Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-sixth sitting)
Wednesday 19th March 2025
(3 days, 15 hours 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 Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 March 2025 - (19 Mar 2025)
The Chair
Would everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? Tea and coffee are not allowed in the Committee Room.
We will now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I remind Members that interventions should be short and should raise points of clarification or questions; they should not be speeches in and of themselves. Members who wish to give a speech should bob and should continue to do so at the appropriate points throughout the debate until they are called. When Members say “you”, they are referring to the Chair. They should not use “you” to refer to one another; debate should be through the Chair.
Clause 23
No obligation to provide assistance etc
Amendment proposed (18 March): 480, in clause 23, page 15, line 3, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) No individual is under any duty (whether arising from any contract, statute or otherwise) to be involved, directly or indirectly, in the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act.
(1A) In particular, no individual is under any duty (whether arising from any contract, statute or otherwise) to—
(a) provide information about assisted dying;
(b) participate in an initial discussion;
(c) participate in the request and assessment process;
(d) supply, prescribe or administer an approved substance;
(e) be present at the time of administration of an approved substance; or
(f) dispense a prescription of an approved substance.
(1B) Nothing in subsections (1) or (1A) of this section shall affect any duty to—
(a) signpost someone to where they can obtain information about assisted dying (under section 4(5) or otherwise);
(b) perform acts of a clerical, secretarial, or ancillary nature; or
(c) perform any acts necessary to save the life of or to prevent grave injury to a person.”—(Danny Kruger.)
This amendment would expand the provision of Clause 23(1) to all individuals and clarify the activities in which they are not obliged to participate.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 483, in clause 23, page 15, line 5, after “assistance” insert
“, or in any activity closely related to the provision of assistance,”.
This amendment would widen the range of activities which medical practitioners and other healthcare providers are not under an obligation to provide to include activities closely related to the provision of assistance under the Act.
Amendment 484, in clause 23, page 15, line 8, after “Act” insert
“, or in any activity closely related to the provision of assistance under this Act,”.
Amendment 441, in clause 23, page 15, line 9, at end insert—
“(3) There is no obligation on any care home or hospice regulated by the Care Quality Commission or the Care Inspectorate Wales to permit the provision of assistance under this Act on their premises.”
This amendment prevents there being any obligation on a care home or hospice which is regulated in England or Wales to permit the provision of assistance under the Act on their premises.
Amendment 481, in clause 23, page 15, line 9, at end insert—
“(3) Nothing in subsection (2)—
(a) prevents an employer who has chosen not to participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act from prohibiting their employees from providing such assistance in the course of their employment with that employer, or
(b) prevents an employer from specifying occupational requirements in relation to the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act in accordance with Schedule 9 of the Equality Act when hiring employees.”
This amendment ensures that employees cannot provide assisted dying against the wishes of their employers and that employers can still rely, in appropriate cases, on the occupational requirements of the Equality Act to either require employees to provide or not to provide assisted dying.
New clause 22—No obligation for occupiers and operators of premises—
“(1) Any individual, business, organisation, or association who occupies or operates premises has the right to refuse to permit the self-administration of an approved substance on their premises.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) confers any right on anyone with an interest in the land but who is not occupying or operating those premises.”
This new clause would mean that the owners or occupiers of premises—but not landlords not currently in occupation—are not obliged to permit the self-administration of approved substances on their premises.
New clause 23—No detriment for care home or hospice not providing assistance—
“(1) No regulated care home or hospice shall be subject to any detriment by a public authority as a result of not—
(a) providing assistance in accordance with this Act, or
(b) permitting such assistance to take place on their premises.
(2) No funding given by a public authority to a regulated care home or hospice can be conditional on that care home or hospice—
(a) providing assistance in accordance with this Act, or
(b) permitting such assistance to take place on their premises.”
This new clause would mean that regulated care homes and hospices cannot be subject to any detriment for not providing or permitting assistance in accordance with this Act, and that their funding cannot be conditional on them providing or permitting such assistance.
Clause stand part.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, fortified as I am now with a touch of breakfast.
I wish to open my comments on this set of amendments by reiterating the importance of respecting people’s beliefs in healthcare and the contribution that people of different faiths, beliefs and positions make, no matter where they come from, in the context of the activities under the Bill.
I accept and recognise that amendment 480, in the name of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, would do an important job in strengthening the Bill’s provisions. I obviously want to hear what the Minister says, and I note the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, but I would want to see this sort of expansion in the final Bill when it goes back to the House. If they may not be the exact right words today, I repeat the offer that my hon. Friend has made to work across the divide, as it were, to ensure that such provisions are included in the Bill.
With the benefit of an overnight reflection, I feel that last night we got somewhat muddled around some of the objections on conscience, particularly when we go beyond the individual. Amendment 480 and equivalent amendments deal very clearly with individuals not having an obligation to carry out acts that would offend their conscience in the provision of these services. I think we can broadly agree on that. The remainder of the debate got rather muddled between organisations providing assistance under the Bill and the locations at which the final act of an assisted death may take place. I think those are importantly different.
On organisations providing assistance, I want to reset things with a common-sense approach to how it will work in practice. The hon. Member for Reigate made the point that hospices should be under no obligation as organisations to provide specific services. I agree. The powers set out under clause 32 for the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the provision of these services, which we will come on to debate at some point, will operate as they do elsewhere across the health service. An NHS organisation or another organisation will say, “This is the set of services that we provide as an organisation.” I see nothing in this Bill that will compel them to do anything other than that. Healthcare organisations up and down the land now make decisions about what is appropriate for them to deliver, based on skills, expertise and demand and whether they think they are well placed to provide care.
I agree with the hon. Member for Reigate, but it does not follow that the amendments are required to enforce that principle. As I understand it, because it is permissible, every organisation and every individual practising healthcare professional will be able to say, “On my own bat, I’m not going to participate in this, regardless of what my employer believes,” not least because of clinical governance and regulation. There is already a strong body of healthcare regulation around the acts and services that are provided. It is currently overseen by the Care Quality Commission. We do not need to reinvent that regime.
I reassure Members that I think it entirely appropriate for hospices or other providers of palliative care to consider whether they want to participate, should the Bill become law. I imagine we will get to a situation in which some will and some will not, which is absolutely appropriate. Particularly in end-of-life cases, a patient will make a choice on the back of that. I am aware that some end-of-life care providers in my area are actively considering whether this is something that they will do; I am equally aware that there are others that think it is not for them. We heard in evidence that in Australia some providers of palliative care provide integrated, holistic care in which it is one of a number of options, whereas other providers do not.
Amendment 481 would insert a new subsection (3)(a) into clause 23, which suggests that an employer has the power to veto an employee doing an act on their time. That is moot: it is not necessary. In the healthcare environments in which I have worked, a doctor may practise elsewhere, doing their own thing, but while they are employed in a certain NHS trust to do an NHS service, they cannot suddenly decide to do something else.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
The hon. Member is giving a powerful speech. My amendment is only to ensure that if the employee is working in an NHS clinic, they comply with the policy of that clinic. It would not restrict their doing other things in their own time. The wording of the amendment is clear, as I discussed with the hon. Member for Spen Valley yesterday, that it is just while the employee is performing services for the employer.
Lewis Atkinson
I agree that that is what the wording says, but my point is that it is moot. The hon. Lady herself states that the amendment is to prevent an employee from going against the policies of the employer. That power already exists. No healthcare professional says, “Even though I’m employed as a doctor today by such and such a trust, I’m going to do a set of procedures or practices that I want to do.” It is moot.
I have no issue with subsection (3)(a) in amendment 481, although I think it is unnecessary. However, I think subsection (3)(b) is deeply problematic. It cuts across employment law protections by referring to selection when hiring employees. There is a reference to the Equality Act, but as others have noted, it is not clear what protected characteristics we are talking about. At a deeper level, if we accept that there is going to be mixed provision, I would argue—and I think this Committee, in a small way, has shown this—that there is some benefit to that. We should not get to a position where every medic of a certain viewpoint on assisted dying works for one organisation and every healthcare professional of a different viewpoint works for another.
That is not to say, by any stretch, that organisations would be forced to offer assisted dying. Clearly they would not. If the Bill becomes law, however, I want a society that is relatively at peace with it in healthcare, recognising people’s ability to conscientiously object as individuals. Setting up a dichotomy from the start, in which where a medic decides to work is determined by their views on such and such a procedure, is not a road that we should go down. I also have serious concerns, in terms of employment law, about subsection (3)(b).
Rebecca Paul
The amendment is simply to prevent a discrimination case. Let us take another example. A rape refuge may provide services to women who have suffered sexual abuse; it may be appropriate, in that instance, to hire only women to support those domestic abuse survivors. In order to prevent a discrimination claim when hiring, we have to rely on the Equality Act and the exemptions carved out. All my amendment says is that the same exemption would apply when a hospice or clinic is employing. It is just to avoid those issues down the road.
Lewis Atkinson
I am afraid I cannot agree. The situation that I set out, in which a hospice makes an organisational decision that it does not wish to provide assisted dying services, is entirely legitimate under the Bill, as drafted. I do not, however, think it should screen which applicants have a certain view, which would be legal under the amendment. The example that the hon. Lady gives is rather different, because it relates to a particular protected characteristic. I am not an expert in the area, so maybe colleagues can help me, but this relates to specific services.
Lewis Atkinson
I will move on, because we have started slightly late and I am not sure that we are going to add anything on this point.
There is a fundamental distinction between providing assistance and being the location in which people may self-administer an assisted death. In his speech on new clause 22, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire somewhat overlapped those two things, if I may say so. Having established that a hospice would be under no obligation to provide, an individual would clearly not be able to turn up and say, “Your staff must help me to do this.” However, that is different from a situation in which someone living in their own private home— that might include a room in a care home or sheltered accommodation—decides that they want their healthcare team to carry out entirely lawful and appropriate activities under the Bill.
I therefore cannot agree with new clause 22. People are legally resident in these premises. They are registered to vote. In some cases, such as in warden-provided accommodation, they have a lease. It is not a landlord in absentia. I know that the hon. Gentleman has provided an opt-out for some situations, but what about warden and supported housing situations? We would not accept operators or owners policing what lawful activities should happen in someone’s own home within that environment. That is entirely different from the situation that the hon. Gentleman sketched out, in which everyone has to be involved. There would be no obligation whatever on any staff of that establishment to participate in an ancillary manner or otherwise, but in a private residence, such as someone’s room in a care home, we cannot allow that to be prohibited.
Danny Kruger
As always, the hon. Gentleman is making a helpful and intelligent speech, and I appreciate the distinction that he is trying to draw. There is a lot to say, and I will respond more when I wind up, but does he think that it would be an acceptable condition of a lease—or whatever the living arrangement is for residents of sheltered accommodation or shared places—for the operator to specify that no assisted dying shall be performed in those premises, and for that to be a condition of coming to live there?
Lewis Atkinson
My instinct is that it would not. If the Bill becomes law, it would be a lawful choice. The hon. Gentleman may not characterise it as healthcare, but it would be part of healthcare and end-of-life services. We would not accept such stipulations on other healthcare services. I can see a sketch that some may choose to draw; someone mentioned housing supported by a religious institution. The reality is that people do not go out of their way to offend, and they try to live in harmony with those around them. If people are clear that they might actively explore assisted dying as an option, they will not choose to spend their last days in a community where others are ideologically opposed to their choice; it would be uncomfortable for the individual. They would, however, have the legal right to do so.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Having also thought about this overnight, I think there is a freedom-of-association argument. If it were a Roman Catholic organisation designed just for Roman Catholics to live in, such as a home for retired priests, or if it were a Jewish organisation just for Jewish residents, I could see that, but that is not a service that is generally on offer to the public. My concern is whether we could see a situation in which the board of trustees of Hampshire hospitals foundation trust has a majority of people who have a strong religious conviction, and they vote that the service shall not be provided across the three hospitals that the trust manages. If the provision is drawn tightly and the freedom-of-association argument could be made, I could see it. Having said that, there is no institutional objection power in law for abortion: people just do not offer it because they do not have the staff to offer it. It feels to me as though that is what the hon. Gentleman is pointing to.
Lewis Atkinson
That is entirely right. The response of public bodies such as NHS trusts is a slightly different issue. I would not want to speak for the Government or imagine what the Secretary of State might say, but it would be inconceivable to me for a quasi-independent public body to decide, on a vote on principle by some local governors, not to offer citizens choices that have been enshrined in law. That is a slightly different point, but I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for East Wiltshire suggested yesterday that if someone chooses to have an assisted death, everyone in the care home or wherever would be part of it. That fundamentally misunderstands the point; I will go for “misunderstands” rather than doubting his intentions, but some would see it as scaremongering. No one is asking for the right to do it in a communal area, where staff or neighbours are forced to observe or participate in any way. Where people live in their own home, they should have rights and dignity at the end of life, whether that is in a care home or in a private residence. We cannot deny them the choice to access end-of-life options, as set out in the Bill. I therefore cannot support new clause 22.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, given patient confidentiality, it is highly unlikely that other residents of a care home would even be aware?
Lewis Atkinson
That is entirely possible. Clearly it is up to the individual concerned to discuss how far they wish to share with neighbours or friends, in the home or elsewhere, but we must not get to a situation in which, as a policy default, someone’s intentions at end of life are broadcast within a certain radius. My hon. Friend is entirely right and helpful in making that point.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
I do not want to go over ground that we covered in the later hours of yesterday, but this is sort of the issue that my amendment 533 sought to resolve, albeit via regulations rather than in the Bill directly. I am sure that our colleagues on the Front Bench will be doing some thinking about it. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire alluded to, in some situations the question of place—of where we will be able to carry out these procedures—is not black and white. I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying, which is that if someone chooses to end their own life in their own home, they should be able to do so. In some cases, however, the Government will need to give further thought to the issue of place. I think that is really important.
