but the sort of encouragement that is intended to lead to coercive ends.
The hon. Gentleman says that pressure is a subset of encouragement; the Government’s view is that coercion and pressure would cover off the other behaviours that are described in the amendments. It is not necessary to include those additional concepts, because it risks sowing confusion that somehow they are not included in the concepts of coercion and pressure.
Naz Shah
I want to understand the Minister’s point about multiple words. We have the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, referring to both coercion and pressure, and undue influence is also included. Those three terms are used in the same Act. Undue influence is also included in multiple additional statutes—over 10, including the Anatomy Act 1984, which is about people leaving their body to medicine for the purposes of tests and so on. Is the Minister saying that those are bad Acts, because they could confuse people? That is the test we are applying.
Sarah Sackman
I am certainly not saying that those are bad Acts, and I do not want anyone to quote me as saying that. We could in theory sit here and come up with a whole set of terms that would be descriptive of types of pressure and coercion. We have come up with a number of those, including “undue influence”, “manipulation” and “unduly pressured”. There are other types of behaviour that we might seek to describe. Indeed, if one refers to the Crown Prosecution Service’s guidance in respect of the offence in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, there are a whole load of descriptors of different types of behaviour. We could name and enumerate all those different types of behaviours, but, in the Government’s view, that is not the best way to create legislation that is workable.
It is the Government’s settled view that the words “coercion” and “pressure” cover off the types of behaviour that Members suggesting these amendments would wish to include. The risk is that such amendments create more confusion and shed more heat than light, if you like. Indeed, there is then the risk that the definition of coercion is narrower than it in fact is under our law as it is understood in our courts and in the body of common law and case law, which has been developed in construing those sorts of terms.
We are still on clause 1, and we have spoken a little about the interplay between clause 1 and later clauses, particularly clause 26, which engages the criminal offence as drafted in the Bill. I want to stress that while the procedural clauses 1, 7, 8 and 12 may use the same language as the criminal offences in clause 26, they are conceptually distinct, as others have noted. Although it is right that a court could be expected to construe legislation as a whole, case law in relation to one provision will not necessarily flow through directly to a later provision.
It may be helpful to illustrate that with the word “encouragement”, which has been raised. As we know, it is an offence to encourage or assist a person to commit suicide. As the hon. Member for Reigate pointed out earlier, it will continue to be so if the Bill is passed, outside of the specific exemption in the Bill. It is generally also an offence to encourage or assist a person to commit any other offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007. Specifically, it is an offence to do an act capable of encouraging or assisting suicide or another offence. The term “encouraged” is not defined in either statute. While it is true to say that section 2A(3) of the Suicide Act—which was added in 2009—clarified that doing an act that is capable of encouraging suicide includes a reference to a person doing so
“by threatening another person or otherwise putting pressure on another person”,
that was intended to be illustrative of the meaning of “encouraged” in that context; it does not serve as a general definition.
Within the Bill, it is important to keep in mind the difference between the procedural requirements—which is what we are discussing in this group—and the criminal offence requirements. Adding words to one provision because they are found in a criminal offence elsewhere risks, in the Government’s view, unintended consequences. Adding “encouragement” to the procedural clauses is perhaps an example of this.
Naz Shah
I beg to move amendment 94, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert
“, and
(c) is acting for their own sake rather than for the benefit of others.”
This amendment requires that a person requesting assistance must be acting for their own sake, not the benefit of others. This amendment reflects the proposed changes in Amendments 95 to 104.
Naz Shah
The issue for us in the conversation on this amendment is that we have talked about coercion, undue pressure, undue influence, encouragement and all that, but we have not talked about the benefit to others. It is simply a different conversation; it is about understanding that a person has been coerced and so on, but also for what reason. What is the benefit to others? That is my understanding of the amendment, and that is why I am speaking to and supporting it.
Unfortunately, the Bill as it stands does not have all the necessary safeguards for all those who see themselves as burdens to others, and that is why I support the amendment.
Kit Malthouse
I have listened very carefully to the hon. Member, who represents the fine town of Bradford, and to her personal experiences, which have coloured her view. I understand that of which she speaks, and she might be interested to know that I was the author of the first ever violence against women and girls strategy in the country when I was at City Hall. I dealt closely with harmful cultural practices in that strategy, so I do understand the difficulties she elaborated with detecting and combating the influences to which she referred. However, I am going to disappoint her, because I am going to explain why I believe that the amendments make that more difficult and run the risk of making the Bill less safe.
