Eating Disorder Awareness

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I acknowledge and thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for her long campaign on this topic, for securing this debate and for all that she has done and will probably have to continue to do on this agenda for a while. I entirely endorse the campaign and the things that need to happen that she and the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) have outlined.

Eating disorders present an utter tragedy to families and to young people. Last week I met a family in my constituency whose daughter is in the grip of anorexia. We had a long conversation about both the services available and the nature of the illness itself. I asked the simple question, “What is anorexia and where does it come from?” Despite the extent of their experience and all the reading they have done, it was a very difficult question to answer. The answer included that it is like an addiction, or has the qualities of an addiction. There is apparently a genetic component, and a link with autism. As the hon. Member for Bath suggested, there is a clear element of social contagion—her points about social media are extremely important. It strikes me that in many ways anorexia is an illness of modernity. It is a consequence of the pressures that young people and, indeed, older people can face in this very difficult world we live in. That suggests that a multiplicity of responses are appropriate.

I pay tribute not just to colleagues here, on the APPG and across the House who campaign on this issue, but to campaigners from outside Parliament, including Chelsea Roff, Hope Virgo, Agnes Ayton and others, whom I have got to know in the last couple of years. I honour their expertise and commitment.

As the hon. Member for Bath said, and as cannot be pointed out too often, eating disorders, and anorexia in particular, are treatable illnesses. The services are in absolute crisis, as we have heard, but we should never lose sight of the fact that the illnesses are treatable. There is clearly desperate confusion in the NHS between the physical and mental dimensions, particularly when it comes to the extreme acute phase of anorexia. We know it is the most dangerous mental illness in terms of the tragedy of death. There is clearly a lot to do in reconciling the mental and physical sides of our health service.

The hon. Member for Bath and I are on different sides on this, and the Minister and I have been debating it over the last month or so, but I have to acknowledge my concern about the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Currently, there are patients in our NHS who are diagnosed with eating disorders—anorexia in particular—who are categorised as terminally ill by the system and put on a palliative care pathway, because the system decides that their condition is not in fact treatable. It is scandalous and tragic that people who have a condition that is eminently treatable are categorised as terminally ill.

My great concern is that if we were to pass that Bill, we would end up with people being diagnosed as eligible for an assisted death. It is important to acknowledge that in other countries that have assisted dying laws, our understanding is that, in all those jurisdictions, people with anorexia have qualified for and been given an assisted death. In 100% of the cases that we know about, they passed the capacity test that we would apply here in our country. That is my great concern.

[Wera Hobhouse]

It is important that we stress that an eating disorder is not a terminal illness and therefore should not fall under that legislation. I know that the hon. Gentleman and I agree on that; I think we disagree on his worries about how it would be treated, practically, in the future. An eating disorder is not a terminal illness.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I entirely agree. It is vital to stress that point, and I am sure the Minister agrees.

I agree with the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Salford that we need a complete reformation of the system—I will not repeat the points of the campaign, which I endorse. I am deeply concerned about the prospect of cuts to eating disorder services. It is a great shame that the proportion of NHS spending on mental health is declining. That is very significant.

I pay tribute to the sufferers—these amazing people who battle through this awful illness. They are mostly girls but also young men—I know a young man who is still in the grip of the condition. And I pay tribute to their families. I emphasise, as I am sure the hon. Member for Bath would, given her experience, that there is hope. We must not give up on these young people. We must absolutely provide the services that are needed. We need to get our systems and our society right.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting)

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was simply asking what causes him to object to physician-administered assistance to die. If he supports the principle of assisted suicide and believes in doctor autonomy, why does he not think that doctors should be able to administer the fatal dose?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

This gets to the root of how the law has operated in another jurisdiction, Switzerland, where Dignitas has managed this scenario over the past 40 years or so. The key—these are the words that its own guidance uses—is ensuring that the power of control remains with the person seeking the assisted death. That provides the individual who is making the choice with the ultimate autonomy at the end in controlling the circumstances and the manner in which they pass.

I have set out why I feel that although amendment 463 arises from good intentions, it would not achieve what is intended. There is a real risk that the constraints that adopting the amendment would create would lead to the regrettable unintended consequence of individuals being forced to have an assisted death at an earlier stage than they would otherwise have wished.

I can deal with amendments 497 and 498 in short order. They would tighten up the Bill by providing greater clarity around the circumstances in which the substance would be removed from the presence of the individual who had previously indicated a wish to have an assisted death. Amendment 497 specifies that the individual would need to set out to the co-ordinating doctor that they no longer desired to go through with the process. In my view, that is eminently sensible. Amendment 498 elaborates on the Bill to provide greater clarity to those who will be operating it. It will make it a much more workable piece of legislation. I support both amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will pretty much repeat what I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. There is a dividing line, as the Government see it, between assistance and administration. There is a dividing line between making the patient comfortable, enabling the procedure to take place, and the doctor actually putting the substance into the body of the patient. From the Government’s point of view, simply from the position of having a picture of the process in our mind, that dividing line is clear enough in the drafting of the clause.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful that the Minister is allowing us to push him on this, because it is crucial. This is the moment beyond which there is no return. He thinks that helping a patient to sit up would be within the scope of the clause. Does he think that holding the patient’s hand and tipping a cup of pills into their mouth would be consistent with the clause?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My interpretation is that it would not be, because if someone were actually tipping the pills into the mouth of the patient, they would be going through the act of putting the substance into the patient. This Bill is founded on the principle of self-administration. However, there are acts such as helping the patient to sit up that are not direct administration but assistance enabling it to take place. That is where the distinction lies.

[Danny Kruger]

That is helpful, but if the patient were holding the cup and the doctor held their hand to help them tip it into their mouth, it is not clear to me at what point assistance would end and self-administration would begin. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that. What about the scenario in which the patient’s finger is on the plunger of a syringe and the doctor assists by putting their finger on top of the patient’s and assists them to press the button, adding a little force to that being given by the patient? Does he regard that as within the scope of self-administration, or does that cross the line into directly administering the procedure?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley pointed out earlier that the scenario that he has just described would constitute more than assistance; it would be moving into administration by the doctor, rather than self-administration. I think that that aligns with the Government’s view, so I refer the hon. Member for East Wiltshire to those comments from the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, who has far more clinical experience than I do.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful for that, and I will leave it there, but does the Minister agree that it is incredibly difficult to distinguish who is administering the treatment in that scenario? If both their hands are on the instrument, whatever it is—a cup, a syringe or a button on a computer screen—it is very hard to know who has actually delivered the final act.

[Stephen Kinnock]

What is hard to do in this Committee is imagine and agree on how many different scenarios there can be. Every circumstance and every individual experience will be different, so it is difficult for us to envision all the different scenarios. Nothing about this is easy, of course. We would not have been sitting in this Bill Committee for hours on end if it were all easy, but from the Government’s point of view there is a clear enough distinction between assistance and self-administration. As long as we are clear on those basic principles, we feel that that gives enough safety to the Bill and enough clarity around the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I propose to press both my amendments to a vote if necessary.

Amendment 462 agreed to.

Amendment made: 496, in clause 18, page 12, line 28, after “professionals” insert “, and such other persons,”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment provides that the coordinating doctor may be accompanied by such persons (other than health professionals) as the doctor considers necessary.

[Danny Kruger]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. I am sorry if I missed it, but are we not going to debate amendment 496?

[The Chair]

I put the Question and nobody spoke. I am afraid the moment has passed. Under this Chairman, you have to be fleet of foot.

[Danny Kruger]

Clearly! Fair enough.

Amendment proposed: 463, in clause 18, page 12, line 34, leave out paragraph (c)—(Danny Kruger.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I rise to oppose amendments 350 to 352, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne). They would allow the co-ordinating doctor to provide additional assistance to administer the substance in the presence of an independent witness, in some circumstances. Those circumstances would be when, as amendment 350 says, the doctor determines that the person is

“permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer”

the lethal substance because of an inability to swallow or the loss of use of the limbs. The amendments do not spell out what the additional assistance would be, but I think it is reasonable to believe that it refers to the doctor injecting the lethal substance into a person’s circulatory system.

My hon. Friend’s amendments comes from genuine concern about the situation that some people may well find themselves in. Some people who might otherwise qualify for assisted dying under the Bill might be unable to swallow or inject the lethal drugs. We should all respect the feeling that lies behind the amendments, but we should reject them. If we pass them, we will have accepted that doctors can help people who have qualified for assisted dying to prepare to inject themselves with lethal drugs or swallow them. The Bill does not say that doctors can do that. I do not know whether the House would have voted for the Bill on Second Reading if it had, but that is beside the point—it was not part of the Bill. If we were ever to consider taking such a radical step, we should only do so after hearing as much evidence as possible on why and how this might be necessary. I urge the Committee to oppose the amendment.

[Danny Kruger]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady; I very much agree with her points. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who spoke with his now customary intellectual clarity and moral constituency. He believes in autonomy, and he is doing what he can to resolve the essential contradiction in the Bill, which is designed to enable people to end their lives at their own discretion. He recognises that some of the safeguards in the Bill, which of course I do support, nevertheless represent barriers to what we are now suggesting is a human right, and that that human right will be restricted to a limited number of people, according to the Bill.

It is my view that the pressure, momentum or inherent direction of travel that the Bill sets us on will necessarily result in these sorts of amendments to the legislation in due course, whether in the form of subsequent amendments passed through legislation, the guidance that is issued, or indeed the practice of doctors. As I tried to explain in my comments on the previous group, my concern is that the Bill allows for quite a wide degree of discretion, naturally and necessarily enough, in the form of doctors interpreting their ability to assist in ways that respect the autonomy of patients, but are, in fact, a step beyond what the Bill—quite rightly, in my view—seeks to allow.

[Tom Gordon]

The hon. Member mentioned that down the line the Bill could be changed through guidance. I do not think there would be any scope or ability to do that. Does he agree that that point might be a little bit beyond what we all think might be possible under the terms of guidance?

[Danny Kruger]

I hope the hon. Gentleman is right. Nevertheless, one of my concerns about the Bill is that we are leaving enormous areas of clinical practice, and regulated conduct for the professionals involved in assisted suicide, to be performed under guidance that is still to be set out and that it is the job of future Ministers to determine.

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, because he has correctly identified a group of patients for whom the drafted Bill may present obstacles to the fulfilment of their wish for an assisted death. My belief is that the ability to assist will probably cover almost anybody who wants it and has found a doctor who wants to help them, but the hon. Gentleman is right that there are some groups for whom that might be more of a challenge than others. I think the answer we are going to get—it is one made by hon. Members in the debate already—is that technology will fix it, and I fear it will, because I think we are going to find ourselves in a world in which it is perfectly possible for the administration of death to be enabled through some kind of technological device, which somebody with the most limited physical mobility will nevertheless be able to activate.

I fear the insistence that we have on self-administration. Although we can all acknowledge, as referenced in the previous debate, the conceptual difference between administration and self-administration, we do have this idea that we are individuals cut off from each other and that there is an essential gap between us and other people. At the very end of life, though—in the moments that we are considering and legislating for—that distinction is void, because we are intimately connected with other people, as per the clauses that we are debating. I fear that we are going to find ourselves in a world in which a laptop will be set up and even a movement as small as the blink of an eyelid by the patient will be enough to trigger what will be called “self-administration” of the fatal dose.

I oppose this group of amendments, moved by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, because I do not believe in assisted suicide. I do not understand why other supporters of the Bill are not following the hon. Gentleman’s lead, and acknowledging that if we believe in autonomy and assisted suicide, of course we should enable patients to have the final act performed upon them, rather than insisting on this arbitrary distinction that it is possible to insist on self-administration in all cases.

[Rebecca Paul]

It is clear that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is trying to create equity, which we all understand. We need to think about the patient on the one hand, but also the doctors, nurses and medical practitioners involved. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to think about the obligation and impact of such amendments on them?

[Danny Kruger]

Yes. We discussed this briefly this morning. There is an important consideration about the effect on medical staff involved in the administration of assisted suicide, and we have to make sure that those who do not want to participate are properly insulated from any sort of obligation, which I know is the intention of the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Spen Valley. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the knock-on effect of participation in assisted suicide spreading across a practice. I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to be mindful of the impact on doctors. The more we widen the scope—as logic compels us to do, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough suggests—the more it is about not just discretion, but an obligation on doctors to approve.

We need to think about the conversation that doctors will be required to have with patients who are expressing that wish. If the Bill is widely drawn, as it would be if we were to accept these amendments, there is more opportunity for a doctor to feel compelled to assent to a request.

[Sean Woodcock]

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is clearly trying to right what he believes to be an inherent injustice in the Bill, but is the hon. Member for East Wiltshire concerned, as I am, that if the amendment were to pass, it would take the debate from a place of being about assisted dying towards what many people would term euthanasia? That is not something that the House in any way endorsed by voting for the Bill on Second Reading.

[Danny Kruger]

I am absolutely certain that if the amendment had been in the original Bill, the Bill would not have passed Second Reading, because it would have validated the argument that many of us made that the implication of assisted suicide is euthanasia. The distinction between them, while valid in the abstract, does not apply in practice, and that distinction will be quickly overridden in time. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Although I have certain sympathies with these amendments, I do not feel that they are necessary or desirable. They are not necessary because of the provisions that are already stipulated in clause 18(6)(b), which provides the co-ordinating doctor with the ability to prepare

“a medical device which will enable that person to self-administer the substance”.

That subsection, in effect, negates the scenario that is put forward in amendment 350 around dysphagia or the loss of a limb. It would permit, for example, the use of a nasogastric tube or a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tube to be used for the administration of the substance in the case of dysphagia. In the case of the functional loss of limbs, as was discussed in the debate on the previous group, a range of assisted technologies are available that would remove the barriers that that would present.

Beyond the necessity, or lack of necessity, of these amendments, I fear that they create legal uncertainty, which is clearly undesirable and, in this instance, could have a serious and significant unintended consequence through the amendments’ interaction with clause 24. Subsection (3) of that clause inserts proposed new section 2AA of the Suicide Act 1961, which is an exemption to that Act in respect of the assistance provided under this Bill. In effect, proposed new section 2AA disapplies sections 2(1) and 2A(1) of the Suicide Act where the provision of assistance is done in accordance with the Bill. Those sections specifically relate to an act

“capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person”.

Introducing the concept of additional assistance, as these amendments would, creates a legal uncertainty. The word “additional” creates a further concept that is beyond assistance but is, thus far, ill defined. Would it go as far as, for example, the clinician taking full control of administering the substance? It is entirely unclear. It would therefore place the clinician in an invidious position as to what it would mean for them to provide additional assistance in such circumstances. As I read the interplay between the Suicide Act and the proposed legislation, the clinician would not then be exempt by virtue of clause 24(3), leaving them open to prosecution under the Act.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful for that; I particularly respect my hon. Friend’s concern to protect the doctors from any confusion in the law they might be operating under. Just to take him back to the question of technology resolving what I regard as an insuperable problem—the difference between assistance and administration—is it my understanding that my hon. Friend would oppose a patient’s being able to ask a doctor to administer a lethal drug to him or her, but that he would support a patient’s being able to ask a computer to administer a lethal drug to him or her? Would he accept the computer performing the act at the patient’s request?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head, because it is the patient who is driving the decision. They are making that act by activating the electronic device—the computer or whatever it may be in terms of assistive technology—but they have the power and control over that decision-making process, which is completely distinct from a clinician doing that act. It is distinct because it is activated by the patient—by the person making that decision—and that is why I draw the distinction. My hon. Friend may not agree, but that is my rationale for drawing a distinction between the two.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon]

I will keep it short and sweet. I had not intended to push the amendments to a vote and will not be doing so. A lot of important points have been raised. Irrespective of whether the amendments were going to be pushed to a vote or would have been successful, it is important that we listen to and take into account the voices of people with different diseases who might wish to access an assisted death. We must also take into account the evidence that organisations have submitted, because it is important that those voices are heard too. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to move amendment 435, in clause 18, page 13, line 6, at end insert—

“(9A) Where the procedure has failed, the coordinating doctor must escalate the care of the person by making the appropriate referral to emergency medical services.”

This amendment would require the doctor to escalate the care of the person in cases in which the procedure fails.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 429, in clause 18, page 13, line 7, leave out subsection (10).

Amendment 436, in clause 18, page 13, line 8, after “provided” insert—

“(10A) If complications occur as a result of the provision of assistance the coordinating doctor must—

(a) make a detailed record of the complications in the patient’s medical records,

(b) make a declaration on the final statement issued under section 21, and

(c) make a report to the relevant Chief Medical Officer and the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.”

This amendment would require the coordinating doctor to record any complications in the patient’s medical records, to make a declaration on the final statement issued under section 21, and make a report to the relevant Chief Medical Officer and the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.

Amendment 464, in clause 18, page 13, line 8, at end insert—

“(10A) If the person loses consciousness and it appears to the coordinating doctor that the procedure is failing, the coordinating doctor—

(a) must not do anything with the intention of causing the person’s death, and

(b) must seek to revive the person.”

Amendment 532, in clause 18, page 13, line 12, at end insert—

“(12) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about what the coordinating doctor is legally permitted to do if it is determined by the coordinating doctor that the procedure has failed.

(13) The regulations under subsection (12) must include what specific actions can legally be taken by the coordinating doctor if—

(a) there is a greatly prolonged time to death,

(b) the person has been rendered unconscious, or rendered unfit to make a second attempt at self-administration, but has not died, or

(c) the person is otherwise undergoing complications.”

Amendment 533, in clause 18, page 13, line 12, at end insert—

“(12) For the purposes of subsections (2) to (11), the Secretary of State must, by regulations, specify where the provision of assistance under this Act may take place.

(13) Before making regulations under subsection (12), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(14) The persons to be consulted under subsection (12A) may include—

(a) persons requesting or considering requesting assistance to end their own lives, and

(b) professionals working in palliative and end-of-life care, including hospice staff, and

(c) persons from disadvantaged and marginalised communities, and

(d) registered medical professionals and other healthcare professionals.”

Amendment 430, in clause 30, page 18, line 30, at end insert—

“(da) responding to unexpected complications that arise in relation to the administration of the approved substance under section 18, including when the procedure fails;”

Amendment 255, in schedule 6, page 32, line 13, at end insert—

[Danny Kruger]

I am supportive of all the amendments in this grouping, including amendment 255 in the name of the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) about the importance of recording the means of administration of the substance. We have discussed that a bit, and I think it is important to include it. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford are also important, as they insist on the actual physical presence of a doctor while the treatment is being carried out. His amendments also suggest that there should be a code of practice about what should happen when things go wrong; I want to go further than that, but I do approve of that measure.

On amendments 532 and 533, tabled by the hon. Member for Ipswich, I again support in principle the requirement—although there is a little too much regulation by the Secretary of State, in my view—that we be clear about where the act should take place and make provision about what the co-ordinating doctor is legally permitted to do if they determine that the procedure has failed. That is the point I really want to discuss; the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and the amendment that I tabled, would impose an obligation on the co-ordinating doctor to provide assistance if the procedure fails.

Let me take a moment to explain to the Committee how important it is that we recognise the genuine risk of that eventuality in the case of assisted suicide being performed. There is significant evidence—even given the lack of adequate data collection and the paucity of record keeping, with over half of assisted deaths not properly recorded at all in many places—that in places such as Oregon, which is one of the worst offenders when it comes to data collection, there are significant rates of complication. These can be difficulty with ingesting the drugs, regurgitation and seizures. As I said, 72% of deaths do not record whether complications have occurred, but among the quarter that do, there are significant rates of complication.

Sometimes death can take days, and there can be a long time of unconsciousness. The Committee has heard from me and others in previous debates about the extent to which there is real concern about the actual experience of the administration of assisted death. But it is striking how ill-defined the current Bill is on the point about complications, compared to jurisdictions where such laws are in operation. In other countries, there is clear guidance in law for what should be done. In the Netherlands, euthanasia is recommended when assisted suicide seems to be failing; in Canada, doctors are likewise given licence to administer the death themselves if it fails. The Committee has decided not to proceed down that road. Nevertheless, the question arises as to what on earth patients should do.

To the point that we are talking about a small or non-existent population group—those we might have to worry will experience complications after the administration of fatal drugs—I refer back to a previous debate, when the hon. Member for Stroud, referring to me, said:

“The hon. Gentleman is bringing up lots of rather horrible stories about assisted death. That is why, in Australia, Switzerland and Holland, they have decided, instead of using the regime that he is talking about, to use pentobarbital…One of the reasons why Dignitas uses it is that it is so effective and it does not have those effects.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 11 March 2025; c. 925.]

Having looked into the issue and consulted other medics, I am afraid that the fact is that the safety of pentobarbital is highly contested. It has been debated in litigation in the United States because of its use as a death penalty drug. The executioners who used it said that the deaths were peaceful and akin to falling asleep, but lawyers for inmates on death row have said that

“pentobarbital caused flash pulmonary edema, in which fluid rushes through quickly disintegrating membranes into lungs and airways, causing pain akin to being suffocated or drowned.”

That is evidence from professionals who have examined the effect of pentobarbital on deceased people.

The anesthesiologist Joel Zivot of Emory University hospital in the United States testified to the Canadian Senate on the subject of assisted suicide drugs. He said that when he researched the autopsies of those executed by lethal injection, he stumbled on an alarming discovery:

“When I looked at the autopsies, to my surprise, I found that, in most of the cases, the individuals who had been executed by pentobarbital had fluid congested in their lungs. The lungs of these individuals were twice the normal weight, full of water. Now, the only way that this could have happened would have been as a direct consequence of the pentobarbital that was injected into these individuals.”

What is the relevance of that for assisted dying?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am not aware of the situation in America, but is the hon. Gentleman not reassured that the evidence from Dignitas, which we all now have access to, says that there have been

“no cases of failure at Dignitas using this medication”?

[Danny Kruger]

Let me come on to that, because I am not aware of any evidence from Dignitas that disputes the assertion that is being made—certainly none that would meet the concerns raised by the genuine evidence of the effect of pentobarbital on death row patients. Again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I do not think that Dignitas has supplied evidence to contradict the point that I am making.

[Kim Leadbeater]

For the hon. Gentleman’s reference, I believe that the evidence is TIAB 425.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Let me let me look that up later. I am happy to exchange data, because this is clearly something we should be trying to get right.

Nevertheless, I want to try to explain why I am suggesting that we have a problem with the drugs that are used in assisted dying and that it has been suggested we use here. Let me continue the quote from Dr Zivot:

“When one watches an execution, it’s not clear that this is happening”—

meaning that it looks like a peaceful, painless death. He continues:

“There is not much to see. Executions, like, I imagine, medical assistance in dying, are a rather bloodless event; not much can be seen outwardly. But the autopsies revealed a very disturbing and surprising finding.”

He makes the point that that is particularly disturbing, given that assisted dying often uses a paralysing drug, which induces the impression of peace and calm in the patient, when in fact something else might be going on below the surface.

To conclude my quote from Dr Zivot, he says:

“To claim that this is a death that is peaceful, well, it can be nothing else because now a person is unable to move in any way, but whether or not they have any conscious experience of what is happening is unknown…it should be clear to the Canadian public that the kind of death that they will experience…will be something other than the way it is represented. It could be exceedingly painful and more akin to drowning.”

I cannot judge whether Dr Zivot is right, but we should be very wary of any claims that there is a simple answer to the question surrounding lethal drugs. To the point made by the hon. Lady, and I think by the hon. Member for Stroud, there is no evidence in the many reports from Dignitas, which has a regime very similar to the one we are imagining here—I will certainly look at the evidence mentioned made by the hon. Lady—that contradicts the concerns raised by Dr Zivot.

[Sojan Joseph]

Does this not show that clinical documentation is very important? We debated the issue in Committee earlier, when we talked about professionals being required to complete all relevant documentation. Maybe we are missing certain data because these things are not clearly documented in other places. Should we not take from that the learning that if we go ahead with this proposal, we should have proper documentation and make it clear to the clinician what they should and should not document?

[Danny Kruger]

I entirely agree that there is great concern about the lack of evidence in countries on which we are constantly relying for evidence of why this proposal is safe. I have suggested that, from the quite limited evidence we have, that it may not be safe. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that if we are to proceed, we need to be extremely strict about data collection.

To the hon. Gentleman’s point about making it clear to clinicians what drugs they are permitted to use, we also need to have a proper regime of clearing and approving those drugs. In earlier clauses, we debated the imperative on the NHS, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Department of Health to properly authorise the specifics of what drugs will be used. It is not clear at the moment what those would be, and I very much agree that we need to be clearer on that.

I finish with a reference to an earlier debate, in which it was suggested, on the basis of the Australian example, that there is no evidence of complications. The hon. Member for Stroud talked about horrible stories from the United States and Canada. He also referred to Australia, where there is apparently no evidence of problems. In fact, I understand that of the six states, only Western Australia records complications, and it does so in relation only to practitioner administration—when the doctor administers the drug—which we do not propose to do here. It does not record complications in relation to self-administration, which is what the Bill proposes. In Western Australia, complications have been reported in 4.3% of cases involving practitioner administration. Again, we are dealing with the great mystery and enigma of how death happens with assisted suicide, and it is certainly unclear what we should do about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, I have just looked at some of the evidence, and it does not cite any papers. In effect, the evidence says the effect can be seen in three documentaries. Nor does it explain why Dr Zivot’s concerns are scientifically accurate. Does the hon. Gentleman want to speak to that?

[Danny Kruger]

There is great anxiety about the validity of much of the evidence in this space. I have great respect for the work of Dr Zivot, because nothing else gets us close to understanding the actual effect of these drugs, once somebody has died.

[Kim Leadbeater]

In response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, the evidence from Dignitas is really clear: there have been no cases of failure when using this medication.

[Danny Kruger]

My strong suspicion is that this is because the evidence is not being accurately collected or reported. With Dignitas and in all these jurisdictions, as the hon. Lady has acknowledged, there are significant failures of data and record keeping. Obviously, it is very much in Dignitas’s interest not to collect and certainly not to publicise evidence of things going wrong. However, that clearly happens in jurisdictions where data is properly collected.

[Naz Shah]

I recognise that the written evidence, particularly TIAB 425, says there have not been any failures at Dignitas, but it does not cite any published, let alone peer-reviewed, research, nor does it challenge the analysis of scientists such as Dr Zivot. That remains a grey area.

[Danny Kruger]

I agree.

[Dr Opher]

Actually, if we did an autopsy on any person who has died, pulmonary oedema would almost certainly be found because that is what happens in death—the heart stops and the lungs fill with fluid. I would also like to correct the idea that there is neuromuscular paralysis with pentobarbital. There is no way that barbiturates act in that way. All they do is sedate and put the person to sleep, and death comes afterwards.

[Danny Kruger]

I was not suggesting that pentobarbital has a paralytic effect. Often in assisted dying, a paralytic is administered first as part of the cocktail of drugs. Subsequently, we discover that while the patient may have appeared entirely calm, sleeping peacefully, significant trauma may have been occurring beneath the surface.

I defer to the hon. Member’s knowledge, but my understanding from the scientific evidence I have read, and that medics have given to me, is that the extent to which people executed by lethal injection, by pentobarbital, have their lungs fill with fluid is peculiar—it is remarkable. They effectively drown beneath their peaceful exterior.

I intend to press amendment 464 to a vote, and I intend to support other amendments in this group. Although I support the aspiration of amendment 532 to make provision for what to do in the event of a procedure’s failure, I think it gives too much leeway to the Secretary of State, so I will oppose that amendment. I think the amendments that the hon. Member for York Central and I have tabled are preferable.

To make the obvious case for those amendments, and as I said in a previous debate, there are three choices in the event of failure. The first is to ignore the plain signs of distress, of things going wrong and of the patient suffering, which is clearly a failure of the doctor’s duty of care. The second is to expedite the death, which we have decided would be illegal under the Bill. Therefore, the only option is to revive the patient and escalate treatment, rather than actively or passively facilitate their death.

I hope Members will agree that, on the rare occasions when assisted suicide goes wrong, it is right that the patient is immediately revived and taken to hospital, or for the doctor to take whatever action is necessary. I am interested to understand why those amendments should not be supported.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I will speak to amendments 429 and 430 in my name. During oral evidence, we discussed the issues in subsections (9) and (10) of clause 18 and whether there is a contradiction. Subsection (9) states that the co-ordinating doctor

“must remain with the person”

and subsection (10) says:

“For the purposes of subsection (9), the coordinating doctor need not be in the same room as the person”.

We also discussed how that works in other jurisdictions. My amendment 429 would deal with that conflict. If the Bill were to become law, that conflict could be queried.