Lewis Atkinson
In considering the offer of any health or care-related activity, the appropriateness and suitability of the place is always in people’s mind, and clearly that varies. As I mentioned yesterday, we already have a licensing regime under which the CQC specifically licenses places for particular activity. I think my hon. Friend is right, but this is a normal part of decision making in the provision of health services and I do not think we should try to constrain it in primary legislation. However, as I started by saying, I recognise that we must enshrine the rights of individual conscientious objectors, which I think the hon. Member for East Wiltshire is trying to do with amendment 480, and I hope that we can do that, through some route, with the Bill.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendments 441 and 484, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and in support of new clause 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate.
Amendment 441 would amend clause 23 so that there would be
“no obligation on any care home or hospice regulated by the Care Quality Commission or the Care Inspectorate Wales to permit the provision of assistance under this Act on their premises.”
I think it is clear that “assistance” in this context means the act of administering lethal drugs. That is the sense in which the word is used in clause 18, for example.
Amendment 484 would tighten that restriction somewhat by providing that there is no obligation on any hospice to permit
“any activity closely related to the provision of assistance under this Act”.
New clause 23 would also apply to all regulated care homes and hospices in England and Wales. It would provide that none of those organisations can
“be subject to any detriment by a public authority as a result of not—
(a) providing assistance in accordance with this Act, or
(b) permitting such assistance to take place on their premises.”
The new clause would also provide that no public authority can make its funding for a regulated care home or hospice dependent on the care home or hospice agreeing to provide assisted dying or to allow assisted dying to take place on its premises.
All the amendments have the same goal: to ensure that the Bill does not harm this country’s hospices. We have heard from many witnesses how much hospices do in providing palliative and end-of-life care. Caring for people who are close to the end of life is difficult and vital work. The people who do that on our behalf include some of the very best in our society. We should all hold ourselves responsible for not making the task of hospices more difficult. The idea that the Bill might do that has been raised with us by people working in this country’s hospices.
Hospice UK takes a neutral position on whether assisted dying should be legal in England and Wales, but it has set out clear positions on how the Bill should and should not affect hospices. On funding, its written evidence TIAB 36 states:
“If assisted dying is legalised and becomes part of the health service, steps should also be taken to ensure there is no financial detriment to any hospice, whatever their positioning on the practice.”
I agree strongly with that argument, for several reasons. The hospice sector in this country receives a mixture of public funds and private or charitable money, including donations and the proceeds of charity shops and fundraising events. Like the rest of the population, the people who work in and run hospices have a mixture of views on assisted dying. Many have strong objections on various grounds. If public funds were made dependent on hospices agreeing to assisted dying taking place, we would see several things happen, all of them bad.
In evidence to the Committee on 28 January, Dr Sarah Cox, a consultant in palliative care and president of the Association for Palliative Medicine, said:
“I am also concerned about our palliative care workforce, which we know is already in crisis. Eighty-three per cent. of our members told the Royal College of Physicians in 2023 that they had staffing gaps, and more than 50% were unable to take leave because of those staffing gaps. Forty-three per cent. said that if assisted dying were implemented within their organisation, they would have to leave. This has a massive impact on palliative care, in terms of its potential to develop both our funding and our workforce, who are really concerned about this.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 70, Q83.]
In evidence to the Committee on 29 January, Toby Porter, chief executive officer of Hospice UK, said:
“If hospices were involved in assisted dying, there is a theoretical risk that that would just reinforce an inaccurate perception about hospice and palliative care: the myth that you are helped along your way by doctors in hospices and hospitals. That is one risk.
More briefly, the second risk relates to the duty of care. What do you need for hospice and palliative care services? You need adequate resourcing, which means staff and finances. In terms of staff, the real fragility in the hospice and palliative care sector is a shortage of clinical staff—that is shared nationally with the NHS and other healthcare providers.”
Mr Porter also mentioned the evidence of Dr Cox. He told us:
“You will know from Sarah Cox’s evidence that the majority of palliative care consultants hold views against assisted dying, many of them very strongly. If the consultants felt, for example, that they could not keep their distance from assisted dying in a 12-bed hospice unit in the way they could in an 800-bed hospital, you could very easily see that if this was not done properly and the consultants deserted the hospice sector, you could no longer offer the specialist care that is so important to the Minister, the NHS and every health and social care provider.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 196, Q256.]
Many people would be entirely willing to enter a care home or hospice if they thought they might receive assisted dying there, but others already fear that they might be pressured into taking assisted dying if they enter palliative care. They may be wrong to fear that, but they do. We heard evidence on that point from Dr Jamilla Hussain, who gave evidence to the Committee on 29 January:
“I work predominantly with an ethnically diverse population. I have gone into those communities and I have spoken to them about this Bill. What they say overwhelmingly to me is, ‘We’re scared. We’re really fearful that this is going to result in a disproportionate impact on our community. We have seen that through covid and we’re so scared. We already don’t access your services. We’re really worried that we won’t want to access them any more, and we won’t want to access the hospitals.’”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 187, Q245.]
That fear will only grow if we use public funds to oblige hospices to permit assisted dying on their premises. Hospices should be able to say clearly to their patients that they do not allow assisted dying to take place on their premises. The dedicated professionals who work in hospices and who deeply object to people being helped to die with lethal drugs must also be protected. They should be free from having to work on premises where something they might disagree with happens.
I anticipate that some hon. Members may argue that amendment 484 draws its restrictions too tightly. They might argue that it would mean that a doctor working on a hospice’s premises or making a visit to a patient in a hospice could not have the preliminary discussion about assisted death with that person. However, I want to be clear that these measures relate to the provision of assistance under this Bill. “Provision of assistance” is the phrase used throughout the Bill to refer not to the preliminary discussion, nor to the interviews with doctors, nor to the panel process, but to that part of the process at which the person takes lethal drugs with a doctor present.
Kit Malthouse
This is obviously a difficult and sensitive area, but does the hon. Lady think, for example, that a women’s refuge run by a Catholic foundation should be allowed to evict a woman who wants or has an abortion?
Naz Shah
I absolutely do not think that, because her abortion rights are set out in law. However, I also think that when that woman is going into a refuge, that refuge will make it clear that she may choose not to. It is about empowering both sides.
I am grateful for the right hon. Member’s intervention, but let us follow that argument. Let us say that somebody wants to pursue assisted death, and they want to go into a place, but they are informed that that organisation does not want to provide or has not signed up to providing an assisted death. It comes back to the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central rightly raised, which is that people do not deliberately go out looking to offend people. If we were in that space—I cannot imagine being there, but I am trying to understand it—would we want to access that service, because its religious belief differs from assisted dying as a principle?
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Just so I am clear, if a young woman is escaping domestic abuse and goes to a domestic violence space close to her home so that her children can carry on going to school, but finds out once she is there that she is pregnant by the abuser, does my hon. Friend think that that is acceptable?
Dr Tidball
That the domestic violence protection centre or home can refuse to let that lady stay there because she has latterly discovered that she is pregnant as a result of the abuse and wants to seek an abortion.
Dr Tidball
I am glad to hear my hon. Friend’s answer. I ask that question because I can imagine an analogous situation of a woman suffering from breast cancer who is allergic to opioids but does not know that when she enters the care home. If her cancer reaches a stage of terminality but she cannot pursue palliative options because of her allergy to opioids, assisted dying would be the only option for her to die with dignity and not in great discomfort. Under my hon. Friend’s scenario, that woman would not be able to pursue an assisted death in that care home.
Dr Tidball
To clarify, in my very clear example—it is a real-life example that reflects the experiences of someone who attended this Committee yesterday—the person has a terminal condition and enters a care home that makes her comfortable and is near her family, but discovers while the hospice or care home is trying to find methods to palliate that she is allergic to opioids and therefore her condition cannot be palliated. In the hon. Lady’s scenario, she would not be able to choose assisted death because that care home has a blanket policy against it. That would discriminate against that young woman, who has an allergy to opioids that means that she cannot be palliated.
Naz Shah
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which gives me a lot to think about. That is why I said that I genuinely do not have the answers. I want to have this discussion so that I can make the choice whether to support the amendments. I want to explore this issue further, because it is really important.
Rebecca Paul
The conversation has moved on a little, but I was just going to make the point that the amendments that I tabled focus very much on the rights of the employer with respect to what they expect from their staff. I wonder whether it would be helpful to explore that a bit more.
Danny Kruger
There is much to get into, and I will try to respond a bit more when I speak again. I do not want to revisit the whole question of palliative care but, on the scenario set out by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, the strong advice that I have received from palliative care professionals is that it is not accurate to say that somebody’s pain cannot be palliated. It might well be that there is a difficulty with particular opioids, but there are other palliative care options available to everybody. No palliative care doctor ever says that there is nothing they can do.
Danny Kruger
Well, we have been over the whole question of palliative care and alternatives to assisted suicide; nevertheless, I wanted to challenge that scenario.
On the suggestion that there is a comparison with an abortion service no one is suggesting that a woman who goes into a refuge, discovers she is pregnant and wants to have a termination is somehow obliged to have it on the premises of the refuge, which does not believe in abortion. That is not a scenario that could happen, because that is not how abortion operates. What we are suggesting is that somebody who arrives in a care home or hospice that does not want to facilitate assisted suicide would not be able to receive such assistance there. There is no objection to their believing in or desiring an assisted suicide; the point is to protect the institution.
I recognise the difficulty with the specific case the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge raised. Nevertheless, the alternative is to have blanket permission for any resident of any care home or hospice to insist that they can receive an assisted death in that home or hospice, despite what the rest of that community and the management might want. Indeed, the patient might have signed a contract specifying that they will not seek an assisted death in that home or hospice. There is much more to discuss, but I hope that that is helpful for the hon. Lady.
Naz Shah
I thank the hon. Member. What he said is really helpful.
I want to come back to the issue of opioids. As someone who suffers from chronic pain, my understanding is that I have a choice over whether I take opioids or other medication. So when people are allergic to opioids, they can potentially access other medication for pain relief.
Jack Abbott
A lot of the focus in the last few minutes has been about a care home having already made it clear that it does not support the process of assisted dying and the fact that anyone entering it would therefore know that. However, there is a clear scenario where some care homes might change their position over time. Someone may be in a care home for many years, but then the care home might change its position and say, “Actually, now we do not support assisted dying.” In that scenario, people would actually have gone into that setting thinking that it supported assisted dying.
Although I am sympathetic to the issue of place being made clear, it has real ramifications. Again, I do not think it is as black and white as saying, “This care home already had a set position.” Some care homes or other settings might change their position over time, even when residents are in situ for a long time. That is the big problem with this particular clause: the situation is not as straightforward as some Members have perhaps suggested today.
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point: it is not straightforward. That is why people are tabling amendments and having this discussion—to iron this issue out and make sure we nail it, to make the process as safe as possible.
There are laws in our country that protect people’s religious views—for example, we have the Equality Act 2010—and those laws are there for a reason. Speaking to all the amendments, I would not want to see hospices not being funded because they take a certain position. Also, from an employer’s perspective—I appreciate the scenario that has been mentioned, and I will come back to it—they may be recruiting in accordance with their values. We are all in politics, and we all sign up to a particular view of politics. When we recruit our staff, we put on the application form, or other information, that we would like applicants to believe in our value system. That is not discriminating against somebody who has a different value system. That would be my response.
Lewis Atkinson
I just want to nail this point about employers and recruitment. We have said that no organisation will be obliged to provide these services, in exactly the same way as with abortion. The example I would give is this: a provider of women’s services says, “We are not providing abortion. But, in addition, we are going to ask staff members we are recruiting if they believe it is ever legal for abortion to take place.” That is exactly the same test of belief, although on a different medical procedure, that my hon. Friend is proposing in this instance.
Naz Shah
That is not what I am saying. I am saying very clearly that when we recruit people to any job, we ask them to have the values that we have as an organisation. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention, but what he says is certainly not the point I am trying to make, and I cannot imagine anybody—even for religious reasons, and even if they have changed their position—genuinely treating somebody in that way. We just do not do that.
Jack Abbott
I appreciate that, but as my hon. Friend has said a number of times over the last few weeks, some of these things unfortunately do happen. As I am sure we all do, I have had casework involving people with guide dogs saying that they have been refused certain services, including taxis, even though that is a civil offence because they have a guide dog with them. We have said a number of times that there are flaws in every single system. I appreciate that we want to adopt a good-will attitude, and I am sure the vast majority of settings across the country will operate on that basis, but we know that, in certain circumstances, that is not always the case. That is why, if we put anything in the Bill, it needs to have real clarity and not unintended consequences.
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to clarify this.
To sum up, this comes back to some of the questions I have for the Minister, and I wonder whether he can answer some of them. I say that especially because the Committee has had lots of debates on amendments tabled by the Government via my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley giving the Secretary of State statutory duties. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to clarify this issue and make it watertight using regulations.
Have we had an assessment of what the impact would be on the provision of healthcare if assisted death were permitted in either a hospice or care home, and is the Minister happy to share that assessment with the Committee? For example, if palliative care specialists are saying, “X amount of people would no longer want to be involved, so there is a real risk of an exodus of specialists from hospices,” we need to know whether there has been an assessment of that. Perhaps the Government can help us to understand that real concern from palliative care specialists.
Given that the Minister mentioned his visit to a hospice this week, has he had any discussions with Care England care homes about allowing this process to happen in care homes themselves? How have the concerns of clinical staff about allowing an assisted death in their healthcare facility been assessed, and have those concerns been put to him? How many staff have indicated that they would need to leave the NHS, care providers or hospices if an assisted death were mandated on their premises?
