Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kohler]

I agree entirely with the hon. Member. It would not be a free choice if we make that choice now, given the standard of palliative care.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Kohler]

This is the last one; I will.

[Christine Jardine]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I share with him concerns about the level and quality of palliative care in this country. However, I do not agree that giving people the choice to end their life, if they are terminally ill and have been diagnosed as dying shortly, in any way undermines our ability as a House to insist on an improvement in palliative care. What is more, statistics from other jurisdictions show that once given that choice, people often turn to palliative care.

[Mr Kohler]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Giving people a choice when they look on the internet and see how awful their death might be because of the shocking state of palliative care is not a free choice.

This is an extraordinary Bill. It has 55 clauses and 38 regulation-making powers, of which five are Henry VIII powers—in other words, powers to modify primary legislation. As Ruth Fox of the non-partisan Hansard Society, which is absolutely neutral on assisted dying, made clear, there are lots of powers in the Bill conferred on Ministers. Why is that a problem? Lord Hermer KC, the Attorney General, in his Bingham lecture last year, puts the point as follows:

“Henry VIII clauses…upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law…but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.”

I am afraid the Bill is an example of such excessive reliance. That is a major problem because in large part the safeguards are left to be decided by regulations. What level of qualification and training will doctors need to have? How will mental capacity be assessed? Who can be a proxy? What happens if the self-administration of drugs goes wrong and a person suffers complications but does not die? When pressed on the key safeguards and key issues, supporters of the Bill say that they are problems that can be approved later.

The same goes for how the Bill will actually be delivered. Will it be delivered by the NHS, and if so, how? Will private providers be commissioned, and if so, how, by who and on what terms? Will for-profit providers be allowed? All those questions go unanswered by the Bill. I had hoped that they would be answered in Committee, but they were not, and instead we got even more reliance on delegated powers.

First, that means that MPs cannot make a judgment about assisted dying and how it will work in practice. On training, for example, MPs might assume that the training provided will be a robust two-week course on assessing coercive control, but there is no such requirement in the Bill. Indeed, the impact assessment suggests that it would be a short course. Secondly, regulations cannot override statute and are ultimately bound by it. While it might be reassuring that a code of practice must be issued to take into account how depression can impair a person’s decision making, as the Royal College of Psychiatrists recently reminded us, that does not change the fact that impaired judgment does not mean that someone lacks capacity. Thirdly, leaving all those matters to be considered by guidance and regulations places them outside the democratic control of MPs. With limited exceptions, we will not get a vote on those regulations, and will have no input, directly or indirectly, in formulating them.

The case for the defence might be that reliance on such guidance and regulations is inevitable with a Bill of this complexity, but the experience of other common law jurisdictions suggests that that is not the case. In Victoria, the first Australian state to legalise assisted dying, there are only 20 pages of regulations and much more has been included in the Act, which is necessarily longer than the Bill before us. That is a good thing, as it means more parliamentary scrutiny.

I wholly understand why it was not possible for the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) to draft a Bill as detailed as the Australian Act before Second Reading, but I had hoped that with the help of Government resources, those gaps would have been filled in Committee and on Report. Sadly, that is not the case. [Interruption.] I had much more to speak about, but heeding your cough, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say clearly that I will vote against the Bill, but even if Members disagree with me, they should please vote for my amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think it matters how one is going to vote on this issue; a lot of us are finding it very frustrating that some Members seem to be deliberately hanging about in the Lobbies to delay the process. In order to get the Bill through and for the public to see that we are respecting their wishes, can something be done to appeal to the better natures of those Members? It really looks petty and childish. Could they please abstain from doing it the next time?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. She will have seen that I sent the Sergeant at Arms to investigate the delay.