We also need to consider the possibility of complications. Clearly, if there are complications and the doctor is not in the same room, they would not necessarily be aware of those complications. I accept that, in some normal circumstances, doctors and medical professionals are not present in the room at the time of death; at other times, they are present. The amendment would mean that if something were to go wrong and someone was having a painful reaction to the drugs, the doctor would be there to see and help.

I do not understand what the Bill means when it says the doctor does not have to be in the same room. How far away would the doctor have to be? One subsection says the doctor has to remain with the person, and the following subsection says they do not have to be in the same room. If the Bill were to pass, we would be asking doctors to do something that is unprecedented. If the person were to suffer complications such as seizures or vomiting, or if they were exhibiting signs of distress, it appears that the doctor should be present. Members may think this could encroach on a patient’s privacy, but I think there is a discrepancy between the two subsections.

On amendment 430, I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich has tabled a similar amendment. The intention of my amendment is to ensure there are regulations in responding to any unexpected complications that arise in relation to the administration of the approved substance, including when the procedure fails. I am conscious that if a doctor intervenes, they could end up in breach of the Suicide Act 1961. I therefore left the wording in that vein, as I understand that we will receive more information in due course.

Again, we received oral evidence from a number of people that what a doctor is meant to do in the event of unexpected complications is a matter of concern from both a legal and a medical perspective. We know from the evidence received from other jurisdictions that—I accept in a small minority of cases—there can be complications or the death can take much longer than expected. We also received evidence that, on rare occasions, death can take days.

Amendment 430 would show we have thought about those circumstances and provided for them by giving doctors a code of practice to refer to, rather than being left in the dark if a difficult situation arises at the time of death. We must not find ourselves in a circumstance in which doctors and patients are unprepared. It is important for us to think through, provide for and safeguard against all possible scenarios, however rare they might be. Of course, we would not want them to happen, but in some circumstances they might, and we would not want there to be a legal hole. Accepting the amendment would mean the Secretary of State has the opportunity to provide a code of practice for such circumstances. I hope hon. Members will be able to support the amendments in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak to amendments 532 and 533, standing in my name, and in support of amendments 429 and 430, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. I appreciate that my amendments are similar to amendment 430. They go a little bit further, but probably not as far as we have previously discussed in the Committee.

I totally understand the concerns about the Bill being overly prescriptive about the regulations that could be passed down to the doctors making such decisions. However, it is important that we enable the Secretary of State to provide guidance, in addition to GMC regulations, on what the co-ordinating doctor must do if the procedure has failed. At the moment, the Bill simply states:

“The coordinating doctor must remain with the person until”

that time. However, I appreciate that amendment 429, if passed, would cover that issue.

Clause 9 states:

“The assessing doctor must…discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance under section 18”.

However, the Bill as drafted is not clear about what a doctor is legally permitted to do in the event of such complications. That is particularly important, as the Bill expressly states that the final act of administration must be taken by the person themselves. Therefore, the Bill as it stands stipulates that the doctor must discuss the patient’s wishes in the event of complications without stipulating what actions the doctor can take in such an event and thus what the patient’s options actually are.

There is a gap in the Bill and a lack of clarity on that critical issue, which has been raised frequently in both written and, to an extent, oral evidence. Dr Alexandra Mullock argued that, as

“the Bill would only permit”

a doctor only to assist in the patient’s self-administering a substance,

“administering drugs to end the life of a patient who might be unconscious (but not dying) is not permitted.”

She also raised the possibility that a patient might regain consciousness, but

“be too ill to make a second attempt”

at self-administration. What should a doctor do if that occurs? Unless the Secretary of State clarifies what a doctor can do in that situation—my amendment would not do that; it would merely give the Secretary of State direction to do so—the co-ordinating director could be placed in a difficult position.

Professor Alex Ruck Keene argued that the Bill as it stands could lead to the potential for medical professionals to be “required to stand by”, yet without being able to take steps to respond to complications so as to ensure that the process is completed. I fully appreciate that all doctors would use their good training, common sense and years of extensive practice to make a best-case judgment, and we would always support them in that, but the Bill has the unintended consequence of not giving doctors true cover in that area.

Dr Mullock also asked what should occur if the patient survives a procedure, “but is badly affected”. What treatment should be provided? Should the patient be moved to hospital? Should the patient be sedated or made comfortable until a natural death occurs, or should the doctor be able to take steps for the patient to die following the initial failed attempt? We need answers to those questions. Amendment 532 does not seek to answer them, but it would stipulate that the Secretary of State must do so at a certain point.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, setting out the gap at the heart of the Bill. Does he agree—I think that he does, as he has just explained it—that there are quite straightforward choices: to expedite a death, which is illegal; to do nothing, which is inhumane; or to treat, revive or resuscitate? Why does he think that should not be clearer in the Bill? Why does he want to leave it for the Secretary of State to determine that in the future? Why do we as Parliament not get to decide what the right options should be?

[Jack Abbott]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s question. In short, the answer is because we are not medical professionals. [Interruption.] Well, some members of the Committee are medical professionals, but not all of us are. I do not think that it is for the Committee to make a judgment on whether to put that in the Bill. I am happy and comfortable to leave such a directive and further recommendations, in addition to the GMC guidance, as further work to do in the coming months and years ahead of the Bill’s implementation. I think that is a healthy and strong thing to do. This is an important compromise to some of the conversations we have had in this Committee over the weeks. The amendment seeks to give a clear direction that these sorts of regulations and procedures should be stipulated at some point down the line.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman suggests that this is something that should be left to the medics. Nevertheless, here we are legislating for medics to be able to administer lethal drugs to people; we are responsible for what happens subsequent to the administration. Let me put this another way: does the hon. Gentleman foresee any scenario in which the guidance from the Secretary of State could be anything other than that the patient should be revived and helped to live in the circumstances where there are clearly complications under way? What else could be the appropriate direction given by the Secretary of State?

[Jack Abbott]

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. We have discussed this point at length, across a range of subject areas, but we cannot legislate for every single permutation that could possibly happen. That could be about the initial conversations, when the patient is given a terminal diagnosis. Where do those conversations leave us? Clearly there will be a number of different scenarios, which could occur to various degrees.

I do not think it is possible to legislate for every single eventuality. I do not believe that whether to revive or not revive will be so black and white; it will completely depend on the scenario at that particular moment in time. Therefore, further work would need to be done over the coming months and years before the final introduction of the Bill. I believe that it is important to allow the time for that work to happen alongside the existing guidance as it stands.

I do not seek in my amendment to stipulate exactly what every single permutation might be—indeed, that could run to many pages and beyond. The amendment seeks to empower the Secretary of State and the Department to make sure that those eventualities, and the concerns that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has raised, are covered by regulations over time.

In my view, the failure to provide a clear answer to these questions is an oversight. Data from Oregon shows that it is unfortunately not totally uncommon for patients to suffer complications following the administration of a lethal substance. In 2023, of the 102 patients for whom we have data on whether they suffered complications—out of a total of 367 patients who died by assisted death in Oregon in that year—10 suffered complications. That is just under 10% of the patients we have data for.

Of those 10, eight had difficulty ingesting the substance or regurgitated it. One suffered a seizure, and for one we have no data of what complications occurred. If I may say so to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, that goes back to the variances that I referred to. It is not as simple as whether to resuscitate or otherwise. There are a number of different factors. Although that is a relatively small sample size, it shows the diversity of the challenges ahead.

In Oregon, information about complications is reported only when a physician or another healthcare provider is present at the time of death, which means that we evidently have less data on this issue than is desirable. However, despite the small sample size, that data would put the complication rate at one in 10. It would not be a completely uncommon occurrence for patients to experience complications following the administration of a lethal substance, although it would be rare.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

I thank my hon. Friend for the question; I agree that 10% is a statistically reasonable figure and should be noted, which is part of the reason for my amendment. However, this is still relatively uncommon from the small sample sizes we have. For example, while it is important to refer to the Oregon example, the sample size is only 100 people, so we should always keep that in context. Will fewer people choose to go down that path because they feel, for example, there is potentially a small chance they might struggle to ingest the substance? To be perfectly honest with my hon. Friend, that will completely be their personal choice, and it is really important that, in every stage of the process, we are very clear with those looking to go down this path about what those eventualities might be.

Everyone will take their own personal opinion about that, but we want to be very clear about any risks that might come about, and we have already stipulated that this will be part of the process. Everyone should be very clear about the process—what it will look like and the associated risks. Many people will look at this and still say, “This is the path for me”, but that of course will be their own judgment.

[Danny Kruger]

I wonder whether, in the hon. Gentleman’s view, it might be appropriate for the Secretary of State, when framing the guidance he requests, to leave it to a doctor’s discretion. Would that be an appropriate outcome that he would be happy with? My concern is that we will end up with a Bill that has a blank space when it comes to what should be done in the event of complications, as it does currently, and that the Secretary of State might find it equally confusing and unclear and might be reluctant to specify too precisely what should be done in the range of different circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. Will we not end up with a further passing of the buck to clinicians to make that decision? Given that, is it not even more appropriate at this stage for us to give a direction to the Secretary of State stipulating that, whatever the guidance will be, it is entirely inappropriate for a doctor to expedite the death of the patient in any way?

[Jack Abbott]

In the case of this Secretary of State, he is more than happy, as we have seen in the last week or so, to take decision making back in-house and make them himself as well, although that is perhaps a separate political point.

[Danny Kruger]

I trust this Secretary of State.

[Jack Abbott]

Absolutely, I know. I am sure the Committee supports him as well.

I would also point the hon. Gentleman to proposed new subsection (13), which my amendment 532 would introduce, saying what “specific actions” can legally be taken, for example, if

“there is a greatly prolonged time to death”,

the person has been “rendered unconscious” or

“the person is otherwise undergoing complications.”

That quite clearly states that we expect the Secretary of State, through this amendment, to take specific co-ordination actions on that. Under proposed new subsection (12) alone, the Secretary of State would have to make provision on that, which could lead to what the hon. Gentleman is alluding to. However, what I propose in proposed new subsection is very clear: that we would expect specific actions from the Secretary of State in that area.

[Jack Abbott]

I have used the statistic of 10%; we might find additional statistics from different jurisdictions that put that figure slightly higher or slightly lower. The point I am trying to make is that this is a relatively uncommon occurrence; none the less, this is an area of the Bill that we can make stronger with additional provisions.

I will make some progress on amendment 532. I have made the basis of my point and want to get on to amendment 533. As I have said, amendment 532 seeks to provide clarity on what doctors can do if the procedure fails or is failing by stipulating that the Secretary of State must specify in regulations what actions the co-ordinating doctor can legally take if there is a prolonged time to death; if the person has been rendered unconscious or unfit to make a second attempt at self-administration, but has not died; or if the person is undergoing complications following the initial attempt.

While there is existing GMC guidance, if no further guidance comes forward in the coming years, we risk placing some doctors in an incredibly difficult position. We always say that we should abide by good practice and the experience of many doctors, but additional cover is no bad thing. We need to say what doctors are legally permitted to do in the event of a patient undergoing severe complications. Leaving aside the doctors, that presents a risk to the patient, who may suffer needlessly and intolerably because the co-ordinating doctor does not know what they are legally allowed to do and is thus seeking to avoid legal ramifications of actions. We do not want them to take steps to respond to those complications or support the patient to die in a painful manner.

I will speak briefly to my amendment 533, which is about where assisted dying can take place. The Committee has already touched on that, and I do not want the Bill to be too prescriptive, which is why I have not stipulated exactly where the locations should be. However, this question was raised a number of times in the submitted written evidence. It is incredibly important that we address this question to ensure that assisted dying takes place at a certain location and does not have a detrimental effect on that location or community, and that the implementation of assisted dying does not exacerbate existing healthcare inequalities or deepen the mistrust of the healthcare system that exists among some ethnic minority communities in particular.

We have a duty to ensure that anyone seeking an assisted death under the Bill feels that it is safe to do so, is able to experience the positives of assisted dying and is not traumatised or retraumatised by the process. That is not possible if assisted dying takes place in settings in which people feel unsafe, which they feel unable to control or in which they have no agency. The amendment seeks to ensure that the question of where assisted dying can take place is properly addressed and that the possible impacts of assisted dying taking place at any particular location are fully considered. Only then can we address and mitigate its possible detrimental impacts.

That is a particularly important point because the criterion in the Bill that the doctor must remain with the patient until they have died realistically precludes assisted dying taking place at home, as there may be a prolonged time to death. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said, 86% of patients in Western Australia died within the hour, but 14% took longer than that. To use another comparison, in Oregon, 87.7% of those who died via an assisted death in 2023 did so at home. If we are essentially precluding assisted dying from taking place at home because of the stipulation that a doctor has to be in attendance, we must answer the question of where it can take place.

In written evidence, Sue Ryder and the National Care Forum cited concerns about the impact on the wellbeing of staff and the other residents of hospices and accommodation-based services, should assisted dying take place within those communities. Dr Jamilla Hussain, in arguing that the question of where assisted dying could take place needed to be addressed, stated that her consultations with

“ethnic minority groups across Bradford highlighted the risk that AD could significantly deepen mistrust in healthcare services, including but not limited to palliative care.”

She argued that that needed to be considered when determining where assisted dying would take place, and because of that it would be preferable to avoid

“healthcare settings that these communities rely on, such as hospitals and hospices.”

Again, amendment 533 does not seek to specify where assisted dying should take place—I think further work is possibly needed over the coming months and years before this policy is potentially implemented—or to prohibit any particular location, I must add. The rationale behind the amendment is to ensure that through extensive consultation with relevant parties, the possible impacts of assisted dying taking place at any particular location are fully and comprehensively considered, and thereby any potential harm is addressed and mitigated against.

[Danny Kruger]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jack Abbott]

I was just finishing, but the hon. Gentleman has timed it perfectly, so I will.

[Danny Kruger]

I think the hon. Gentleman is right about this one. Does he agree that the hospices that have written to us have a very valid point of concern that they might be required to facilitate assisted dying on their premises, even if many members of staff or other residents do not wish that to happen? Does he agree that it is important that we protect hospices from having to have anything to do with assisted dying?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

I thank my hon. Friend for his sensitive and clear worry. But it is important to note that we would not in any circumstances try to do something that would finish someone’s life after they had been given their self-take medicine, because that is against the law. In the Bill we have made a clear distinction between the doctor—a euthanasian, if you like—taking the life, and the patient taking medicine that finishes life. What we need to do is simply support the patient. If, as my hon. Friend suggests, they are in pain we would give them a morphine drip, which is in common use in terminal care. I absolutely respect what he says, but the same treatment principles would be in place as in terminal care.

[Danny Kruger]

Even in terminal care, when it is understood that a patient is close to death, doctors would surely not overlook a patient for whom an assisted death is clearly failing. The hon. Gentleman suggests that it would be inappropriate to—and that he would never—call an ambulance, or send a patient to A&E; I wonder whether he also means that he would never seek to revive a patient or bring them back to life, as it were, if they were experiencing complications. To his often-repeated suggestion that there is no difference between this and normal medical treatment, there is an enormous difference. Doctors administer lethal drugs to a patient, and are then also supposed to be somehow caring for the patient in the traditional way that doctors should. These things are inherently incompatible, and there is a choice between the two : is the doctor helping the patient to die, or is he helping them to live? That questions remains, and does he not acknowledge that there will be circumstances where it would be appropriate to revive the patient, and seek to support them as if they were living?

[Dr Opher]

I almost agreed with the hon. Gentleman earlier, when he asked at one point, should we not just leave this to doctors?

One of the key things the hon. Gentleman said is that the doctor administers the drug. This is self-administered, first of all, so that is a very clear line. However, also, in a case of terminal care—this is what I am trying to get across to the Committee—we know the patient is dying, and therefore if they are becoming worse we simply do things to make them comfortable, and we do not try to revive them, because they are dying. It is important that we realise that this is a very different medical situation from normal care, and that it actually needs very different skills as a doctor. Here, a doctor is not trying to prolong life, but trying to make a death as comfortable as possible.

That is why I support the Bill—because I think it will enhance a comfortable death. I wanted to make it clear that that is normal practice now in terminal care: we do not revive a patient with a terminal diagnosis who is in terminal care, but we make them comfortable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and articulated that better than I was managing to.

[Danny Kruger]

We are not necessarily talking about someone who is dying right here and now in consequence of the drugs they have taken—we could be talking about someone who is many months away from their death. The scenario we are envisaging is that fatal drugs —poisonous drugs—have been administered to the patient’s body and we are asking doctors to be normal doctors in that scenario. In a genuinely normal scenario of doctors being doctors, they would attempt to revive the patient and to save their life in that circumstance. If the parallel is with the last moments of someone’s natural death, the doctor’s job is simply to make them comfortable, but that it is not the scenario. The scenario is some months away from their natural death, when they have months to live. They may not even be exhibiting extreme illness—they may just have a terminal disease. If they have been given fatal drugs, what on earth is the doctor to do in the scenario where the drugs are not working? Surely that is a question for all of us, rather than just leaving it up to the doctors.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I disagree. As clause 9 makes clear, the doctor will have had a conversation with the patient about their wishes in advance, in exactly the same way as a surgeon would have a conversation with a patient in advance of high-risk surgery—

[Lewis Atkinson]

I am not going to take any further interventions; I am going to answer this point and make some progress.

The surgeon would say, “If this procedure fails, would you wish me to attempt resuscitation? Would you wish to be put on a support system?” The hon. Gentleman misunderstands current practice on consultation with patients, in advance of procedures, about their wishes, which is where there is significant established evidence.

[Danny Kruger]

rose—

[Lewis Atkinson]

I am going to finish on this point.

On amendment 533, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, I suspect that, in dealing with a later clause, we will have a conversation about issues around hospices and care homes, but again I find the requirements under the amendment unduly onerous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and others have said, often people’s preferred place of death is at home. Are we really saying that the Secretary of State would specify addresses or the nature of places where these procedures should take place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend will have noted that a number of amendments have been drafted in collaboration with the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. I think that demonstrates that when the Government have seen a lacuna, a lack of clarity or ambiguities in the Bill, officials, along with the Justice Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green, and I, have worked with my hon. Friend to table amendments to tighten up the Bill. We are doing that in areas where we feel that ambiguity exists. However, when we feel that the Bill, as drafted, does not give rise to such concerns, our position on the amendments is according to our position vis-à-vis the current wording of the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

The Minister said that the Government find it impossible to understand the word “complications” —that it is too complex and full of ambiguity. Yet in clause 9 of the Bill, we have that very word. The suggestion is that the doctor should

“discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications”.

Is that unclear? If not, what is the difficulty with specifying “complications” in clause 30?

[Stephen Kinnock]

The challenge with amendment 436 is that the policy intent is not as clear as it is in clause 9. That clause is about conversations in advance of decisions about committing to the procedure, whereas when it comes to complications that have arisen in a rapid and fast-moving situation, the view of the Government is that it is adequate to rely on the professional judgment of the medical practitioner to take the decision that best suits that situation.

One is a conversation that can be explored between the clinician and the patient in advance, in a managed environment; the dialogue can take place in a considered manner. The second situation is one in which there is a particular physical manifestation and it is up to the clinician to take a rapid position and to decide, according to all the elements that they usually use, such as the GMC’s “Good medical practice”, other codes of practice and their own professional judgment.

[Danny Kruger]

The Minister suggests that it is appropriate for the patient to give some advance indication of what should be done in the event of complications, but that it would not be right for Parliament, too, to give advance direction of the sorts of responses that would be appropriate in the circumstances.

I am afraid that I do not understand the Minister’s distinction. Either it is possible to set in advance the sorts of responses that would be appropriate in the event of complications—the word “complications” is already in the Bill, so is clearly acceptable—or it is not. In the event of complications arising when the patient has not given clear instructions in advance, surely it is appropriate for the doctor to be able to rely on guidance, whether that is in the Bill or set out by the Secretary of State subsequently.

There needs to be clarity about what to do because, to repeat the point, this is not normal medicine—a fatal drug has been introduced into the body. That is not a normal medical situation in which a doctor just uses their clinical judgment; the only appropriate clinical judgment in such circumstances is to attempt to save the patient’s life, because that is what doctors are supposed to do. But we are telling them that they have been allowed to help a patient to die artificially. In that circumstance, what are they supposed to do when that is clearly not working?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank colleagues for a thorough discussion of a group of interesting and important amendments. Amendment 429, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, would require the doctor to remain in the same room as the person. I respectfully disagree with my hon. Friend on that point. If a person is literally in the last few minutes and moments of their life, it should be up to them to decide who is in the room with them. In some cases, that might be the doctor, but I suspect that in many cases it would be loved ones and close family members.

We have had a thorough discussion of the range of amendments that look at how we deal with complications. My view is that amendment 430 would do what needs to be done. We need the Bill to show that this has been considered, and the logical place for that would be clause 30, on codes of practice. I am happy to support that amendment when the time comes to vote on it.

[Danny Kruger]

The Minister suggested that there will be a code of practice, but clause 30 says that there “may” be a code of practice. Does the hon. Member accept that there might not be one and that, even if there were, the only obligation on professionals would be to have regard to such a code? There is a big difference between that and a stipulation in the Bill.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I believe that amendment 447, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, would change the “may” to a “must”. I am minded to support it for that very reason.

Amendment 532, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, comes from a good place as is meant to be a way of trying to help the doctor, but I worry, as medical colleagues have commented during our deliberations, that it could create more of a problem for the doctor in that it would remove flexibility and the use of their clinical judgment and expertise. It always worries me when we are considering putting that level of detail in the Bill.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The challenge would be in whether the co-ordinating doctor would be able to take actions that were not listed. I worry that a list would be quite restrictive. Amendment 430, which would look at the code of practice, would achieve something in a less restrictive way, which is why I am minded to support it.

We have had a really interesting discussion about amendment 533, and we will probably come further down the line to discuss where patients should have the choice to have an assisted death. I am not entirely sure how the amendment would work, which is why I am not minded to support it.

I am slightly concerned about the terminology and am not sure what the definition of “disadvantaged and marginalised communities” would be for the purposes of the amendment. I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich to new clause 8—the duty to consult—bearing in mind that there will be a long period of consultation before the Bill, if it passes, is enacted.

The Minister referred to amendment 255, which I think will fall as it refers to a schedule that has been removed from the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I have nothing to add.

Amendment 408 agreed to.

Amendments made: 210, in clause 19, page 13, line 22, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2)(b) may in particular provide that the required training, qualifications or experience is to be determined by a person specified in the regulations.”

This amendment enables regulations under subsection (2)(b) to provide that the required training, qualifications or experience is to be determined by a person specified in the regulations.

Amendment 499, in clause 19, page 13, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) Where a registered medical practitioner who is authorised under subsection (1) is not satisfied of all of the matters mentioned in section 18(4), they must notify the coordinating doctor immediately.”

This amendment provides that where a practitioner authorised under clause 19(1) is not satisfied of all of the matters mentioned in clause 18(4), they must immediately notify the coordinating doctor.

Amendment 211, in clause 19, page 13, line 31, leave out subsection (5).—(Kim Leadbeater.)

See the statement for Amendment 187.

Amendment made: 22, in clause 19, page 13, line 32, at end insert—

“(5A) Regulations under subsection (2)(b) must specify that training in respect of domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse is mandatory.”—(Naz Shah.)

This amendment would require that, in the event of the coordinating doctor authorising another registered medical practitioner to provide assistance under the Act, that other registered medical practitioner must also have undertaken training on domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse.

Amendment made: 212, in clause 19, page 13, line 33, leave out subsection (6).—(Kim Leadbeater.)

See the statement for Amendment 188.

Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Meaning of “approved substance”

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to move amendment 409, in clause 20, page 13, line 35, leave out from “specify” to “for” and insert—

“two or more drugs or other substances with different techniques of administration”.

The amendment requires that the Secretary of State specifies two or more drugs or other substances, which have different techniques of administration.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 465, in clause 20, page 13, line 36, at end insert—

“(1A) A drug may only be approved under this Act if it has been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for that purpose.”

Amendment 466, in clause 20, page 13, line 36, at end insert—

“(1A) A drug may only be approved under this Act if the Secretary of State is reasonably of the opinion that there is a scientific consensus that this drug or combination of drugs, is effective at ending someone’s life without causing pain.”

Amendment 437, in clause 20, page 13, line 38, at end insert—

“(2A) The doses and types of lethal drugs specified in any regulations made under subsection (1) must be licensed by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.”

This amendment would require that any drugs and doses to bring an end to someone’s life under the Act be licensed by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.

Amendment 438, in clause 20, page 13, line 38, at end insert—

“(2A) The doses and types of lethal drugs to bring about the person’s death must be recommended by either the National Institute of Clinical Excellence or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group in Wales’ guidelines as appropriate prior to licensing.”

This amendment will require the doses and types of lethal drugs must be recommended by either the National Institute of Clinical Excellence or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group in Wales as appropriate.

Amendment 467, in clause 20, page 13, line 38, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure and when tabling the draft of the statutory instrument the Secretary of State must at the same time lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out all relevant information on the likely time to death, complications and likely side effect.”

Amendment 482, in clause 20, page 13, line 39, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

Clause stand part.

[Danny Kruger]

I rise to speak primarily to the amendments in my name and those in the name of the hon. Member for York Central with respect to the regulations for the approval of the approved substances—the drugs that will be used in the procedure of assisted death.

My amendment 465 states:

“A drug may only be approved under this Act if it has been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency”.

Amendment 437 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central would achieve a similar objective. My amendment 466 would require that the drugs

“may only be approved under this Act if the Secretary of State is reasonably of the opinion that there is a scientific consensus that this drug or combination of drugs, is effective at ending someone’s life without causing pain.”

I also support amendment 482 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central, which would move the approval of the regulations to the affirmative procedure.

Those who support this Bill argue that death through the administration of lethal drugs offers dignity and the avoidance of suffering. If that is to be the case, the drugs used must be effectively regulated and life must be ended effectively and without pain. The amendments I have mentioned specify the role of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency; in my view, to leave this entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State, as clause 20 does, is quite an extraordinary step. It feels remarkable that the Bill as drafted leaves this enormous question to the Secretary of State.

[Peter Dowd in the Chair]

Good afternoon, Mr Dowd; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

Throughout the Bill, important questions are left to regulations made subsequently by the Secretary of State. I think that is inappropriate here. When patients are prescribed medicines, in most cases the medicine will be licensed by the MHRA for use for the treatment of the particular condition. Patients can be assured that the medicine has been evaluated by the MHRA to ensure that it meets safety and efficacy standards. The MHRA reviews clinical trial data, inspects manufacturing facilities, monitors post-market safety and conducts independent quality testing so that there is regulation of medicine.

I have two concerns with my own amendments here; they might have occurred to other hon. Members, too, if they are paying attention. First, I do not accept that the procedure we are debating here is in fact healthcare. The question then arises, “Why are you proposing that the healthcare regulator would oversee the administration of the drugs?” My response to that is, “Well, somebody’s got to do it.” In fact, we are talking about substances that might be used in a medical setting, that would be appropriate in other medical settings, and that will have an effect on the body comparable to that for which they are licensed for medicine. Obviously, the intention is the direct opposite: they are licensed for genuine medicine and healthcare in order to preserve life and treat symptoms, but the intention here is to eliminate life without reference to symptoms.

Nevertheless, the only appropriate authority in our country is the MHRA—unless we were to conceive of another new body that would have that specific responsibility. However, that body would have the same obligations that the MHRA does to ensure that the substance is safe, paradoxically, in the sense of not causing unwanted side effects or distress to the patient.

The second objection—there is no reason why hon. Members present would know about it, but I have spoken in the main Chamber before about my concerns about the MHRA—is that, while I have just cited all the work that the MHRA is supposed to do in the regulation of medicines and healthcare products, I am afraid it does not do that job well. I do not want to give the Committee the impression that I think we have a perfect regulator; I think we have a very imperfect regulator in all sorts of ways.

In fact, the hon. Member for Stroud and I have participated in debates on the regulation of antidepressants and addiction-forming prescribed drugs, an important debate in which he and I are on the same side. There is genuine concern about the way the health regulator operates—we will not get into covid vaccines and other things at this moment; we have enough on our plate.

Nevertheless, despite the problems with the MHRA and the fact that I do not want to give the impression that I am concluding that assisted suicide is in fact healthcare, somebody has to do this. We cannot allow a situation in which the patient takes an overdose of a drug with no controls to ensure that the drug meets quality standards and does the job that it is meant to do. A tablet that is licensed for prescription or sale would need to have a minimum level of purity of the active substance, and to be free from other substances and contaminants that might cause unpleasant side effects or reactions. Without regulation, there is a risk that the drug may fail to work as intended or may induce unwanted side effects, such as those that we are all concerned about.