Coming back to beliefs, there is also the element of charitable bodies. Have we spoken to the Charity Commission about the impact on those bodies if they were pressured by the Bill into changing their charitable aims? Would they be protected from providing assisted death because of their charitable aims?
For me, this debate has raised more questions than answers, and there is much more discussion to be had. I am happy to listen to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, as I can then intervene and probe further.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Ms McVey, even though it is a little later than originally planned.
Amendment 480 is intended to extend the category of those protected from being obligated to participate in the provision of assisted dying under clause 23 from registered medical practitioners, registered nurses and registered pharmacists or pharmacy technicians to all individuals. The amendment also seeks to clarify what an individual can refuse to do under clause 23(1), by setting out a non-exhaustive list of activities under the Bill that an individual would not be obligated to participate in. The amendment also specifies that the ability not to participate in the provision of assisted dying does not override any duty to signpost someone to information about assisted dying; to perform clerical, secretarial or ancillary acts; or to perform life-saving acts or grave injury-saving acts.
The amendment would introduce significant legal uncertainty and may mean that a person who had opted in to providing services under the Bill could refuse to continue to do so or could use clause 23 as a justification not to perform their duties as described in the Bill. For example, they may use the amendment as justification for not checking eligibility criteria, discussing prognosis or palliative care options, or performing other requirements under the Bill.
Amendment 480 may also conflict with other provisions. It states:
“no individual is under any duty…to be involved, directly or indirectly, in the provision of assistance”,
in accordance with the Bill. That may, for example, mean that although doctors are required under the Bill to notify a cancellation, they would be allowed to refuse to do things under the Bill, even if they have opted in to providing assisted dying services. It is not clear which provision would take precedence, which could allow the doctor to decline to notify a cancellation, by arguing that they are relying on clause 23(1).
Amendment 483 is intended to extend
“the range of activities which medical practitioners and other healthcare providers are not under an obligation to provide to include activities closely related to the provision of assistance”
under clause 23(1).
Amendment 484 is intended to expand the protection from being subject to a detriment by an employer at clause 23(2), to include where a registered medical practitioner or health professional refuses to participate in activity closely related to the provision of assistance. The term,
“activity closely related to the provision of assistance”,
is not defined, and that could create uncertainty as to what types of activity it is intended to cover.
The Bill does not, as currently drafted, specify where the provision of assistance may or may not take place. Amendment 441 would prevent there being any obligation on a care home or hospice regulated by the Care Quality Commission or Care Inspectorate Wales to permit the provision of assistance to be carried out on their premises. The effect of the amendment may be to limit the places where assistance could be provided. It may thereby reduce access to an assisted death for those residing within a care home or hospice, if a care home or hospice did not wish to allow an assisted death to be provided on its premises. The amendment could preclude some people from accessing services under the Bill if they were near the end of life and leaving their usual place of residence was therefore impeded. It may result in inconsistent treatment for patients when seeking to access an assisted death. That could potentially engage a person’s rights under article 8 of the ECHR—the right to respect for private and family life.
Amendment 481 has two parts. The first aims to ensure that employees cannot participate in the assisted dying process in the course of their employment if their employer has chosen not to participate in assisted dying. The effect of the amendment could be to limit the places where assistance would be provided, and it may result in inconsistent treatment for patients when seeking to access an assisted death. That could engage a person’s rights under article 8 of the ECHR—the right to respect for private and family life.
The explanatory notes suggest that the second part of the amendment seeks to ensure that employers require employees to provide or not provide assisted dying under schedule 9 of the Equality Act 2010. That schedule enables an employer to specify that having a protected characteristic is a requirement of a job when having that characteristic is crucial to the post and a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The ability to specify occupational requirements is conferred by schedule 9 of the Equality Act, and reference to it in this amendment would not have any additional effect.
The purpose of new clause 22 is to provide that the owners or occupiers of a premises would not be obligated to permit the self-administration of an approved substance on their premises. This right to refuse would not extend to a person who has an interest in the land but who is not occupying or operating on those premises, such as a landlord. It is unclear if the term “premises” would apply to a residential property, care home or hospice. As a result, the amendment may mean that someone who is terminally ill and is residing in, for example, a care home or a hospice could be required to leave that care home or hospice in order to receive assistance under the Bill if the care home or hospice owner did not wish to allow assisted dying on their premises. That could engage a person’s rights under article 8 of the ECHR—the right to respect for private and family life.
Jack Abbott
Another example raised by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire was about hospitals under certain trusts—because of the word “premises”. In the Government’s view, would hospitals and other such facilities beyond hospices and care homes also be included within this new clause?
Stephen Kinnock
As I was saying, the scope of the term “premises” is unclear. Is it residential property, care home, hospice or indeed hospital? That is one of the challenges with the drafting of the amendment: the scope and definition of the term is not clear.
Danny Kruger
We are going to get to the question of the NHS provision, but, surely, if it is the decision of Parliament and the Secretary of State that assisted suicide should be provided through the NHS, then that is what will happen. It might be that there are some trusts that will have some sort of autonomy—to the extent that they can decline to deliver certain services—but, if this is a healthcare treatment that is regulated in that way and if it is to be set out as something that shall be provided by the NHS, surely hospitals will not be in a position to decline to deliver, if they are indeed NHS hospitals. The purpose of these amendments is to protect private and charitable providers. Does the Minister agree?
Stephen Kinnock
I agree with the sentiment of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. The challenge is that the way in which the amendment is drafted could well lead to unintended consequences, because the scope is not clear. If we are not clear what the scope is, it could potentially be exponential.
New clause 23 would prevent regulated care homes and hospices from facing any detrimental consequences for not providing or permitting assistance in accordance with the Bill. This also means that their funding must not be conditional on them providing or permitting such assistance to take place on their premises. As a result, a person who is terminally ill and is residing in a care home or hospice could be asked or required to leave that care home or hospice in order to receive assistance under the Bill, if that care home or hospice provider does not wish to allow assisted dying on their premises.
In such circumstances, the care home or hospice provider would not be able to be placed in any detriment as a result of any action or decision taken. This could engage a person’s right under article 8 of the ECHR. Further, public authorities would not be able to persuade care homes or hospices to provide or permit assistance to take place on their premises by offering additional funding if they agreed to do so. Equally, if a public authority gave funding to care homes or hospice providers in recognition of their agreement to provide or permit assisted dying on their premises, and that provider later decided not to provide or permit the assistance, and spent the funding on other matters, the public authority would not be able to recover the funding if it were given unconditionally.
Clause 23 sets out that no registered medical practitioner or other health professional would be under any duty to participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with the Bill. It also sets out that employees cannot be subject to any detriment by their employer for exercising their right to either participate or not participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with the Bill. Further amendment to the clause will be required on Report to ensure that the opt-out in clause 23(1) and the employment protections in clause 23(2) work effectively alongside the duties imposed on health professionals in other provisions of the Bill as amended in Committee.
I hope those observations were helpful.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
Thank you for stepping into the breach this morning, Ms McVey.
Clause 23 provides that there will be no obligation on medical practitioners and health professionals to provide assistance as set out in the assisted dying process. We know doctors and other health professionals hold a variety of views on assisted dying. A significant number are in support of what this Bill sets out to do, and the experience from other jurisdictions is that that number increases once it is seen to be working safely and effectively in practice. Others, of course, would object to being involved at any stage and I am very respectful of that. The Bill is about giving terminally ill people choice and autonomy, but it is absolutely right that the principle of autonomy is extended to registered medical practitioners, health professionals and others.
As such, I turn to amendment 480. I agree with the intention behind the amendment—nobody should have a duty to be involved with the provision of assistance in accordance with the legislation—and I think there is consensus across the Committee on that.
However, I am concerned about the drafting of the amendment, the lack of clarity around being directly or indirectly in the provision of assistance, and the framing of the selective list of activities. I fear that the amendment could have unintended consequences and an impact on continuity of care, and I take on board the Minister’s comments about the significant legal uncertainty that that would create. I therefore cannot support the amendment as drafted but, as I have said, I am happy to work with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire to consider an alternative amendment that would better achieve the aim of ensuring that no one has an obligation to take part in the assisted dying process.
Danny Kruger
Obviously, the sentiment that we should work with hospices and let them set their own policy is absolutely right—that is the purpose of the amendment—but does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the Minister just said that if any hospice attempts to prevent assisted dying from taking place on their premises, there will be human rights claims? They can have all the consultations and conversations they want, but unless the Bill specifies that they are allowed to opt out, they will be forced to do it.
Kim Leadbeater
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I am aware of the Minister’s comments. This will be part of the discussion as we take it forward. That is why this debate is really powerful.
In their written evidence, the trustees at Willow Burn hospice, based in the UK, told us:
“Our Mission is to deliver hospice care of the highest standard to our patients and those important to them...We also believe that we should support and enable people to make the choices that matter to them.”
They said they had not decided their position on assisted dying and remained
“open minded about possible future actions. We believe this stance is in the best interests of patients and their families and reflects the wishes of our community.”
I welcome that open-minded approach and their commitment
“to put care, compassion and dignity at the heart of everything”
they do. Contrary to what the hon. Member East Wiltshire has said, the picture is not black and white. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich in that regard.
Colleagues may remember the evidence given to the Committee by the CEO of Hospice UK, Toby Porter. He clarified for us that institutions do not function in the same way as individuals when it comes to conscience-influencing decisions. He told us:
“There is this idea that your individual opinion guides everything, but with a hospice charity the opposite is true. As many Members will know because of their own work as trustees, the trustees and leadership of a hospice team are required to put personal opinion and interest to one side and always act in the best interest of the charity’s beneficiaries, who are the population.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 195, Q255.]
It is also important to remember that international experience shows that up to 30% to 40% of patients who sign up to the assisted dying process ultimately do not access it. Palliative care may meet their needs, or they may simply change their mind. However, we also know that the reassurance and comfort that the choice of an assisted death provides alongside other treatment and care is really important to them, and I do not believe that reassurance should be denied to some people because of the institution they happen to be in.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady is outlining the issues very effectively. No one, of course, is saying that anybody who works at the hospice that may object has to participate. It may say, “No one here will assist.” We have talked about the importance of place. To a certain extent, I have a right as a tenant in a place where I am resident. It seems that my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire is proposing actively to prevent someone from being able to access this in a place that they choose. That feels to me the wrong balance. I wonder whether that is broadly where she is heading.
Kim Leadbeater
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The word that we have used a lot—maybe not enough in some respects—is choice. That is important for individuals, but it is important for institutions as well. Putting an institutional opt-out in the Bill would risk creating confusion and distress for patients and their loved ones, and indeed for staff and volunteers.
Rebecca Paul
Does the hon. Lady have any concerns about what this position would mean for the end of life workforce? I know we are here to make law, but we cannot ignore the practical consequences for end of life care. If we do not have this carve-out, we could lose a lot of wonderful and great people who work in end of life care and who feel that they are not able to participate, if the hospice cannot specify.
Kim Leadbeater
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to acknowledge the wonderful workforce working in end of life care, but there is a range of views within that workforce and there is the individual opt-out. No one has to be involved in this process if they do not want to be. That is clear in the Bill as it stands. I hope that, working together, we can make that even clearer if needed.
Under the Bill, doctors and health professionals already have the ability to opt out for any reason, wherever they work.
Kim Leadbeater
It is a good point. My understanding—the Minister might correct me—is that pharmacists currently are within the definition of health professionals, but if they are not, that is an important point, which would be covered by making the change to ensure that no one is under any duty. However, I will definitely check that.
Mr Porter also said:
“hospices evolved out of the community. They exist because communities wanted better deaths. In the end, it is the job of institutions to evolve to fit the values and laws of society as they evolve, rather than vice versa.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 202, Q264.]
The polling on assisted dying shows significant public support for a change in the law, which is one of the main reasons we are here discussing the issue today. The latest figures from the British social attitudes survey, published just this week by the National Centre for Social Research, show that support at 79%, which is unchanged or slightly up on a decade ago. Although I cannot support these amendments, this is an important debate. I think we have conducted ourselves extremely well over the past 24 hours. I think it is important that we continue the debate respectfully and sensitively.
Danny Kruger
I, too, am very grateful to you for rescuing us, Ms McVey; thank you. I also thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley: it is nice to be commended for our good conduct, so I am grateful for that. This has been a very interesting debate, and I thank all hon. Members for participating. I appreciate the fact that we have made some progress in understanding each other and potentially improving the Bill, although I regret the lack of support from the Government Front Bench for the amendments that I have tabled.
Let me just refresh memories on the purpose of my amendments. The Bill promoter has tabled amendments to clauses 24 and 25, which we will come to and which keep the phrase
“providing assistance to a person in accordance with this Act”,
but add to it these two other phrases:
“performing any other function under that Act”
and
“assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that Act”.
Those amendments expand the protection from criminal and civil liability. They mean that performing any other function under the Act and assisting a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of anything under the Act, are both protected from criminal and civil liability. But the hon. Lady has not tabled a similar amendment to clause 23, and there is a real risk. The British Medical Association, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the Royal College of Nursing, as I mentioned yesterday, have all warned that the protection of conscience clause is limited solely to the final act, rather than applying to all functions under the Act. I appreciate that the hon. Lady expresses a commitment to trying to ensure that we do cover everybody and all appropriate actions and activities that take place, but I suggest that that is what my amendment would do.
In response to the objections to the amendment, I appreciate the sudden interest in precision in drafting.