I should mention first, though, that she said that we are dealing with notions of autonomy and trying to achieve a position where people seeking an assisted death do so as a matter of free choice, and she is exactly right: that is what we are all about and trying to achieve. However, as I hope I can illustrate, the amendments may make that more difficult on three levels.
We have talked a lot over the last few hours about precision and novel terms in legality. My first issue with the amendments is the lack of that precision. For example, what does “physical pain” mean? Is it all pain? Is it something as minor as a headache? Is it perceived or actual pain? Is it fear? Does fear become a physical pain, or is it a mental pain?
In the closing stages of bowel cancer, for example, a number of things may happen and a number of things may cause somebody to die. They can have a perforated bowel caused largely by a blockage, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley would say. That would be incredibly painful and lead to peritonitis and organ failure, which eventually leads to death. However, there is a situation where a blockage in the bowel causes a person to vomit effectively semi-digested food and faeces. Is that painful? I do not know whether that is a classification of physical pain. It is certainly uncomfortable and unpleasant, but is it actually painful? I find that the definition of “physical pain”, undefined as it is, and which may be a matter of degree, injects complexity for doctors and lawyers in their assessment of the motivation of a person seeking assisted dying.
Similarly, I do not really know what “benefit” means in the amendments dealing with that. Does it mean financial benefit? Does it mean emotional benefit? Is it perceived or real benefit? Does the doctor have to assess whether a third party is actually getting benefit? Let us assume that it is emotional benefit and that I say—I think it is perfectly legitimate, as my hon. Friend said, for me to say this—“I do not wish my child to witness, know or even learn that the way I died was from the fungating tumours in my neck bursting and,” as we heard on Second Reading, “me drowning in my own bodily fluids. I do not want to get to that stage, and I do not want to burden my child with that.” Do I have to say to the child, who is perhaps an adult child, “How do you feel about it? Are you going to benefit from this or not?” They will respond, “Absolutely not. I want my dad to live as long as possible,” or, “I want my dad to have what he wants to have.”
It is very difficult in these circumstances—do not forget that this will be crawled over by lawyers and doctors—to understand what is actually meant by “benefit”. These are new words—novel concepts—that are being introduced into the law. I did look to see whether there were similar circumstances elsewhere in legislation, and I could not find any. To me, they inject an element of complexity into what we hoped would be, as we discussed earlier, a settled and comprehensible legal framework, in which doctors have previously operated, and should operate into the future. As I say, my first objection is that the amendments inject novel concepts that are largely undefined and that may be actual or perceived, both by the person who is being assessed and by those who are presumably to be in receipt of the benefit.
I am afraid there is also—I am not sure, particularly on the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree—a question in my mind about where my “sake”, whatever that word means, collides with someone else’s “benefit”. As the hon. Member for Ipswich said, if it makes me happy—if part of my dying is me taking satisfaction in the fact that I am not burdening my children with the emotional trauma of watching me die in horrible circumstances—is that for my sake or for their benefit?
Naz Shah
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. In response to the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, people can have, and will have, an incidental benefit when somebody with autonomy makes a decision. The Government could table tidying-up amendments to clarify that and make this amendment stronger, if it gives an extra safeguard for those who are seeking assisted dying, should the Bill become law.
Kit Malthouse
I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but I am afraid that the amendments do not say that. Even if they did, there would be some difficulty, because you are asking for a further level of complexity in what should be, we hope, a decision made between doctor and patient, in private and confidential circumstances where sensitivity is needed and where we are asking medics to tease out motivations from individuals. I hate to use a pejorative word like “woolly”, but I find the lack of precision in the language troubling. I think it will create yet more complexity and jeopardy for doctors and lawyers.
Tom Gordon
I just wondered whether the right hon. Member shares my concerns that the amendment would end up in the territory of legislators and parliamentarians almost trying to act as thought police, when we should be respecting the autonomy of people in the decisions they make.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he brings me to my second point, which is exactly that—autonomy. We heard in oral evidence, and it comes through from some of the written evidence, that people’s motivations for seeking an assisted death are often a mixture—a cocktail—of different reasons. Some are about pain, and some are about trauma, for them and for others, but the overarching motivation is always this notion of control. What people seem to be most concerned about is, “If I contemplate my end, I want to have some kind of say, as I get to the end, about what it will be like. That end may be a variety of different outcomes.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley, or any of the doctors in the room, will know, if someone is dying of bowel cancer, any number of things may kill them. Palliative care is able to help with some of them, but not others. In my experience, the notion in people’s minds is that, as they approach that point, they just want the reassurance that they can control it and have the option, if they so wish. That is often their primary motivation. As the hon. Member for Bradford West said, there may be ancillary results and reasons why people want that control, but the primary purpose is control.