The question is: what safety standards should apply to an approved substance used for the purpose of assisted dying? A drug used to bring about death is not curing or preventing disease, or alleviating symptoms to improve death.

[Sojan Joseph]

We had some discussion earlier about how we will potentially be assisting dying in people’s own homes—that was not previously known to us; we thought it would be always in clinical settings—so medication will be transported from where it is stored as a controlled drug, in a hospital setting, to the patient’s home. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is important that we have clear guidance as to how we store this medication?

[Danny Kruger]

I entirely agree. The regulations need to specify not only what drugs may be approved, but, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, how they should be stored and transported. I would expect that to be part of the package of regulations under the Bill.

As I have stated, I do not accept that we are talking about healthcare here; nevertheless, we are using products that are comparable to health products. The MHRA would need to significantly adapt its work in order to identify the most effective drug to cause what we currently perceive as harm—namely, the death of a patient. I recognise that that would be a significant change of remit and work for the MHRA, but we need to do it. One of the reasons that we need regulation of approved substances is to help ensure that falsified versions of the drug—drugs that do not have a licence for use in assisted dying—cannot enter the market. Such drugs may not be effective and could cause distress to those ending their lives and their families. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether, in his view, clause 20 is sufficient to establish the necessary regulatory regime, or whether further legislation will be needed.

We had evidence from Greg Lawton, and other pharmacists, who wrote to the Committee to suggest that the approved substances would not legally come within the definition of a “medicinal product”, so medicines law, the protections associated with medicines and the MHRA licensing process might not apply. If that is the case, what do we do about it? We need a new licensing regime to ensure that the MHRA is able to properly regulate the substances, or, potentially, another regulatory agency would need to be established to do the job.

The Committee needs to make sure that there is a process that applies to approved substances used for assisted dying. It is not necessarily the case that a product licensed for treating a medical condition could not be used to bring about death—it is not the case that we cannot use any drug that is currently used for genuine health treatment—but it would not be being used as a medicine, so medicines law may not apply to its use for that purpose. There is an ambiguity, and I would be grateful for clarity on it.

The amendments that I am supporting would ensure that the MHRA had approved the drug for the specific purpose of ending someone’s life, and that there was scientific consensus that the drug would be effective for that purpose. The MHRA, in the marketing authorisation for the approved substance, would define the dosage of the drug required to bring about death. It would also ensure that specific considerations and warnings were placed in the product licence.

For example, some patients have allergies to certain drugs. If they decide to end their own life, that should be brought about as a result of the effect of the drug, not an unintended allergic reaction to it. Some patients would not be able to take drugs orally and might need to have the drug administered through a tube into the stomach, so different formulations would need to be available. Some drugs may need to be administered by injection. Patients may be unable to do the injection themselves, as we have discussed. Even if the patient is physically capable, injection techniques require proper training, and that needs to be considered when licensing drugs for assisted dying if the patient is responsible for self-administration.

There will be further considerations when deciding what drugs can be used. Patients will have a right to know what to expect. If they take the drug orally, how long will they have to wait before they die? Will they lose consciousness first? If so, how long will that take? Could there be some side effects or reactions after taking the drug, such as seizures or choking, that the family or carers will have to deal with? Can the drug be taken at home—that relates to the point that the hon. Member for Ashford made—or must it be used in a clinical setting? We have suggested that it could be used at home, so questions about transportation arise. Is a combination of drugs required? If so, in what order should they be taken? What happens if the patient passes out before taking the entire concoction of drugs? Has the drug formulation been optimised for the purpose of assisted dying, so that it reaches maximum blood levels as quickly as possible?

All these sorts of questions are appropriate for medical regulators. The MHRA could ensure that the patient information leaflet, and the warnings associated with it, given with the drug when it is prescribed prompt doctors to think about what drugs are most suitable for the patient and to provide information to the patient about what to expect.

Parliament must have oversight. It must bear responsibility for the kinds of deaths that it approves. Both Houses of Parliament should approve the statutory instrument. To inform that decision, the Secretary of State should provide all relevant information on the likely time to death, and on complications and side effects. When the state is creating a regime that will end lives, there must be maximum transparency and accountability, yet the Bill provides that this will be done by a negative statutory instrument. In other words, Parliament will get a say on the regulations only if the Leader of the Opposition prays against them—that is the process for a negative SI. That is the only circumstance under which the Government would make time for a debate and a vote on a negative SI. Given that this is an issue of conscience, I find it inconceivable that the Leader of the Opposition would want to take a position on it and so pray against it to trigger a proper debate. I think it is highly likely that Parliament would never get a say on this crucial issue because of the use of the negative procedure.

That situation has been recognised repeatedly as being unacceptable. When Lord Falconer introduced his Assisted Dying Bill to the House of Lords in 2014, it too provided for a negative SI power on this matter. The highly respected House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—we do not have an equivalent Committee in the Commons, but it sits over Parliament—said that it did not consider either the power or the procedure in the Falconer Bill to be appropriate, yet that is the procedure that we are being presented with here.

In 2021, when Baroness Meacher introduced her Assisted Dying Bill to the House of Lords, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee again issued a report, in which it said:

“In the interests of clarity and transparency on such important issues of public policy, the matters that are in due course to be dealt with under clause 4(7) by negative regulations should in our view be spelled out in detail on the face of the Bill from the outset. Accordingly, the Bill should contain a definitive list of medicines, and details of the manner and conditions under which such medicines are to be dispensed, stored, transported, used and destroyed. The power to amend such matters should be a matter for regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.”

We then come to Lord Falconer’s 2024 Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill, which he withdrew following the introduction of this Bill by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. That Bill in part took on that feedback from the Lords Committee. Although it did not provide a list of medicines, it did at least provide that the power to specify the drugs would be through the affirmative procedure.

The Hansard Society, which is non-partisan and neutral on assisted dying, has issued a critical report on this power. It says:

“MPs may wish to enquire why Kim Leadbeater has chosen not to adopt the scrutiny procedure set out in the 2024 bill, but has preferred that proposed in the 2014 and 2021 incarnations of the bill, despite the advice to the contrary of the Delegated Powers Committee.”

I would be grateful to learn from the hon. Lady why she has chosen this procedure.

It might be objected that the list that I am requesting might need to be modified quickly and that the affirmative procedure—having a parliamentary vote—would be an obstacle to doing that. The Hansard Society anticipated that objection. It said that

“this could be addressed by making provision for the use of the ‘made affirmative’ procedure in urgent cases where the Secretary of State wishes to remove a substance from the approved list and is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so immediately in order to prevent adverse medical events or failed assisted deaths. This would mean Ministers could act expeditiously but Parliament would have to debate and approve – albeit retrospectively – the change in the list. Whilst not perfect it would provide more opportunity for oversight than that offered by the negative scrutiny procedure.”

It seems to me that there is no justification for this vital matter to be regulated under the negative procedure. Too much power and responsibility is being given to Ministers subsequent to the passage of the Bill— if that is what happens. My amendment 467 would ensure that Parliament has a meaningful say, through the affirmative procedure, and that a report is published as part of that process setting out the expected efficacy of the drugs that will be used. I hope that the Committee will support it.

[Rebecca Paul]

My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire eloquently covered most of the things I would have said.

We have probably not spoken enough to date about the impact on pharmacists, but we are getting to the point in the Bill where it is really important that we take on board the written evidence and feedback that we are hearing from them. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society said:

“In dispensing a prescription, a pharmacist assumes a proportion of the responsibility for that prescription and therefore must be assured that all legal requirements are in place and that it is entirely appropriate for the patient. The link to the clinical assessment of eligibility criteria is essential and therefore the prescriber should always be one of the assessors. In addition to the usual practice of checking that the prescription fulfils the necessary legal requirement, pharmacists must have full access to the patient’s diagnosis and assisted dying care plan.”

That raises a few valid and interesting points that we need to take on board to ensure that pharmacists can do their jobs in line with the regulations and laws they are subject to, which are ultimately there to maintain patient safety.

I support amendment 466, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, which would ensure that the Secretary of State must be of the opinion that there is scientific consensus that the drug is effective without causing pain. I am of the view that the Secretary of State is probably the right place for that responsibility to sit. One reason for that, which my hon. Friend spoke about, is that I am not sure that the MHRA is the right regulating body for that. I am no expert on this, and I am open to hearing the debate, but the MHRA’s remit covers medicines and healthcare products, so there is a question about whether legally the responsibility falls to it. If it does not, do we set up another body, or do we adjust its remit so that it is covered? I have reservations about doing anything that would merge assisted dying into normal healthcare, but I have laid that out many times over the weeks, so I will not go over that.

My understanding is that, on top of all the things my hon. Friend set out, the MHRA’s role is to give marketing authorisation for the promotion and advertising of medicine. Once that has been given, reams of regulations and compliance must be done, including in respect of the labelling of medicine. I believe it would have to be put on packaging that a medicine could be used for assisted dying. We need to get clarity on that from experts in the field, so that we fully understand it. If that is the case, how do we feel about making it clear that said medicines, potentially out in the market, could be used for assisted dying? I suggest there could be some significant downsides to such clear labelling. That is something for us all to think about. I wanted to raise those important points.

--- Later in debate ---

The MHRA is undoubtedly the best qualified agency in this country to undertake such a task. We could create another quango to specifically monitor the efficacy of and complications around lethal drugs, but that organisation would be starting from scratch, and it would almost certainly have to recruit its staff from the MHRA. We could give the task of monitoring drug efficacy and complications to the newly created commissioner, but I have warned before that we are giving the commissioner—one person—too much power to mark their own homework and, again, the commissioner would have to recruit experts in pharmacology, whereas the MHRA already has some of the best in the world.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady puts her finger on the tension—my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate and I expressed it as well—about whether it is appropriate to give the health regulator responsibility for regulating a product that is about not health, but death. Does the hon. Lady agree that no other agency would be appropriate, given the skills she has set out? The purpose of these lethal drugs is to kill the patient; nevertheless, it is appropriate that we consider them in terms of not only that objective but their potential side effects. The purpose is not one of healthcare, but the product is very close to a healthcare intervention. Therefore, despite all our anxieties, it feels appropriate for the healthcare regulator to oversee this.

[Naz Shah]

I absolutely agree and share those concerns. This is important. I appreciate that we have had this debate for many days now. Is this a healthcare intervention? Is it a treatment? What words should we apply? In this instance, when it comes to drugs, there are potential side effects. We have seen that they do not work everywhere and that they create complications. We have just debated whether a doctor should be in the room, outside the room or round the corner, as well as whether they should be visible or able to see what is going on. Ultimately, this is about the drugs. Having looked at the issue, I genuinely cannot imagine anything but the MHRA in this role. Are we really going to set up something completely new, outside our health service, that regulates drugs, their side effects and the potential implications?

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend clearly speaks with expertise. There are other regulators, but the reason why I support amendment 465 is that the MHRA is an institution that we trust and that has the expertise. My understanding—my hon. Friend might be able to tell me differently—is that, of the regulators, the MHRA is the body that does the ultimate rubber-stamping and gives our country confidence in the national health service.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is right that there is no other agency that is appropriate. The difficulty is that the MHRA is itself highly conflicted—we will come in due course to discuss the role of the profit motive in this mooted procedure—and the big problem is that it is overwhelmingly funded by the pharmaceutical companies. We have to ensure that there is no hint of corruption in the system, but I agree with the hon. Lady that the only way to do this is through that agency, but perhaps after reform.

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention.

We should be using the world-class pharmaceutical regulator we already have to oversee the drugs that will be used for assisted dying, and I urge all Committee members to support the amendment, which is a very important safeguard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

My view is that this is very clearly a matter for the Secretary of State, but with expert clinical and medical guidance. These are the people who should be making the decisions about such drugs. The evidence about this type of medication exists. As part of the commencement period and the consultation period, I anticipate there will be wide consultation about the drugs that are available. I think it is best left with the Secretary of State, so I would leave the clause unamended.

[Danny Kruger]

I will press amendments 465 to 467, but not amendment 409. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

Before we continue, let me make a point about the process for tonight. We are not far off a vote in the main Chamber: it may happen in the next half-hour. There may be four or five votes, including a potential Division on Third Reading of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. No doubt people will need a comfort break, so my intention is that when the Division bell rings, we will suspend for an hour and 15 minutes. I am not saying that that will absolutely the right period, but it is as good as we can judge at this stage.

Amendment proposed: 465, in clause 20, page 13, line 36, at end insert—

“(1A) A drug may only be approved under this Act if it has been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for that purpose.”—(Danny Kruger.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

Amendment 379 would ensure that the co-ordinating doctor provides the commissioner with a copy of their final statement in cases in which the person has successfully been provided with assistance to end their life in accordance with the Bill. That is an important part of the reporting procedures and of the role of the commissioner. If agreed to, the amendment will ensure a robust recording and monitoring process for assisted dying.

Amendment 500 provides that regulations about the form of the final statement must make the provision mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (i) of proposed new subsection (3A). It builds on my amendment 214, which would amend subsection (3)(a) to require that the form of the final statement must be set out in

“regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

This is another way of ensuring robust and thorough reporting.

[Danny Kruger]

I thank the hon. Lady for explaining the purpose of the amendments. Amendment 500 specifies the information that a final statement must contain. Will she clarify why there is no requirement to record any details of what happened once the drugs were administered, other than the time between the use of the approved substance and death?

In this debate, we have acknowledged the importance of record keeping. If the intention is to maintain public confidence in the system, should there not be some provision to record whether complications happen and what complications there were? This skirting of the issue of complications is concerning. We have ruled out explicitly informing patients of the risk of complications.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do not think that anyone has ruled out discussing complications. Clause 9 makes it clear that the doctor has a very clear discussion with the patient about what will happen if they proceed with an assisted death.

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry; I mis-spoke. I should have said that we have ruled out clarifying the expectations of what doctors should do in the event of an assisted death, and whether or not that is specified by the patient.

Earlier today, the Committee again ruled out specifying what the obligations on doctors are if complications arise, whatever the patient has discussed earlier. With this amendment, we now seem to be ruling out gathering any information about what happened, which is surely vital not just for safeguarding but to develop good practice in the operation of the Bill, a point that the hon. Member for Ashford made earlier. There is too much silence in the Bill, between the taking of the substance and death, on what happens if there are complications, what is permitted and, now, what is recorded. Amendment 439, in the name of the hon. Member for York Central, attempts to address that point. I hope that the Committee will accept it.

[Naz Shah]

I rise to speak to amendment 439, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, which would amend clause 21 such that the relevant body would provide the chief medical officer and the commissioner with the full set of documents relating to a person who had undergone assisted dying. The relevant body would be the co-ordinating doctor if that person were a practitioner with the person’s GP practice. If the co-ordinating doctor did not meet that condition, the person’s GP practice would have the responsibility of sending those documents.

Those documents would be the person’s full medical records, court records and all documentation relating to assessments and procedures relating to the person’s assisted death. I note that “court record” refers to the Bill before we agreed to the amendments and new clauses that replace the High Court procedure with a panel system. We should be able to slightly tweak the wording to reflect that when we tidy up the Bill. That is what the amendment does. Let me say a little about why it does so and how it would make the Bill stronger.

The key aim is to ensure proper public oversight of any assisted dying scheme. The Bill creates the role of the voluntary assisted dying commissioner, who will look at and report on the workings of the system, appoint panel members and be the final court of appeal, so to speak. Those are far too many powers to give to one person, but if we are giving the commissioner a duty to report on how the system works, they should have the best possible information. It is only right that the information also be sent to the chief medical officer for England or for Wales, as appropriate; they are both very senior public officials and experienced doctors.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has tabled amendment 382, which, to quote the explanatory statement,

“provides for monitoring, investigation and reporting functions under Clause 34 to be carried out by the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner (instead of the Chief Medical Officers for England and for Wales).”

I will have more to say on that amendment when we come to it, but removing the chief medical officer from the monitoring, investigation and reporting functions is not a good idea.

What use could the commissioner and the chief medical officers make of the data provided under amendment 439? Let me give some practical examples. If there were reported instances of a person experiencing discomfort or pain as a result of taking the medication, that would be of interest to the CMO and the assisted dying commissioner. It could trigger a further exploration of the titration of medication used in the procedure. As another example, let us think about what could happen if a family raised concerns about a person receiving assisted dying despite lacking capacity or being coerced. The CMO and assisted dying commissioner could use the information provided to investigate those allegations.

The amendment will ensure that the assisted dying commissioner and the chief medical officer receive detailed qualitative as well as quantitative data on people who have received assisted deaths. It is an important step towards making sure that the assisted dying scheme receives proper, well-informed scrutiny. In turn, that scrutiny will make it less likely that the scheme will allow abuses or ignore serious problems. I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I rise to speak to amendment 440, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for York Central. I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Banbury. Surely it is the case that the interventions made by a medical practitioner in response to the procedure failing, and the timing of those interventions, must be properly recorded. Should the procedure fail, the need for record keeping is of significant importance, as with all medical record keeping.

The doctor with the patient should write up the notes, including the times at which they reacted negatively to the procedure, the amount of medication that they consumed, any side effects and any action taken. That is good practice. In other jurisdictions there has been poor record keeping, as I mentioned, when things have not gone according to plan. We do not fully understand what happened in those instances or, more generally, the prevalence of complications in those jurisdictions. That information will be vital if further interventions are required, including emergency care.

Clause 22 deals with two situations: if the person decides not to take the substance or if the procedure fails—the phrase “Other matters to be recorded in medical records” seems a rather innocuous title for a clause that deals with such situations. In fact, I think that is the only mention of the procedure failing in the whole Bill. However, the clause, and amendment 380, simply require the co-ordinating doctor to notify the commissioner that it has happened as soon as practicable. Do we have any sense of when the doctor should judge the procedure to have failed? I would be grateful if the Minister or the promoter could offer a definition of procedural failure. What does that actually mean?

That question arises in other jurisdictions that have assisted dying laws. A 2019 paper by the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers said:

“There is no clear cut-off for what constitutes ‘delayed time to death’ or ‘failed oral MAID’.”

At what point does a delayed time to death yield to failure? That question is not just abstract for us; it is a philosophical question in other contexts, but we are required to answer it. That paper goes on to suggest that

“clinicians should decide with patients in advance at what point they will consider inserting an IV and completing the provision”,

which is a rather euphemistic term but we know what it means. That is legal in Canada, but it would not be here, so what happens?

In written evidence, Dr Alexandra Mullock, who is a senior lecturer in medical law and co-director of the Centre for Social Ethics and Policy at the University of Manchester, pointed out:

“The Bill is silent on the precise obligations of the doctor if the procedure fails.”

Clause 18(9)(a)(ii) states that the doctor must remain with the person, but what the doctor should be permitted to do, either in relation to aiding recovery or supporting the person to die after the initial attempt has failed, is unclear. She said:

“During my work with the Nuffield Citizen’s Jury, the issue of what happens if the drugs do not end the person’s life was raised within the evidence presented to the jury, and this became a point of concern for several jurors.”

She also said:

“By not addressing this question within the Bill, it allows doctors to exercise clinical discretion, however, it is arguably legally and ethically preferable to clarify the position and address public concern by including a clause that covers this problem.”

I hope that is helpful.

I will end by referencing the hon. Member for York Central, who tabled amendment 440 and made the case very powerfully. She said that should the procedure fail, the need for record keeping is of significant importance, as with all medical record keeping. I have already said that, but we cannot have too much of the hon. Member for York Central.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Amendment 380 is one that the Government have worked on with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. As the Bill currently stands, clause 22 sets out that where a person decides not to take an approved substance provided under clause 18 or where the procedure fails, the co-ordinating doctor must record that that has happened in the person’s medical record or inform a registered medical practitioner with the person’s GP practice. The amendment would require that in those circumstances, the voluntary assisted dying commissioner must also be notified.

I turn to amendment 440. As I have just mentioned, clause 22 provides that the co-ordinating doctor is required either to record in the person’s medical records or inform a medical practitioner registered at that person’s GP practice if the person has decided not to take the substance or the procedure has failed.

The amendment increases the requirements on the co-ordinating doctor to document in such cases any interventions made by a medical practitioner and the timing of those interventions. The requirement on the co-ordinating doctor to record interventions following a failed procedure is open-ended in time, which could lead to operational challenges. For example, the co-ordinating doctor would remain obliged to record the medical interventions made by others in response to the procedure failing, even if those interventions took place weeks or months after the event itself. I hope that those observations have been helpful to the Committee.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fourth sitting)

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I will speak briefly to amendment 316 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). She has tabled a sensible suggestion that if a patient makes a statement after the second period of reflection, there should be an automatic referral to palliative care. We have heard how expected and usual that is anyway, and the hon. Member for Spen Valley has frequently made the point that people who are having an assisted death, or going through the process, are likely to be in palliative care anyway—it is not an either/or. It is important that we clarify that expectation.

It will obviously be the case that the patient is not required to take up the referral, and if the referral already exists, that case is dealt with, but let us be absolutely clear that the decision to take an assisted death is not a fork in the road, as would be my concern. If that is not the case and that, in fact, palliative care and the assisted death process go hand in hand and will be seen as part of an integrated package of support for patients, my view is that we should specify clearly that in the event of a decision to proceed down the road to an assisted death, a palliative care referral should be made.

Bluntly, I want to make this as clear as we can, although I am not sure that we will ever be able to do that fully. It really has to be very plain to healthcare commissioners and managers that there is to be no cost saving as a result of an assisted death referral. I very much doubt that a single commissioner or manager would have that at the forefront of their mind; nevertheless, incentives apply in healthcare decisions. Ultimately, we have a ration system, and resource allocation necessarily is the job of commissioners.

If, as we are saying, a decision to proceed with an assisted death will be in parallel with palliative care, let us make that plain, so that if indeed it is the case that the patient requires the investment of palliative care services—hospice treatment or otherwise, even though, as we know, hospice care is inadequately funded through public money—nevertheless, there is a resource requirement. It is important that we specify to everybody in the system that an assisted death is not a way of avoiding the expense of proper end-of-life care.

I hope that Members will recognise that amendment 316 is consistent with the arguments that have been made consistently by advocates of the Bill, which is that there is not an either/or between palliative care and assisted death, and that, in fact, it is appropriate for patients to be on both tracks simultaneously.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey.

The purpose of amendment 457 is to exclude a person who has less than one month to live from being eligible for the shorter second period of reflection of 48 hours if that person has voluntarily stopped eating and drinking. That person would instead be required to comply with a second period of reflection of 14 days under clause 13(2)(a). The amendment could create uncertainty as to the required length of the period of reflection. It is unclear, for example, if “voluntarily” would include where someone’s appetite has naturally declined as they approach the end of life, and therefore whose decision to stop eating or drinking may not be deliberate.

As I have said previously, the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on certain amendments to bolster the legal and workability sides of the Bill, and the purpose of amendment 471 is to clarify that the co-ordinating doctor needs to be satisfied that, immediately before witnessing the second declaration, the criteria set out at subsection (4) are met, and not at any time before. That also ensures consistency with the duty on the co-ordinating doctor in respect of the first declaration.

Amendment 316 would require that where the co-ordinating doctor reasonably believes that the person seeking assistance has less than one month to live from the court declaration, they must refer that person for urgent specialist palliative care. As the referral must be made whether the patient wants that referral or not, this may result in unwanted referrals. The effect of this amendment is unclear.

As drafted, clause 13(2)(b) sets out that where the person’s death is likely to occur within one month, the period of reflection is then 48 hours. Amendment 316 sets out that the referral to urgent palliative care must be made alongside the co-ordinating doctor making the statement, which is the last step to be completed before the provision of assistance under clause 18. That would mean that in some circumstances, there may be insufficient time to make a referral before the person is provided with assistance to end their life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I hope that these are a couple of nice, simple amendments. The right of the patient to cancel at any time is obviously really important. It is also important that, for the purpose of monitoring and reporting the process, the commissioner, as proposed, is kept informed at every stage. I hope that the whole Committee can see the necessity of these amendments.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is quite right that there is nothing to object to in these amendments or the clause. It is worth stating at this point, though, that in the context of the debate we are having in this Committee, we are moving at some pace. The likelihood is that there will be opportunity for only a five-hour debate on Report—maybe more, but possibly not. This Committee is the time we have to consider in detail the content of the Bill. My concern is that moving too quickly and trying to do too much too soon means that we will miss the opportunity to debate very important aspects of the Bill.

The hon. Lady says that these are “nice, simple” amendments, as if the only thing being discussed here is the paperwork around the declaration. What should we say to patients who decide to cancel their declaration? My concern—I am unaware of any other point when we could appropriately discuss this question—is what happens in the event of a cancellation. What duty of care do doctors have to patients who have decided not to proceed with an assisted death? The Bill does not currently address that question: it imposes no obligation on doctors to follow up in any way after a declaration has been cancelled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

rose—

[Danny Kruger]

Before I give way to my right hon. Friend, I want to posit the hypothesis of a private provider that has been established explicitly for the purpose of facilitating the assisted death procedure for patients. If that provider steps back when the patient decides to cancel their declaration, the provider is required to notify the GP as soon as practicable, whatever that means—the timeframe there is clearly at the convenience of the provider, not the patient. My concern is what happens when the patient’s GP is not quickly informed that they have decided not to proceed with the assisted death and they are sitting in limbo. Obviously, there are significant concerns about their wellbeing, given their decision and the state they are in. It is not yet fully clear to me what the obligations on the doctors would be at that stage.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am not entirely certain that my hon. Friend’s remarks are germane to the amendments, but nevertheless. As we discussed when debating clause 13, at the stage he is talking about, the patient will have had all their options—“all appropriate”, as I think we have amended the Bill to say, services that will be available to them—explained to them. If they are cancelling, the presumption has to be, in respecting their autonomy, that they are choosing one of the alternative paths that has been laid out to them. It is quite hard to legislate for a negative.

[Danny Kruger]

I am speaking to the group as a whole, which includes clause stand part. I have no objection to the amendments. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, the expectation is that the medical professionals involved in the person’s care will have laid out their options clearly. We are to a certain degree trusting in that because amendments to insist on it have been rejected, although I recognise that it will be the clear expectation. He is right that it is hard, as it were, to prove a negative.

Nevertheless, the purpose of my speech at this point is to tease out from the advocates of the Bill what their expectation is. My right hon. Friend has clearly explained his expectation, which is that we are dealing with somebody whose mind is clear, rational, uncluttered by other concerns and entirely free of any undue influences or anxieties about the different choices they might make. Having previously decided in the fullness of their autonomy that they wanted to go through the procedure, they have now decided in the fullness of their autonomy that they want to do the opposite, and we should say, “Fine. We have no further interest in your decision making. It is your choice—you’re on your own.” I am very concerned about the implication of my right hon. Friend’s comments about the sorts of patients who might be involved in the process of assisted dying.

[Kim Leadbeater]

To allay those fears, perhaps the fundamental answer to the question is that those people do not stop being patients—sadly, they do not stop being terminally ill patients. They have just chosen to cancel the declaration, and they will already have wraparound care. To some degree, the hon. Gentleman answered his own question when he said that doctors have a duty of care. That duty of care does not stop because the person has chosen to take this course of action. They will still be cared for by the professionals looking after them.

[Danny Kruger]

Well, we certainly hope so. Nevertheless, that is inconsistent with the doctrine of absolute patient autonomy, which in this circumstance allows a patient to withdraw from the medical treatment, or at least from the support of the medics who had been facilitating their assisted death. They are rightly under no obligation to receive any other sort of care.

Of course, one would assume that in most cases medics will be closely involved in looking after these patients, because they are likely to be very ill. Nevertheless, the Bill has nothing more to say about patients who have just stepped back from the brink of suicide; the medics will have no further obligation to ensure that they will be looked after—except by the GP, as soon as it is practicable for the provider who has just been denied the business of looking after the assisted death to get round to emailing them. If that is seen as sufficient to ensure that those patients will be properly looked after, I beg to differ.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am not sure what compulsion there is in wider legislation for there to be a duty of care to patients who do not choose assisted dying in the first place. For thousands and thousands of patients who die, there is no legislation that imposes certain duties on medics or others to look after them; we rely on the professional standards and overall atmosphere of the healthcare system, as we would in the case of these patients.

As my hon. Friend knows, overseas experience shows that a large proportion of the people who obtain the right to an assisted death—up to a third—do not cancel but do not exercise it. As we have said before, for many people assisted dying is an insurance card that they may choose to use if and when they think their life becomes intolerable.

[Danny Kruger]

I recognise that, but that is not germane to the debate that we are having, which is about the actual cancellation. There is a question about why there would have been a cancellation. My right hon. Friend is right that there is no obligation to proceed once a patient passes a particular hurdle. Many will not, but when someone decides actively to renounce their decision, a big question should be asked: what is going on, and what further help is needed?