Danny Kruger
Well, every time that those on my side of the debate raise detailed, particular points we are told, “Oh, the spirit of the text is clear. We’ll sort that out later. It’ll come in guidance.” We are told that we should not be nitpicking, embroidering and so on. Anyway, I appreciate the attention to detail, and I want to respond to some of the points.
With respect, the Minister made a pretty tendentious suggestion that a doctor could opt in to assisted dying and take part in some of the procedures but then suddenly decide to neglect performing others, and that that would not be negligent. I cannot conceive of any court or tribunal conceding that it would not be negligent not to fulfil the obligations under the Act once the procedure has begun—once the doctor has made commitments and already undertaken activities to progress an assisted dying case.
The hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire objected on the grounds that the amendment might give a gardener or cleaner the right to opt out. Proposed new subsection (1B)(b) of clause 23 actually makes it clear that “ancillary” activities are not protected by the conscience clause, so the gardener would not be off the hook—under the amendment, the gardener would still have to mow the lawn.
I recognise that the drafting might not be perfect, but I emphasise that the PBL “Guide to Making Legislation”—by the secretariat to the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Cabinet Committee—makes it clear that Government should not object to Back-Bench amendments on drafting grounds. If there are issues with particular phrasing that cause the Government or the promoter concern, that can be addressed subsequently, so I regret it if the Minister is using drafting issues to justify a refusal to support these amendments.
On new clause 22 and the issue of premises, which we have discussed very interestingly, a couple of objections have been raised. The first relates to shared ownership schemes, which we are all familiar with, particularly for elderly people. The answer is simple. The corporate owner under a shared ownership scheme is not in occupation. Being in occupation has a particular meaning in land law, and it is not the case here that a tenant genuinely in occupation of their own premises could somehow be denied their right to have an assisted death in their own home because of the freehold arrangement of the premises they occupy.
I am grateful for the indication given by Members, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, that there may well be circumstances in which it is appropriate for particular premises to opt out of the obligation to facilitate assisted dying, so that a particular institution would have the right to deny permission for assisted death.
Kit Malthouse
To clarify my remarks, I was not necessarily saying that they should have the right to deny, but by default they would if they were, in effect, a closed community that was discriminating in favour of like-minded individuals—a home for retired Catholic priests, for example. By default it would be someone who was unlikely to offer those services. The other point to ask is: if I am in a hospice, in my bed at the last with visitors coming to see me, and one of those visitors is the doctor who is coming to administer to me, I am not quite sure how that would be prevented, unless people are willing for there to be a wrestling match at the door of my room.
Danny Kruger
Under the terms of amendment 441, the owners of the premises would be entitled to deny access to anyone who is seeking to deliver an assisted dying service on their premises. They would be entitled to prevent that from happening, yes. Obviously, that is an extremely unlikely scenario; nevertheless, it is one that I think we need to contemplate.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire for his clarification. I had understood that he had acknowledged that it would be appropriate for the management of a Catholic care home to specify that there shall be no assisted dying on the premises, but he is suggesting that it would be illegal or inappropriate for the management to make that stipulation; it just would not happen organically, because no one would want that in that place. I regret that, because I think it should be appropriate for the management of a place—not in some sort of vindictive mission to deny people a particular right or service—to convey to everyone else who lives there that this is, as it were, a safe space in which there will not be state-assisted suicide. I think that is a reasonable hope and expectation that many residents will want when they live in a certain place.
Once this becomes normalised, once it becomes 5% or 10% of deaths, as happens in parts of Canada—if this becomes a normal and standard way to die—I think many people will not want to live in communities in which that practice takes place. I am afraid that we will find a demarcation, a bifurcation in society, for those who do not want to live in an assisted suicide community. It would be appropriate for them to have the option of going to live in a place where they know that will not be taking place.
I concede, by the way, that for many of the institutions that we are imagining here, these shared communities, it would be perfectly appropriate and understandable for it to be an option for residents. Let us think about the different sorts of places we are talking about. The Duchess of Somerset almshouse in my constituency—the sort of place we have in Wiltshire—is a lovely place, beautiful. It has lots of Liberal Democrat voters in it, which I know because I knocked on all their doors—unfortunately, the wrong sort of Liberal Democrat. I can imagine many of them supporting the right in their home, behind their own front door—which they have there—to have an assisted death, and I am sure that the other residents of that place would concede that that is appropriate.
In other places in my constituency, however, a hospice being the most obvious one, neither the management nor the other residents would be comfortable—in fact, they would be extremely uncomfortable—with the sense that assisted suicide might be practised in the next-door room. Whether it is performed, as it were, by the hospice staff, or merely facilitated by them—it would be extraordinary were it somehow to take place without the facilitation of the staff who managed the facility and look after the patients—for it to take place on some sort of parallel track would be an extreme imposition on that hospice and its management. It would be extremely disquieting for everyone else who lives and works in that place. I therefore think it is an appropriate consideration to give such places the right, at a management level, to opt out.
I also want to express my deep concern about what we heard from the Minister—his suggestion that we should not give either individuals or institutions the absolute right to opt out of the facilitation of assisted suicide because we think the European convention on human rights might challenge that. He suggested that a court in this country or Strasbourg would overrule a decision or would negate this law, or challenge it, if we passed it with these amendments to protect hospices and individuals. We would then have a court citing international law in an attempt to overturn this law. I am very concerned about that in terms of both parliamentary sovereignty and the Government’s position. Surely, if the Government think this is the right thing to do, we should do it even if we fear an ECHR challenge. This is a craven submission to a lawmaking body that is not sovereign in our country and would be only advisory. I regret what the Minister for Care said and hope that the Justice Minister can clarify that the Government would not concede an ECHR challenge if Parliament decides to insist on individuals’ rights to decline to participate in assisted suicide.
In response to my challenges on that point, the hon. Member for Spen Valley suggested that it would be an interesting topic for a future conversation. This is the moment to have that conversation. We are deciding on amendments now that will insist on people’s right to decline to take part in assisted death. There will be no further opportunity to insist that people have that right to opt out except on Report, which will be a limited opportunity.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire made an interesting point that had not occurred to me—whether a husband living with his wife in their own shared home could legitimately deny her the right to assisted suicide in their home. It is a very good challenge. It is certainly not the policy intention, as I am sure the hon. Lady appreciates, to enable one partner to deny the other the right to assisted suicide in their shared home. I ask her to accept that that is not the intention. The purpose of the amendment is to give an occupier the right to refuse assisted dying.
With the hon. Lady’s permission, given that this clause will be voted on only next week, I propose tabling an amendment that would address her concern. I am happy to work with her or the Government to get to the point where we are satisfied that that concern has been addressed, because she is absolutely right: in someone’s own home, their partner or the person who shares the home with them should not be allowed to deny them.
We have hashed out the question about protected beliefs in relation to amendment 481, so I will move on.
Kit Malthouse
I am wondering about the difference between my own home with my partner, and my care home with lots of people that may or may not be strangers, and why I should have the right in one but not in the other.
Danny Kruger
I hope my right hon. Friend will understand that there is a difference between occupying one’s own home and living in a community under conditions set by somebody else, which is what happens if someone lives in a care home. There are terms and conditions. People have to comply with the rules of the place and have obligations to their fellow residents. In someone’s own home, whether they are living with a partner or not, they have absolute rights. That is the difference. If someone signs up to live in a care home, they have to follow the rules of the place, just like in a hotel. In someone’s own home, they can do what they like, as I am sure my right hon. Friend does.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
We should acknowledge the reasons that people go into residential and nursing care homes. They go into them because they need day-to-day help to live. Would the hon. Gentleman reconsider what he has just said? It seems to fundamentally discriminate between people who are able to live at home, have families or carers around them and can operate in that way and people who need to go into residential, and particularly nursing, homes.
Danny Kruger
The right hon. Lady clarifies the point very well. I concede—that is right. When someone goes to live in a care home, they yield, by necessity, a whole set of freedoms that one has in one’s own home. That is the consequence of the stage of life they are at, the conditions they have, and indeed their own choice to live in that particular care home.
Danny Kruger
I appreciate that—there might be very little choice or no alternative. I am speaking in terms of the reality of life. We can do everything we can through the law to obviate reality—to give people as much autonomy as possible, even though they are very dependent on other people. That is why it is so important to consider the autonomy of the elderly, the frail and people with disabilities or who are ill. They require other people to give them what fully healthy and able-bodied people are able to do for themselves. I recognise that I am suggesting that somebody who lives in a care home would not have the same freedom of action as somebody living in their own home.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting)
Wednesday 19th March 2025
(3 days, 15 hours 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 Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 March 2025 - (19 Mar 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 17 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 17 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 17 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 17 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 17 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Will everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? As people know, tea and coffee are not allowed in the Committee Room.
We now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I remind Members, as I often do, that interventions should be short and raise points of clarification or questions; they should not be speeches in and of themselves. Members who wish to make a speech should bob, and continue to do so throughout the debate in which they wish to take part, until they are called. When Members say “you”, they are referring to the Chair. “You” should not be used to refer to one another; the debate should be through the Chair.
Clause 23
No obligation to provide assistance etc
Amendment proposed (18 March): 480, in clause 23, page 15, line 3, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) No individual is under any duty (whether arising from any contract, statute or otherwise) to be involved, directly or indirectly, in the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act.
(1A) In particular, no individual is under any duty (whether arising from any contract, statute or otherwise) to—
(a) provide information about assisted dying;
(b) participate in an initial discussion;
(c) participate in the request and assessment process;
(d) supply, prescribe or administer an approved substance;
(e) be present at the time of administration of an approved substance; or
(f) dispense a prescription of an approved substance.
(1B) Nothing in subsections (1) or (1A) of this section shall affect any duty to—
(a) signpost someone to where they can obtain information about assisted dying (under section 4(5) or otherwise);
(b) perform acts of a clerical, secretarial, or ancillary nature; or
(c) perform any acts necessary to save the life of or to prevent grave injury to a person.” —(Danny Kruger.)
This amendment would expand the provision of Clause 23(1) to all individuals and clarify the activities in which they are not obliged to participate.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 483, in clause 23, page 15, line 5, after “assistance” insert
“, or in any activity closely related to the provision of assistance,”.
This amendment would widen the range of activities which medical practitioners and other healthcare providers are not under an obligation to provide to include activities closely related to the provision of assistance under the Act.
Amendment 484, in clause 23, page 15, line 8, after “Act” insert
“, or in any activity closely related to the provision of assistance under this Act,”.
Amendment 441, in clause 23, page 15, line 9, at end insert—
“(3) There is no obligation on any care home or hospice regulated by the Care Quality Commission or the Care Inspectorate Wales to permit the provision of assistance under this Act on their premises.”
This amendment prevents there being any obligation on a care home or hospice which is regulated in England or Wales to permit the provision of assistance under the Act on their premises.
Amendment 481, in clause 23, page 15, line 9, at end insert—
“(3) Nothing in subsection (2)—
(a) prevents an employer who has chosen not to participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act from prohibiting their employees from providing such assistance in the course of their employment with that employer, or
(b) prevents an employer from specifying occupational requirements in relation to the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act in accordance with Schedule 9 of the Equality Act when hiring employees.”
This amendment ensures that employees cannot provide assisted dying against the wishes of their employers and that employers can still rely, in appropriate cases, on the occupational requirements of the Equality Act to either require employees to provide or not to provide assisted dying.
New clause 22—No obligation for occupiers and operators of premises—
“(1) Any individual, business, organisation, or association who occupies or operates premises has the right to refuse to permit the self-administration of an approved substance on their premises.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) confers any right on anyone with an interest in the land but who is not occupying or operating those premises.”
This new clause would mean that the owners or occupiers of premises — but not landlords not currently in occupation — are not obliged to permit the self-administration of approved substances on their premises.
New clause 23—No detriment for care home or hospice not providing assistance—
“(1) No regulated care home or hospice shall be subject to any detriment by a public authority as a result of not—
(a) providing assistance in accordance with this Act, or
(b) permitting such assistance to take place on their premises.
(2) No funding given by a public authority to a regulated care home or hospice can be conditional on that care home or hospice—
(a) providing assistance in accordance with this Act, or
(b) permitting such assistance to take place on their premises.”
This new clause would mean that regulated care homes and hospices cannot be subject to any detriment for not providing or permitting assistance in accordance with this Act, and that their funding cannot be conditional on them providing or permitting such assistance.
Clause stand part.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
I was just concluding my remarks on the amendment. I will quickly finish responding to the hon. Member for Spen Valley and others, who suggested that it would be improper to deny people living in a care home, hospice setting or other communal environment the right and opportunity to request assisted dying. I was suggesting that that right needs to be tempered by an acknowledgment that they do not live there alone, and that there are also rights, properly held, by the occupier of the premises, the individual’s neighbours and others.
My concern is that, just as suicide itself is contagious, so the practice of assisted suicide will have social ramifications. We fully recognise that, if the Bill is passed, people will have the absolute right to request the service in their own home, but when someone is living among others, that right needs to be tempered by the consideration that the occupier should ultimately decide whether he or she is prepared to allow the practice to take place on his or her premises.
Some hon. Members suggested that, if an institution receives public funding, it would be appropriate for it to be obligated to deliver the service. I am concerned about the implication of that, which might be that institutions that did not wish to provide or facilitate assisted suicide but did receive public money, for instance care homes or hospices, would be at risk of losing that money—essentially being defunded—on the grounds of their conscientious objection to participating in assisted dying. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Spen Valley or Ministers would confirm that it is not their intention to penalise bodies that do not deliver assisted dying by withdrawing public money.