Danny Kruger
My right hon. Friend says that the primary purpose is control, and that is certainly the argument made by some of the most passionate advocates of this sort of legislation. However, does he recognise that, in the majority of cases, in jurisdictions where this is legal, being a burden is a primary cause for people to seek an assisted death? People request an assisted death explicitly for the purpose of not being a burden on others. If my right hon. Friend is content with that because he respects their autonomy, and he thinks that that is an acceptable reason for people to want to die, that is fine, and let us say so. However, I do not think it is acceptable to hide behind the idea that we are talking about people who simply want to control their own passing. In fact, many want to do this because they are concerned about being a burden on others.
Kit Malthouse
I will make two points in response to my hon. Friend. First, I am not sure that it is entirely accurate that burden is the primary purpose. It is certainly the case that when people going through this process in other jurisdictions are surveyed and rank their reasons, burden may be one. We heard that in some of the evidence that we had from overseas, but as I said at the start of my remarks, it depends what we mean by “burden”. Personally, I think it is perfectly legitimate for me to want to spare my children from witnessing, knowing or even learning that I may have died in a particularly unpleasant way. I may therefore wish to go a few weeks before that eventuality and say goodbye to them, gathering them around my deathbed—we heard very movingly about this from one of the witnesses—to say farewell while I still can, before my body is ravaged by the final stages of the disease that is destroying me. I do not think that relieving them from a traumatic burden is anything negative.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that “burden” here encompasses many different types of burden. One that weighs heavily on many of my constituents is financial burden—in particular, the cost of care at the end of life. That is very directly something that they would wish to relieve their children and descendants of. Does he not accept that the word “burden”, while I hear what he says about it being imprecise, nevertheless contains many different examples, rather than just the one to which he referred?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady is quite right, and she makes my point very neatly for me: the language here is so wide-ranging that it could be anything. Other provisions in the Bill deal with exactly the concerns she expresses. A specific part of the Bill talks about people benefiting financially and how they may not participate. We had a long discussion about coercion and pressure.
Dr Tidball
I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point. Inserting the amendment—and the language of, and focus on, “benefit”—in a paragraph that deals with the two criminal concepts of coercion and pressure, actually undermines the existing focus of the paragraph. Does he agree that it is better and stronger to keep the focus on the two criminal concepts, which would require the mens rea—which I think some colleagues are indicating—and the actus reus, and that that is not achieved by inserting the language about benefits?
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who has made the case much more eloquently than I could have done. She is quite right. We have heard endlessly from witnesses and others that simplicity is best, and that by inserting this kind of complexity, we create yet more difficulty.
I have two other things to say. From the point of view of autonomy, the amendments are trying to police the thoughts of the individual who comes forward in a way that, as I said, may mean that they become guarded in conversations with their physicians. One of the things that I have learned over the past 10 years or so, and that we have heard from witnesses, is that many people who are in extremis at their end are very determined that they will achieve a death other than what nature has laid out before them. That determination comes through from those who go to Switzerland, often in the teeth of the wishes of their family. They will go in secrecy, not telling anyone, because they do not want to put anyone else under threat of criminal prosecution.
We have heard lots of stories over the years—some were mentioned on Second Reading—of people who have killed themselves in terrible circumstances, again, secretly determined that they will not go through that end. My concern is that if we insert such amendments into the Bill, we start to police the conversation in a way that means that people determined to achieve an assisted death will do other than have a free and frank exchange in a sensitive way with their physician. Instead, they will try to tread the path to get what they want.
For example, if the issue was physical pain, the conversation might go: “Why do you want an assisted death?” “Well, of course it is just the pain. It’s all the pain. That is all I want—I’m just frightened about the pain.” “Are you doing it for the benefit of others?” “No—absolutely not! I am doing it completely for myself.” We can see how people might start to modify their conversation, rather than having what should be a sympathetic, empathetic, conversation between doctor and patient about where they should go.