My right hon. Friend suggests that we do not step in and ensure that care is provided—that, in other circumstances, there is no additional obligation in relation to patients. I am afraid to say that he has, as ever, a coldly rationalistic vision of healthcare and of the sorts of patients we are dealing with. As I have said to him, these patients will be acting much as I imagine he would imagine—I think from a position of health and self-confidence—himself acting in that circumstance. In fact, we are dealing with people who have decided to renounce their decision to proceed, and so are by definition in some turmoil.

I crave the indulgence of the Committee, because I am talking at length about a set of amendments that I do not intend to oppose, and I recognise the value and necessity of the clause. However, I draw to the Committee’s attention that we are dealing not simply with a bit of paperwork, but with a human being who, having made one enormous decision—to die—is now making an enormous decision to live, and we are treating it as if it is only a bureaucratic question.

I finish with a question to the hon. Member for Spen Valley or to the Minister, to help me understand something that confuses me in the clause.

[Naz Shah]

I have not given this matter as much thought as the hon. Member has. My interest is very much in the issue of domestic violence. Does he agree that this could be somebody who has experienced domestic violence? Or children could be at risk. This person may then decide not to take the option, even though they wanted to, because of obligations elsewhere.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is right, and her point goes to the question that runs through all of these clauses: why? As a Committee, we rejected the obligation on the doctors to ask, “Why are you doing this?” It was suggested by one hon. Member that it was nobody’s business why somebody was trying to take their own life and that if that person qualified, they should be able to summon the agents of the state to provide them with lethal drugs without any question about their motivation.

I agree with the hon. Lady. There is an equal expectation in my mind that doctors should ask the question, “Why are you changing your mind?” I would expect that. The clause could clarify what further referrals would need to be made, if they had not already been; as we have acknowledged, we would expect appropriate care to be provided by doctors anyway.

I conclude with a factual question. Clause 14(1) lets a patient cancel a first or second declaration, but subsection (4) says only that the duties of the doctor stop when a first declaration is cancelled. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Spen Valley would explain what happens if the patient cancels a second declaration. It strikes me that there would be a need for urgency because if a patient decides to change their mind at that point, that is arguably a more dangerous situation. What would be the obligations on the doctor at that point? Should we read across from subsection (4) that their duties stop in the same way? Perhaps that could be clarified in later drafting, if necessary.

To conclude, my general point is that the issue of a cancelled declaration is about more than the paperwork. Although, of course, we respect the autonomy of a patient to make their own decision to cancel a declaration—obviously, I would insist that that right should be in the Bill—it nevertheless raises a question in my mind: why is that happening, and what should we expect the patient’s medical team, or others, to do in that circumstance?

[Stephen Kinnock]

The Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on amendments 375 and 376. The amendments require that where the co-ordinating doctor, or any registered practitioner from the person’s GP practice, receives a notification or indication from the person seeking assistance under the Bill that the person wishes to cancel their first or second declaration, the doctor or practitioner must inform the voluntary assisted dying commissioner as soon as practicable. Where a registered practitioner from the person’s GP practice has received a notification or indication from the person to cancel their first or second declaration, they must also inform the co-ordinating doctor. I hope those observations are helpful to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s acceptance of the amendment, and I think she sees the point behind it. It was meant not to be awkward—I do not think I have been at all awkward during this process—but simply to state that, if there were concerns later, the reason why the proxy was required should be there in a transparent way. I commend amendment 321 to the Committee.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I very much support his amendment; it is good to hear that the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, will as well. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford has made his points very powerfully, and it is good that we are in agreement.

I also support amendment 431, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, which would restrict proxies to donees of lasting power of attorney. The point is that somebody who has been through the process of taking on power of attorney has been properly vetted and approved; they are required to demonstrate their fitness for the role and undertake a meaningful duty of care to the person for whom they are a proxy. That strikes me as an appropriate suggestion from the hon. Lady.

Amendment 411, tabled by the hon. Member for Broxtowe, suggests that the phrase

“a person who is of good standing in the community”

should be deleted. I think she is absolutely right to suggest that. I made the point on Second Reading that—

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Danny Kruger]

I think the hon. Lady is about to say that her own amendment addresses that point.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My point was that I think amendment 411 has been withdrawn.

[Danny Kruger]

Is that the case? I apologise.

[The Chair]

I will double check.

[Danny Kruger]

Okay. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Spen Valley, if so. I regret it, because I think amendment 411 had a good suggestion. It would have been my preference if we were just amending the provision, although removing the whole question of a proxy might be the safest thing. Nevertheless, if we are proceeding with the proxy arrangement, it strikes me as dangerous to include a person of good standing in the community. While it sounds like an old-fashioned and sonorous expression, as if it has genuine meaning and recognition, I do not think it is an acknowledged concept and does not appear in English law much, if at all. It obviously begs the question of what on earth it means, and who is to determine who is of good standing.

I labour the point even though the amendment might have been withdrawn, because amendment 473 in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley proposes to delete that phrase and give the responsibility for who the proxies could be to the Secretary of State. That is another important instance of a running flaw in the Bill, and particularly the amendments tabled in Committee, which is the transferring of important decisions beyond the Committee and Parliament to the Government and the Minister of the day.

That matters, because we are trying to ensure that when the Bill passes—if it passes—it is safe, but a blank space is being left on the important question of who can determine who the proxies are. The proxies have enormous power to do the paperwork and to answer the questions—to essentially act on behalf of the patient who, in the scenario envisaged, would be silent. It matters who the proxy is.

The decision of the hon. Member for Spen Valley is not to resolve that question here in Committee but to pass it on to a future Minister. My concern is that the same ambiguity or openness that is currently in the Bill about this person of good standing—a serious-sounding but actually vacuous concept—could be replicated in the regulations specified by the Secretary of State.

I am worried about where we are going here. Instead, I wish that we could restrict the proxy to somebody known to the patient, without the inclusion of the person of good standing or, if we are to do without that phrase and imagine that there will be other criteria and other individuals judged appropriate to be the proxy, that we had the will to determine that now. The hon. Member for Spen Valley, working with the Government, may well have concluded that they did not have enough time to come up with such a list or to think through the various complications involved in deciding who the proxy should be. Again, if that was the case, I regret the pace at which we are moving. I do not see why the decision has to be delayed until the Secretary of State comes up with a plan in a couple of years’ time and why it is not being resolved in the Bill now.

[The Chair]

I confirm that amendment 411 has been withdrawn. I see no other Members bobbing; I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am not a lawyer, but thankfully I am sitting next to a very eminent and distinguished one—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green—who has confirmed that everything the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said was correct from a legal standpoint, so I shall leave it at that.

Clause 15(5) of the Bill defines a proxy as

“(a) a person who has known the person making the declaration personally for at least 2 years, or

(b) a person who is of good standing in the community.”

Amendment 473 would remove subsection (b) from the definition of proxy, instead introducing a regulation-making power to specify the persons who may act as proxy. That would avoid any ambiguity around the meaning of a person who is of good standing in the community and retain flexibility to amend the specified list in regulations.

[Danny Kruger]

Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State could simply reintroduce that ambiguous term at their own discretion? If they are being given the freedom to decide who can be a proxy, they might decide that it should be a term of equal ambiguity. My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire is absolutely right that I have great respect for the concept of “standing”; nevertheless, I do not believe that the Government have yet been able to define exactly what that means. Does the Minister agree that there is still the opportunity for ambiguity? We are just leaving it completely blank at this stage and hoping that some future Secretary of State will have more clarity than we do.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I would not want to pre-empt the regulations, because clearly that is the point of the process. If this Bill gets Royal Assent, we then move on to making regulations, and I have confidence in the good offices of parliamentary counsel, legal advice and the drafting process. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, that the purpose of those regulations must be to remove ambiguity, not to increase it. I am confident that the system will produce regulations that address his concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will speak first to my amendment 473. It is important to be clear that the role of the proxy is very specific and would be used only in a very limited number of cases, where the patient is not able to sign their own name. That is, however, important when we are talking about terminally ill people who may be physically impaired, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford alluded to.

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady so soon into her speech. Nevertheless, the clause says that someone can use a proxy when they are unable to sign their name

“by reason of physical impairment, being unable to read or for any other reason”.

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that that is tantamount to saying that somebody can have a proxy for any reason at all? There is literally no restriction in the clause on the reason for why somebody could have a proxy—anybody could have one.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is why amendment 321 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford is really important. We have to put the reason down for why there is a proxy. It depends on personal circumstances and what that patient is going through, so we have to have a bit of flexibility, but they have to be unable to sign their name and they have to explain why they are unable to sign their name.

[Danny Kruger]

I hope that this does not appear pedantic, but we are talking about life and death after all. The patient’s inability to sign their name could be psychological; it is not as if they will have to do a writing test. They simply have to say that they are unable to sign their name, unless the hon. Lady is proposing that there could be some sort of test for that.

I entirely support amendment 321 in the name of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about the proxy being obliged to state the reason why—it is good to finally have the question “Why?” being asked in the Bill. Nevertheless, there is no obligation for anything to be done about that reason; someone could give a reason that would be regarded as irrelevant. I respect the intention behind the amendment, but it does not clarify the point that literally anybody could effectively get a proxy to sign their name, having said to the assessing doctor, “I want my friend to sign for me.”

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is the sort of thing that the doctor would explore with the patient. It would happen in a very limited set of circumstances. We have to accommodate people who are physically impaired as a result of their terminal illness, and we have to include that there are a range of circumstances where this might apply. The proxy is being asked not to make any kind of judgment or assessment, but merely to act as an intermediary for the patient if they are unable to sign for themselves. They would have to explain why they are unable to sign for themselves, and the proxy has to be satisfied that the person understands the nature and effect of the making of the declaration.

I thought long and hard about who should and should not be accepted as a proxy. As always, I try to imagine how it would be seen by someone with a terminal illness. As we know, no two people are the same, nor are their circumstances. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire said that surely it should be done by someone the patient knows. The clause defines a proxy as someone the patient has known for two years, which is an important inclusion, but not everyone might have known for two years a person who they are comfortable asking to undertake that role.

I also appreciate the challenges with the wording

“of good standing in the community”.

I will let the hon. Member for East Wiltshire and the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire fight that out among themselves. I am sure we all have our own version of what that means.

I have explored various options and, contrary to the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, I have spent a huge amount of time on this question, because it is very important. Looking at different lists, there is the list of people who can sign the back of someone’s passport. I do not think that would be appropriate, so I moved away from that. I have also looked at much shorter lists. I do think that this question would be part of a consultation; it is really important to get it right, which is why we must have it as part of a consultation. I am content that having the Secretary of State put it in regulations is the right thing to do.

As I said, I am happy to support amendment 321 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. It is a sensible amendment that makes the reasons for the use of the proxy more transparent. If amendment 253 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) is moved, I am happy to support that too. As the Minister said, a cancellation need not be in writing; it can be made orally or through any other form of communication.

Amendment 321 agreed to.

Amendment made: 473, in clause 15, page 11, line 3, leave out from “person” to end of line and insert

“of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment provides that persons of a description specified in regulations (rather than persons “of good standing in the community”) may be proxies.

Amendment made: 253, in clause 15, page 11, line 3, at end insert—

“(6) For the purposes of this section “declaration” includes the cancellation of a declaration.”—(Sean Woodcock.)

This would allow a cancellation of the first or second declaration to be signed by a proxy.

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Recording of declarations and statements etc

Amendments made: 209, in clause 16, page 11, line 8, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—

“(b) a report about the first assessment of a person is made under section 7;

(c) a report about the second assessment of a person is made under section 8;”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 420 and 421.

Amendment 377, in clause 16, page 11, line 12, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—

“(d) a certificate of eligibility has been granted in respect of a person;

(da) a panel has refused to grant such a certificate;”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

The amendments are designed to streamline the drafting of the Bill. Taken together, they create a new definition of a recordable event, namely those events set out in clause 16(1), where declarations and statements are required at any stage of the process. We can all agree that record keeping is essential, so it is necessary to define the events that should be recorded. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

[Danny Kruger]

I very much respect the hon. Lady’s intention, and I support the amendments. On clause 16, however, I must take the opportunity to express a certain concern. The clause applies if, under subsection (1)(b), the co-ordinating doctor

“refuses to make…a statement”

to be entered into the person’s medical records. That is good but, as I understand it, a statement could be made that complies with the Bill but does not put on record, in relation to subsection (2), which requirements the co-ordinating doctor did not believe were satisfied. We have missed an opportunity to have more clarity about which exact requirements have not been met. There is also the eternal question about the co-ordinating doctor’s reasons for reaching that conclusion. I just note the missed opportunity to be a little safer with the drafting.

My more general point is about the importance of effective record keeping and declaration. I thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley, who throughout the whole Bill process has stressed the importance of good data collection and record keeping, which will be vital so that in later years, if the Bill passes, we can judge whether it is working as intended.

I am concerned about going on the evidence of other countries, which is frequently adduced in support of the Bill, particularly in respect of the absence of evidence of coercion, questions around capacity, proper administration of drugs or the support that patients receive. It is often said that concerns are exaggerated or inappropriate, “because look at what happens in other countries”, but let me briefly run through some evidence from abroad.

The fact is that no other country does adequate record keeping. One ambition of the hon. Member for Spen Valley that I really do share is to have a better system of keeping data than in other countries. In Oregon, the most recent annual report demonstrates a whole series of failures in record keeping. Ingestion status was unknown for 25% of the patients prescribed the drugs, so we do not know whether they took the drugs or what the process was. In 72% of cases, it was unknown whether there were complications; we have been talking about how exaggerated my concerns and those of other Members are about complications, but in 72% of cases in Oregon we do not know. In 30% of cases, it was unknown whether a healthcare provider was present. In 44% of cases, the duration between ingestion and death was unknown.

I very much recognise that the intention of the Bill is not to have those sorts of mistake. Indeed, the intention is to ensure that some of them should be impossible, because a doctor should be present and so on. Nevertheless, there is evidence that in other countries that have inspired the Bill, the data is inadequate. I will give a few more examples.

British Columbia has poor documentation, incomplete assessments, recurrent and excessive delays in reporting. In the debate on the last group of amendments, we spoke about the necessity that a doctor be informed if a declaration is cancelled; I am very concerned that that will not happen quickly and that people could fall through the gaps. That is what happens abroad. We have seen evidence from the former Attorney-General of Victoria, Australia, of all sorts of irregularities, with doctors falsely certifying that patients had signed statements and so on.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do not know the details of the individual cases that the hon. Member speaks about, but he makes a powerful point and we absolutely agree on the importance of recording and monitoring. I know that he voted against the changes at clause 12, but I hope he gets some reassurance from the changes that the commission would bring in. Having the commission and the panels would ensure robust monitoring and reporting. I hope he agrees that that is a positive step.

[Danny Kruger]

I absolutely recognise that the hon. Lady has every intention of insisting that the system works well, that doctors do their job and that good record keeping happens. My concern throughout has been that we have not been robust enough in ensuring that all of that happens.

A huge amount of faith is being placed in the good professional conduct of doctors. Patient autonomy has been stressed, but it often translates into doctor autonomy. We are relying enormously on doctors doing their job well, and we are giving them significant latitude to do their job properly. As we see in other jurisdictions, particularly when assisted suicide becomes normalised and services are established explicitly to provide assisted suicide, we get into a dangerous area in which adequate documentation and reporting might not happen.

I will conclude with evidence from Canada, which is a very comparable country; it has a slightly different mechanism for delivering assisted suicide, but its legal framework is very similar to ours. The Health and Social Care Committee in our last Parliament received evidence from an academic in Canada, Dr Kotalik, who stated that federal regulations had been

“mandating a collection of data from MAID providers”,

just as the Bill will do. However, he noted that

“those legal and regulatory efforts have yet to produce evidence that the program operates as intended. We have no publicly accessible evidence that the eligibility criteria and safeguards prescribed by law were respected and that the Criminal Code has not been transgressed.”

It is fine for us, in this Committee and in Parliament, to specify that all doctors should do their job properly and that all data should be appropriately collected, transmitted and recorded. Nevertheless, as we all know from our casework, the reality is often one of bureaucratic mistakes being made, albeit not with any ill will. Given the volumes that we may well be dealing with, I think it is appropriate to raise significant concerns about the operation of the Bill and the data collection that we seek.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Amendment 479 agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Provision of assistance

Amendment made: 378, in clause 18, page 12, line 9, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) a certificate of eligibility has been granted in respect of a person,”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to move amendment 462, in clause 18, page 12, line 20, at end insert—

“(3A) When providing a substance under subsection (3) the coordinating doctor must explain to the person that they do not have to go ahead and self administer the substance and they may still cancel their declaration.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 463, in clause 18, page 12, line 34, leave out paragraph (c).

Amendment 497, in clause 18, page 13, line 9, leave out “decides” and insert

“informs the coordinating doctor that they have decided”.

This amendment provides that the duty to remove the approved substance arises on the coordinating doctor being informed that the person has decided not to self-administer the substance.

Amendment 498, in clause 18, page 13, line 10, leave out

“that the substance is not”

and insert

“to believe that the substance will not be”.

This amendment clarifies the circumstances in which the coordinating doctor is under a duty to remove the approved substance from the person.

[Danny Kruger]

This group of amendments contains two sub-groups that I shall deal with separately. Amendment 462, in my name, and amendments 497 and 498, in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley, concern the information given at the provision of assistance and decisions around that. My amendment 463 concerns the question of assistance in the final act.

This is a rather sombre moment in the Bill, because it is somewhere in clause 18, between subsection (9)(a) and subsection (9)(a)(i)—between the self-administration and “the person has died”—that the death happens. The amendments are about making sure that we understand what is happening here and whether it is safe.

Amendment 462 would require the doctor to make it clear to the patient at the final moment that they do not have to proceed. Of course, this is clearly the implication of the Bill. We have stressed autonomy all along. Everybody who is helping us to draft the Bill, all colleagues in the House and all doctors understand that of course the patient is not obliged to proceed at this point. The reason for the amendment is to think about the patient: to put ourselves in the mind of the person who has gone a long way down the road, who has summoned multiple professionals to endorse a decision that they have made and who has, we hope, involved their family and other people in their life, all of whom will be aware of what is about to happen and will, we also hope, be supportive of that decision or at least neutral about it.

That person finds themselves suddenly at the moment when the drugs are due to be set up for self-administration, a point that we will come on to. That is the final opportunity that they have to decline to proceed. Throughout the Bill, hurdles and gateways have been introduced through which a patient must proceed. In many respects I do not think them adequate, but it is acknowledged by the framers of the Bill that it is necessary to pass through certain hurdles and, in what might appear to be quite a formulaic way, require the patient to confirm and reconfirm that they have a clear, settled and informed wish.

What we do not have at this vital moment—in a sense, the only moment that matters, because everything up to this point has been preliminary; it is at this point that they step through the final gateway—is an obligation, expectation or requirement for any conversation to take place. The doctor is expected to satisfy himself or herself that the patient

“has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”

and must be prepared to swear to that. Nevertheless, there is no expectation that they will have a conversation. We can pretend, imagine, hope or surmise that some kind of conversation would happen at that point—“Do you want to proceed?” “Yes, I do”—but we are not requiring it.

I raise this point in the clear and certain knowledge that many people do, at that moment, have second thoughts. We know that from the number of people who contemplate and get very close to the act of unassisted suicide and step back, literally, from the brink. I want to insist that there is an opportunity here to step back from the brink, just as our suicide prevention strategy seeks to ensure that at the moment when and in the places where many people tragically do take their own life, on bridges or on Beachy Head, there are signs saying, “Call the Samaritans” or “You are not alone”. I want to specify clearly that this is that moment, rather than it being assumed that the train has left the station and the person is just on it now. I think it would be a helpful amendment.

I cite written evidence from Dr Philippa Youd, writing in a personal capacity:

“I have witnessed ‘post-euthanasia regret’. I was 18 when my mother took her own life due to ‘interminable suffering’. She knew what she was doing—she had tried before. Just before she slipped into a coma, she told me she was sorry and that she regretted it. The inquest therefore deemed her death an ‘open verdict’. It was suicide, but it was suicide that was regretted, despite true intent and interminable suffering”—

and no doubt capacity and a lack of coercion. Dr Youd continues:

“No one can EVER be sure they want to die until the moment of death. They may still change their mind and then it is too late. No one can know what patients will truly face, emotionally and cognitively, at the point of death. I have witnessed firsthand the tragic circumstance of someone changing their mind after choosing to die. There is no peace in that.”

I hope that hon. Members will not consider that this amendment is unnecessary embroidery or that requiring a simple statement to be made is some kind of imposition on the autonomy of doctors or patients. Someone should still be able to turn back and change their mind at this point.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, and I thank him for the respectful way in which he is doing so. He has given an example of a very personal story; it is also important to remember the other personal stories we have all heard. We have with us today in the Public Gallery family members who have lost loved ones. Catie’s mum went to Dignitas in Switzerland for an assisted death, and her daughter could not go with her. As a family they have suffered to this day as a result of that experience.

We need to be really careful about the language we use around suicide. We have spoken about this before. The cases we have heard of are not people who want to die. They are people who want to live, but they are terminally ill. We need to be really sensitive to that, having heard so many examples of families who have been through these really difficult situations. But the hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I am minded to support his amendment because I think it comes from a good place.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I hear what she has said; we have had this conversation before. I am afraid that I do insist on my right to use the English language accurately. What is proposed in the Bill is a carve-out of the Suicide Act, so I regret to say to the hon. Lady that I will continue to describe it in terms that are appropriate to it. I hope I do so with absolute sympathy and respect for the many families who have suffered from the trauma of seeing their loved ones die badly—loved ones who would have wished for an assisted death under the terms of the Bill. I am very glad to hear that the hon. Lady supports my amendment. I do not think it would be any sort of imposition on families for the doctors to let the patient know at the last moment that they have the opportunity to turn back.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a really powerful speech, and I am minded to support the amendment on the basis that there will be a small but significant group of people who, having gone through the whole process, will feel they have been a burden on the people who have gone to all the effort, through every stage, to get to the end, so if they have doubts at the end, they may be reluctant to change their mind. It will be a very small group, but I do think it is significant. I see it as the re-establishment of autonomy for the patient, which we all believe in; does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Danny Kruger]

That is absolutely right. We have to think about the no doubt quite turbulent emotions that people will have as they approach the end of their life, and to reiterate their genuine autonomy. They are not on a conveyor belt that they cannot get off until the very last moment—until they have passed through this gateway. The amendment seeks to remind them and, indeed, their families of that. I am afraid we do hear terrible stories of people who have arranged their assisted death: often family members have flown in from abroad, doctors have been summoned and so on, and then they feel they have to proceed because, as the hon. Gentleman says, they feel a burden as it is and do not want to be an annoyance at the end by making everybody wait. I am afraid that is indeed the reason for the amendment. I am pleased to hear that it sounds like it will be accepted, and I am grateful to Members who will support it.

Amendment 463 is the other, more substantial, amendment in my name in this group. It would leave out paragraph (c) of clause 18(6), which says that the doctor can assist the patient

“to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.”

Here we are in a lot of difficulty and a grey area. Let me try to unpack the reasons for objecting to paragraph (c). The hon. Member for Spen Valley argued in an interview that there is a “very clear line” between the Bill and euthanasia, which is someone else doing the deed. She said that the act

“has to be the decision of the individual, and it has to be the act of the individual”,

which

“creates that extra level of safeguards and protections”.

I agree with her—it is right that we introduce the additional safeguard of insisting that the patient performs the final act themselves.

I recognise that there is a distinction between euthanasia and assisted suicide, and I support the hon. Lady’s attempt to insist on that distinction in the law. It is another safeguard. But the fact is that there is a blurred line between the two, and I can also understand why many people object to the exclusion of euthanasia—of the fatal act being administered by other people. A doctor from Canada said it was inherently ableist to require the patient to self-administer, and I think that is unarguable. If that is the case, the logical provision would be to enable euthanasia, if one believes in the autonomy of the patient.

I am afraid my strong belief is that the reason why euthanasia has not been proposed in the Bill or by the campaign, which has been led by an organisation that used to call itself the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, is because the campaign has concluded that such a Bill would not pass Parliament and believes—I think correctly—that Members of Parliament and members of the public would object to euthanasia. But the logic of the Bill and of the campaign is actually for euthanasia, if one believes genuinely in autonomy, in equal rights and in not discriminating against people who are physically unable to perform the act themselves.

Despite my efforts, hon. Members have not been able to conceptualise the difference between withdrawing a medical treatment that affects a particular medical condition on the one hand, and administering drugs that annihilate the person on the other. There is a meaningful and important difference between those two things. One is a person declining to use a shield, and the other is the person using a sword against themselves. I think there is a difference there, and I regret that colleagues do not see it.

Where I do not see a difference, however, is between a person injecting themselves and asking someone else to inject them. There are two versions of the death of Saul in the Bible. I think this is the only reference to the Bible that I will make in this whole debate, and I make it partly to show that there is an inconsistency in the Bible—there is not a single Biblical view of these matters. In one account of the death of Saul, having been defeated by the Philistines, he asks his servant to run him through with his sword, but his servant refuses, so he falls on his own sword and kills himself. In the other version, he gets a passing soldier to run him through—to kill him.

To me it does not matter: the inconsistency in the story is interesting historically, but conceptually, logically and morally I do not see the difference. Whether you fall on your own sword or ask someone else to do it to you, it is still a sword, you are still actioning it and you are still responsible, if we recognise that the individual has autonomy. But there is a practical difference. We are talking about assistance to die and the role of another person who supports your decision and helps you to fulfil it, but that results in an obscuring of the practical difference. In practice, as we see in clause 18(6), the assistant comes very close to euthanasia. The role of the assistant, in my view, is closer to that of the soldier who kills Saul than of the servant who refused to do it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Member is making an interesting philosophical point with his biblical references. I think the point he may be making is that there might not be any difference for the individual, as the result is sadly the same, but I put it to him that there is quite a significant difference for the other person. If we think about the autonomy of the medical professionals we ask to be involved in the process, there is a strong argument that it would be very different for them to be more involved in the process. Does that makes sense?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful—I really do thank the hon. Lady, because the effect of this process on the medical professionals who will be involved is a very important consideration, and one that we have perhaps not given enough attention to. That is why we will come to the conscience clause in due course, although we have discussed it a little already. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is a difference for the medics in the extent to which they are involved in the administration of the death. I am afraid I do not see a major moral difference between providing the wherewithal—setting things up for, or indeed helping, the patients to ingest or otherwise self-administer the fatal drug—and people performing the act themselves. The distinction is very obscure; there is a significant grey area there.

On the hon. Lady’s point about appropriate consideration of the feelings of the medical profession, if she believes in doctor autonomy, she should believe that doctors ought to have the autonomy to decide for themselves whether to perform euthanasia, if euthanasia were legal. That is what happens in other countries. In Canada, doctors can decline to take part, or they can participate.

Given the question of autonomy, it is worth noting that in countries where euthanasia is legal, it is the overwhelming choice of the patients, as I think it would be for me. If I were facing that terrible moment and choice—we will come in due course to the question of the drugs involved and the process of taking them, but swallowing all these pills is not a pleasant process—it would be far easier, more humane and less painful for a doctor to administer the drugs intravenously. I visited Canada and met a doctor who had been responsible for over 300 deaths, which she herself has performed, because that is the overwhelming choice of the patients. As I am sure the hon. Lady would agree, that doctor is acting with full professional discretion and autonomy.

To go back to my point, I am afraid this is one of the impossible dilemmas that the Bill and the whole concept of assisted dying set up: whether we allow the doctor to do it to us. My concern is that if the stress on self-administration is genuinely felt—not, as I cynically believe, because this is the only way to get assisted dying through the House of Commons—because the Bill’s authors recognise the need to be absolutely sure that the act is voluntary, and if the reason why we insist on self-administration is because we want to be sure that the act is voluntary, what does that say about all the so-called safeguards that exist up to this point? We have been told that those safeguards are sufficient to ensure that we have absolute confidence about the person’s clear and settled wish.

If we are sure that people at this stage in the process have a settled, informed and free wish to end their lives, why should they not be able to ask a doctor to do it to them? The only answer to that question can be that we do not genuinely believe that we are completely sure. We want, subsequent to death, to be sure—in terms of our own moral propriety and sense of amour-propre—that those people did it themselves. It was not our choice; it was not us doing it to them—they did it.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am a little confused by my hon. Friend’s logic. He has literally just proposed an amendment for the doctor to ask, at the last, whether the person still wants to proceed. Surely self-administration is the ultimate act of consent, which his own amendment requires a doctor to establish right at the last moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I support the distinction between self-administration and euthanasia. I am in favour of all possible safeguards and every possible opportunity to give the patient the chance to step back from the brink. The point I am making is that I do not recognise the logic of the distinction that the Bill insists on. Indeed, in the provision that I am concerned about, subsection (6), the distinction in fact does not apply.