On the impact on staff, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for acknowledging that we might need to tighten the Bill to ensure that it is clear that people will not be required to participate in any stage of the process of assisted dying, and not just in the actual provision of assistance towards the final act. Nevertheless, my concern is that if we do not give institutions the right to opt out of provision, there will be an exodus of staff who object to being involved in any way with, or working for an institution that facilitates, assisted dying, as has happened in other jurisdictions where assisted suicide is legal.
I point particularly to evidence we heard from Australia. We were told that, in consequence of assisted dying being legalised in Australian states, there was an exodus of workers from the healthcare system—nurses and others—and the social care system. It was therefore no coincidence when one of the Australian witnesses who supports assisted suicide declared breezily that, although there were significant objections among the care workforce to the introduction of assisted dying when the law was first debated, five years later there was overwhelming support for assisted dying among them. Well, that is no surprise, because all the objectors had left, and I am afraid that is what we will see here.
A comparison would be the exodus of care workers that we saw after the last Government mandated covid vaccination. Some 40,000 care workers left their jobs rather than accept compulsory vaccination. If they were prepared to do that on those grounds, I fear we might see a similar phenomenon if we mandate that institutions facilitate assisted dying.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
May I check that the hon. Member’s understanding is the same as mine—that nothing in the Bill compels an organisation to participate in the way that he describes?
Danny Kruger
No, I am afraid I do not concede that. At the moment, it is not apparent from the Bill or the amendments that have been accepted that an organisation would be enabled to decline to facilitate the provision of assisted dying. No organisation will be compelled to do so, but if a resident were to request assisted dying in their care home, my understanding is that the care home would be obliged to facilitate it.
It might well not be the intention behind the Bill, because I know that the hon. Member for Spen Valley and Members who agree with her recognise the importance of a conscience exception; they have been very clear on that, and I am grateful to them. Nevertheless, my concern is that on human rights grounds, as we have heard from the Minister, the likelihood is that there would be a claim on behalf of an applicant against the institution they reside in that assisted suicide must be provided to them in that place. I am afraid the Bill at the moment does not give an adequate exemption to institutions.
Lewis Atkinson
Does the hon. Member accept the distinction that I made between an organisation choosing to provide assisted dying services and the instance he outlined of this being done in someone’s home that happens to be a care home? They are entirely different points, and I fear that, particularly with regard to hospices, he is conflating the two.
Danny Kruger
I am conflating the two because they are conflated in reality. A care home where somebody lives is a residence, but it is also a community, a facility and a place where professionals work to support that individual. A clear demarcation between their living arrangements and the support they receive from the institution they live in does not exist in reality. That is why they are living there—because that distinction does not apply in their particular case. They require the support and help of the workers in the place where they live.
I am afraid it is not enough simply to say, “This is their home, and they should have exactly the same rights and freedoms as they would have if they were living alone in their own flat or house.” We have to recognise the reality of the situation, which is that they are living in a community, and what happens in the community affects them all. That is the nature of communal living. This is not individualised healthcare in the way that the hon. Gentleman imagines it is, and that is fundamentally our point of difference. This is separate or adjacent to healthcare, and it is delivered, by definition, by somebody else. By virtue of the Bill, it would have a separate regulatory environment to other healthcare treatments. Of necessity, it should have an appropriate legal framework to protect other people who are impacted by assisted death in a communal setting. That is my crucial point: if someone is living in a communal setting, what they do affects their neighbours.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, although this is different from the healthcare services we currently have, we have a legal framework that deals with many of these conflicting issues as and when they arise in lots of different circumstances that are not completely adjacent to these?
Danny Kruger
I do not know what those might be, but I would be interested to hear. That might well be the case. I am afraid that no hard-and-fast rules can be clearly applied here; or, rather, we have to apply hard-and-fast rules in the knowledge of the grey areas, the exceptions and the situations in which we might feel that the law is unjust in particular cases. We have heard examples of that, such as the evidence about the lady in Australia cited earlier by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. I can well imagine the distress involved if someone suddenly finds themselves in an institution that does not permit an assisted death, but they want one and are in their last days.
The alternative, however, is a different blanket rule. If we were to have a blanket rule that we can do an assisted death anywhere—that is one situation—there would be significant knock-on effects. Serious moral injury would be suffered by other professionals and residents. I recognise that my amendment could lead to someone having to relocate if they want to have an assisted death—I am sorry for that—but I think that we have to draw the line in a way that makes most sense.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
It would be interesting, if my hon. Friend’s amendments go through, to see the series of plebiscites taking place in care homes and communal situations across the country as to what the residents do and do not want, presumably by a majority. He asserted that there had been a mass exodus of healthcare workers when VAD came in, but I am struggling to find any evidence to support that claim. In fact, the evidence seems to say that that is not the case. Although there have been some resignations, that has largely been because of pay and conditions, as one might expect.
Danny Kruger
My right hon. Friend seems hung up on this suggestion that there needs to be a plebiscite or communal decision making—some kind of citizens’ jury. I am not suggesting that for one moment. In fact, I am sure that I have said explicitly that what I want, and what the amendment would enable, is that the owner or occupier, who would probably be an individual or a board of directors, would decide what happens. If they are a decent, compassionate organisation, they might well consult residents—in fact, I would very much expect that to happen if they are doing their job properly—but I am talking about the importance of communal living; and the fact is that a communal living arrangement has leadership. The residents have signed terms and conditions, in a contract, under which they have agreed to abide by certain rules of the house. My suggestion is that if the charity, company or organisation that is managing a care home wants to stipulate that there shall be no provision of assisted dying in that care home, they should have the right to do so. I hope my right hon. Friend would acknowledge that that is consistent with English property rights.
On my right hon. Friend’s second point, I am grateful to him and he might well be right. I am happy to consult my evidence pack, which I do not have at my fingertips, about the effect on the Australian workforce in consequence of the introduction of assisted dying. My memory is that we heard such evidence, or had it submitted to us in written form—his knowledge of the 500 submissions might be better than mine. Let us check and we will have it out, perhaps on social media; I know how much he enjoys those forums.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 504, in clause 24, page 15, line 11, leave out from second “of” to end of line 12 and insert
“—
(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with this Act, or performing any other function under this Act in accordance with this Act, or
(b) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with this Act, in connection with the doing of anything under this Act.”.
This amendment provides that it is not an offence to perform a function under the Bill, or to assist a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of anything under the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 505, in clause 24, page 15, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert
“—
(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025, or performing any other function under that Act in accordance with that Act, or
(b) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that Act, in connection with the doing of anything under that Act.”.
This amendment ensures that it is not an offence under the Suicide Act 1961 to perform a function under the Bill, or to assist a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of anything under the Bill.
Clause stand part.
I remind Committee members that we expect four or five votes at about 2.50 pm. In that case, we will suspend for an hour, similarly to last night, and come back at 3.50 pm, but we will cross that bridge when we get to it.
Kim Leadbeater
These amendments relate to criminal liability under the Bill. They get to the heart of why the legislation is needed. Amendment 504 seeks to clarify the language of clause 24 and provide reassurance that it will not be considered an offence to perform a function under the provisions of the Bill or to assist a person seeking to end their own life in connection with anything done under the Bill. It will ensure that those acting within the law, and with compassion, to assist terminally ill individuals who wish to end their suffering and take control at the end of their life are protected under the law.
Amendment 505 ensures that the provisions of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025 will supersede the Suicide Act 1961, providing clarity that actions taken under the new Act will not be subject to the outdated legal framework established under the 1961 Act. That is a crucial step in modernising our laws to reflect the values of compassion, dignity and personal autonomy. These amendments bring us closer to a legal framework that is clear and safe.
Our Prime Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the former Director of Public Prosecutions, stated in relation to assisted dying, “The law must reflect the changing moral landscape of society, and in cases such as this, where the individual’s autonomy and suffering are at stake, our legal framework must offer clarity and compassion.” During his tenure as DPP, Sir Keir also emphasised the importance of not criminalising individuals who act out of compassion, particularly in difficult and morally complex situations. He said, “The law must be clear, and it must ensure that those who act with the intention to relieve suffering are not penalised, as long as their actions are in accordance with the law.” That sentiment is echoed in the amendments before us today, which ensure that those who assist individuals under the Bill are protected by law, offering clarity and reassurance to both the public and professionals who may be involved in such decisions.
Sir Max Hill, another former Director of Public Prosecutions, remarked in 2019, “The law around assisted dying is often unclear and creates a great deal of uncertainty for both individuals and healthcare professionals. What we need is a system that balances compassion with protection, ensuring that people who are at their most vulnerable are supported in a way that is both legal and ethical.” Sir Max Hill’s words emphasise the need for clear, compassionate guidance, which these amendments will provide. They will help to eliminate the legal uncertainty that can cause fear and hesitation in those who act in the best interests of individuals facing terminal illness.
The 2010 DPP policy clarified that assisting someone to end their life was not automatically criminal and that each case would be assessed on its individual facts. However, that has not changed the law and many people are still being failed by the law as it stands. These amendments create clarity and prevent ambiguity around what constitutes a criminal act versus an action legally protected by the new law.
I will finish with a very powerful testimony from Louise Shackleton from Scarborough. Louise accompanied her husband to Dignitas last December. I believe she was the first person to make that trip since Second Reading. Louise talks about the trip she made to Switzerland with her husband. She says:
“This is not an easy process as some against Assisted Dying might have you believe, might try and convince you. It is a robust and thorough almost an ordeal in itself. Then there is the cost, not just financially but mentally and physically as he had to be able to get to Zurich and someone had to assist him to do this…My husband did not deserve this to be his end nor did I deserve this to be his end, my last memory of him…I accompanied my husband to Switzerland, where we had 4 wonderful days together, my husband’s mood had lifted, he was at peace, it was as if the weight of the world had been lifted from his shoulders. He was not scared, no anxiety, his emotional suffering had ceased. You cannot imagine unless you see and feel this he was looking forward to his peaceful death, looking forward to leaving his pain, suffering…At the end, my husband was able to die on his own terms, pain-free and peaceful, held in my arms as his heart gently slowed and finally stopped, granting him the dignified and serene farewell that he had wished for. But where was I? alone in a strange country alone, scared, bereft, organising an Uber to take me away from the…Dignitas House, I was vulnerable and in utter shock, now having to leave my dead husband alone, leave his body to be cared for by people I had never met…Due to our draconian laws my husband had to be in a foreign country, had to be cremated to be brought back home. No funeral that he would have chosen, no mourners, no ceremony, cremated with no Reverend to pray for him, returned to me in a cardboard box. The pain is excruciating beyond any other loss I have experienced”.
She then says:
“I have been arrested and spent just under three hours being interviewed by two CID officers. Four days after my husband left my world there I was stuck in a Police station being cautioned, questioned, having to relive my trauma, for my crime, a crime made by love, a crime made by adoration, a crime of compassion and respect of my husband’s last wish.”
She now faces a prolonged police investigation. She tells us,
“My husband was the first British person to go to Dignitas after parliament debated on Friday 29th Of November 2024. You have the power, the power is yours to be human, to follow Gods wish, to ‘suffer’ choices that other people may make even if its uncomfortable for you. Palliative care I hear you say, My Husband did not want palliative care…Please give others the gift of dignity and a good death in their homes…You have the power to do something amazing, give people the choice.”
I commend these amendments, which will help many people. Sadly, it is too late for Louise, but they will help many other families who will potentially go through what she has been through.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I rise to speak briefly on clause stand part. As I noted a few weeks back—it feels a long time ago—when we debated amendment 82, the clause leaves the law in a strange position. I hope that we will now have the opportunity to explore that and make sure that we are comfortable with the position and have identified whether any changes are needed.
Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 criminalises both assisting and encouraging suicide:
“A person (‘D’) commits an offence if—
(a) D does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person, and
(b) D’s act was intended to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide.”
It is a single offence, but can be committed in two ways: either through assistance or through encouragement.
Clause 24(3), both as drafted and as amended by amendment 505, would make an exception from criminal liability under the Suicide Act, but in respect only of assistance, not of encouragement. It would cover:
“(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025, or performing any other function under that Act in accordance with that Act, or
(b) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that Act, in connection with the doing of anything under that Act.”
In other words, it is strictly limited to assisting suicide. It only covers the actions in the Bill around conducting the preliminary discussion, assessing the applicant, giving the applicant the approved substance and so on. What happens to the other half of section 2 of the Suicide Act: the offence of encouraging suicide? I will not rehash the debates that we had over amendment 82, but I must point out that as that amendment was rejected, the law does not dovetail. Encouragement would still be very much an offence under the Suicide Act, as it has not been excepted under the Bill.
Because my amendment was not agreed to, we will have the absurd situation in which somebody can commit the crime of actively encouraging someone to take their own life, yet that will not be looked for or taken into account when assessing someone’s eligibility for an assisted death. On the flipside, there is a very real risk for families and friends of loved ones who could inadvertently overstep the mark and move from support of a loved one to encouragement. It does not take much imagination to realise that that could lead to accusations and potentially even to prosecution if the law is not sorted and clarified at this stage.
We already know how difficult it has been for family members who want to accompany loved ones to Dignitas but fear that they could face prosecution; the hon. Member for Spen Valley has made that point so eloquently. No one wants that, so it is important that we ensure that the Bill does not create a similar situation in which someone could be unfairly prosecuted for encouragement, which is still very much a crime under the Suicide Act.
Danny Kruger
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate; I very much agree with the points that she made, and I hope that Ministers will respond. I will try not to repeat her arguments.
The hon. Member for Spen Valley says that clause 24 is, in a sense, the heart of the Bill. I agree. Without the clause the Bill would be ineffective, because the service that we are proposing to legalise would be illegal. We have heard many objections to the term “assisted suicide”, but the necessity of the clause exposes the fact that what is being legalised, at least in part, is assisted suicide. Calling it assisted suicide is therefore not improper; it is simply using the correct terminology, as I believe we should in this place. That is particularly important because the use of the euphemism “assisted dying” masks what this is really about and what the Bill would actually legalise: that somebody could help somebody else to commit suicide.