My concern is that, as with a previous grouping, this attempt to micromanage and police the conversation, at the same time as attempting to police the way people should be thinking, threatens the whole concept of assessment and relationship, which we have heard about from many physicians—that is done on a daily basis in not dissimilar circumstances, where life and death is at stake. That complexity and those extra layers, in my view, start to make the Bill less safe.
Sarah Olney
I want to pick up on the right hon. Gentleman’s point about wanting patients to be able to have a free and frank conversation with their doctors. In a hypothetical scenario, someone suffering from a terminal illness and in the last six months of their life might say to their doctor, “I would like to explore an assisted dying option.” The doctor asks, “Why is that?” They say, to hark back to my previous example, “Because I want to save my children the cost of my end-of-life care bills.” How does the right hon. Gentleman think the doctor should react in that circumstance, given that that is a free and frank explanation of the person’s reasons?
Kit Malthouse
The Bill makes it quite obvious that the doctor would not regard that as a legitimate reason to give people an assisted death, if that was their only purpose. As we said before, however, most people have a range of purposes for seeking an assisted death. In my view—certainly in my experience—the primary one is always having the option of control at the end.
Danny Kruger
Will my right hon. Friend explain what the doctor would do if he or she did not think that there was an appropriate reason to approve the death? The Bill simply requires there to be a settled and informed view. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park says, the motivation might be that the person wanted to save their children the care costs—at which point the doctor, if they could not find evidence of coercion, would say, “Go for it. That is a perfectly good reason.” Is that not the case?
Kit Malthouse
It would depend on the circumstances of whether the doctor perceived that the request was made under pressure or coercion. Pressure or coercion can be financial as well as emotional. I would expect and hope that a doctor would question a motivation on that basis. The point, however, is that we have to be very careful about making a law that attempts to police the thoughts of individuals. My concern is that if we start to delineate to an ever more exacting degree what is and is not acceptable as a motivation, we will start to steer people down a road on which they try—this phrase has been used—to game the system to get what they want.
As many of us know, because we have seen it, we live in an age of social media where it is perfectly possible to go on to the internet to get advice about how best to apply for certain benefits and welfare: how someone can best fill in a form, answer certain questions or go through a personal independence payment assessment to get what they want, even though that may not be appropriate for them.
I have no doubt that if, as it develops, we delineate the issue in such a way that there are certain things one should say and certain things one should not, we will run the risk of limiting the conversation that the doctor can have, in a way that is not safe.
Danny Kruger
Obviously, we do not want people gaming the system, but I would rather that there were a system, even if it were gamed, than to have no safeguards whatever—which, I am afraid to say, is the case with this Bill. The only coercion that the doctor is looking for is coercion from other people; we do not think that that barrier is strong enough, but it is about coercion from outside. But internal coercion—people saying, “I want to do this to save my family care costs, and not just the sight of me in agony”—would be perfectly acceptable under the Bill. Is my right hon. Friend content with that?
Kit Malthouse
I am not sure that that would be perfectly acceptable under the Bill; I would be interested to hear what clause my hon. Friend has in mind. As we have discussed, financial coercion is a well perceived concept. As we have heard from other Members, it can be subtle and implied. That will be for practice guidelines, but as far as I can see it is perfectly well covered in the legislation.
Danny Kruger
I am sorry to push my right hon. Friend further but to reiterate my point, we are not talking about external coercion. We are talking about the explicit motivation of somebody with a settled and informed wish that they want to die to save their family the cost of their care. My understanding is that the Bill would allow that. Does he agree and is he content with that?
Kit Malthouse
That is not my interpretation of the Bill, no. I would not be content for that to be somebody’s primary purpose—of course not. My point remains: we run into dangerous ground when we start, by legislation, to try to police the thoughts and motivation of an individual, other than in trying to detect external pressure from others. I am concerned that the amendments run us up that dead end.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Surely, if we are policing the thoughts of the individual seeking to avail themselves of the service, we are working actively against that individual’s autonomy?
Kit Malthouse
That is exactly my point, and the point on which I was going to conclude. All of the Bill is designed to put control in the hands of dying people as they face what they regard as an undesirable ending to their life. We are trying to do so within the scope of safeguards that protect those who are vulnerable and not able to make a decision freely for themselves.