If we believe in autonomy and in giving people the opportunity for assisted suicide, we are, naturally enough, concerned that that should be available to people who cannot physically perform the act themselves. I am not trying to argue in favour of euthanasia; I am saying that we will get to euthanasia if we let the Bill through. Even in the Bill as it stands, we are halfway to euthanasia with subsection (6). I am confident that, in due course, the campaign for it will grow. In fact, it already exists: people already object to the restrictions implied in the Bill. The campaign will grow to widen the opportunity for assistance to ensure that we can have physician-administered suicide, as happens in Canada and elsewhere, very logically. Once we have crossed the Rubicon of assisted death, it is a straight road to euthanasia. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stroud is amused.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Once again, we are in an extraordinary no man’s land between medical treatment and something else that we cannot find a word for. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course, it is appropriate in medical treatment for a nurse or doctor to assist in the administration of a treatment. As he suggests, if the person found it difficult to raise a cup to their lips, the nurse would help them. Indeed, if they found it difficult to perform an injection, it would be expected that that would be done by the nurse or doctor anyway. But here we are setting up a strange new method of administering a so-called treatment in which the patient has to perform the physical act themselves.

It is apparent from the clause that it is very unclear what assistance actually looks like, so yes, I absolutely imagine that if the patient were struggling to raise the cup to their lips, a nurse or doctor who was present at the final act in an assisted suicide would help them to do so. Similarly, if the patient were finding it difficult to put their finger on the syringe, it would be appropriate—normally, one would expect—for the medical professional to lift the patient’s finger and put it in the right place. What happens next? Do they then apply a little pressure if the patient is finding it difficult to depress the plunger on the syringe? If the cup is at the lips, do they tip it up and let gravity take its course? These very complicated questions about where assistance ends and autonomy begins are, I am afraid to say, impossible to specify in the Act; therefore, it is apparent that we have a grey area.

I conclude with some evidence that we received from Iain Brassington, professor of applied and legal philosophy at Manchester University. He says:

“how are we to determine how the ‘final act’ of self-administration is to be differentiated from the penultimate act, in which the doctor may assist? How would helping a patient lift the cup to her lips be distinguished from helping her ingest its contents?”—

the hon. Member for Ashford referred to that. He goes on to say that

“the definition of the ‘final act’ is unclear, especially granted the wording of”

subsection (6)(c), and:

“The proposed law says that a doctor may not administer a substance with the intention of causing death, but also that a doctor may help a person self-administer. But how should we draw the boundary between helping a person self-administer, and playing a role in administration?”

I come to the penultimate point—not the final act—of my speech. There is some odd phrasing in subsection (7), and I wonder whether the hon. Member for Spen Valley or the Minister can help to parse the English. It says that

“the decision to self-administer the approved substance and the final act of doing so must be taken by the person”.

We understand about the decision being taken by the person, but the phrasing is that the final act “must be taken” by the person. I am not familiar with that construction. Does one take an act? Is that English? You perform an act—an act is not taken, it is done, by a person acting autonomously. The question of whether this is an active or a passive concept runs to the heart of my concern about the clause, and we need to think about redrafting, at least in deference to the English language.

Somewhere in this clause there is a magic moment when assistance gives way to autonomy, and the penultimate act by the doctor yields to the final act, which is supposed to be by the patient. We cannot tell when the responsibility for the action passes from one to the other. In proper medicine it does not matter because the medic works with the patient, but here it does matter. We are insisting that there is a difference between a doctor setting up a death, and the patient performing the action of suicide.

I will end by referencing the case of R v. Kennedy in 2007, a case on which Lord Bingham opined, about the culpability of someone who died from a heroin overdose. Was the person who gave him the drugs and tied the tourniquet around his arm responsible? Was it murder, or indeed assisted suicide? The judge decided that it was not, but made this point:

“It is possible to imagine factual scenarios in which two people could properly be regarded as acting together to administer an injection.”

Given that ruling, we are in a world of difficulty with the suggestion that it is legally possible for a doctor to assist a patient to ingest or otherwise self-administer. To assist someone to self-administer is tantamount to administering. I welcome suggestions from other Members, the Minister, or the hon. Member for Spen Valley about whether it is possible to provide guidance that gives greater clarity on what the clause means, or whether subsequent amendments will help to resolve the problems that I have, but I am afraid I do not think it will be possible to make an adequate distinction between assisted suicide on the one hand—in which full responsibility, not just for the decision but for the performance, rests with the patient—and euthanasia on the other. I do not think there is an adequate logical difference, and the practical difference we are attempting to enshrine here will be very quickly obscured.

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for his amendment, and for speaking in the powerful, sensitive way that he did. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Spen Valley and for Banbury, who made interventions.

I did not intend to speak to this amendment, but having heard the hon. Member for East Wiltshire speak so powerfully and sensitively, it is important for me to share a few things. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said a couple of times that the difference between people who commit suicide and those who will take this route is that the patients have been given less than six months to live, and that was not a choice. I was a Samaritan for years, because I had two failed suicide attempts in my early years, and since then I have battled with mental health demons all my life because of my experiences. To suggest that there is a difference between someone who gets a terminal illness and wants to take this act and people who want to commit suicide, and to suggest that they are doing it out of choice, is wrong. I felt really emotional when that exchange was happening. The reason why I think it is wrong is that, at the time that I wanted to commit suicide, I did not feel that I had a choice. I could not see a way out.

When I was on those Samaritans phonelines, speaking to people who rang in to unpick their feelings about what was driving them to feel suicidal in that moment, it was not because they want to die, but because they were in circumstances that drove them to feel that they had no option but to commit suicide. In some instances, it takes an amount of courage and bravery to even contemplate that option. To diminish that, which I feel is what has, intentionally or unintentionally, happened on occasion, is really wrong, because I have been there, and it was not easy and it was not because I wanted to die.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

My point is that it is very difficult to draw a line here. I recognise the scenario that my hon. Friend raises: why should a nurse not be able to hold a straw for a person to drink from? I might say that should be acceptable; however, I do not think it should be acceptable for the nurse to tip the pills into the patient’s mouth. Does he think that scenario would be acceptable? Or to give another one, would it be acceptable to actively provide force on top of a patient’s finger to press a syringe? Would he regard that as acceptable assistance?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

That is why clause 18(7) is so important: the final act must be undertaken by the person seeking an assisted death. The example my hon. Friend gives of tipping tablets into a mouth is a final act. Pushing a syringe is a final act. There is a significant distinction between an individual or practitioner holding a cup with a straw and the person seeking an assisted death moving their mouth towards the straw, sucking from it and imbibing the substance and the passive act of a substance being raised to that individual’s lips and poured in without any movement by the individual seeking an assisted death themselves.

[Danny Kruger]

When we talk about this in future debates, it might be appropriate for this conversation to be referenced. I think my hon. Friend is suggesting that it should be acceptable, and that assisted death would be legal, as long as the patient moved their head towards the straw and cup, and that it would be illegal, according to my hon. Friend’s definition, were a doctor applying a cup to a patient’s lips and the drugs fell in by gravity. Is that right? Is that how judges in future should determine whether assistance has crossed the line?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

It is very clear from subsection (7) that this must be an active step taken by the individual. There is a risk that we go down a rabbit hole in terms of—[Interruption.] I am sure my hon. Friend would like me to finish my point. We risk going down a rabbit hole in drawing examples. I raised the example of a cup, but of course there are much wider assistive technologies that can be used and are used in different jurisdictions. I gave the example to illustrate the point that this is an active act, not a passive act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My right hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point. I think there is a consensus among the Committee that there is no desire for people to take this ultimate step at an earlier stage than is absolutely necessary for them. My very real fear is that, were we to adopt this amendment, we would bring forward that point of decision.

[Danny Kruger]

The logic of that argument is to allow physician-administered suicide, because there will be a point at which people are physically unable to perform the act but have capacity, and their autonomy should be respected—

[The Chair]

Order.

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

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 317, in clause 13, page 9, line 12, leave out “14” and insert “28”.

This amendment would provide 28 days for the second period of reflection instead of 14.

Amendment 314, in clause 13, page 9, line 17, leave out

“48 hours beginning with that day”

and insert

“7 days beginning with that day and the person must be referred immediately for urgent specialist palliative care.”

This amendment would increase the second period of reflection in cases where the coordinating doctor reasonably believes the person will die within a month from 48 hours to seven days.

Amendment 315, in clause 13, page 9, line 17, leave out “48 hours” and insert “7 days”.

This amendment would increase the second period of reflection in cases where the coordinating doctor reasonably believes the person will die within a month from 48 hours to seven days.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Roger. I am looking forward to this week’s debating.

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to further evidence that has come in since the debate got under way. Since we started the Committee, we have had more than 400 pieces of evidence, so I apologise for not having got to this earlier, but it is relevant. I do not want people who have submitted evidence to us to feel that their submissions have fallen into a black hole and are not being considered, and I think this is significant evidence. We are talking about the necessity of a proper period of reflection, which is acknowledged in the Bill—it is understood that it is inappropriate for people to be able to request and receive an assisted death in very short order. The debate is about the extent of that reflection period. I am supporting amendments that suggest that we need slightly longer in some cases.

I want to refer to two pieces of the evidence that has come in. One is from six palliative care doctors who wrote that

“our experience is that many patients experience a period of adjustment to ‘bad news’ and may say that they cannot live under these conditions. However, after a period of reflection and adjustment, the majority come to find peace and value in their altered life circumstance, in a way they would not have believed possible. This may often take many weeks and sometimes short months. It is our profound concern that the two ‘periods of reflection’…would not allow time for this adjustment. This is even more so the case where these periods of reflection are reduced for patients predicted to have an even shorter prognosis. It is thus a reality that patients and their families may miss out on a period of life they would have valued by seeking to end their lives prematurely, and these days, weeks and perhaps even months will never be regained.”

The other piece of evidence is from Tom Pembroke and Clea Atkinson, who are experts in hepatology and palliative care in Cardiff. They raised the problems of the seven-day reflection period where there is alcohol misuse. I do not think this topic came up in last week’s debate, but it is worth acknowledging because liver disease is the most common cause of death for people in middle age. It is also worth noting that liver disease disproportionately affects the people who are most disadvantaged in our society. These experts say:

“Prognostication in advanced liver disease is challenging as management of the underlying causes, including abstinence from alcohol, potentially reverses advanced liver failure…The neurocognitive and depressive effects of alcohol misuse disorder frequently requires more than seven days to resolve following abstinence. Advanced liver disease frequently manifests with hepatic encephalopathy which can affect the ability to make informed decisions.”

Their concern is that

“A seven-day review period is not sufficient to ensure that there is an enduring wish to die which is not influenced by alcohol misuse.”

Considering the prevalence of alcohol misuse in our society, the extent to which so many people tragically die of it and the difficulties in prognostication, I suggest to the Committee that there is a particular argument to be made for extending that short period at the end for the expedited process that is being considered. I beg the Committee to consider accepting the amendment.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Sir Roger.

Amendment 301 would prolong the first period of reflection, after which point the independent doctor can conduct the second assessment. In the original draft of the Bill, the first period of reflection is seven days, but the amendment would extend that period to 14 days. That means 14 days would have to pass between the time that the co-ordinating doctor has made their statement following the first assessment, and the independent doctor carrying out the second assessment.

Amendment 317 would increase the duration of the period of reflection before a person may make a second declaration from 14 days to 28 days. It relates to cases where a person’s death is not reasonably expected within one month of the date of the court’s declaration.

Amendments 314 and 315 would increase the duration of the second period of reflection before a person may make a second declaration, in cases where a person’s death is reasonably expected within one month of the date of the court’s declaration, from 48 hours to seven days. They would also introduce a requirement for a mandatory immediate referral for urgent specialist palliative care. The requirement would be introduced into the definition of the second period of reflection. It is unclear what impact it would have on the duration of the period of reflection. The amendments do not say who should be responsible for making the referral or where it should be recorded. The drafting is also ambiguous as to what happens if a person does not consent to such a referral or care.

I hope these observations are helpful to the Committee in considering the Bill and the amendments put forward by various Members. Whether these amendments should form part of the Bill is a matter for the Committee to decide.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I have a couple of additional comments. We talked last week about the reflection periods. I referred to the fact that when even someone buys something from a shop, they have 28 days to return it; when they are deciding on whether to have an assisted death, there is a great deal more at stake. During that debate, someone asked, “What if someone had a prognosis of just one month?”, but clause 13 has an option for a fast-track process in that situation—the person would be able to access the service in 48 hours.

I beg to differ with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, the Bill’s promoter, who said that we have enough reflection periods in the Bill. Yes, there are reflection periods, but they come after the panel’s decision. The reality is that the NHS is under so much duress, with patients waiting weeks to see their GP for anything other than urgent treatment, that getting an appointment with another GP in seven days is unlikely; it is unlikely to happen given how uncommon that is at the moment. It is right that doctors are able to triage their patients to prioritise those who require medical intervention to keep them well, to prevent hospital admission, or to stop them deteriorating or even dying.

The Government are trying to protect the NHS, and the best way of achieving that is to ensure that medical interventions are provided at the earliest opportunity before a patient deteriorates. In some cases, a medical appointment may need to take priority over an appointment for an assisted death. If someone who is dying has longer—even just a further week—in which to reflect, it removes the pressure from GPs and consultants, and enables them to prioritise properly their patients. It does not build up false expectation in patients that they have a right to a rapid consultation process. Likewise, we know that it can currently take a few weeks for patients to see another consultant, if not months or even over a year. It is therefore more helpful for the patient to have a more realistic period of reflection before moving to the next stage of their assessment.

Issues of such intensity as someone planning to take their own life should not be rushed. We know from all the work that has been undertaken on suicide that other interventions and conversations can help with reflection and reconsideration. It is important that people are given this opportunity. In their first raising the matter with a doctor, the doctor would have provided a lot of information about alternatives to the patient, such as what treatment options would be available. Perhaps they would have had a discussion with a palliative medicine consultant to review their options. There needs to be time for a patient to really reflect on all this new information. If the patient does want to explore assisted dying, there will also be all the conversations about drugs and their impact, which we will come to when we discuss later clauses.

Amendment 317 to clause 13 seeks to increase the reflection period from 14 days to 28 days. I gently suggest that we should have the reflection period before the decision, whether it be by the judge or a panel, to give people the right amount of time to consider; currently, the reflection period is afterwards. This is such a monumental decision that people should be able to contemplate all other options available. As it is, the process is rushed, and a patient could be caught up in the moment of concentrating on getting through the stages. I appreciate that others have suggested that once we have got past that stage, with the paperwork and all those things out of the way, then there is time to reflect. During the process, however, the patient has not had time to consider the options in making their decision. I am not convinced that there is enough reflection during, as opposed to after, the process.

Amendment 314 seeks to increase the reflection period from 48 hours to seven days for patients who have been given a month to live. In that case, seven days is quite adequate time to reflect on the information they have received to make informed choices. If this is about autonomy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has talked about many a time, it is important for people to have choices. To have that autonomy is surely to have the options in front of us and be able to consider them in detail.

In considering whether to sit on this Bill Committee, I slept on the decision. I can usually make instantaneous decisions, but knowing the amount of work, knowing that I was new to the subject, and knowing the things that I knew then—not the things that I know now—it was a big decision for me. I was even thinking about how I would manage the workload. We are talking about something that is not at all comparable. We are talking about somebody who will be taking a decision to potentially exercise the right—if the Bill becomes law—to an assisted death. That is really important for me.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 195, in clause 8, page 4, line 40, leave out “statement” and insert “report”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 420.

Amendment 421, in clause 8, page 5, line 4, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

“(5) After carrying out the second assessment, the independent doctor must—

(a) make a report about the assessment (which must meet the requirements of regulations under subsection (5A)), and

(b) give a copy of the report to—

(i) the person who was assessed,

(ii) the coordinating doctor,

(iii) if neither the independent doctor nor the coordinating doctor is a practitioner with the person’s GP practice, a registered medical practitioner with that practice, and

(iv) any other person specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(5A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the content and form of the report.

(5B) The regulations must provide that the report must—

(a) contain a statement indicating whether the independent doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (e);

subsection (2)(a)

(b) contain an explanation of why the independent doctor is, or (as the case may be) is not, so satisfied;

(c) contain a statement indicating whether the independent doctor is satisfied as to the following—

(i) that a record of the preliminary discussion has been included in the person’s medical records;

(ii) that the person signed the first declaration;

(iii) that the making of the first declaration has been recorded in the person’s medical records;

(iv) that the first declaration has not been cancelled;

(d) be signed and dated by the independent doctor.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment provides that the independent doctor must make a report about the second assessment, and makes provision about the report.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to move amendment 348, in clause 8, page 5, line 10, at end insert—

“(c) inform the person’s usual or treating doctor and, where relevant, the doctor who referred the person to the independent doctor, of the outcome of the assessment.”

This amendment would ensure that the independent doctor communicates the outcome of their assessment to the referring doctor as well as the usual or treating doctor.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 303, in clause 8, page 5, line 12, at end insert—

“(aa) has confirmed that no other practitioner has undertaken a second assessment for the same person.”

This amendment would prevent a patient from seeking multiple assessments from different doctors.

Amendment 458, in clause 10, page 6, line 45, after “declaration” insert “and if there has been a material change of circumstances,”

Amendment 459, in clause 10, page 7, line 3, at end insert—

“(2A) (a) Where a referral is made to a registered medical practitioner under subsection (1), the coordinating doctor must provide that new registered medical practitioner with the report by the independent doctor setting out their reasons for refusal.

(b) If the new registered medical practitioner reaches a different conclusion from the original independent doctor, they must produce a report setting out why they disagree.

(c) Those two reports must be made available to any subsequent decision maker under this Act and to the Commissioner.”

Amendment 460, in clause 10, page 7, line 9, leave out “particular”.

[Danny Kruger]

This is a key group of amendments. I shall specifically speak to amendment 303, which would prevent a person from seeking multiple assessments from alternative doctors if a second assessment had already been undertaken. I am not sure that I will press that amendment to a vote, but it is important to explore this issue. I will take the view of the Committee on it.

Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire said that it was important to avoid doctor-shopping. He made that point in reference to the suggestion that there would be a list of professionals that would administer the procedure. I respect that view; I think it is absolutely right. It needs to be clear in law that we avoid doctor-shopping. For that reason, it is important that the independent doctor should seek to establish whether the patient has previously had a second assessment. That could be very material.

Clause 10 states:

“In consequence of a particular first declaration made by a person, the coordinating doctor may make only one referral for a second opinion under subsection (1).”

This only limits the number of times that a person can seek another medical assessment. Amendment 303 to clause 8, in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) , would further strengthen the current safeguards against doctor-shopping, by placing a duty on the doctor to confirm that there had not been previous assessments.

Doctor shopping is not a hypothetical concern. We have seen it take place in other jurisdictions. An understanding develops that some doctors are more likely to grant an application for an assisted death. That is totally natural. Professor Preston said in oral evidence to us:

“People go doctor shopping—they are going to multiple doctors until they get the right answer.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 245, Q315.]

According to an official report in 2021, one Oregon doctor wrote one eighth of all the prescriptions for assisted death. I met a doctor in Canada who had performed hundreds of assisted suicides. It was her whole practice; that was what she did, and people knew to go to her.

Doctors who are reluctant to grant an application may instead refer a person to doctors they know are more likely to grant the person’s application for an assisted death, so those practitioners become the go-to when other doctors deny applications. Over time, the safeguards can become weakened and circumvented by a system of doctors who apply the criteria quite loosely, as was found in Ontario. The Ontario review committee found evidence of patients doctor shopping for approval. Some 8% of non-terminally ill people who died by assisted dying had made previous requests. People do try again, naturally enough, if they do not get the answer they wanted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Does the hon. Member share my concern that if a doctor refused somebody an assisted death because they thought there was some form of coercion, the door could be open for people to keep going back through this route?

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We will address in later debates the point that insufficient attention will be given to the reasons why an application has been refused. If an application has been refused on the grounds of coercion, a future doctor will not necessarily know that that was the reason. As the hon. Lady says, in cases of coercive control there is a very real danger that if a person has been unduly influenced to seek an assisted death and the doctor declines their application, possibly because they detected coercive control, the patient can then be coerced, or influenced, into starting again with a new doctor. There is nothing to stop that in the Bill. We have a real problem, and I hope the Committee will consider the amendments.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will speak to my amendments 458 to 460, which would tighten the process around seeking a determination from a second independent doctor if the first has refused to say that the criteria are met. The amendments relate to clause 10, which I will say more about when we come to it, but they have been selected for debate in this group.

The risks of abuse in seeking a second independent doctor’s opinion are well illustrated by the evidence we have received from Dr Sharon Quick, the president of the Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation, who tells us about the experience of Dr Charles Bentz, who refused to provide a second opinion for a physician-assisted suicide for a patient he had referred to an oncologist for cancer treatment. The co-ordinating doctor persisted and clearly found a compliant second opinion, as two weeks later his patient was dead.

Dr Charles Bentz said in his testimony:

“I was caring for a 76 year-old man who came in with a sore on his arm. The sore was ultimately diagnosed as a malignant melanoma, and I referred him to two cancer specialists for evaluation and therapy. I had known this patient and his wife for over a decade. He was an avid hiker, a popular hobby here in Oregon. As he went through his therapy, he became less able to do this activity, becoming depressed, which was documented in his chart.

During this time, my patient expressed a wish for doctor-assisted suicide to one of the cancer specialists. Rather than taking the time and effort to address the question of depression, or ask me to talk with him as his primary care physician and as someone who knew him, the medical oncologist called me and asked me to be the ‘second opinion’ for his suicide. She told me that barbiturate overdoses ‘work very well’ for patients like this, and that she had done this many times before.

I told her that assisted-suicide was not appropriate for this patient and that I did not concur. I was very concerned about my patient’s mental state, and I told her that addressing his underlying issues would be better than simply giving him a lethal prescription. Unfortunately, my concerns were ignored, and approximately two weeks later my patient was dead from an overdose prescribed by this doctor. His death certificate, filled out by this doctor, listed the cause of death as melanoma. When I reviewed his chart, the radiation oncologist documented a clear diagnosis of depression.

My patient did not die from his cancer, but at the hands of a once-trusted colleague who failed to recognize and treat his depression. This experience has affected me, my practice, and my understanding of what it means to be a physician. What happened to this patient, who was weak and vulnerable, raises several questions that I have had to answer.”

I appreciate that, under the Bill, Dr Bentz could not have been the independent doctor as he already knew the patient and was treating him, but in that case that contributed to enhanced safety. Dr Bentz’s example illustrates the real risks of abuse in a person being able to seek the opinion of a second independent doctor. The starting point is that the task of the independent doctor is not that of a normal doctor. It is not to cure the patient or to provide advice about medical treatments: it is to check whether the eligibility requirements are met. It is a decision-making function, not a medical one—albeit, of course, a decision-making function that is informed by medical expertise.

In the light of that function, it is not appropriate for someone to seek another decision simply because they do not like the answer that has been given. The independent doctor is asked to apply an objective set of criteria against the evidence in front of them in order to make an assessment. It is not the case—or it should not be—that a different doctor would come to a different assessment based on the same criteria and the same evidence. If we are doing our job properly in the Committee, we should not expect that a second opinion could be arrived at.

I have no objection to provision being made for a person to see a second independent doctor if the first did not manage to finish the task. Nor do I object in respect of cases in which there is a change of circumstances—for example, if the patient’s condition deteriorates to such a degree that although the first independent doctor thought the six-month prognosis test was not met, it becomes clear that it is met—which is the point of my amendment 458. In such circumstances, it would make sense to allow the patient to go to a second independent doctor. Although my preference in such a situation would be to go back to the original independent doctor and ask them to reconsider in the light of the change of circumstances, that may not always be possible. Amendment 458 is an attempt to find a middle ground.

Amendment 459 seeks to reduce the possibility of abuse by ensuring that the second independent doctor has available the reasons why the first independent doctor concluded that the person was not eligible. That would allow the second independent doctor to approach the assessment with open eyes. Such a report would be particularly useful when it comes to the detection of coercion or pressure, as the first independent doctor might have spotted something that the second independent doctor might not easily see.

Let us consider the evidence of Dr Tim Howard, who has been deeply involved in end-of-life palliative care and assisted dying for many years. He has been a non-exec director of a health authority, a member of an ethics committee, a postgraduate teacher and, finally, chair of the General Medical Council fitness to practise tribunals, dealing with complex medico-legal principles and decisions in public. He also helped to set up the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, which separated medical standard setting and investigation from adjudication.

Dr Howard says:

“I remain uncomfortable that when either doctor, the assessing doctor or the independent doctor, declines to agree with a request for”

assisted dying,

“they take no further action. I feel that the reasons for their refusal should, as well as being given to the patient, be recorded in the patient’s notes, and given to any ‘second opinion’ independent doctor. This is not an attempt to bias; it is a value judgement that criteria are not being met, and as such, is sharing an early warning to be extra careful.”

The Committee should note that he has, in his own words,

“been a strong proponent of medical assistance in dying…and a member of Dignity in Dying for many years.”

[Danny Kruger]

It does seem an extraordinary gap in the Bill, but I am afraid it is not unique to this Bill. In countries where assisted dying in some form is legal, there are remarkable failures to insist on the proper recording of applications that are declined or about which there are concerns. This speaks to the general cloud of unknowing that we are operating in. Does the hon. Lady agree that were we to pass the Bill, it would be great if, at least in this country, we kept proper records?

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Member is exactly right. An assessment of whether somebody should qualify for assisted dying needs to be based on objective criteria. If those are not met, the only way that a second independent doctor should have a role is if either the circumstances have changed or, for whatever reason, the first doctor is unable to reach a conclusion. There must not be a situation in which the first doctor has made one decision and a second doctor arrives at a different decision, because that would imply a variability in the way the objective assessments are made. Not tightening this loophole would imply that we are prepared to allow such a variability across the medical profession, and I do not think we should allow that.

My final amendment in this group is amendment 460. I am concerned that the word “particular” in clause 10(3) negates the subsection’s purpose of ensuring that only one second opinion from the co-ordinating doctor can be sought, because a person could withdraw their first declaration, make a new one and start the process afresh; that declaration would then not be the “particular” first declaration. By removing “particular”, the loophole would be closed, and the safeguard would be made more effective. This concern was brought out well in Disability Labour’s written evidence:

“We are concerned that whilst 10(3) only allows for one second opinion to be sought, there appears to be nothing in the bill that stipulates a waiting period before a new application can be made. This risks applications being repeated until a supporting opinion can be obtained, thus negating the purpose of 10(3).”

I hope the Committee will accept my amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Kruger]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Opher]

Actually no, I will not. I will go on, if that is okay.

Amendment 459 states that the second-opinion doctor “must produce a report” outlining their reasons for reaching a different opinion, but the whole nature of this is that the doctor is independent. As we have heard, if it is suggested that someone either is or is not allowed to get an assisted death, that might affect the assessment of the independent doctor. It would not be good medical practice to have that assessment in front of the independent doctor—that would lead to poor assessments. We need a right to a second opinion and we should have a truly independent doctor.

Amendment 460, which is the last in the group, would allow a patient only one declaration in any part of their lives, even if circumstances change. Although there will be vanishingly few instances where that would be relevant, I do not feel that such a provision would make the Bill any fairer or safer.

Amendment 143, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, would allow a second and a third opinion. It is my opinion, and the opinion of many of us, that we do not want doctor shopping. We want to allow one second opinion from an independent doctor, but not more than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I associate myself with the Minister’s comments regarding the other amendments in the group; however, I listened carefully to the debate on amendment 459 and the points made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the Minister. My view on that amendment has changed: I do think independence is really important in the doctor’s opinions during the normal process that the Bill sets out. However, it is a really fair point to make that if the independent doctor refuses the patient, there needs to be transparency about that, and it is important that everybody involved in the process can see how that decision has been made. That is a really valid point. It is a good example of how this Bill Committee is operating, and should be operating, in that we have been listening to different views and opinions.

I take on board the Minister’s point on capacity. We need to be aware of that. We will hopefully debate the third layer later today. That layer may be a panel of experts who are there to oversee the full picture of the patient journey. For them to see what has happened with the doctors that they have interacted with is very important. Therefore, I am minded to support amendment 459.