It is no surprise that the euphemism is deployed, because support for what is called assisted dying is driven in part by a failure to realise what it actually is and what the words mean. I cite a 2024 Nuffield Council on Bioethics survey of the public, which found that 39% of people think that assisted dying means withdrawing life support, 19% think that it means providing people who are dying with drugs that relieve symptoms of pain or suffering, and 13% think that it means providing hospice care, all of which is legal currently and is good medical practice.
Lewis Atkinson
The hon. Gentleman says that he is clear that those actions are assisting suicide and that he thinks that they are illegal. Is it right that members of the public, in the instance to which my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley referred, be investigated by the police on their return from trips to Switzerland?
Danny Kruger
Let me come to the question of investigation by the police in due course, but I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman heard me clearly. I was not talking about offences that I think are rightly criminal; I was talking about offences that are not offences at all. Providing hospice care, helping people to relieve symptoms of pain or suffering and withdrawing life support are all perfectly permitted and legal in our system. The issue is that a significant proportion of the public think that those activities are what assisted dying entails. I do, however, recognise the point and the power of the testimony recited by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, to which I will come on in due course.
I understand that in order to make the Bill effective, an exception must be made to section 2 of the Suicide Act. Section 1 says that someone is allowed to commit suicide; section 2 says that one cannot help somebody else to do so. I agree that such an exception is necessary if we are to pass the Bill, but I cannot follow why clause 24(1) is needed. I will be grateful if the hon. Member for Spen Valley or the Minister can explain which other offences would necessarily be committed by a doctor properly carrying out his or her functions under the Bill. What other offences might be caught that require clause 24(1)?
Clause 18 will forbid a doctor from engaging in euthanasia. One criminal law from which an exemption is not necessary is the law on murder, yet ostensibly subsection (1) has no such limitation. I would be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that subsection (1) will not afford a defence when the charge is murder. I presume that that is not the intention.
What about manslaughter, and particularly gross negligence manslaughter? Under the Bill, a pharmacist performing the function of prescribing or dispensing the legal drugs would be, to use the wording of amendment 504, “performing” a “function under this Act”. If a pharmacist makes a grossly negligent mistake and mislabels a drug, which is then sent to another patient who takes it and dies, that would quite clearly be gross negligence manslaughter. Can the Minister explain why clause 24(1), as amended by amendment 504, would not allow someone to benefit from an immunity in respect of gross negligence manslaughter? To be clear, I agree that if the pharmacist intentionally mislabelled the drug, he could not be described as
“performing any other function under this Act”,
so he would not have that defence. However, in a case where, in good faith, he had made a fatal and grossly negligent mistake, surely he would have been performing such a function, albeit performing it very badly.
Can the Minister clearly set out the reasoning to explain why there is no chance of such a defence under the clause? Of course the hon. Member for Spen Valley does not intend to exempt from criminal liability a pharmacist acting in that grossly negligent way, but I am trying to make sense of the drafting of the amendment. If there is any criminal offence, other than in the Suicide Act, that requires an exemption, it would be best to say so clearly in the Bill rather than relying on a catch-all term, as subsection (1) does.
I concur with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate and will not repeat them, but I do find it interesting that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has chosen to retain the offence of assisting and encouraging suicide. This is because two arguments made by proponents of the Bill lead to the logical conclusion that the offence should either be repealed entirely or limited to self-conduct, as is the case in Switzerland. Let us look at the two arguments in turn.
The first argument relates to autonomy. If an autonomous individual with capacity decides to end their own life and requests the assistance of another person, why should that other person be criminalised? After all, that person is simply helping another person to do something to their own body that the law has not prohibited since 1961, so surely it is a violation of autonomy to criminalise such conduct of assisting in suicide.
Lord Mance, a former justice of the Supreme Court, put the matter as follows on Second Reading of the Meacher Bill in the other place:
“Suicide is decriminalised, yet assisting suicide remains criminal—probably a unique exception to the principle that you can only be an accomplice to an act that is itself criminal.”
It is bizarre that the act is not itself criminal but being an accomplice to it is. Lord Mance went on to say:
“If a person may choose freely to commit suicide, what justifies a refusal to allow them to obtain willing assistance?”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2021; Vol. 815, c. 408.]
I believe in the value of a prohibition on assistance, but the logic of the argument from autonomy—that someone should be allowed to request assistance to help them to die—surely obviates the distinction. I do not see why we have kept section 2 at all, and I would be interested in hearing from the supporters of the Bill what the limiting principle is. Why do they think assisted suicide should remain a crime, despite its being a limitation on autonomy, outside the scheme created by the Bill? Why are we simply creating a scheme within the Bill?
The second argument given, which I think relates to the intervention from the hon. Member for Sunderland Central and to the point made by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, is based on the fact that the current law requires people to travel to Switzerland. The argument against the current system comes in three forms. One stresses the toll that it places on families to know that the people who assist have committed a criminal offence and could be investigated by the police, even though the chances of prosecution are remote. I fully recognise and share all the concerns among Members about the terrible distress faced by people who may in any way have assisted their loved one to take their own life.
The second objection to the status quo makes the point about the unfairness that the situation creates. The hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) said on Second Reading:
“I do not want choice to be available only to those who can afford to pay. That is not just or equitable.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2024; Vol. 797, c. 1073.]
The suggestion is that to have to pay to go to Switzerland is a violation of equality.
The third is a constitutional argument. It is said that it is constitutionally improper for the Director of Public Prosecutions to have effectively decriminalised assisted suicide for people who travel to Switzerland. But the point I am trying to make is that under the Bill, anyone helping their relative to travel to Switzerland, or any other country, would still be committing an offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act.
Research from My Death, My Decision, a campaign group pushing for a wider Bill than the current one—it supports the Bill but clearly wants it to go further—has found that 50% of cases going to Dignitas would not be eligible under the Bill. It helps to make my point, which is that I am afraid that if the Bill were passed we would still have stories like the very moving testimony read out by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, there is a significant likelihood that there would be more prosecutions. If the Bill were enacted, the conclusion of the Crown Prosecution Service and the police might well be that, given the existence of an assisted dying regime within the UK, assisting one’s relative to go to Switzerland should be subject to a greater likelihood of prosecution. That is a legitimate concern.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The point that the hon. Gentleman is making is actually one that I made yesterday. I appreciate that we are on entirely different sides of the debate, but that is exactly why I was talking about ensuring wider eligibility—the point he makes in relation to My Death, My Decision—and ensuring the provision of assistance for people who might have illnesses such as motor neurone disease. We have had to put a cut-off somewhere, and some people fall outside it, but does he accept that fundamentally this is about making sure that there are safeguards? That is the key point: that we should ensure safeguards. What the hon. Gentleman is talking about is exactly that.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful. With great respect to other members of the Committee, I think the hon. Gentleman is the most honest advocate of assisted dying among us, because he genuinely recognises that autonomy demands the widest possible range of eligibility. It might be that other Members feel that we have the balance exactly right. I recognise the force of his argument that if we are going to introduce a new human right, it is very difficult to circumscribe its boundaries. He himself thinks that there should be some boundaries: he proposed an amendment that specified 12 months, and he thinks that only certain people should be able to ask someone else to perform assisted death to them. Nevertheless, he is acknowledging that if we believe in autonomy, the Bill would not satisfy some people.
I think it would be intellectually coherent and more logical for proponents of the Bill to want to repeal section 2 of the Suicide Act, and I do not understand why they are not doing so. We could certainly continue to insist on prohibitions against any form of coercion, persuasion or inducement to take one’s own life, but if somebody is clearly in their right mind and wants to receive assistance to kill themselves, that is the principle of the Bill. It would be neater if we amended the Suicide Act accordingly.
The fact that proponents do not want to do so suggests that they see some value in the law and that they consider that that value trumps concerns about autonomy and the impact of the law on family members of someone who wishes to travel to Switzerland to end their life. I agree that there are such principles—namely, the intrinsic value of life and the protection of the vulnerable—but I do not see why proponents of the Bill consider that such principles trump autonomy when it comes to terminally ill adults in England.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. My remarks, as ever, will focus on the legal and practical impact of the amendments to assist Members in undertaking line-by-line scrutiny. In exercising our duties to ensure that legislation that is passed is legally robust and workable, the Government have worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to reflect her intent.
Clause 24, as amended by amendments 504 and 505, will mean that individuals who assist a person to end their life in accordance with the terms of the Bill are not subject to criminal prosecution. Currently, it is a criminal offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 for a person to do an act that is
“capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person”
and intended
“to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide.”
That offence attracts a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. Amendment 504 would amend clause 24(1) to ensure that a person is not guilty of an offence—[Interruption.]
Sarah Sackman
I was introducing amendment 504, which amends clause 24(1) to ensure that a person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of providing assistance in accordance with, or performing a function under, the Bill—for example, by undertaking the first or second assessment or providing the approved substance. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that a person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with the Bill. The phrase “in accordance with” the Bill is key. For example, where someone accompanies a person to the appointment at which they will self-administer the substance, the amendment would carve out any criminal liability for the accompanying person.
As originally drafted, the wording would have limited the protection offered by subsection (1) to the far narrower situation of the medical professionals providing assistance under clause 18. The amendment will give effect to the policy intent of the hon. Member for Spen Valley of applying that protection to all those who provide assistance in accordance with, or by performing a function under, the Bill. Subsection (2) clarifies that the clause does not override other ways in which a court may find that a person is not guilty of an offence.
Clause 24(3) inserts proposed new section 2AA into the Suicide Act 1961. As amended by amendment 505, that new section ensures that it is not an offence under the Suicide Act to perform a function under the Bill, or to assist a person seeking to end their own life by doing anything under the Bill. That is for the same reasons that I set out in relation to subsection (1). The new section also provides a defence to the offence of encouraging or assisting suicide, where a person reasonably believes that they were acting in accordance with the Bill, and that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence.
Taken as a package, the effect of these amendments is to make the Bill legally workable. To do that, it is necessary to ensure that those who assist a person to use the lawful route are not then subject to criminal liability for doing so. Clause 24 clause, taken together with amendments 504 and 505, gives effect to that.
Let me address some of the issues raised by Opposition Members. There was a question as to whether there is any overlap between offences under the Bill—we will come to some of those offences in due course with clauses 26 and 27—and offences that remain on the statute book under the Suicide Act. The short answer to the question from the hon. Member for Reigate, although I know she has written to my Department, and I will ensure that she receives a full written answer, is that it would remain an offence under the Suicide Act 1961 to encourage suicide, including an assisted death under this Bill.
To the extent that any overlapping offences remain, that is not an unusual approach to drafting in the criminal law. However, the effect of the clause is that it would remain an offence under the 1961 Act to encourage someone to commit suicide. Where a person’s “encouragement”—the hon. Member focused on that term—is such that it amounts to what the courts would understand to be pressure or coercion, that could be an offence under clause 26, which we will come to. As I said, it is not unusual to have a degree of overlap in criminal offences. Again, what someone is charged and prosecuted with falls to the prosecutor, depending on the specific circumstances of the case and what would be most appropriate in that scenario.
I also want to address the scenario that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire posited, about whether a pharmacist who acted in a way that amounted to gross negligence manslaughter would benefit from immunity under clause 24(1) as amended. Again, with the important caveat that it will depend on the particular facts of the case, the offence of gross negligence manslaughter is committed where a death is the result of gross negligence in what would otherwise be a lawful act or omission on the part of the defendant, and where the defendant owes a duty of care to the victim—there are a number of actors within the Bill’s process who owe a duty of care to the person applying for assisted dying.
Let us assume for a moment that, in the hon. Member’s scenario, we do have gross negligence manslaughter on the particular facts; in those circumstances, the Government are content that the pharmacist could not be properly said to be performing a function under the Bill, or in accordance with the Bill, so clause 24(1)—the carve-out from criminal liability—would not apply. I think that that covers most of the questions that were posited earlier.
Danny Kruger
It may well be that the Minister has clarified the case sufficiently, but will she explain something for my sake? She is suggesting that the pharmacist inadvertently but negligently caused the death of a patient, having performed the duties under the Bill and believing that they were doing so. Surely, they were performing duties under the Bill, so they would potentially be captured by the carve-out.
Sarah Sackman
Again, it would depend on the actual facts. However, if they were attempting to perform duties under the Bill, it is highly unlikely that, in circumstances where the facts establish and meet the threshold of gross negligence manslaughter, they could be said to have carried out those duties in accordance with the Bill. They might have been carrying out duties that they thought were what the Bill prescribed, but if they have done that in such a way that it amounts to gross negligence manslaughter, then clause 24(1) would not apply.
The hon. Gentleman makes the point about what the pharmacist in that scenario believes they are doing; that belief has to be reasonable, and that is a test that our courts are well used to applying. That is why the amendments introduce the belief that someone is acting in accordance with the Bill. It is not enough that they think they are doing it; it has to be a reasonable belief. That is an objective standard.
Rebecca Paul
I thank the Minister for those helpful clarifications. Was any consideration given to also exempting encouragement as an offence under the Suicide Act? I am interested in why it was not exempted in the same way as assistance, particularly given that if it did fall within coercion and pressure—based on what the Minister said—it would get picked up as a criminal offence anyway under the Bill. I appreciate that the Minister will write to me on some of this, but the issue comes back to what is encouragement. As the hon. Member for Spen Valley set out—
The Chair
Order. As I have said time after time, if it is a question of receiving clarification, Members should keep their comments short, rather than expanding on them.