If we continue down the line of inserting this kind of complexity into the system, I am afraid that we run the risk of creating a very narrow channel for people to navigate. That will mean either that they feel forced to navigate it in a particular way or that they cannot navigate it at all, which will serve to restrict the conversation between assessing medics and patients in an undesirable way. For those reasons and because of the legal imprecision with which they are drafted, I am afraid I will be opposing the amendments, well motivated though they are.
Danny Kruger
The purpose of the amendments, and the reason why I am supporting them, is that they make the Bill honest. They will make the Bill do what the public think it does and is the reason why so many people around the country and in Parliament have supported it: because they understand it to be for exactly the purpose specified in the amendments. In fact, the amendments add safeguards that at least two strong supporters of the Bill in the House of Commons—I will not mention them—thought were already there. Those people have gone on the record stating that these safeguards exist in the Bill, but they do not.
We need to acknowledge motivation. As I said in my exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, my concern is that the absence of recognition of motivation is a significant lacuna in the Bill. Earlier—or perhaps it was yesterday—my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley sought to draw a distinction between a depressed person who wants to die because of their terminal illness and someone who wants to die because of their depression. But in the Bill as it is written, there is no requirement for any causal link between the terminal illness and the desire to die. Under the Bill, someone’s reason for wanting to die does not need to be linked to the terminal illness; in fact, no reason is required. The Bill is totally neutral—in fact, it is silent—on the whole question of motivation. My hon. Friend also talked in an intervention about people who want to end their lives because of suffering and pain—again, that is not mentioned in the Bill. I will come to that shortly when I discuss amendment 235.
There is no reason required to see a clear, settled and informed wish. As discussed earlier, I recognise that there are safeguards intended to detect coercion or pressure, but that does not include people putting pressure on themselves. It is important to consider people’s motivation in situations such as the example given of somebody who wants to spare their family the ordeal—the trauma—of witnessing a bad death. Those sorts of people do not write in to us, by the way. Evidence has been submitted by many people who have experienced the trauma of having watched their relative die badly, but there is also the experience of people whose relatives have been through an assisted death.
I was talking earlier to the noble Baroness Finlay, the former chair of the National Council for Palliative Care, who cited evidence heard by the Commission on Palliative and End-of-Life Care. A man requested and received an assisted death in the Netherlands for the explicit purpose of sparing his son from seeing him degenerate and die badly. The son was desperate for his father to stay alive—he wanted to go with him through the ordeal—but the father refused. The impact on that young man has been significant, traumatic and destructive.
Even if the patient wishes to do something for the sake of their children, it is not necessarily the case that that will happen or that it will be a good thing. Children can be traumatised by such decisions. Crucially, we should insist that the Bill does what it aspires to do and what many of its advocates have set out clearly over many months. Its purpose is to help people to die, specifically to avoid terrible pain and suffering—but crucially, for themselves and not because they fear that they will be a burden. The fact is that many people do feel that they would be a burden.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who has intervened a couple of times this afternoon and made a very coherent argument about the importance of autonomy. I think he was suggesting—my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire hinted at this, too—that it is an appropriate decision if a person seeks an assisted death because they do not want to be a burden on others.
In fact, that point was made by people giving evidence to us from abroad. Some of the Australian witnesses—and, I think, the American witnesses—openly said, “Why not? This is consistent with people’s autonomous choice, and if they want to die to save their children’s inheritance or to prevent them from seeing them suffer, that is legitimate.” I would like more people to say openly, as a reason to legalise assisted death, that that is appropriate and that nobody should object—that the judges, doctors and everyone else should nod that through. I do not think that was the sense of the House on Second Reading and I do not personally think it is the view of the public, but if people think that is an acceptable reason to legislate for assisted dying, let us hear it.
I want to emphasise the point about the number of people who genuinely seek an assisted death because they feel that they are a burden on others—not for their own sake, but to save their loved ones money or to avert their distress. A very large number of people—I said most, but I correct myself; I think it is getting on for half of the relevant people in Oregon, Canada and elsewhere—cite burden as the reason for seeking an assisted death.