[Danny Kruger]

I want to respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Stroud. It is relevant to the whole debate about whether we are talking about a medical treatment at all. He made the point, in respect of the question of a second or subsequent referral to an independent doctor, that it is appropriate in medicine to have second opinions; he said that that is normal in medicine, and he is absolutely right. Indeed, there is nothing to stop a patient seeking a third, fourth or any number of opinions if they want to do that and can get a doctor to consider them. The fact is that what we are discussing here is not a medical diagnosis—that is not what is being asked for when someone goes to see the second doctor, or indeed the first. What they are asking for is permission to proceed with the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

Amendment 201 provides that the duty on an assessing doctor to examine a person’s medical records is limited to records appearing to the doctor to be relevant, which makes sense. Amendment 422 requires an assessing doctor to make such inquiries of professionals who are providing, or have recently provided, health or social care to the person as the assessing doctor considers appropriate. Amendment 423 requires the assessing doctor to consider whether they should consult health or social care professionals, and to consult them if they consider there is a need to do so. A record of any consultation must be shared with the other assessing doctor.

The amendments seek to emphasise the importance of taking a holistic and multidisciplinary approach to the assessments by both doctors. The Bill as drafted provides that the assessing doctor must

“make such other enquiries as the assessing doctor considers appropriate”

when making the first and second assessments. With the amendments, I have sought to strengthen that language, by being much more explicit and making specific reference to consulting health and social care professionals. I have done so in response to the evidence we have received from professionals such as nurses and social workers, who often spend a significant amount of time with terminally ill adults.

It is clearly right that the assessing doctors should have access to all relevant details of a person’s medical records. If the records show that the person has recently been receiving health or social care, that may impact their application, so the doctors have to consult the providers of that care. As is the case at all stages in the process, records should be kept of any and all such discussions, and reports should be shared where appropriate.

Taken together, the amendments would ensure that the doctors’ assessments are thorough and comprehensive, and have taken into consideration the views and opinions of any wider health and social care team that may be working with a patient.

[Danny Kruger]

I will speak briefly to each of the amendments in this group. I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate to speak to the amendment in her name, but I state clearly that I very much support it. In my view, it is very important that the doctor asks the simple question of the patient, “Why do you want an assisted death?” The question is not being asked at the moment.

I respect the points that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has just made about amendment 201, and that the amendment may be intended to focus assessments on the information that is relevant. Nevertheless, it would introduce subjectivity into what is deemed relevant, and by narrowing the scope of the review of patient records, it could unintentionally allow for incomplete assessments, thereby undermining the safeguards that we all want to see. The risk is that potentially crucial medical history, including past mental health concerns, poor coercion indicators or undisclosed diagnoses, might be overlooked.

I call the Committee’s attention to the evidence from the British Geriatrics Society, which raised concerns that the definition of terminal illness in the Bill is often vague and risks misclassification, especially for older patients. Limiting the review of medical records could exacerbate that issue, as doctors may not have a full picture of the patient’s long-term prognosis and their mental health history. The General Medical Council has called for strong regulatory oversight to ensure that eligibility assessments are thorough.

Allowing doctors to determine which records are relevant, without standardised criteria for that judgment in the Bill, risks inconsistency and potential misdiagnosis. The criteria should include diagnosis and prognosis, treatment history, consultation, second opinions and mental health history. Consideration should also be given to disclosures of domestic violence and abuse, or patterns in medical records that might indicate domestic abuse without explicit disclosure, such as frequent visits for unexplained pain, chronic pain complaints, mental health concerns such as anxiety and depression, inconsistent explanations for injuries, and multiple visits to different healthcare providers. All of that should be properly considered by the assessing doctor.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that in the Netherlands, 1% to 2% of assessments annually—a significant number when we consider the volumes we are talking about—are deemed “not careful” under the law. Other countries do not have adequate ability to look into the data, but that is significant, and it is often due to inadequate consultation or documentation. I also draw attention to the fact that in our country, I am afraid to say, the cause of death listed by doctors is too frequently inaccurate. Analysis of postmortems suggests that one in 20 deaths have been wrongly recorded. Clearly, mistakes are made in medical records, and therefore it is particularly appropriate to require doctors to give complete consideration to the full medical history of the patient.

I recognise very much that we are trying to create a Bill that works in practice; nevertheless, I think we can emphasise streamlining and efficiency at the expense of patient safety, and we are doing that here. If we tell doctors that they are only required to sift through records that appear relevant to them—a quick skim of recent notes, a glance at the obvious items in a medical history—that may sound efficient, streamlined and practical, but it is likely to leave the vulnerable exposed, in particular when social workers and psychiatrists are not involved at this early stage, as they plainly should be. No multidisciplinary team is looking at the patient at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

Does the hon. Member share my concern that the wording in medical records has no duration over a person’s lifetime? For example, consulting all the medical records of someone in their 70s or 80s at the end of their life would surely include the records from when they were a child—childhood vaccinations, the removal of tonsils and so on—and that would clearly be impractical. Does he not agree that amendment 201 would clarify that element?

[Danny Kruger]

What the amendment clarifies is that the doctor does not have to look at any records at all unless he or she considers them relevant. It gives total discretion to the doctor to disregard huge swathes of the patient’s history. Yes, I do expect the doctor to review the entirety of a patient’s record—obviously, the record of a childhood broken leg can be skipped over quickly. What I do not want to do, as the Bill currently does, is allow the doctor to say, “Oh, I missed this evidence of a mental health condition” or “this indication of coercion from five or 10 years ago, because I didn’t consider that aspect of their records to be relevant.” It places a significant obligation on the doctor, but that is, I am afraid, what we are doing in the Bill. We are placing huge obligations on doctors and we should do it properly.

[Dr Opher]

As the amendment states, it is about examining medical records for things that are relevant. If we are talking about coercion or capacity, these sorts of items will be relevant. I do not know if Members have ever seen medical records. Some people have extremely large medical records, and we have summaries for that, but if a part of that summary indicated something that we were suspicious of, we would look into it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central has just said, the complexities of childhood tonsillitis do not really need to be examined in this case. We have to, and we always do, specify what we look into doctors.

[Danny Kruger]

As I have said in my many exchanges with the hon. Gentleman, I want to see the good practice that he claims—absolutely accurately, I am sure—to perform is applied across the system. He says that if doctors see in the summary some indication of concerns, they will look more closely into it. Well, I jolly well hope they would. The problem is that the summary might not be complete. I suppose the distillation of my point is that we should say, “Don’t rely on the summary. Proceed with a proper analysis. Take responsibility for making sure that you have reviewed the entirety of the patient’s record.”

We have to address throughout our consideration of the Bill the workload that we are placing on busy professionals. Nevertheless, if we consider that this matters—and it is a question about knock-on effects on the NHS, which we could discuss in due course—it is appropriate to expect proper time to be taken. A specialist with two hours and a full record in front of them might spot the misdiagnoses, question the prognosis, flag the depression and catch the abuse. If given half the time and a licence to skim the record, as the amendment would give them, they could very easily miss something, so I think the word “relevant” is a great gamble.

[Lewis Atkinson]

The hon. Member is discussing amendment 201, but there is also amendment 422, which indicates that the professional should make inquiries of other healthcare professionals who have been involved in treatment recently. Does he not agree that that would mitigate against the sort of scenario he describes?

[Danny Kruger]

I will come on to that. I agree with him: amendment 422 is a very helpful amendment, and I support that. It is a very good suggestion that wider consultation should be made, and it is a point that we have been trying to make with amendments throughout. I recognise that that would enhance the safeguards in the Bill—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment 422 seeks to introduce an additional requirement that the assessing doctor must consider whether to consult health or social care practitioners who are providing, or have recently provided, care to the patient. The amendment is presented as addressing previously expressed concerns, but I regret to say that I feel it is excessively weak. It is a positive step in recognising the issue, but it does not ensure a broader and more informed assessment of a patient’s condition and external influences.

Patients with terminal illnesses often receive care from palliative care teams, social workers or community nurses who might have crucial insights into their wellbeing and the potential external pressures on them. The British Psychological Society has highlighted that mental health and social pressures are often overlooked in assisted dying requests in other countries. Social workers and allied health professionals play a key role in assessing whether a patient feels pressurised due to financial, social or familial burdens. As I have repeatedly said and we will debate further in due course, in my view it is very important that that assessment comes earlier in the process.

We have evidence from doctors—I will not cite it at length—pointing out that independent doctors who refuse assisted dying requests are often ignored, and patients are simply referred to another doctor willing to approve the request, as we have discussed. Consultation with health and social care professionals could act as an additional safeguard against that practice. Although the amendment introduces an obligation to consult other professionals, it leaves it to the discretion of the assessing doctor. It relies on the doctor’s subjective judgment

“if they consider that there is a need”.

I think that is too weak for assisted dying, where consistency is so critical. One doctor might consult a palliative care specialist to explore pain relief options, while another might not, assuming that they understand the patient’s suffering sufficiently. The variability in the Bill—this discretion—undermines fairness and safeguarding.

There is also a lack of accountability in what is a very sensitive process. There is no requirement to document the consideration process, which weakens oversight in a context where errors could be fatal. I respect the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire that we must not police conversations and that being prescriptive may encourage a tick-box approach. I am afraid that we risk that tick-box approach if this amendment is all that we do on this subject. We can imagine a scenario in which a doctor simply makes a note in the record with little underpinning substance.

There is also no obligation to act on the specialist input, so the duty ends at the consultation. There is no requirement to integrate the findings of the additional input that the doctor has received, which is a glaring flaw in what is an irreversible procedure that is being authorised. Finally, there is insufficient rigour for the ethical stakes. This discretionary duty is too weak to catch the difficult cases.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On the hon. Member’s point about recording those consultations, amendment 423 states in its proposed new subsection (2B):

“Where an assessing doctor consults a professional…the assessing doctor must give a written record of the consultation to the other assessing doctor.”So the consultation is recorded.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and that is very welcome. My concern is that there is no obligation to do anything about it. There is no obligation for the doctor to integrate the conclusions of the additional professionals that they have consulted into their treatment. I recognise that that provision is valuable and I welcome the amendments, but I suggest that they do not go far enough.

Let me use a hypothetical example to bring my point home to the Committee. Imagine a woman with terminal lung cancer asking to end her life. Her assessing doctor considers consulting a palliative care specialist for symptom control or a social worker to check on her home life, but decides, “My notes are enough. There’s no need for that.” What if the patient’s pain could be eased with a new approach that the doctor does not know about? What if her family’s pushing her to spare them the burden of her care goes unnoticed without a social worker’s input? The lady might die needlessly or be denied treatment unfairly.

The discretionary duty that the amendment would introduce essentially collapses because it does not force the broader scrutiny that patients deserve. The amendment sees the problem, but it is too feeble: it is too discretionary, too vague and too unenforceable for a choice as profound as assisted dying. While I will support it, I do not think it goes far enough.

Amendment 423 builds on amendment 422 by requiring that if the assessing doctor consults a specialist, a written record of that consultation must be shared, as the hon. Member for Spen Valley just mentioned. It is critical for transparency, consistency and accountability in decision making. In high-stakes cases, such as assisted dying requests, paper trails matter. Without a formal record, one assessing doctor might dismiss concerns raised by another professional without accountability—a point made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park.

As I pointed out in an intervention on the hon. Member for Richmond Park, it is remarkable how few jurisdictions around the world have such safeguards. The American model in Oregon, Washington and California does not track how many doctors a patient consults before finding one willing to approve an assisted dying request, so we do not know the extent of doctor shopping abroad. Canada’s system does not require refusals to be formally documented, making it difficult to assess the patterns of approval. Ensuring that records are available to both assessing doctors would add an extra layer of scrutiny and help to prevent doctor shopping.

However, while the amendment is a step in the right direction, it does not require an independent review of the records. Sir James Munby, the former president of the family division of the High Court, has criticised the lack of procedural rigour in oversight mechanisms, warning that assisted dying laws risk becoming a rubber-stamp exercise if refusals and approvals are not documented with transparency. The Royal College of General Practitioners has called for independent oversight of the entire process, not just a reliance on individual doctors. These amendments would partially address that, but would not fully resolve it.

Amendments 422 and 423 are welcome but otiose: they would simply give doctors permission to do what they should be doing anyway. If they are conscientious, they will do it anyway, and if not, they will not. It is slightly like an illegal gun amnesty: the good guys will not have illegal firearms in the first place, and the bad guys with guns are not going to hand them in voluntarily. I fear that we are requiring good behaviour of good people, and not requiring it of doctors who are not doing their job properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak in support of amendments 201, 422 and 423, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and against amendment 468.

On amendment 201, a point was made earlier about the relevance of records. It was mentioned that it might well not be relevant to look at a childhood tonsillectomy. However, I wish to speak in slightly more specific terms, in support of women and their reproductive rights, and to highlight the risk of unconscious bias if all records are to be looked at.

If a woman had a termination in her teenage years, that will be highly irrelevant to her decision, many decades later, whether to choose an assisted death. Relevance is very important, because there will be a high level of record keeping in the process. It is not only the doctors working with the patient on the assessment who will read the records and reports; ultimately, it will also be the panel. I make the point again that so many parts of a patient’s medical records are highly irrelevant to the diagnosis and prognosis of a terminal illness, and to the six months under the eligibility criteria. Indeed, there is a risk of unconscious bias in the judgment. It is about the professionalism of the doctor in respect of understanding the records that are relevant for the process.

[Danny Kruger]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Hopkins]

I will continue, if I may.

I turn to amendments 422 and 423. The importance of a rounded, holistic assessment and discussion with the patient has been pointed out in many of our discussions, as has the importance of the multidisciplinary team and the other health and care professionals who support the patient with health and social care. That would all have to be recorded—the conversations that have been had, and why the assessing doctors and other health and social care professionals were involved. In oral evidence, many doctors in other jurisdictions said that they worked in multidisciplinary teams. The amendment would firm that up. It is about being clearer, because the clarity that the amendments provide would make for a stronger process.

On amendment 468, the hon. Member for Reigate pointed out that it asks a very simple question. However, I return to the point about the professionalism of the doctors involved in the process, who will be working within the legal requirement under the Bill that the individual have a clear, settled and informed wish. The doctors will have to check individuals’ eligibility under the requirements, for example that they are over 18 and have a terminal illness with a six-month prognosis. The doctors will use their expertise and professionalism, and that of the multidisciplinary team, to make assessments about coercion. They have strong rules about assessing for capacity.

The requirement to ask why someone wants an assisted death is a requirement to police the conversation that the doctor has with their patient. Setting it out in primary legislation would lead to a tick-box exercise, with doctors saying, “You’ve told me a number of times already in our conversation that I’ve been having with you, but I’m sorry: I have to officially ask this question and tick the box.” That could lead to an insensitive conversation and relationship between the relevant people in the process.

To a certain degree, the patient may think, “So what? Do I have to tell you why? It is none of your business why I want to pursue this legal course of action down the line.” I appreciate where the hon. Member for Reigate is coming from, but with the best of intentions, her amendment would actually lessen the individual’s autonomy and their right to choose what if the Bill passes will be a legal course of action. I am content that the stringent training that will be required for any of the assessing healthcare professionals will enable a good holistic conversation so that good judgments can be made. Adding this extra sentence would detract from that, so I cannot support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

That example is a good example that strengthens my position.

[Danny Kruger]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady’s point. The conversation goes on in the way the doctor would want it to, but they have at least asked the question. Is it not very simple? The Bill already requires doctors to look for signs of external coercion. As we have acknowledged, there is no way to determine internal coercion—the influence people have on themselves. There is no way in the Bill at the moment to identify whether somebody feels that they want an assisted death because they fear that they are a burden to others. This question is the only opportunity we have to tease out that answer: does she agree?

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention and he makes an important point.

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

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Francis]

I hear that, and I think my hon. Friend and I are on the same page on many of these matters. I think there were some drafting issues when I discussed amendments with Mencap at an earlier stage.

I commend to the Committee the six amendments in my name in this group: new clause 12 and amendments 336, 337, 335, 340 and amendment (a) to amendment 186.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I want to quickly indicate my support for the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, amendment 290 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central and amendment 20 in the name of the hon. Member for Lowestoft about specific training on domestic abuse and coercive control.

I will now speak to my own amendments, which would require there to be a preliminary discussion before the signing of the first form. At the moment, the Bill allows someone to make the first declaration and state, “I wish to be provided with assistance to end my own life”, without any preparatory discussion about what that entails. It is significant that we heard evidence from Professor House—a professor of old-age psychiatry—that the preferences of the person doing the assessment can bias the capacity assessment. As he explains, we are much more likely to declare that somebody has capacity when they say they want to have the treatment we are offering them, but can we really be sure that the request is freely made and reflects the patient’s wishes?

The fact is, we still do not know from the framework of the Bill how the process would be implemented, but the assessor is likely to be one of a small number of doctors who are willing to do this work on the NHS or somebody who is working for a private provider. Research suggests that the assessing physician’s own personal values and opinions may bias their judgment of a person’s mental capacity. Effectively, research says that the doctor will say that a person has capacity for treatment when he or she wants them to have it or believes that they should. That is significant.

We see from other jurisdictions that the assessment process can quickly become a tick-box exercise in which proper consideration is not given to what might be going on behind the declared wish. In Oregon in 2023, only three people were referred for a psychiatric evaluation by the assessing doctor—down from 33% of people in the early years. It is clear that evaluators have become less cautious when they come to sign the initial paperwork. In California, less than 1% of patients requesting an assisted death are referred for a mental health assessment. These are significant warning signs for us.

I am aware that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has tabled a helpful amendment—amendment 419—to clause 6, which is the clause dealing with the requirement for proof of identity. As I said yesterday, this retrofits a requirement for a preliminary discussion before the process can proceed. It is good that the hon. Member recognises the point that a proper preliminary assessment must be done before the declaration is signed, but I simply do not understand why that should be in clause 6; surely it should be in one single, consistent place, here in clause 5, relating to when the co-ordinating doctor first meets the patient to witness their form. I hope we might recognise that if the principle is being conceded by the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, we should put that change into its rightful place.

It is worth nothing that at the moment someone could get a proxy to sign for them. The proxy does not need to know the patient or be known to them; they just need to be a person of good standing in the community. They need to undertake no training at all. We have been talking during in this debate about the importance of training, but the proxy who signs on the patient’s behalf does not need to have any training to inform the judgment that they are

“satisfied that the person understands the nature and effect of the making of the declaration”.

Frankly, a stranger to the person, who is not a medic, can sign that declaration on their behalf. At the moment, they can do so without a preliminary discussion taking place. It is only after making that crucial declaratory statement that the co-ordinating doctor discusses the person’s diagnosis. I welcome the tabling of amendment 419, but I think it is in the wrong place. If we do not ensure that that preliminary discussion takes place when we are debating this group of amendments, it might be too late if amendment 419 does not pass, or if it is unsatisfactory, as I think it is.

There is another related problem. Amendment 419 would allow the co-ordinating doctor to confirm that a preliminary discussion has taken place. That means that the discussion could have taken place before the first declaration—in a sense, that is welcome, because that discussion should be taking place—but it does not have to take place with the co-ordinating doctor. The co-ordinating doctor, who is taking responsibility for the whole process of the assisted death for this patient, is not required to have this preliminary discussion themselves. They are not required to go through the very important process of properly discussing the assisted death and informing the patient of what it entails and what the other options are.

My amendment 359 would enhance the significance of the preliminary discussion. It would mean that the doctor who witnesses the declaration—who co-ordinates the process of the assisted death—has had the fullest possible discussion with the patient, and that they genuinely take responsibility for guaranteeing that the patient is fully informed and aware of all of their options. I urge the Committee to support these amendments as well.

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

I am very glad that amendment 427 has now been unstarred for today, because it develops on what I initiated yesterday with amendment 413, when we were discussing identifying the preferred language of the individual and whether that is Welsh or English.

Of course, if we have identified the preferred language of an individual, we would then take every step to make sure that we satisfy them and that we provide services in their preferred language. The amendment also recognises, when we are talking about specific individuals, possibly in a specific location, whether providing that is possible or not. I have tried to reflect that in using the terminology “all reasonable steps” to ensure that the practitioner has “fluent proficiency” in Welsh if that is the preferred language of the individual with whom they are conducting the initial conversation. Bear in mind, of course, that practitioners who can hold a conversation with fluent proficiency in Welsh will also be able to hold a conversation with fluent proficiency in English.

The “all reasonable steps” phraseology comes from legislation already extant in Wales in relation to educational tribunals, which again recognise that it may not be possible to find an individual with sufficient proficiency. We are trying to find a balance here between the pressure of time and being able to move ahead without having a bureaucratic thicket while also acknowledging that if we do recognise an individual’s preferred language, that we do take “all reasonable steps”.

As with amendment 413, amendment 427 is an amendment that I tabled having met an officer from the Welsh Language Commissioner’s office last week. It would establish a pathway for people for whom Welsh is their preferred language. Reflecting the comments from the Minister and the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Spen Valley yesterday, I need to know—as do the Committee and the Senedd—whether this needs to be on the face of the Bill or whether it could be elsewhere.

I do not intend to push amendment 427 to a vote today, but we very much need clarity on this issue. I suspect that this may not be so easy to clarify as yesterday’s point. We are talking about the rights of individuals in one of the most difficult, emotional, intimate discussions of their lives. We need to reflect that those individuals have a clear right to use the language which they have a choice in law to use. We must make sure that we get everything correct in this Bill. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I thank you, Mr Dowd. My apologies. I have made a mistake, but I was referencing the comments of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd about the use of languages, which is the subject of one of the amendments; that is my understanding. But again, I am happy to be guided by you, Mr Dowd.

To come back to the issue of training and domestic violence, in Committee, we heard evidence from Dr Jamilla Hussain about minoritised women. Again, from the data collection of ethnic minority groups, training is right at the top of the agenda, whether it be training of doctors or specialists.

Language is important when it comes to training as well. When people are training or trained to look at coercive control and to spot that coercive control, there is often an interpreter between them and the victim who is being assessed. They may be an ethnic minority woman or a man from an ethnic minority background whose first language is not English, so that training would need to include cultural sensitivities in relation to spotting coercion and control, and to repeated coercion in particular.

These are subjects that are already taboo for people to discuss. We know the issue of domestic violence is hard to spot. We have repeated that time and again, as have others. We talk about training, but that has to go further when it comes to victims or people seeking assisted dying who are from ethnic minority backgrounds and who have different cultural understandings. I talked about yesterday that. The hon. Member for Reigate also talked about the issue: the understanding of assisted dying among ethnic minority communities is very different if there is a language barrier.

I would like to ask the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, whether her amendment will go further in addressing some of the inequalities and intricacies that are presented when we are dealing with women from ethnic minority communities or elderly people from ethnic minority communities. I would be happy to sit down and talk her through those issues, so that I can support the development of her amendment to address the concerns I have raised today.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady talked earlier about the tragedy of victims of coercive control who commit suicide. Does she consider that the amendments we are looking at will help to address that challenge? What specific support does she think victims of coercive control would need to prevent them from taking that terrible step?

[Naz Shah]

The hon. Member asks a very important question. When I am talking about reflective services for black and minority ethnic communities, which is something I have delivered training on and worked on in a previous role, I often use the example of my mother, who was a victim of domestic violence. Had she been arrested by a woman instead of a man, her experience might have been different. Had she had a solicitor who was a woman, not a man, her experience might have been different. Had she had judges who were women, not men, her experience might have been different. Let us now add another layer to that. Had the police officer been a woman from the background she was from, they might have understood it.

The same analogy potentially applies to patients who are asking about going down the route of assisted dying, because it is helpful if somebody comes from the same cultural background. If a female victim of domestic violence or coercive control meets a specialist doctor who looks very similar to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire—a white, middle-class male—and he does not have that cultural understanding, he will then rely upon training, and he will no doubt rely upon an interpreter to translate.

That is the kind of thing I am trying to tease out, and these are the kinds of protections I want to see in the Bill. If we want a Rolls-Royce service, and if this is to be the best Bill in the world, it cannot ignore the most vulnerable in society. If the patient is a disabled woman, it is whammy upon whammy and layers upon layers of intersectionality that the Bill does not address. That is why I want to see the Bill strengthened.

I want to talk about the training that doctors get and the training in palliative care. We heard from Dr Jamilla Hussain, who was very clear about the fear among minoritised communities because of what happened during the covid pandemic, with “do not resuscitate” orders and their whole experience. Some people potentially died who could have been saved because they did not have the trust in NHS services to access them.

In this instance, it is important that we have a first doctor. That first doctor might have no relationship with the patient because their regular doctor does not want to engage in the process. Let us take the example of a patient in Bradford West who has had a diagnosis of terminal illness. They might well have a doctor or consultant who has been dealing with them for six months or even a year, to the point where they have reached the terminal stage. They might have a relationship with that doctor, who might have spoken their language and might be from a particular faith background but who does not want to engage in the assisted dying process. According to the Bill, that doctor would then have to refer that patient on to somebody who is prepared to have that conversation, but that person might not have that training or those language skills, and they might not—

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 359 would require the co-ordinating doctor to be the same person as the registered medical practitioner conducting a preliminary discussion under clause 4. The amendment would have the additional effect of requiring the registered medical practitioner who undertook the initial discussion to have met the specific training requirements and qualifications that the co-ordinating doctor will need to have met. That could have the effect of limiting the numbers of registered medical practitioners that can undertake the preliminary discussions.

[Danny Kruger]

Will the Minister clarify that point? Is he suggesting that because fewer doctors might be eligible or willing to conduct the preliminary assessment, we should not require it at that early stage?

[Stephen Kinnock]

What we are trying to say is that the important thing here is to ensure that, when the Secretary of State brings the regulations forward, the hands of the Secretary of State are not tied too tightly, so that the Secretary of State is able to bring together the right people, to deliver the right training, to achieve the outcomes that are required through the regulations. Our assessment is that this amendment would, in essence, narrow the pool of people available to do the training. That would seem to pre-empt the idea behind doing this through regulations, which is to ensure that there is up-to-date training that is responsive to where we may or may not be two years down the line from the Bill having its commencement. It is about having that flexibility and that ability to build capacity.

Amendment 340 would place the Secretary of State under a duty to make regulations requiring a co-ordinating doctor to have specific and up-to-date training relating to reasonable adjustments and safeguards for autistic people and people with a learning disability. I note that amendments 185 and 186, if passed, would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to specify the training, qualifications and experience that the co-ordinating doctor will need.

The consequence of this amendment would be to require the Secretary of State to introduce a further requirement on the co-ordinating doctor—to have undergone training relating to reasonable adjustments and safeguards for autistic people and people with a learning disability. In considering whether the amendment is required, I note that the Health and Social Care Act 2008 requires that all CQC-registered health and adult social care providers ensure that their staff receive specific training on learning disability and autism.

Amendment 427 would impose an obligation to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the co-ordinating doctor is proficient in the Welsh language if services or functions under this legislation are to be provided to an individual in Welsh in Wales. The amendment does not make it clear who would be obliged to ensure that those steps were taken, or who would assess and enforce whether the “fluent proficiency” standard was met.

--- Later in debate ---

Amending clause 40 through amendments 170 and 171 would give the Senedd and the Welsh Government the rightful authority to ensure that provisions are ready, adequate and enforceable in the Welsh context before their commencement in Wales—in other words, before the end of the two-year period. I tabled the amendments in an attempt to provide Senedd Cymru—the Welsh Parliament—and Welsh Ministers with their correct and rightful powers in areas that are devolved to Wales. We must be clear on that. That is what I have set out to do: that has always been my stated aim as a member of this Committee. I hope that Committee members will consider these practical amendments and support their inclusion in the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

I will speak briefly in support of the amendments. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd may want to intervene to request that the Minister respond to a couple of additional points.

It is very uncomfortable that the Bill ignores the devolution settlement in this way. It is regrettable that it was introduced in its current form in the knowledge that the Senedd in Wales rejected assisted dying a month earlier. That suggests either that originally little thought was given to including Wales in the Bill or that, subsequent to the vote in the Senedd, it was decided that the Bill would be imposed on Wales. It would be helpful to have clarification about the original intent.

I very much echo the points that the right hon. Lady made. She is absolutely right about the appropriateness of giving the Welsh Government powers to manage the Bill’s operation and implementation if it passes. I would suggest a stronger process of implementation, reflecting the advice given by Professor Lewis, who gave evidence to us on Welsh law. In the light of the vote in the Senedd to reject assisted dying, he pointed out:

“The vote was against ‘the principles of assisted dying’, not only about how the NHS in Wales might be affected. It was a decision which the majority of the Senedd made about those principles, having reflected on the…issues raised.”

Professor Lewis proposed a straightforward way of respecting that vote while recognising that, if this Bill passes, it will apply to Wales. He suggests that we should

“provide for different commencement provisions in the Bill. As things stand, under clause 42 of the Bill, most of the Bill will not come into force until the Secretary of State has brought it into force, with the approval of the UK Parliament. Why not provide that the Bill will only come into force in Wales when and if the Welsh Ministers bring it into force with the approval of the Senedd?”