Rebecca Paul
My apologies, Mr Dowd, but it is a technical point. I think the Minister understands what I am asking.
Sarah Sackman
Helpfully, the hon. Member has also set out her questions fully and precisely in a letter to me, so I think I know what she is asking and I will try and answer it as best I can. I reiterate, as I and the Minister for Care have said throughout, that the policy choices have been for the promoter—the Government remain neutral. The offence of encouraging or assisting suicide or attempted suicide in section 2 of the Suicide Act is well established. Encouraging someone to go through the assisted dying process under the Bill with the intention of encouraging suicide or an attempt at suicide would therefore remain a criminal offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act. That is what I made clear earlier.
What we are talking about will always depend on the particular circumstances of the case. It is the Government’s view that in a scenario—I think this is what the hon. Member for Reigate is getting at—where a family member or friend simply suggests to a person with a terminal condition that the option of assisted death under the Bill is something they may wish to consider, and nothing more, it is unlikely—dare I say, inconceivable—that that would amount to an offence under the 1961 Act.
However, if someone encourages a person in a more tangible way, such as encouraging or pressuring them to make the first declaration, that could well amount to an offence under the 1961 Act. Where that encouragement crosses the threshold into what, interpreted in line with their natural meaning, the courts would understand as pressure or coercion, that could amount to an offence under clause 26 of the Bill, which we will come to in due course. I hope that that addresses the hon. Lady’s question. I will set that out to her in writing, and she is welcome to write back if there is any ambiguity.
I hope that that assists the Committee. I am going to sit down before anybody else intervenes.
The Chair
May I make an observation? I understand where the hon. Member for Reigate is coming from, but if letters have gone back and forth to the Department and other Committee members are not privy to what they say, the debate gets a little abstract. That is all I am trying to get to—we should not get too abstract, so that everybody knows what is being said.
Rebecca Paul
I appreciate that, Mr Dowd, which is why I was elaborating—I wanted to make sure that everyone understood the nature of the question without having seen the letter. In order to summarise, following your instruction, I refer to the letter.
Kim Leadbeater
I have nothing further to add.
Amendment 504 agreed to.
Amendment made: 505, in clause 24, page 15, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert
“—
(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025, or performing any other function under that Act in accordance with that Act, or
(b) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that Act, in connection with the doing of anything under that Act.”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)
This amendment ensures that it is not an offence under the Suicide Act 1961 to perform a function under the Bill, or to assist a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of anything under the Bill.
Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Civil liability for providing assistance
Kim Leadbeater
I beg to move amendment 501, in clause 25, page 15, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) The doing of any of the following does not, of itself, give rise to any civil liability—
(a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with this Act;
(b) performing any other function under this Act in accordance with this Act;
(c) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with this Act, in connection with the doing of anything under this Act.
(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply—
(a) in relation to an act done dishonestly, or in some other way done otherwise than in good faith, or
(b) to any liability in tort arising from a breach of a duty of care owed to a person.”.
This amendment ensures that the exclusion from civil liability applies in relation to persons performing functions under the Bill, and persons assisting a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of things under the Bill. It also excepts, from the exclusion from civil liability, things done dishonestly or not in good faith, and any liability arising out of negligence.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 502, in clause 25, page 15, line 34, after “life” insert
“, or to attempt to do so,”.
This amendment and amendment 503 are consequential on amendment 501.
Amendment 503, Clause 25, page 15, line 36, leave out subsection (3).
See the statement for amendment 502.
Clause stand part.
Kim Leadbeater
The amendments ensure that the exclusion from civil liability applies in relation to persons performing functions under the Bill and persons assisting a person seeking to end their own life in connection with the doing of things under the Bill. Importantly, they also rightly exempt from the exclusion from civil liability things done dishonestly or not in good faith, and any liability arising from negligence.
Proposed new subsection (1) in amendment 501 makes it clear that anyone providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with the Bill will not face civil liability simply for doing so. That is crucial in offering clarity and confidence for healthcare professionals, family members or others who might otherwise hesitate due to fear of being sued for assisting a loved one or patient who wishes to end their life as a result of their terminal illness.
However, although we are providing protection, amendment 501 does not allow for unfettered actions without any accountability. Proposed new subsection (1A) ensures that any actions that are dishonest or done in bad faith are not protected from civil liability. Additionally, it states that breaches of a duty of care, such as negligence, are also not exempt from liability. This provision is a critical safeguard. It ensures that, although we provide legal protection for those acting with compassion and integrity, we also prevent exploitation or irresponsible actions, by making it clear that there is no immunity for actions that are dishonest or negligent. That strikes the right balance between compassionate assistance and legal accountability.
The amendment particularly reassures doctors, nurses, and healthcare workers—those who are most likely to be involved in the process. Often, they are deeply committed to palliative care and to supporting patients through their end of life journey, and the amendment ensures that they will not face legal risk if they provide assistance to eligible individuals under the Bill.
Danny Kruger
I rise to speak to clause 25 as a whole. First, though, I welcome the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, because I recognise that she is attempting to fix a problem with the Bill.
However, I am afraid that my objection remains: the fact is that no other assisted suicide law in the world—including in common law jurisdictions similar to our own, such as Australia or New Zealand—has such a clause. There can be no justification for it. If, in the course of providing assistance under this Bill, a doctor commits a civil wrong, they ought to be liable for it in the usual way.
I am glad the hon. Lady has realised that a total exclusion of civil liability is not justifiable, but her change does not go far enough. Her amendments would preserve civil liability where an act was done dishonestly—not in good faith—or for liability in tort, based on the breach of a duty of care, or in other words the tort of negligence. However, it is worth noting that that still excludes civil liability in other respects, and we should ask whether that is justifiable.
First, the clause would still exclude civil liability under a contract, so a patient who has received improper care in breach of contract would not fall within either of the exceptions of proposed new subsection (1A). I take the point that, in the case of negligent care, there would often be a concurrent liability under the tort of negligence, and that that is preserved by new subsection (1A)(b), but that is not the case for other forms of contractual arrangements.
That might be particularly relevant in the situation of subcontracting. An example would be where an outsourcing company is tasked with transporting the lethal substance. Given the risks involved, the contract specifies strict rules that must be complied with, but the company does not comply with those rules. Under clause 25, even as amended, my concern is that they could not be sued for that breach of contract. What is the justification for excluding civil liability in contracts?
Secondly, there is the tort of trespass to the person, which is commonly relevant to medical practice, as it is under such torts that cases where there was no consent or capacity are handled. Those torts can be committed recklessly, but recklessness is not the same as bad faith or dishonesty, so liability could not be established under new subsection (1A)(a). Such torts are also different from negligence—they do not involve a duty of care—so they would not be covered by new subsection (1A)(b). I appreciate that, in many cases, liability could also be established under the tort of negligence, but that would not be the case in all cases. So I ask again: what is the justification for this exclusion?
Finally, and most concerning, we were told in previous debates that if it turned out that the criteria for an assisted death were not met, one could always apply for an injunction. Leaving aside the practical and financial obstacles involved in seeking an injunction at the last minute, which we have discussed before, my concern is that a private law injunction requires that a civil wrong either has been committed or is about to be committed. However, in a case where the doctors consider, in good faith and without negligence, that the criteria have been met, but the family has new evidence to show that that is not the case, the effect of clause 25, even as amended, would be that no civil wrong has been, or would be, committed in that instance, so the test for a private law injunction would not be met.
I might be wrong, so I would be interested to hear whether the Minister or the hon. Member for Spen Valley disagree with that analysis. I would be grateful if they could point out how the private law test for an interim injunction is met in such an instance.
All this could be much simpler if clause 25 were left out of the Bill entirely. Australia and New Zealand do not have such a clause or a civil liability exemption for practitioners of assisted suicide, and I am not aware of that having caused problems for practitioners, so I would be interested to understand why we need such a measure here.
Jake Richards
I welcome the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. As I think she accepts, given that she tabled the amendments, there is an oddity with the Bill as drafted that has to be fixed, and I think the amendments would do that.
I appreciate that there is some force to the argument of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. I would be interested to hear what the Minister says, but it seems to me that there is a balancing act between ensuring that medical practitioners and clinicians are working in an environment in which they do not constantly feel the heat of a lawyer’s breath on their neck, and ensuring protections. There is some force to the argument for removing the clause altogether, but on balance I see more force in the argument that we should have more clarity.
I want to raise some more issues that need to be considered in the light of the provision for aspects of civil liability in this process. That is why last night I supported the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, which was not passed, relating to guidance for doctors in certain circumstances during this process. I raise those points about the standard of care and the duty that doctors and clinicians will be working to throughout the process for the record, and so that the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley can take them forward. I raise those questions not because they are unanswerable—I think they are answerable—but because we need to work out exactly what we are asking our doctors to work to, and what form that guidance comes in. Does it need to be legitimised by Parliament, or can it be undertaken by a Minister?
I do not think I need to expand greatly on the point, but we can all imagine circumstances in which clinicians are compromised in their view of the duty of care that they have to the patient. When this process begins in this jurisdiction, it needs to be clear what that is.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Well done for arriving on time, by the way.
These amendments aim to ensure that, if passed, this legislation will be legally and operationally workable. I will offer a technical, factual explanation and rationale for them. Amendments 501, 502 and 503 replace clause 25(1) and instead provide that the provision of assistance in accordance with the Bill will, of itself, not give rise to civil liabilities in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are where an individual provides assistance in accordance with the Bill, where an individual performs any other function under the Bill in accordance with the Bill, and where an individual assists a person seeking to end their life under the Bill, in connection with the doing of anything under the Bill. Proposed new subsection (1A) would create an exception to the exclusion of civil liabilities, providing that civil liabilities can arise in cases when an act is performed dishonestly or otherwise than in good faith, as well as in cases of negligence. Without this amendment, there is the possibility that clause 25(1) could provide blanket immunity to a person from all civil liabilities, even when they may have been negligent in their actions in providing assistance in accordance with the provisions in the Bill.
Kim Leadbeater
I will speak briefly on this issue. An important point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley about the protections that clause 25 and these amendments provide for medical practitioners. I think the clause strikes the right balance, but it is important to remove the blanket immunity. My hon. Friend referred to codes of practice and codes of conduct. We have talked a lot about good medical practice from the General Medical Council, and we have a clause in the Bill on codes of practice. I feel confident in the clause, but I am still having regular meetings with officials about the legal implications of the Bill. I will continue those conversations, but I am happy that the clause as it stands serves the correct purpose.
Kit Malthouse
Will the hon. Lady respond to the point about injunctions? The Minister might want to respond to this as well. My understanding is that in order to obtain an injunction, someone does not have to establish that there is either a civil wrong or a criminal offence. They have to establish that there is a serious matter to be adjudicated, and that there is a strong likelihood of harm taking place. In those circumstances, a court would consider granting an interim injunction, subject then to a further hearing, ex parte or otherwise. The idea that some kind of civil tort needs to be established is not actually correct in seeking an injunction.
Kim Leadbeater
That would be my understanding as well, but I am not a lawyer. Fortunately, a lawyer just tried to intervene on me, so he might want to step in.
Jake Richards
My intervention is on something completely different. I have been reminded that in Australia, there is a specific clause that relates to the provision in this amendment almost word for word, so I think the hon. Member for East Wiltshire may have been incorrect in his comments.
Kim Leadbeater
I thank my hon. Friend for that. Unless the Minister has anything to add on injunctions—
The Chair
Order. Can the Committee address all remarks to me, please? I have said this time after time. This is not a dialogue or a chit-chat across the room.
Sarah Sackman
I will address the point about injunctions, which we have touched on at a number of junctures in our debate. In terms of applying for an interim injunction in a civil case, a very well-established test is the American Cyanamid test, which all the lawyers in the room would have learned at law school. The first of those tests is, “Is there a serious issue to be tried?” Someone does not have to establish to the civil standard—
The Chair
Order. Can we get the order of debate right? Members may make a speech for as long as they want, on the issues they want. They may intervene to get clarity from another Member, but that has to be short and sweet. There is nothing to stop a Member from making another speech, even if they have spoken before. I exhort Members, if they want clarity, to make a speech separately, unless it is a very short intervention. If it is going to be a long intervention, they may well want to make another de facto speech and get clarity through that. They are entitled to stand up as much as they want. I am not encouraging Members to do that, but that is the gist. If the Minister wants to stand up again and clarify the point in its own speech, that is fine.
Kim Leadbeater
Thank you, Chair, and apologies. I thank the Minister for the intervention and I think she did make the point that needed to be made.
The Chair
I hope my remarks were of some help. I might repeat them again in due course.
Amendment 501 agreed to.
Amendments made: 502, in clause 25, page 15, line 34, after “life” insert
“, or to attempt to do so,”.
This amendment and amendment 503 are consequential on amendment 501.
Amendment 503, in clause 25, page 15, line 36, leave out subsection (3).—(Kim Leadbeater.)
See the statement for amendment 502.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Kim Leadbeater
I beg to move amendment 506, in clause 26, page 16, line 7, leave out “in accordance with” and insert “under”.
This amendment provides that the offence under subsection (2) applies in relation to an approved substance provided under the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 507, in clause 26, page 16, line 9, leave out “or (2)”.
This amendment limits subsection (3) to offences under subsection (1).
Amendment 508, in clause 26, page 16, line 10, at end insert—
“(4) A person who commits an offence under subsection (2) is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.”
This amendment provides for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for an offence under subsection (2).
Amendment 509, in clause 26, page 16, line 10, at end insert—
“(5) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be instituted only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”
This amendment provides that proceedings for an offence under this clause may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Clause stand part.