I note in passing—I hope the Committee will pay attention to this point—that I am concerned that we often feel we are legislating into a vacuum: we pass a law, it will apply, and that is that. As I said yesterday, the law is a teacher and has a direct cultural effect on society. It is very noteworthy that in countries where there is data on motivation, the number of people seeking an assisted death because they feel that they are a burden has risen significantly. It all started, naturally enough, with just the very desperate cases that we are all familiar with and we all understand the rationale for, but the number rose sharply. In the early years, between 12% and 34% across those four jurisdictions cited being a burden as a reason for seeking an assisted death. That has gone up to between 35% and 59% in the four jurisdictions—from around a quarter to around a half in terms of people who seek it. We could pass this law for the small number of people we think we want to help, but in due course many more people will avail themselves of an assisted death because they feel they are a burden.
Kit Malthouse
For clarity, is my hon. Friend saying that he supports the amendments because he believes that the only reason that someone should have an assisted death is to avoid physical pain, not the circumstances that we have talked about—bursting arteries and fungating tumours—and therefore that if pain can be controlled, the notion of autonomy, control and choosing the time and place of my own death should all be dismissed?
Danny Kruger
The amendment is clear that the primary purpose should be to avoid physical pain. That needs no further clarification.
Let me turn to the discussion of pain. As I have said, the amendment would make the Bill honest and make it do what most people out there want it do. It would also have the great benefit, in my view at least, of reducing those who would be eligible for an assisted death to very a small number. I have heard the Bill’s advocates make the point repeatedly that we are talking about only a very small number of people.
The fact is that the most common reason for assisted suicide in other countries is not pain. Usually, in those countries, the law was passed on a wave of sympathy for people in agony at the end of their life, but most people do not seek an assisted death for the purpose of avoiding pain. The most common reason in Oregon, according to research there, is existential angst—emotional distress—not physical suffering. The Committee heard evidence from Western Australia that the most common reasons are loss of dignity, autonomy and the ability to enjoy life. In Tasmania, another place where there has been research, only 16% of people cite avoidance of pain as the reason for seeking an assisted death.
In my view, if we focused the Bill on pain, we could do even more to reduce the number of people who die in pain, because it should be even smaller than it is. Let me say a word or two about the palliation of pain. We have no doctors in the Committee who are on my side of the argument to make this point, so I refer to experts outside the room. Quite a lot of weight has been put on research published last year by the Office of Health Economics that said that 20 people would die every day in pain, even with access to palliative care. The point is often made that palliative care is wonderful—we all agree that it needs more resourcing and it should be more widely available—but even if it were provided brilliantly for everyone, a large number of people would still die in pain.
Without digging into the problems with the research, I simply point out that the methodology was very suspect. It assumed that people who receive hospice care are the same with respect to pain as people who do not. It just looked at the hospice population and extrapolated more broadly. That is, of course, ridiculous, because people in a hospice are much more likely to be suffering and to be experiencing bad pain; often, that is the reason that they are admitted to the hospice. That extrapolation was inappropriate.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. This group of amendments focuses on the motivations of an individual who wishes to seek assisted dying services. As before, I will limit my remarks to observations about the legal and operational impact that these changes would have.
Amendments 94 to 104 would introduce an additional safeguarding requirement that would require that a person who wishes to be provided with lawful assistance to voluntarily end their own life must be acting for their own sake, not for the benefit of others. These amendments would introduce that new requirement into all the relevant parts of the Bill where a doctor or court or panel must, under the current provisions in the Bill, make an assessment as to whether the person has capacity, a clear and settled wish and is making the declaration voluntarily. These relevant points include, for example, the assessment of the first doctor—the co-ordinating doctor—and that of the second doctor—the independent doctor. The amendments would provide that declarations set out in the schedules are, in consequence, also amended to reflect this new requirement.
With respect to the impact of introducing additional or overlapping terminology alongside the existing terms “coerced or pressured” currently in clause 1 of the Bill, such as “acting for their own sake”, there is a risk that this would cause uncertainty about their interpretation and application by the assessing doctors and the courts. The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), has articulated the Government’s position in her previous contributions.