The objection might be made that cross-border issues would be created if Wales does not proceed but England does. Nevertheless, that is a matter that devolution can cope with. It will have to cope with the cross-border issues that will arise if the Scottish Bill does not proceed, and of course we have cross-border issues between Wales and England with respect to organ donation, so I do not accept that the two countries need a uniform policy. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady or the Minister wish to comment on the suggestion that the Bill should commence in Wales only if Ministers bring it forward with the approval of the Senedd.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The evidence for a commencement date would be associated with an impact assessment in Wales. That is why it is so important that Welsh Ministers have the power to get the information they need and to implement any changes that come forward.

[Danny Kruger]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Lady. There is a whole set of challenges, including in England, in respect of the impact assessment and the Bill’s commencement. Nevertheless, my suggestion is that we strengthen her proposal to empower Welsh Ministers to proceed. We should respect the devolution settlement and reflect what she describes as the “correct and rightful powers” of the Welsh Parliament to ultimately decide whether this law were to come into effect in Wales.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Amendments 144 to 171, tabled by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, relate to the powers and duties vested in the Secretary of State under the Bill. The purpose of the amendments is to change all references throughout the Bill from “Secretary of State” to “appropriate authority”. Amendment 169 defines “appropriate authority” as the Secretary of State in relation to England and as Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales. I note the intent of the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, that the Bill’s provisions extend and apply to both England and Wales.

The amendments would mean that all the powers and duties vested in the Secretary of State are instead shared between the Secretary of State where they relate to England and Welsh Ministers where they relate to Wales. I would like to put on the record the Government’s continued commitment to devolution and to working with the devolved Governments. Having taken a neutral position on the Bill and the matter of assisted dying, the Government are still committed to working with the Welsh Government to resolve legal and technical issues and discuss constitutional matters that might arise thoughtfully and amicably.

With regard to the phrase “appropriate authority”, the challenge is that in each case throughout the Bill the appropriate authority would be determined by the devolution position of the clause in question—what is the underlying question that the clause seeks to address, and is that a reserved or devolved matter? I have discussed this with parliamentary counsel and others, and the concern is that a blanket provision of this nature may well be premature at this stage. Until we have finalised and determined the constitutional nature and impact of each clause, putting a blanket provision in place may run counter to that process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to move amendment 360, in clause 5, page 3, line 23, at end insert—

“(e) who, If receiving remuneration for the provision of services in connection with the provision of assistance to that person in accordance with this Act, makes publicly available an annual statement setting out total turnover from the provision of services under this Act and the number of patients assisted, and such other information as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations.”

This provides that if the coordinating doctor receives remuneration for providing assisted dying, they must then make a public annual statement about their operation.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 361, in clause 5, page 3, line 28, at end insert—

“(7) Regulations under subsection (3)(e) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This is linked to Amendment 360.

[Danny Kruger]

The amendment speaks to the general confusion we remain in about how the assisted dying law would be implemented and who would operate it. We are in a great cloud of unknowing about whether we are talking about an NHS service or a private service. If there were to be a private service and people were to be paid to deliver it outside the NHS, the amendment would clarify obligations regarding how their remuneration would be recorded.

There is an established precedent for publishing financial interests where there is a potential for a conflict of interest. Senior officials in NHS England, NHS trusts and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency must declare financial interests—including relationships with pharmaceutical companies—in public registers. Those interests include consultancy fees, gifts, hospitality, shareholdings in pharmaceutical companies or research funding, because there is a concern that those influence drug approvals, procurement and healthcare policy and that there is a risk of bias.

NHS England guidance on managing conflicts of interest encourages the detailed disclosure of significant payments from pharmaceutical companies, often with exact figures or ranges for payments above a £500 threshold. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry runs Disclosure UK, which requires pharmaceutical companies to publicly report payments to healthcare professionals and organisations. It would be appropriate to follow this well-established precedent and ensure that people involved in the administration of assisted dying are accountable for the transparency for their remuneration.

Clause 5(3) recognises that there could be a conflict of interest and that there is a risk that someone who is related or might benefit financially may not be a neutral assessor of someone who wishes to die, but clause 40(4), which comes rather late in the Bill—it should be up front—specifies that

“a registered medical practitioner is not to be regarded as benefiting financially or in any other material way from the death of a person by reason only of the practitioner receiving reasonable remuneration for the provision of services”.

Here is where we discover that the Bill does envisage remuneration, but people being remunerated are excluded from the definition of people who financially benefit from the service. To me, that feels dangerous.

Although it has not resolved the question of whether assisted dying is to be an NHS service, the Bill clearly envisages the establishment of a private market for these services, perhaps with a specialist service like Dignitas. Are we content with the Bill’s assertion that remuneration is not a matter for scrutiny? What level of remuneration would we consider reasonable? What level would we consider excessive—remuneration that is capable of influencing a doctor’s thinking? Would they be paid for administering assisted death on a per patient basis, or as a cumulative practice?

As MPs, should we not have some unease at the idea that this could be a highly profitable specialism for private practice? Transparency on what is being charged and who is profiting from the service would help us to understand what is happening in the system that is being established. I suggest that we bring more sunlight into the system, as we do in many other areas.

It is notable that there is little public data on what is charged, or how much revenue assisted dying generates for medical practices, in other countries where assisted dying is a private service. That is regrettable, and I hope we will not replicate that here. We do know that at Dignitas, which is a not-for-profit, the cost for a single patient is between £5,000 and £8,500 in fees alone. What is reasonable remuneration for a practice that provides assisted dying here in the UK? The term is entirely undefined, and I would be grateful for any clarity.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s keenness to get to the debate on clause 32, on the provision of the service—we will come to that in due course—but this conversation is about the amendment. To be clear, there is no expectation that assisted dying would be set up as a private enterprise or service. It would be delivered within the provision of the NHS.

[Danny Kruger]

I am glad to have that suggestion. Clause 32 is extremely broad. It basically empowers the Secretary of State to set up a service in any way they choose, potentially including in the private sector. The hon. Lady says it is not envisaged that would happen, as she is suggesting this should be an NHS service. I am grateful for the clarity, but I wish it were clearer in the Bill.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It will be.

[Danny Kruger]

I am glad to hear we will have more clarity. Having assisted suicide as an NHS service is fraught with enormous risks, along the lines we have discussed and will no doubt continue to discuss. At least we have that clarity. If the hon. Lady is going to rule out private provision and profit making or remuneration of people outside the NHS, I would be grateful for amendments specifying that. That would help to address this question.

My amendments would mean that if there is private provision of assisted suicide, as the Bill currently allows, the public and Parliament could understand who is being paid what, which I think is very appropriate.

[Jack Abbott]

To give the Committee a sense of clarity, is the hon. Gentleman saying he wants the finances to be in the public domain, so that if provision were to go down a private route, everyone would know what an individual is charging for these services? Or is he suggesting a cap on services? What is the intention of his amendments?

[Danny Kruger]

My amendments state that if a medical professional is paid for delivering assisted suicide, the money they receive should be transparent. The answer is therefore the former.

I do not propose any cap. If we end up with a private service, although the hon. Member for Spen Valley has just told us that we will not, it might be appropriate to create a scale of charges. My suggestion is that we need absolute clarity. I also think we should use the affirmative procedure to approve the regulations on the transparency of finances. This should be something that Parliament expressly approves.

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

My interpretation of what the hon. Member for Spen Valley said is that, as long as the service is available on the NHS, it is up to me whether I go private. In such circumstances, I could have it on the NHS if I really wanted. If I chose to go private, as I might if I were having a baby at the Portland hospital or cosmetic surgery at King Edward VII’s hospital in Marylebone, why would my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire want to know the private arrangement between me and my physician?

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful for that clarity, although we now seem to be less clear than we were. I understood the hon. Member for Spen Valley to be saying that there will not be private provision, but my right hon. Friend is saying that there may be.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Kruger]

It would be helpful if the hon. Lady clarified whether private provision will be allowed under the Bill, because I think we have a party split. My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire supports private provision, but the hon. Lady suggests this should be done only on the NHS.

[Kim Leadbeater]

This service, like many others, will be delivered through a range of providers, as alluded to by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire. I understand the keenness to have this debate now, but we will come on to it further down the line. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire is right that this is really important.

[Danny Kruger]

It certainly is. Okay, so it could be either. This will be an NHS service, with all the implications for general practice, doctor-patient relations and secondary care and social care, but there will also be an opportunity to deliver it privately, without any clarity or transparency on who is being paid and how.

In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, this is different from cosmetic surgery, as even cosmetic surgery is regulated. In many ways, there is more regulation of the administering of Botox than there is in this Bill. The administering of assisted dying is of a significantly different category and gravity. It is appropriate and important that financial interests are clearly revealed and made public, particularly with the new intervention we are creating. If other hon. Members do not support the amendment, what provisions do they propose that would reveal where there may be potential conflicts of interest and how we may regulate this?

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for the amendment. The set-up of this scheme is similar to other NHS services. Essentially, a medical professional will opt in to provide the service. That will involve extensive training followed by a short exam, as it does in Australia and California, after which they will be accredited under the scheme—that is how I understand it will happen in the UK. No one is forced to provide the service, but training is offered and many doctors take that up. Therefore, it is a medically based service.

The British Medical Association will then negotiate the fee for doing the assessment with the Department of Health and Social Care. That is not about agreeing to provide the service; it is about doing the assessment. That is mirrored in many aspects of general practice, which itself is a private service contracted to the NHS. It is very complicated. It would be inaccurate to portray this as a private service, where people may profiteer, as it is based on medical professionals performing a duty for which they are trained and for which the price is clear to the general public, because it is negotiated and published.

On publishing the number of patients seen by a single doctor and the fees that doctor has accrued from the scheme, that is not something that happens for things like minor operations, which we perform outside general medical services, although we are rewarded by the Government at a set fee. There are other such services—inserting a coil, for example—where we are given a certain amount of money.

How this is arranged is very complicated. Doing appraisals, being a trainer and all these things have a price attached, and we need training before we can perform the service. I see this scheme as no different. The problem with publishing how many patients have been seen by a single doctor regarding assisted dying is that it puts a target on that doctor. As we have seen with abortion clinics and even this Committee—certain Committee members have been targeted by the press for what they have said—this is a very sensitive issue, and it would not be fair to publish the figures so that doctors could be targeted in the press and made to feel unworthy in all those ways. It is extremely difficult.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has just said, the picture is very complex because there are tariffs for services. Doctors receive a tariff for each service across the entire panoply of everything they do, particularly general practitioners who provide a very wide range of services. They are remunerated on the basis of a tariff that is negotiated in the GP contract between the Department of Health and Social Care and, primarily, the BMA. When a doctor operates in that environment, it is difficult to pick out their turnover from a particular service.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, picking out an individual doctor and saying how much money they have made from a particular service, whether assisted dying or any other service, would put a particular focus on that doctor. We are drawing a distinction here with what the tariff could and should be, which we will need to discuss alongside the operating model in later clauses. Moving from being transparent on the tariff to saying, “That doctor over there made this much money from providing this service,” is a whole new ball game.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the Minister for raising a number of points, including the extraordinary revelation that we are about to find out how the Bill will operate in practice, with amendments yet to be developed even though we have been debating the Bill for a couple of weeks.

The difference between the tariff and a doctor’s income is fine, but if the tariff is to be clearly specified—no doubt it will be—how could it be complicated to determine how many tariffs a particular practice has received? I recognise that there is a separate question about whether it is appropriate to reveal that, but why is it difficult to identify how many individual tariffs a particular practice has received?

The Minister has described the tariff income, but my other concern is about the sponsorship, gifts, hospitality and fees of all sorts that the pharmaceutical companies are always trying to administer. Will he address the question of whether that should be transparent as well?

[Stephen Kinnock]

The challenge in the hon. Gentleman’s amendment is the term “total turnover.” A GP would have to extrapolate from the service provided to a whole range of other costs that may apply—for example, the share of the overhead they pay into their primary care network, the share of admin costs or the rent on their building. The definition of total turnover is the entire cost and entire revenue from the tariffs. As officials have made clear, this additional level of complexity would be an onerous task, although not necessarily impossible.

Total turnover is one side of this issue; the other, much more salient point is the quantum leap between having transparency on a particular tariff and pointing at a specific doctor and saying, “You over there—you did this much work on that much tariff, and that’s how much money you made for it.” There is a big difference between the two.

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

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I have nothing further to add in this debate.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

In the light of the suggestion from the hon. Member for Spen Valley that there will be further amendments later, when we can discuss the shape of the provision and presumably any remuneration, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 186, in clause 5, page 3, line 23, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the training, qualifications and experience that a registered medical practitioner must have in order to act as the coordinating doctor.

(3B) The regulations must include training about—

(a) assessing capacity;

(b) assessing whether a person has been coerced or pressured by any other person.

(3C) Subject to that, the regulations may in particular provide that the required training, qualifications or experience is to be determined by a person specified in the regulations.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

See the statement for Amendment 185.

Amendment made to amendment 186: (a), after

“(b) assessing whether a person has been coerced or pressured by any other person.”

insert

“(c) specific and up-to-date training on reasonable adjustments and safeguards for autistic people and people with a learning disability.”—(Daniel Francis.)

Amendment 186, as amended, agreed to.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 187, in clause 5, page 3, line 24, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment is consequential on NC8, which contains a single duty to consult before making regulations under various provisions of the Bill.

[Kim Leadbeater]

This group of amendments is consequential on new clause 8, which would create a single duty for the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations under various provisions of the Bill. It would consolidate the previous requirements to consult in relation to clauses 5, 8 and 19 and expand the duty to cover additional clauses. It would require the Secretary of State to consult the Equality and Human Rights Commission and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. The persons to be consulted under subsection (1)(b) must include persons appearing to the Secretary of State to have expertise in matters relating to whether persons have capacity, and persons appearing to the Secretary of State to have expertise in matters relating to whether persons have been coerced.

This is an important strengthening of the Bill. It applies to multiple clauses: clauses 5, 7, 8, 13, 19 and 21. The duty to consult experts, particularly on issues around capacity and assessing for coercion, is an important change that reflects the detailed debate that the Committee has undertaken on those two important issues.

Amendment 233 brings together the various provisions about the procedure for regulations. It would make the regulations to be made under clauses 5 and 8, on training, qualifications and experience, subject to the draft affirmative procedure, so that Parliament has to debate and approve them first. Again, that would strengthen the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

In a sense, this is a technical set of amendments that consolidate the provisions for secondary legislation. However, it reflects the seriousness of a concern that I and others have raised, which is that so much in this Bill will be left to the discretion of Ministers, often through the negative procedure.

It is important to reflect briefly on the questions that we are considering. The hon. Lady has mentioned quite a few of them, but we are talking about the training of doctors; the High Court procedure, if there is one; the substances that may be used in the administration of assisted death; the prescribing of those substances; the registration of deaths; the codes of practice to be introduced; provision through the NHS; notification to the chief medical officers; changing the schedules in the Bill, and so on.

Those are important matters. I recognise that many of them are complicated and technical, and that it is appropriate to leave them to a degree of professional and ministerial discretion. Nevertheless, my great concern, which relates to the parliamentary procedure—you may have a view on this, Mrs Harris—is that we are having this debate without the benefit of a delegated powers memorandum to explain why each power has been taken, the nature of it, the reason for taking the power and the procedure to be selected.

In a recent report on the Bill, the Hansard Society notes that under the Government’s “Guide To Making Legislation”, a delegated powers memorandum would normally be published prior to Second Reading for a private Member’s Bill on issues of conscience on which the Government are neutral. The report explains that a delegated powers memorandum gives

“details of each power in the bill, including its context, its scope, to whom the power is delegated, and the parliamentary scrutiny procedure…the reasons for taking the power; and…why.”

It points out that

“where the responsible department recommends that the Government should support the Private Member’s Bill or remain neutral then a DPM should be produced for consideration by the relevant Cabinet Committee—the Parliamentary Business and Legislation (PBL) Committee—alongside other key documents such as the explanatory notes, a legal issues memorandum, and an impact assessment”.

We have not yet had an impact assessment either.

[The Chair]

Order. I ask the hon. Member to speak to the amendments. You have gone out of scope.

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry about that. I am trying to make the point that the amendments would all grant a large number of powers to Ministers through the statutory instrument procedure. That is why I am referring to the Hansard Society report.

[The Chair]

Please stick to the amendments.

[Danny Kruger]

I understand, but it would be interesting to know whether the Government have produced a delegated powers memorandum, and when it will be published.

I have four quick points to make about my concerns about the amendments and new clause 8. First, new clause 8 provides that when making the SIs, the Secretary of State must consult the Equality and Human Rights Commission. That is a very positive step, but the other provisions on who should be consulted are, on closer inspection, illusory. The Secretary of State must consult those with expertise on capacity and coercion—that is all great—unless he or she considers that

“it would not be appropriate”.

What the new clause gives with one hand, it takes with the other. It would be good to identify in the Bill who the groups are that the Secretary of State must consult for each power.

Secondly, the vast majority of the SIs made under the Bill, as amended by the amendments, are to be made by the negative procedure. The last time that an SI subject to the negative procedure was annulled by the House of Commons was 1979. The procedure gives only the outward appearance of involving Parliament again. The SIs take effect when signed by the Minister, subject only to a motion of either House to annul them. However, by strong convention the Lords will do no such thing, and the convention in the Commons is that the Government will make time to debate such a motion only if it is put forward by the Opposition Front Bench, and it is at the Government’s discretion.

This being a matter of conscience, it is unlikely that any Opposition Front Bench would be in a position to table such a motion, and no one else has any standing. In practice, that means that there will be no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny on, which lethal substances may be approved, for example, or on what events should be notified to the chief medical officer. These are not mere details.

Thirdly, on some of the matters addressed in the amendments it is doubtful whether the use of delegated powers is even appropriate, because even if there is a debate and a vote in Parliament, debate on an SI is limited to 90 minutes only and an SI is not amendable. In fact, the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered it improper that the Assisted Dying Bill introduced by Baroness Meacher gave the power to the Secretary of State to decide which substances should be allowed to cause death, because it was an inappropriate question for an SI.

Finally, and perhaps most substantially, clause 32 will establish a vast Henry VIII power. It allows Ministers even to amend primary legislation, and those changes would be subject to a simple yes or no vote in the Commons, without the possibility of amendment. It has been suggested in the Hansard Society podcast with the drafter of the Bill that the power is there because provision on the NHS could be made only if section 1 of the National Health Service Act were modified, removing the duty of the Secretary of State to improve the “physical and mental health” of the public. I look forward to seeing whether the amendments that have been promised include that. However, they will not necessarily amend the National Health Service Act, because that could be done under the statutory instruments created in these amendments.

If such a foundational piece of legislation as the National Health Service Act needs to be modified to allow this law to pass, surely it would be better to do it on the face of the Bill. I want to know why a Henry VIII power is needed. I hope that the Government might bring forward the relevant amendments to the Bill so that a Henry VIII power is not needed. I see that the hon. Member for Spen Valley is nodding, which is encouraging.

I stress that the Committee must bear it in mind that this power would exist on the statute book forever, unless the statute is repealed, so any Government could use this power. The last time that a Parliament found its voice to reject an SI by the negative procedure was back in the 1970s. When we come to a decision on amendment 233 and new clause 8, I will seek to make further amendments.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. It would be remiss of me not to comment briefly on new clause 8, given that throughout this process I have consistently raised issues around evidence given by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and given that new clause 8 states that before making a recommendation the Secretary of State must consult the commission.

I remind hon. Members that the commission has told us that it strongly recommends that

“at the earliest opportunity, Parliament is provided with further information and assurance about the bill’s compatibility with equality and human rights.”

It went on to say that its concerns were that the Bill

“may also particularly impact disabled people. We recognise that this bill is focused on assisted dying for adults who are terminally ill, and does not propose access to assisted dying on the basis of disability or chronic conditions. However, there is not always a clear line between terminal illness and disability. Disabled people can also suffer from terminal illness, and illness may itself amount to a disability.”

It has also stated:

“A vital factor in determining how to manage access to assisted dying will be the concept of mental capacity…It will be important to ensure that all decision-makers involved in the process have a full and clear understanding of the law around mental capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.”

I welcome new clause 8, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, as it would ensure that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is consulted. We await its comments, which hopefully we will have before Report, on whether the concerns that it raised, both in writing before Second Reading and in their oral evidence, have been allayed. However, I welcome this initial commitment, and we will see where that brings us on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendments 291, 292 and 293, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I do not intend to press them to a vote; they are probing amendments. They all relate to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley about the identification required of applicants for assisted dying. They do not change those requirements; they take a more logical and businesslike approach to proving that those requirements are met.

Amendment 291 would change the current requirements on identification and require applicants for assisted dying to produce a piece of photo ID and proof of residence in the UK for the previous year. As currently written, clause 6(2) states:

“The person must, at the same time as that declaration is made, provide two forms of proof of identity to the coordinating doctor and the witness mentioned in section 5(2)(c)(ii).”

Subsection (3) states:

“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the forms of proof of identity that are acceptable for the purposes of subsection (2).”

Surely that is not tight enough.

In particular, the Bill as written does not specify that either form of proof of identity should be photo ID. That may be a major omission. For much less significant decisions, the law of England and Wales requires at least one form of photographic ID. For example, there is currently a requirement to have photo identity to work on the parliamentary estate, vote, or have a bus pass or railcard. None of those is as important as applying for an assisted death.

I remind hon. Members that assisted death is a process that would end in a person being issued with and then taking a mixture of lethal drugs. In a hospital setting where drugs are dispensed, rigorous processes are undertaken to verify the patient. Drug errors are not uncommon. The previous Health and Social Care Committee’s report into pharmacy witnessed how clinical practice was being improved to reduce drug errors. Given that a lethal dose is dispensed as part of this process, the identification mechanisms are weak and should be addressed in this preliminary stage through the provisions set out in this amendment. It is possible that the wrong person could be prescribed the medication. That would be an extreme case, but we are talking about creating a wholly new power that would relate to life and death. We are talking about making assisted dying available to people who are, in many cases, extremely distressed. People in extreme circumstances will sometimes do extreme things. We should expect some extreme cases and seek to guard against them.

Amendment 291 would provide such a safeguard. The Bill says that to qualify for assisted dying, applicants must have been resident in the UK for at least a year, but it does not ask them to provide any proof of that residence. In such a serious matter, we surely cannot simply accept someone’s word that they live in the UK. Making that a requirement without a test to establish it de-values the importance of the criteria for qualifying.

Amendment 292 would change clause 6(3), which currently reads,

“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the forms of proof of identity that are acceptable for the purposes of subsection (2).”

The amendment would change that “may” to a “must”, as the former treats the identification process with reduced seriousness. If the word “may” stays in legislation, there is no obligation to have rigour in the identification process. As drafted, the Bill is more open for abuse.

Amendment 293 seeks to place the regulations concerning identification under the affirmative procedure, which the hon. Member for East Wiltshire mentioned earlier. Assisted dying is so important that no regulations made under it should be drawn using the negative procedure. As Members will know, if a statutory instrument is made under the affirmative procedure, it must be approved by Parliament within a certain timeframe, which is usually 28 or 40 days. If that does not happen, the change to the law made by the statutory instrument will not take place. In the Bill as drafted, these regulations are covered by the negative procedure, which means that if and when the Secretary of State decides to change them, they could go through on the nod unless Members raised an objection. A statutory instrument laid through the negative procedure becomes law on the day the Minister signs it and automatically remains law unless a motion rejecting it is passed by either House within 40 sitting days.

Placing all changes to regulations under the affirmative procedure would ensure that we have scrutiny by Parliament. We should all approve this. Our responsibility for this legislation will not end when and if it becomes an Act of Parliament. These amendments speak to tighter safeguards and parliamentary scrutiny for all new regulations made by the Secretary of State in relation to identity and residence. All hon. Members should support them.

[Danny Kruger]

I will quickly echo the points well made by the hon. Member for Bradford West in support of the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for York Central. It is important to specify the form of identity that will be presented. The person presenting themselves for an assisted death needs to be who they say they are. At the moment, the power to specify the forms of proof of identity has no minimum requirements. As written, it does not require the Secretary of State to specify what is acceptable.

Two specific aspects we have to pay particular care to are age and residency. The process must be accessible only to over-18s. I am concerned that we rejected amendments yesterday that would have prevented people under 18 having the conversation. In light of that, it is even more important that we make it clear that people who access assisted death must be adults. We need to ensure that the forms of identity are specified and that Parliament can satisfy itself that they are robust.

[Kim Leadbeater]

We did not reject proposals for the preliminary discussion not to be taken by people under 18. We actually put a clause into the Bill that would ensure that the preliminary discussion was not taken with someone under 18.

[Danny Kruger]

That is right. The preliminary discussion will not, but there is nothing to stop the conversation beginning before the person is 18. I know they cannot formally begin the process of an assisted death, but the concern—although I will not revisit the debate—was that the topic should not be raised or discussed with children, and we did not succeed in that.

The proposal is to ensure that we have proper ID—a passport, driving licence or other combined photo ID and proof of age, so a birth certificate must be paired with something if it is to be robust. We think such questions should be reflected more clearly in the Bill. All sorts of ID would not be appropriate, such as student ID, a sworn statement with no underpinning official record and other such things, which we want to avoid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I was expecting someone else to have spoken in support of amendment 296, but I will be very brief. The tone of the debate so far has been respectful, and it should continue to be so. I hope that this will not be characterised as a personal attack on my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, who tabled the amendment, or anyone else who supports it, but this is a shocking amendment. It is shocking because I doubt that the motives behind it are to improve the Bill or make it safer. In fact, I fear that the motives are to build a political attack to support opposition to the Bill, rather than to be constructive in improving it.

I have come to that conclusion because there is no concept in any other piece of legislation, or in any healthcare guidance in operation, that would ever presuppose that a clinician would undertake a consultation, assessment or meeting that would ever put other patients in danger. I fear that this amendment has been tabled because some people are attempting to assert, perhaps not purposefully or wilfully, that the introduction of an assisted dying system would somehow force clinicians to put other patients at risk. If that is the assertion, that is wrong and—in my view—shocking. It is a shocking indictment on their view of our medical practitioners in the NHS.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman is impugning the motivation of his colleague, the hon. Member for York Central, who is herself an experienced practitioner in the NHS. To suggest that she has tabled this amendment improperly is a serious accusation, which I cannot believe that he really wants to make against his colleague. He said that the amendment’s intention is to suggest that assisted dying would cause problems in the NHS, but the explicit terms of the amendment are to ensure that that does not happen. Of course, no practitioner would want to take choices that would prejudice other patients’ care.

[The Chair]

Order. Mr Kruger, you are down to speak and you can make your point then. I want interventions to be short.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Danny Kruger.

[Danny Kruger]

I was not intending to speak on this amendment, but since you have called me, Mrs Harris, I will quickly respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Rother Valley. I sincerely think that he should withdraw the suggestion that the amendment was made in bad faith and his remarks about the motivation of the hon. Member for York Central. She clearly tabled it only to make the Bill safer, which is the purpose of all the amendments, even if there might be very good reasons to disagree with them, so I regret that attack on her integrity.

On the point that we should simply rely on the integrity of clinicians—although the hon. Member for Rother Valley has not done so in respect of the hon. Member for York Central, who is herself a clinician—of course we do that. Nevertheless, the laws we make and the guidance we introduce send strong signals about priorities. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that doctors do not feel that the obligations created by the Bill impose a duty on them to prioritise the assisted death procedure over other priorities. In fact, it would give clinicians genuine autonomy and freedom to make their own decisions—obviously, in consultation with colleagues and patients—about the appropriate prioritisation of the treatments and services they are offering.

The hon. Member for Rother Valley made the point that there is, in a sense, an attempt to suggest that the Bill should not become law because of the pressures it could impose on the NHS. I think that such pressures are a valid concern. When we create new laws, we should consider what new burdens they will place on existing services. We should consider whether the new service will be introduced and implemented safely, and its knock-on implications for the wider system.

[Jake Richards]

The point is that the amendment is not about the wider system; it is about a clinician’s individual decision making. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a very different prospect?

[Danny Kruger]

Well, that concern for the individual clinician is in the context of their wider obligation to treat their patients well and to manage a resource—their own time—in a way that is equitable to all the patients they have to see. As often in these debates, we are really considering the extent to which we should be putting into the Bill an obligation on doctors to do the job that we hope that they are doing anyway. We do have such rules in the system to clarify what we expect of clinicians, however, and I think they would be appropriate in this case, given the resource requirements—which are unknowable, but with common sense one can see that they will be quite significant—that this new service would entail for many clinicians in the NHS.