Kim Leadbeater
These amendments to clause 26—and clause 27 to some degree, which I will come on to shortly—are intended to clarify offences under the law. The changes refine the language to ensure that offences relating to dishonesty, coercion and pressure are more clearly defined. The amendments serve to clarify the details of four categories of offences, and I will provide a summary of the four categories.
The first category is when someone
“by dishonesty, coercion or pressure, induces another person to self-administer an approved substance”.
This offence, in clause 26(2), is the most serious offence. It is coercing or pressuring someone to take their own life; it includes coercive control and pressure, and it attracts as the maximum a life sentence—the most severe punishment that the law can impose.
The second category of offences includes
“by dishonesty, coercion or pressure,”
inducing
“another person to make a first or second declaration, or not to cancel such a declaration.”
This is in clause 26(1). It is where the criminal conduct has coerced or pressured someone to execute or not cancel the declarations—a step in the process, but not actually ending their own life. It is the second most serious offence, and attracts a maximum of 14 years in prison.
The third category of offences involves making or using a false instrument—first declaration, second declaration, medical report or within-six-months-or-less diagnosis—or failing to notify the cancellation of a relevant declaration, with the intention of facilitating the provision of assistance under the Act. That actually comes under new clause 24, which will be discussed in relation to clause 27, but I think it is important to look at the offences in the round. This is the third type of offence. It is a new offence, and it covers cases where a person helps another person to obtain assistance under the Act by falsifying documents to get that assistance or to prevent it from being removed. This is still very serious, and attracts a maximum sentence of 14 years. It will most often be applied where the person seeking the assistance wishes to get round the safeguards. The safeguards must be rigorously enforced, hence the same maximum as for the second category of offence.
Rebecca Paul
I will be fairly brief. I welcome amendment 508, which would ensure that conviction for the offence leads to a necessarily serious result. However, it is not just the strength of the sentence that we need to think about; there is also a question about how difficult it can be to detect and demonstrate coercion in the first place.
Domestic abuse prosecutions have followed an overall downward trend over the past decade, according to Women’s Aid. A report from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner in January found the criminal justice system unfit to hold abusers to account and safeguard domestic abuse victims. Domestic abuse victims are being failed by the criminal justice system at every stage, from police to probation. Victims seeking safety in justice routinely face a lack of specialist service referrals, poor enforcement of protective orders, court delays and early release of abusers. The commissioner also found that just 5% of police-recorded domestic abuse offences reached conviction and that less than a fifth of victims have the confidence to report to the police in the first place. Within the police workforce itself, only 4% of alleged domestic abuse perpetrators are dismissed.
Women’s Aid says that trust in the criminal justice system is at an all-time low, with domestic abuse survivors not feeling that they will be believed and supported when reporting abuse. That is even more challenging for black and minoritised survivors, who face additional barriers and poor responses when they seek help.
Kim Leadbeater
The hon. Lady is making a point that we have already covered several times in the debate. It is an important point, but I hope that she is reassured by the offences to be included in the Bill, which create sentences that do not currently exist.
Rebecca Paul
I am absolutely reassured by the hon. Lady’s amendment, and I welcome it, but it is worth drawing attention to the fact that the sentence is important but identifying coercion and pressure can be difficult too.
In written evidence, a social worker called Rose has cast doubt on the workability of the Bill. She was writing when the High Court safeguard was still part of the Bill, so we need to bear that in mind, but what she said applies to the panel too. She wrote that
“based on lived experience…there is no authentic provision mechanism or route that cheaply and swiftly would allow an approved palliative care professional…or social worker to act to protect a vulnerable person under the grounds of coercion….Place yourself in a position of being sick or older, coerced by family for financial gain or by a practitioner wanting to save public costs to pursue assisted suicide, the social worker senses it by body language, a squeezing of their wrist, a sharp silencing look. Can you see a judge saying: ‘the social worker sensed a tension in the air and a look’.
Do you think that would serve to reach the threshold to override a request for assisted suicide in a court of law?
In practice, what would happen would be, the social worker will record her concerns on the system, share them with her manager who will go to her manager who will say we do not have funds to consult legal and your evidence provided does not reach threshold anyway.”
The Chair
Order. I am genuinely trying to give as much latitude as possible, but the issue of coercion has come up before. In the context of the offence, I am not sure that this is necessarily pertinent or relevant. Will the hon. Lady bear that in mind during her speech, please?
Rebecca Paul
Thank you, Mr Dowd. In that case, I will stop there. I was just making the point that this is important.
Amendment 509 states:
“Proceedings for an offence under this section may be instituted only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”
I would find it useful to have more clarity around how the offence is used currently, why it is used and why it is appropriate to use it in this instance. Those are all genuine questions. I simply do not know, so I would be grateful for some input. I will leave it there.
Danny Kruger
I will be grateful if the Minister or the hon. Member for Spen Valley can explain the situations in which behaviour criminalised by clause 26(2) would not also amount to an offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act, as amended, or indeed to murder. What behaviour would be criminalised here that is not already criminal? Can the hon. Lady think of any instance in which there would be no crime under section 2 of the Suicide Act, but there would be an offence under clause 26(2)? If there is no such instance—I cannot think of one—it strikes me that, at least in respect of coercion and pressure, the offence being created here is redundant and duplicative.
Ministers have rightly stressed the importance of their duty to the statute book. My understanding is that having redundant or duplicative legislation, or indeed duplicative offences, would be inconsistent with our duty to the statute book. One might ask, “What does it matter? Wouldn’t it be helpful to have additional belt-and-braces safeguards in the Bill?” I agree in principle, but I note that when other Members have deployed that argument in relation to adding terms such as “undue influence”, the neutral Ministers have rebuked them by appealing to the duty that we are supposed to have to the statute book. I think the point cuts both ways. Why are we embroidering the statute book with duplicative offences?
Kim Leadbeater
I would have thought, given the hon. Gentleman’s views on the Bill, that he would welcome having an actual offence for the purposes of the Bill. Surely that is something that we should all support.
Danny Kruger
I support the principle of insisting that inducing people by dishonesty, coercion or pressure to kill themselves should be illegal, but my understanding is that it already is. If it is not illegal, or if there are circumstances in which we need this additional offence that are not already captured by the Suicide Act or the law on murder, I would like to understand what they are. As I say, while it might be helpful to duplicate the offence, I understand that the very sensible convention in our law is that it is not helpful to have two offences relating to the same act because of the opportunity for offenders to play off one offence against the other.
Having duplicative criminal offences can make prosecuting cases harder because the defendant can raise abuse-of-process arguments about whether they have been charged with the most appropriate offence. I understand that the Attorney General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice are therefore usually very keen to avoid duplicative offences.
Let me give an example of the difference in the treatment of the offence. It is proposed that this offence would be subject to a life sentence, which requires the consent of the DPP. But at least in the one case where it overlaps with murder, this would provide a more favourable treatment for the accused than the other obvious charge. Can that be justified?
Duplicating criminal liability by introducing new offences has far-reaching implications that can disturb the coherence and certainty of criminal law. If one introduces a law that gives prosecutors two criminal offences to choose from to cover one act, some prosecutors will choose one and some will choose the other. This is generally undesirable; indeed, it is unprecedented in the case of homicide, where there is every reason to suspect that it could cause chaos for grieving families in search of justice. Such chaos is all too predictable, for a number of reasons.
Let me give an example. A defendant proven to have procured a suicide by deception will be well advised to plead guilty to the offence contrary to section 26(2) and then contest any attempt to introduce murder proceedings. This matters profoundly. A decision to prosecute is an administrative decision and is subject to judicial review. This is not an academic point; it could cause real distress for bereaved families in deep turmoil seeking justice.
Let us imagine that a person, A, is a new coercive and controlling partner of person B and procures by deception their suicide in order to profit from a will. The family of person B grow suspicious and provide the police with a convincing case for a murder prosecution. The CPS agrees and charges A with murder. A accepts that he procured the suicide by deception. On that basis, he appeals, seeking a remedy in judicial review, saying that the CPS should have charged him with a clause 26(2) offence, not murder. The JR is backed by wealthy pressure groups and is beset with administrative adjournments and so on. From the filing of the claim form to the final judgment of the administrative court within the High Court, the case takes 24 gruelling, painful, awful months for the bereaved family.
Throughout this time, the lawyers for A, the defendant, tell him to stay the course and continue to offer the plea to section 26(2), because the family will be exhausted by the reality of litigation. The family have no legal aid, no support, no charity backing and no one interested in their case. The war of attrition in litigation finally defeats them. They advise the CPS that they will accept a plea under the section 26(2) offence, and not the murder that actually occurred. That is the reality of duplicating criminal liability. In that example, A has got away with murder by judicial review.
We must be clear about what we are being asked to do. It is not simple. We are being asked to innovate in the law of murder. We are being asked to do so without the assistance of the Law Commission, without the careful eye of legal or judicial bodies alive to the difficulties of duplicating liability and without the input of any bodies that represent the victims of crime on how this might affect them. There are no Government consultations with such bodies before us. There is no expert assistance from judicial or legal figures on how the good intentions around clause 26(2) might unintentionally lead to serious and undesirable consequences such as those that I have described.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, who has raised some concerns for me. I rise to speak in support of the amendments, but also to raise some points. I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but let me begin by speaking about the bits that I feel pleased with and able to support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has already explained the amendments and may explain them more later. I am pleased that they tidy up errors in the original construction of the Bill. In its original form, subsection (2) rightly states:
“A person who, by dishonesty, coercion or pressure, induces another person to self-administer an approved substance provided in accordance with this Act commits an offence.”
Unfortunately, in the Bill as drafted, the penalty for such an act is only a prison sentence of 14 years. It is quite right for that to be the penalty for the offence detailed in subsection (1), namely when someone,
“by dishonesty, coercion or pressure, induces another person to make a first or second declaration”,
but does not actually succeed in getting them to the end of the assisted dying process. However, it is easy to agree that 14 years is an inadequate penalty for successfully coercing or pressurising somebody into an assisted death. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has recognised that problem and has tabled an amendment that would impose a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for such an offence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central made a powerful speech in this Committee the other day, in which he said that abusive or coercive people are already likely to be forcing their victims to starve themselves or refuse treatment. That is true, and I thank him for raising that important point. I will welcome all measures to make it harder for abusers to do so and will gladly work with hon. Members to do so. However, I want to sound a strong note of caution.
Creating an offence and giving it a strong maximum penalty is only one of the ways to deter abuse and coercion, and perhaps the easiest. As I have mentioned before, the conviction rate for coercion is only about 4%. There are other things that we need to do to deter and prevent abuse. We need the people who may come into contact with it to be aware of what could happen; we need them to be able to spot the signs that it may be happening; we need ways to investigate those signs carefully. Only when we have done those things can we move on to the CPS potentially prosecuting somebody for an offence and, if they are found guilty by the court, to sentencing that person. Those are matters that this clause deals with, and they come at the end of a process.
I welcome the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), which makes training in domestic abuse and coercion mandatory for professionals working on assisted dying cases, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has accepted. However, new training on its own will not be enough to make it near-impossible for abusers to succeed. Having unfortunately had lots of experience in the area—having seen it in my own life, the lives of people close to me and the lives of constituents—I know that sometimes abusers are not subtle. Even so, they can be hard to catch, because their victims cannot recognise that they are being abused. The classic—I wish I had a pound for every time I heard it—is “He’s changed.” There are hundreds of justifications and some are very subtle indeed. These people can be very hard to catch, or they may never be caught at all.
I have heard hon. Members say—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said it earlier—that the Bill strengthens the safeguards around people who are terminally ill, because those are not there in the first place. I appreciate that idea, but that is just for those people who are terminally ill. I want to strengthen safeguards more generally. In some ways, the Bill offers people a new opportunity to be coercive, controlling and dishonest. That is why I have been banging on about safeguards so much in this Committee; perhaps people find it a bit much, but I do it because abusers are very persistent and clever people and we have to be clever and persistent in how we devise our safeguards against them.
Although I welcome the clause and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, I am disappointed that other safeguards have been rejected. I still say that the panel procedure could and should be much tougher. That would not guarantee that abusers would be caught, but it would make it more likely.
The Chair
Order. Members cannot continue to talk about the substance of amendments that have already been rejected, and we are now going into that territory. I am not going to stop the hon. Lady talking, but rehashing debates about amendments that we have already had is not in order.
Naz Shah
I apologise, Mr Dowd. I will not refer to them.
I come back to the point made by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire about DPP consent. I will be grateful if the Minister picks up some of these queries. In this place, we make laws. My experience of the law on forced marriage—I was a victim of forced marriage—was that we made a law but never got any convictions. Very little moved on it, because we already had laws in place to prosecute that offence. I am not saying that the same is happening here, but I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that we may be making a law that already exists. If it already exists in the Suicide Act, are we just making a law for the sake of putting something on the statute book or on the face of the Bill?
We have talked a lot about how we should not complicate things. The word “complication” has been used quite a lot in this Committee. Are we adding another layer of complication by putting this measure in the Bill, when we are not prepared to do so for other things that people feel strongly about? This is also something that already exists.
My understanding is that if we were prosecuting coercion, for which unfortunately the prosecution rate is only 4%, that would not need DPP consent. It would be needed, potentially, for assisting suicide, but not for coercion. Do we need some clarity about the application of the law in this regard? Suppose we had a scenario in which somebody was murdered: it was premeditated, and somebody had thought through how to use this process as an avenue to kill that person. I do not want us to make a law that would allow somebody to literally get away with murder. More thought needs to be given to that. I am not an expert or an eminent lawyer like the Minister, but I am concerned by the comments of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, having looked more closely at the issue. I would welcome the Minister’s comments.