Amendments 235 to 245 are intended to refine the eligibility criteria of a person seeking assistance to end their life so as to ensure that the primary motivation of that person is to avoid physical pain. Consequential amendments are included to reflect that throughout the entirety of the Bill. If this refinement were to form part of the Bill, amendment 235 could exclude those who are suffering with a terminal illness for which physical pain is not a specific symptom. The likely effect would therefore be to limit those who are eligible to access assisted dying under this legislation to terminally ill persons with conditions that are likely to cause only physical pain. In addition to the generic risk of additional overlapping terminology causing uncertainty, the inclusion of these amendments would generate specific uncertainty, as it may be difficult to distinguish physical pain from other pain. It is also not clear whether the person needs to be in pain all the time or some of the time. As I said earlier, the Government have taken a neutral position on the substantive policy questions.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will just take us back to the first principles. This is not a Government Bill; it is the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, who came top of the ballot for private Members’ Bills. She chose to bring forward this piece of legislation. The Government had absolutely no role whatsoever in drafting the legislation. The Prime Minister then made it clear that the Government will remain neutral in their position on the Bill. However, it is the constitutional duty of the Government to ensure that every Bill that passes through Parliament and secures Royal Assent is workable, deliverable, viable and coherent in terms of the statute.
How does that play into this Bill Committee? Members of the Committee who are not Ministers are here to debate the philosophical, moral, ethical and, in some cases, legal and perhaps clinical aspects of the Bill. Members of the Committee who are Ministers—namely myself and the Justice Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green—are here to provide observations on the Bill with regard to its legal, practical, technical and operational impact, to ensure that we are doing our constitutional duty to deliver the objectives I just outlined to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West.
The answer to the question from my hon. Friend is that when my hon. and learned Friend the Justice Minister and I speak, we focus our remarks exclusively on the legal, practical, technical and operational considerations of the Bill. I assume that the Committee finds it useful to know what the Government’s position is on those matters. We do not opine on the philosophical, ethical or moral considerations that are at the heart of the Bill.
Naz Shah
I thank the Minister greatly for his explanation. I am trying to separate the two points. I appreciate the role of both Ministers in providing the Committee with that guidance, as many of us are new to the process. What I am trying to understand, with respect to the amendment from the right hon. Member for Braintree, which I just talked about, is that the Government have asserted a view that the language included would create uncertainty.
The Chair
I am not going to take any more interventions. I will move on to Kim Leadbeater unless the Minister has not finished.
Stephen Kinnock
I cannot really comment, because I did not get the specific question that my hon. Friend asked.
Kim Leadbeater
Returning to the amendments before us, I will try to keep my comments brief, as we have had a thorough debate this afternoon. On amendments 95 to 104, I have spoken to the right hon. Member for Braintree and I know that these amendments seek to stimulate discussion, and I am very pleased that they have done that this afternoon. I also know that they come from a good place.
I have already discussed the additional safeguards around training that would be added to the Bill through new clause 8, which states that the Secretary of State must consult
“persons appearing to…have expertise in matters relating to whether persons have been coerced”.
That would consolidate the existing measures in the Bill and, I hope, relate to the concerns expressed in the amendment to some degree.
More broadly, the reasons that someone might choose an assisted death may well include sparing those they love the pain of seeing them suffer, as we have heard this afternoon. That is certainly something that members of my family and people I have spoken to say would matter to them. That should not prevent the provision of assistance. It is surely for that person to decide.
During oral evidence, we heard powerful testimony from Liz Reed about her brother Rob, who had an assisted death in Queensland, Australia. Rob was 39 years old and had a young family when he was diagnosed with stage 4 terminal lung cancer. He was fit, young and healthy, and did not smoke. As well as taking back control at the end of his life, one of his main reasons for choosing an assisted death was so that his young family could remember him as the man and the dad he was. He was not afraid of death, but he was afraid of dying in an undignified and painful way; he was afraid of not getting to say goodbye to his wife and children, or them having to find him after his having had a massive heart attack. Surely we should not decide that that is not acceptable and understandable. It is a perfectly understandable reason for choosing an assisted death.
Liz told us that Rob
“was able to change his mind, which he did, in terms of dates and when it would happen. His views and the views of his family were also taken into account and, through the process, he was treated like a person with autonomy whose choices were being respected.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 254, Q328.]
If relatives were implicitly or explicitly coercing or pressuring someone, that would of course be very different—and that is covered by the Bill—but to prevent someone from wanting to consider their loved ones in their final weeks and months of life does not seem at all reasonable to me.
I have talked about training, which is important and feeds into the debate about the assessment of coercion and pressure—here, I refer again to my new clause 8. As we heard during the oral evidence, who is involved in that training is important. We heard from the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers. Its position statement on assisted dying states:
“As social workers we bring a distinctive perspective and skill set. Our focus is on helping people to get practical needs met; to enable them and their families cope with the impact of serious illness and dying and to plan ahead”.