[Jake Richards]

If the Government were to introduce legislation to expand the NHS’s role in how it undertakes operations in a certain area, would the hon. Member suggest that similar amendments should be added to that legislation, or it is just about this issue?

[Danny Kruger]

There is no rule that can be applied universally in the abstract. All rules take their value from how they are introduced. On the hon. Gentleman’s hypothesis, I do not in principle suggest that every new treatment and every new obligation that is created in the NHS should require laws determining how clinicians prioritise them. In the case of a new service—I am trying not to use the word “treatment”, because I do not accept it as such, but it sounds like it will be treated as an NHS treatment—that is very significant and whose resource implications are unknown, it strikes me as appropriate that, as far as possible, we should be clear that doctors should manage the resource demands placed on them by the Bill in the context of their other obligations to patients.

[Kit Malthouse]

Can my hon. Friend not see that, as the hon. Member for Rother Valley said, the amendment is based on what could be construed as an offensive assumption: that doctors otherwise might or would? Effectively, it is the legislative equivalent of the “When did you stop beating your wife?” question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am afraid to say that we do impose obligations on doctors to do the things that we expect them to do. If that is offensive to doctors, so is all the guidance from the General Medical Council. It might well be argued that the amendment is otiose, because of course we would expect doctors to manage their resource requirements appropriately and to consider other patients. Nevertheless, the point that is being made in defence of the amendment, about which I feel strongly, is that we are creating a new service with unknowable resource implications, with strong parliamentary backing behind it, and with a whole set of guidance that will be created ex nihilo by the Secretary of State and that Parliament will have little control over.

Because we have not seen the amendments on the design of the service, we do not even know what the service will involve and how much work it will take. It is therefore appropriate to specify explicitly that doctors have an obligation to consider the potential impact on other patients.

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from. To give us fair warning, if the Committee votes the amendment down, how will he portray that publicly? Will he say to the public that the Committee has voted for doctors to harm other patients?

[The Chair]

Order. That is not a relevant question, Mr Malthouse.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful for your ruling, Mrs Harris, but I hope you will not mind if I do respond to the question.

[The Chair]

Order. I do mind.

[Danny Kruger]

Okay. I might address the question at a future point, because the issue of how we reflect on these proceedings outside this place has come up privately.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do not consider for one second that there is any ill intent behind the amendment, but I am slightly concerned about the language, which is what I think my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley meant. The issue is the suggestion that a doctor would, in any circumstances, jeopardise the care of other patients. We are talking about doctors a lot, and we have the utmost respect for medical practitioners, but I imagine that that would be a worrying concept to have in writing from their perspective.

[Danny Kruger]

I respect that point, and it is a fair charge: that doctors would not do this. Nevertheless, as I have been stressing, we are in uncharted territory, and there is a genuine concern about the resource implications of the Bill.

The Bill clarifies and emphasises things in lots of other places—“for the avoidance of doubt” and so on—and the amendment would clarify that the procedure under the Bill would not take precedence in a clinician’s time over other matters that they also consider to be pressing and urgent. That is an appropriate safeguard for doctors.

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

The problem with the amendment, which has been mentioned before—I will not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley and say that it would essentially nullify the Bill—is that it is entirely subjective. It is not guidance or a clear point of reference; it is entirely subjective to each individual doctor.

[Danny Kruger]

I am afraid that the English language is rather subjective. The service would rely on guidance or case law that had been built up, although one hopes that there would not have to be court cases in respect of it. The interpretation of the language of the Bill would be the duty of clinicians and, ultimately, NHS trusts and their lawyers.

[Jack Abbott]

A lot of the conversations we have had in Committee have been about eliminating the lottery that exists in our healthcare system. What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting will be exactly that: a lottery according to each individual clinician and doctor.

[Danny Kruger]

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot give doctors and clinicians autonomy, which the Committee has repeatedly seen as a ground to reject all sorts of obligations that I and others have proposed to ensure that doctors do the job in a specific way, and then suggest the opposite in this instance. I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, and he may be right that that is inappropriate.

[Naz Shah]

Does the hon. Member agree that perhaps the amendment is not just about the context in which it has been referred to so far, but about protecting doctors in future? When mistakes happen, people would have a means to protect themselves.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We should not forget that doctors are indemnified against any civil claims under the Bill. Nevertheless, they will want to protect themselves against the accusation that they inappropriately prioritised one case over another. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I urge the Committee to support it.

I will finish with this point. I am ashamed to say it, because my party was responsible for the NHS for the 14 years until last year, but the fact is, as Labour Members said frequently when they were in opposition, that there are enormous resource constraints on the frontline in the NHS. I do not think that is inappropriate to consider, when we create a new service, how it might have an impact on existing treatments in the NHS. Leaving aside all the ethical questions, including on coercion and capacity and our concerns in that respect, what will this mean for hard-pressed GPs and clinicians of all sorts on the frontline? What protections can we offer them when they make difficult decisions about whether to support an assisted death application?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for that point. There will absolutely be some occasions where that is the case, but assisted dying is a different pathway—and we have a whole Bill on it, so there will be other formalities and safeguards. We are all here to make sure that rigour is applied to that pathway. With the best will in the world, there will always be more work and pressure, especially time pressure, on doctors. That time pressure will be critical.

[Danny Kruger]

I completely agree. The hon. Member for Spen Valley makes the important point that these patients are, indeed, being treated already; one would hope that the palliative care process would continue alongside their application. It is absolutely right that they are being treated, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate says, there would be additional work being done for them. Does she agree that there is also an opposite threat—that the resource being expended on the patient might be less as a result of the assisted death that they get? I am afraid to say that that would introduce a terrible new incentive into the system, as happens elsewhere.

[Rebecca Paul]

This is a complex issue, and that is why I welcome the debate on this group. There are lots of things that need to be thought through to make sure that, if assisted dying is legalised, we manage it in the most effective way for patients.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph]

I rise to speak briefly to amendment 296. We all know how the NHS operates, how the appointment system works in the NHS and how long people have to wait to see a doctor. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central tabled the amendment with any ill thought, but just to highlight the issue. I do not think that the amendment will make the Bill any safer or stronger, or safeguard anything, but the Committee needs to acknowledge it.

I will quote the Royal College of Physicians, which represents 40,000 doctors who primarily work in hospitals, including on palliative care. The Royal College of Physicians took a neutral position on the Bill. In its written evidence, it highlighted,

“We recognise that the ultimate decision on assisted dying rests with society through Parliament, however any changes to the law will significantly affect clinical practice beyond palliative care…Should the law change, the RCP strongly argues that assisted dying must not divert resources from end of life and palliative care provision, which are not currently adequate.”

With amendment 296, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central is trying to get the Committee to acknowledge that some NHS departments work with vacancies of 50 medical professionals. A patient who has been waiting for six months should not have their appointment cancelled because the provision here is prioritised. I think that is what my hon. Friend meant with her amendment, and I commend her thought about wider NHS provision.

[Danny Kruger]

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, and that he will not be able to support the amendment, but does he acknowledge that its purpose is to clarify the triage process that needs to be done by doctors? It is a perfectly appropriate request to make of doctors.

[Sojan Joseph]

I agree. It highlights the point that the impact assessment will be very important here, to see from where the resources are being pulled to provide this. The Committee should acknowledge amendment 296.

--- Later in debate ---

I have been a doctor for 37 years, and have never known a psychiatrist involved in palliative or terminal care. I have never come across that as a concept. I am not saying that that is not a good idea, but it is not common that psychiatrists get involved, because the primary doctors often treat the mental health issues. For example, I have treated depression many times in people with a palliative or terminal diagnosis, because I recognised that they were depressed on top of that diagnosis. It is only in areas where we have doubt that we should be using a specialist service such as psychiatry to give us a reasonable opinion of that.

[Danny Kruger]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s point, and it is very logical that it should only be in the case of doubt, but does he not recognise that in the case of organ donation, it is mandatory? If people have this proper assessment when they are giving an organ, why should they not be asked to have one if they propose to give their life?

[Dr Opher]

That is an interesting point, but we are not discussing organ donation, and we are dealing in a different environment here; the patients we are talking about are about to die, and all we are giving them is the right to control the moment and manner of that death. I acknowledge that using a psychiatrist in organ donation has its benefits, but in this service, getting every patient—who, for example, are frail and ill by definition, because they are about to die—to see a psychiatrist is frankly neither applicable nor appropriate.

[Dr Opher]

I think it would create a barrier. We need to make sure that we deliver legislation that does what we are trying to do, which is to enable someone with a terminal illness, who has full capacity, to make a decision about the end of their life.

[Danny Kruger]

It is a very important point. Yes, we are talking about those people, but we are also talking about a different category of people who have a terminal diagnosis of six months or more, and may only be reasonably expected to die within six months. I am not just talking about people at the very end of their life, who are at death’s door; we are talking about people who qualify for the Bill, which is a much larger category of people, so it is appropriate to require them to do this.

[Dr Opher]

I agree with all of this. I think psychological assessment is incredibly important in all patients, and I personally specialise in it from a primary care basis. But we are suggesting here that the two other doctors have no ability to do any sort of psychological assessment, and that is simply not true.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

Thank you, Mrs Harris—you really are giving the Minister some exercise during these long sittings.

Amendment 14 likens assisted dying to organ donation. I understand that an organ donor, before the point of independent assessment, has had no other independent assessment, which is in stark contrast to this Bill. The idea that, by failing to support this amendment, we are somehow adopting a weaker framework than for organ donation is patently false.

As the Bill sets out, there are already at least two assessments by independent doctors. As per the amendments we have already agreed, those doctors must have training, as specified by the Secretary of State, on the assessment of capacity and coercion. The rationale behind this amendment is already met, and it is significantly more strenuous than the framework for independent assessment in the event of organ donation.

[Danny Kruger]

I am not sure that is right. The amendment insists that this referral and assessment should happen at the earliest stage possible, in the same way as for organ donation. One of the confusions of the Bill is that multiple different conversations could happen. The purpose is to ensure that this conversation with a psychologist or social worker, as per organ donation, happens at the very earliest opportunity.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s reading. The amendment talks about the co-ordinating doctor, as in the first independent assessor, and that is the case in the provisions we have already adopted. Clearly, the co-ordinating doctor may consult—and must consult, as per the amendment we are about to get to—psychiatric or other expertise, if there is any doubt in their mind. Amendment 14 would not bring forward that assessment earlier than elsewhere. I urge hon. Members to bear in mind that the idea that this proposal is somehow weaker than the current human tissue regulations is absolutely false.

On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, the amendment does nothing to address coercion by a medical professional who knew the person beforehand. Under the amendment, it is by definition an independent person who has no prior relationship with the person.

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

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford.

As I have stated previously, my remarks on behalf of the Government on these amendments will provide a factual explanation. I shall not offer a position on how the Committee should vote, as that remains a matter of conscience. The overarching theme of the amendments relates to the requirement on how and when a medical practitioner may raise the matter of assisted dying.

Clause 4(2), as drafted, provides that nothing prevents a medical practitioner from using their professional judgment to decide when to raise the subject of assisted dying. Amendment 278 seeks to prevent a doctor from raising the subject of assisted dying if the person has a recorded advance decision in their medical records that states that in future they will not want assisted dying.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 enables a person with capacity to make an advance decision to refuse a specified form of treatment in future, should they lack capacity. A person who has lost capacity under the Mental Capacity Act would not be eligible for assisted dying under the Bill. Where such an advance decision is in place, the effect of the amendment would be to prevent the doctor from raising the subject of assisted dying, unless the person indicates to the doctor that they wish to change their previous decision, that they wish to seek assistance under the legislation and that they have the capacity to do so.

Technically, amendment 278 appears unnecessary, because advance decisions under the Mental Capacity Act are not relevant to assisted dying. That is because advance decisions are about refusing treatment at a time when a person no longer has capacity, and assisted death would be available only to those who have capacity.

As drafted, clause 4(1) states:

“No registered medical practitioner is under any duty to raise the subject of the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act with a person”.

but clause 4(2) specifies that they may do so if, in exercising their professional judgment, they consider it appropriate. Amendment 8 would prevent a registered medical practitioner from raising with a person the subject of provision of assistance under the Bill, unless the person has indicated to that practitioner or to another registered medical practitioner that they wish to seek assistance to end their own life. The effect would be that any conversation on assisted dying will need to be patient-initiated, and not at the discretion of the medical professional within a wider conversation about end-of-life care.

The effect of amendment 124, as with amendment 8, would be to prevent a registered medical practitioner from raising with a person the subject of provision of assistance under the Bill. That would mean that the person will need to indicate to a registered medical practitioner that they wish to seek assistance to end their own life before an initial discussion can take place. The effect would be that assisted dying can be discussed only if the patient has initiated the conversation.

The Government’s assessment of amendment 319 is that, as drafted, it would not prevent the subject of an assisted death from being discussed with a person who is under 18. There is already a requirement that, to be eligible for the provision of assistance under the Bill, a person must be aged 18 or over at the time that they make their first declaration under clause 1(1)(b).

Amendment 319 would impose additional requirements on the approach that a medical practitioner must make if raising the subject of assisted dying with a person who has a learning disability or is autistic. It would require the person to be provided with accessible information and given sufficient time to consider it. It would further require that they must have a supporter and/or independent advocate present for the initial discussion. The amendment would require that a person with autism or a learning disability must have a supporter or independent advocate present for the discussion, even when they have capacity or are high-functioning. Autism is a spectrum disorder, meaning that autistic people have diverse and varying needs, so the effect of the amendment would vary among individuals.

It is already the case that all registered medical practitioners, in meeting their professional standards, are expected to communicate information clearly and effectively. That includes allowing sufficient time for the individual to consider and process the information provided. For example, the General Medical Council’s “Good medical practice” states that all GMC-registered clinicians

“must take steps to meet patients’ language and communication needs”

to support them to

“engage in meaningful dialogue and make informed decisions about their care.”

Amendment 368 would require registered medical practitioners, when deciding if and when it is appropriate to discuss assisted dying with a person with Down’s syndrome, to act in accordance with the Down Syndrome Act 2022. The Act requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance to relevant authorities on what they should be doing to meet the needs of people with Down’s syndrome. Although this work is being taken forward as a priority by the Department, no statutory guidance has yet been published under the Act.

The relevant authorities in scope of the Act are institutions such as NHS trusts. The Act does not provide for guidance to be prepared for individual doctors. The relevant authorities must have due regard to the statutory guidance, which enables them a degree of discretion in following it, but the amendment would require medical practitioners to act in accordance with the guidance. It might therefore create uncertainty as to how a doctor can comply with their obligations under the Bill.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I hear what the Minister says—the guidance does not exist and there is concern that the amendment may therefore induce some confusion—but would the answer not be to put a commitment into the Bill that the Secretary of State will issue guidance on how the 2022 Act could be applied in the context of the Bill?

In the light of our conversation at the Committee’s last sitting, I put on the record my intention to press the amendment if the Minister cannot give a commitment now to introduce an amendment later that the Secretary of State will introduce statutory guidance to ensure that proper care is taken of people with Down’s syndrome in accordance with amendment 368.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The challenge is the dissonance in how the guidance under the Down Syndrome Act, which is currently very close to publication, is directed towards authorities such as trusts, but there is no coverage around individual doctors. At this stage, without seeing a clear distinction between the two or how it would work for individual doctors, the Department’s concern is that it could create confusion as to the obligations on individual medical practitioners under the 2022 Act. I am obviously open to conversations about how to clear that up, but the lacuna between the authorities and the individual doctors is the problem being flagged by the Department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification and apologise for my misunderstanding; I thought he was referring to the guidance that we are currently working on under the terms of the 2022 Act. Yes, absolutely: the Bill currently specifies a two-year commencement period, within which a whole range of operationalisation work will need to be done. All of that will need to be consulted on; we will not do it all in an ivory tower from Whitehall or Westminster.

[Danny Kruger]

It is welcome that a commitment has been made to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire, who tabled the amendment, but a commitment to consult is not the same thing as specific protections in the Bill for people with Down’s syndrome. What we really need is a commitment in the Bill that there will be statutory guidance. There will be opportunities for that later, so we may not need to press the amendment to a vote, but if we cannot have a commitment, we must press it.

[Stephen Kinnock]

It is absolutely the hon. Member’s prerogative to press the amendment to a vote if he so wishes. As things stand, because of the baseline, which is the GMC guidance that I have just read out, we constantly go back to the Government’s position that the current corpus of guidance, regulations, advice, training, expertise and professional judgment is, in essence, satisfactory to the Department. We believe in and rely on the professional judgment of the experts in the field. That remains our fundamental position.

The effect of amendment 320 would be that the safeguards in clause 4(4) in respect of the preliminary discussion apply only where the person seeking assistance is aged 18 or over. The amendment would not prevent a discussion with a person under 18. As the Committee will be aware, there is already a requirement that, to be eligible for the provision of assistance under the Bill, a person must be 18 or over when they make their first declaration under clause 1(1)(b).

Amendment 270 would make it a requirement for a registered medical practitioner to ensure that there are no remediable suicide risk factors before proceeding to the initial discussion about assisted dying. The amendment does not state what is to happen if the practitioner considers that there are remediable suicide risk factors. As the Committee will be aware, we rely on medical practitioners to make judgments in relation to their patients that draw on their training, experience and expertise. We would expect the judgment and skill of a medical professional to be brought to bear where there are remediable suicide risk factors.

Amendment 276 would mean that a person is unable to have a preliminary discussion or make a first declaration to be provided with assistance to end their own life until 28 days after receiving a terminal diagnosis. The amendment would add an additional pause into the process for a person who has received a terminal diagnosis in the preceding 28 days. The 28-day pause would apply regardless of the patient’s prognosis, even if they had only one month left to live, for example.

New clause 6 would ensure that an advance decision to refuse treatment under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 cannot be used to seek assisted dying. Our analysis suggests that the new clause is not necessary, because an assisted death is available only to those with capacity, whereas advance decisions provide for a person to be able to refuse treatment at a future time when they have lost capacity. If a person still has capacity, they may be eligible for an assisted death. If they do not have capacity, they will not be eligible, irrespective of whether they have made an advance decision.

That concludes my remarks on this group of amendments. As I say, the Government have taken a neutral position on the substantive policy questions relevant to how the law in this area could change. However, I hope my comments and observations are helpful to Committee members in considering the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

“create opportunities for patients to raise concerns and fears about the progression of their disease and about their death and to express their wishes…listening to patients, providing them with information, and respecting their decisions and choices, are integral parts of good practice.”

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady says that the GMC states that doctors have an obligation to raise the treatment options before them, and I think that she thinks that this is a treatment option. Surely the obligation is on doctors to raise assisted dying in all cases where it may be an option for the patient. Does the hon. Lady agree that doctors should offer assisted dying when that treatment may be appropriate for the patient?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I agree that, under the provisions of the Bill, the doctor will have a duty to lay out options available to the patient, if they meet the eligibility criteria—absolutely. That is the whole purpose of the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me a very clear answer. I just want to be totally clear that we understand each other. Is she saying that every doctor facing a terminally ill patient—someone who is eligible under the Bill—should make clear to them that they have the option of an assisted death?

[Kim Leadbeater]

Well, that is the purpose of clause 4: the doctor has to lay out the options available to the patient as long as all the criteria are met.

We can see from the guidance that currently exists that doctors take a very sensitive and patient-centred approach to end-of-life conversations. If the law were to change, that approach would continue with additional training specifically related to assisted dying, as has been discussed. It would also mean that the issues that doctors currently face around discussing assisted dying would be addressed.

As the BMA says, at the moment

“The law does not provide a clear definition of which actions might constitute assisting or encouraging suicide…What if a patient wishes to travel abroad for assisted dying? While the act of travelling abroad for assisted dying is not illegal, assisting, facilitating, or encouraging someone to do so is a criminal offence…doctors need to be aware of the possibility of legal and professional sanctions if they were to do so.”

I imagine that that must create a real sense of jeopardy for doctors. Similarly, the GMC recognises that doctors will face challenges in

“ensuring that patients do not feel abandoned”,

while ensuring that the advice or information that they provide does not encourage or assist a person to end their own life.

These are very difficult conversations for patients and doctors, but by legalising assisted dying in this country we can give clear guidance through a robust legal framework, and create the thorough, transparent process that is currently lacking. These conversations provide a safeguard while the person is still alive. As the former director of public prosecutions, Sir Max Hill, told the Committee,

“In each of the 27 cases I considered, the deceased individual was already dead, and that is when the scrutiny started. The major advantage of the Bill, if I can put it that way, is that that will be reversed, and scrutiny will be before death.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 86, Q111.]

Mark Swindells from the General Medical Council told us:

“We do get inquiries from doctors who are concerned that they are doing the right thing when it might become apparent to them that a patient wants to travel overseas to access assisted dying.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 46, Q36.]

Bringing those conversations out into the open has to be better for the patient and the practitioner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As I have said, the BMA has been very clear that doctors should use their professional judgment. For example, if they had a patient whom they knew to be deeply religious and who had no interest whatsoever in an assisted death, it is highly unlikely that they would raise the possibility. It is up to them to use their professional judgment to accommodate the wishes of the patient. It has to be a patient-centred approach.

[Danny Kruger]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am done.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 22

Ayes: 8

Noes: 13

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to move amendment 342, in clause 4, page 2, line 23, leave out

“may (but is not required to)”

and insert “must”.

This amendment would strengthen the requirement for a registered medical practitioner to conduct a preliminary discussion.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 285, in clause 4, page 2, line 28, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—

“(a) the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, in consultation with a specialist in the relevant illness, disease or medical condition,

(b) any treatment available and the likely effect of it, in consultation with a specialist in the provision of such treatment,

(c) any palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support, in consultation with a specialist in palliative care.”

This amendment ensures that a specialist carries out the assessment of the patient, the treatment options available and the palliative care options available, since these may not be known to a doctor coordinating an assisted death.

Amendment 343, in clause 4, page 2, line 28, at end insert

“, including any relevant probabilities and uncertainties surrounding the person’s diagnosis and prognosis.”

This amendment would make clear that the doctor conducting an initial discussion is required to discuss the probabilities and uncertainties of any estimates of how long a person may have to live.

Amendment 344, in clause 4, page 2, line 29, at end insert

“, including the risks and benefits of such treatment, potential side effects, and the impact of the treatment on the person’s quality and length of life.”

This amendment would make clear that the doctor conducting an initial discussion is required to discuss the impact of any treatment available.

Amendment 275, in clause 4, page 2, line 30, leave out “any available” and insert “all appropriate”.

Amendment 108, in clause 4, page 2, line 31, at end insert

“and offer to refer them to a registered medical practitioner who specialises in such care for the purpose of further discussion.”

This amendment would require the doctor who has an initial discussion with a person about assisted dying to offer to refer them to a specialist in palliative, hospice or other care.

Amendment 183, in clause 4, page 2, line 31, at end insert—

“(and, accordingly, such a preliminary discussion may not be conducted in isolation from an explanation of, and discussion about, the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c)).”

This amendment emphasises that the initial discussion mentioned in subsection (3) may not be conducted without also explaining and discussing the matters mentioned in subsection (4).

Amendment 425, in clause 4, page 2, line 31, at end insert—

“(4A) Where a person indicates to a registered medical practitioner their wish to seek assistance to end their own life in accordance with this Act, they must be referred to a multidisciplinary team to explore options for relevant care and support.

(4B) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify the requirements for the multidisciplinary team under subsection (4A).

(4C) The regulations must include a requirement for the multidisciplinary team to include all of—

(a) a registered medical practitioner or registered nurse,

(b) a person registered as a social worker in a register maintained by Social Work England or Social Work Wales, and

(c) a practising psychiatrist registered in one of the psychiatry specialisms.”

Amendment 53, in clause 7, page 4, line 8, at end insert—

“(ca) has relevant and available palliative care options.”

This amendment would mean that someone is only eligible for assistance in ending their own life under this Act if they have relevant and available palliative care options.

Amendment 54, in clause 7, page 4, line 17, leave out “(g)” and insert “(h)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 53.

Amendment 426, in clause 7, page 4, line 26, at end insert—

“(4) The coordinating doctor may not take the steps set out in subsection (3) unless they receive confirmation from a multidisciplinary team that the person has had a meeting with that multidisciplinary team as specified in section 4.”

Amendment 286, in clause 9, page 5, line 36, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—

“(a) the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, in consultation with a specialist in the relevant illness, disease or medical condition,

(b) any treatment available and the likely effect of it, in consultation with a specialist in the provision of such treatment,

(c) any palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support, in consultation with a specialist in palliative care.”

This amendment ensures that a specialist carries out the assessment of the patient, the treatment options available and the palliative care options available, since these may not be known to a doctor coordinating an assisted death.

Amendment 424, in clause 40, page 23, line 37, at end insert—

“‘preliminary discussion’ means a discussion of a kind mentioned in section 4(3);”.

This is a drafting change.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I suggest that you take the advice of the House on that, because what people say outside of the Committee is beyond my jurisdiction. The House has rules, and if those rules are breached, it is up to any hon. Member, including the Member himself, to raise that with the appropriate authorities.

[Danny Kruger]

On that ruling, Mr Efford, I concur that it is not your job to police social media but I respect the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire: it is important that we accurately reflect the debates held in this place. For my part, I will not be commenting externally that the House has disregarded people with Down’s syndrome. I respect and appreciate the point made by the Minister and the hon. Member for Spen Valley that there will be an effort to engage with the Down’s syndrome community in the drafting of further consultation and guidance. Nevertheless, the Committee did just choose to reject an amendment that would have required the Government to put into the Bill the protections specified by the Down’s syndrome community and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire. I will be making that point, but I undertake to do so accurately and fairly.

I turn to amendment 342 and the other amendments in this group. There is a lot to discuss, and I will get through it as fast as I can. We are talking about the “initial discussion” and the “preliminary discussion”. It might be helpful to clarify those terms, because clause 4 is confusing. The clause refers to an “initial discussion”, which is when the doctor, or maybe the patient, raises the idea—it is unclear who will do that and how. The initial discussion does not actually need to take place at all, but if it does, then, according to the Bill, a preliminary discussion “may” be held, at which the topic is discussed in more detail and there is discussion of the requirements that need to be met, and so on.

I welcome amendment 342, which was tabled some time ago by the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon). It provides that if an initial discussion is held—that is to say, if the topic is raised as an option and the patient indicates their wish for an assisted death—then a preliminary discussion must also be held. Over the weekend the hon. Member for Spen Valley tabled amendment 419. That would amend clause 6, but I mention it here because it reaches back to clause 4 by stating that the co-ordinating doctor must either hold a preliminary discussion or see evidence that one has been held at an earlier stage.

I was alarmed that the Bill initially envisaged a situation in which someone could turn up to an assisted dying provider and pay their registration and administration fees, and the only thing the co-ordinating doctor would be required to do is check their photo ID. It is extraordinary that that was viewed as acceptable in the first place, so I welcome the tabling of amendment 419. My difficulty is that it leaves clause 4 quite vague and optional about whether a preliminary discussion would take place, and then it applies a retrospective compulsion at a later stage. It allows the preliminary discussion to be not very preliminary at all, because it might take place quite some time later, at the point the co-ordinating doctor is witnessing the first declaration. It could be weeks or months after the process has started, once the patient has found a doctor willing to do the assessment and the paperwork for assisted dying. Rather than tacking the provision on to clause 6, which deals with proof of identity for the witnessing of the declaration later on, let us have it where it is needed—let us insist on it here at the outset of the process.

What should the preliminary discussion consist of? I will speak now to amendment 183 in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley, and amendments 343 and 344 in the name of the hon. Member for Shipley. In her explanatory statement to amendment 183, the hon. Member for Spen Valley suggests that it “emphasises” that the preliminary discussion must include a discussion of palliative care options. That is, I am afraid to say, repetitive of the sentence at the start of clause 4(4), which says that the practitioner conducting a preliminary discussion must discuss all the options listed. In the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, this is embroidery of the Bill—it is fine lacework, unrelated to the job of the clause itself. The statement in the clause that the doctor must discuss palliative care is, of course, already the law under the Montgomery judgment. There is a genuine obligation on the doctor to discuss all the options that the patient has, which will obviously include palliative care.

I welcome the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley, which would require the doctor to be clear about the uncertainties of the prognosis and the risks and benefits of the various treatment options. That is absolutely right. That is not embroidery. As a result, patients will make better-informed decisions with full awareness of what is known and, crucially, what is unknown about their prognosis. A requirement in the Bill leaves no room for doubt.

I am concerned by the suggestion that has been repeatedly made that adding obligations for doctors to do their job as guidance currently states is somehow unnecessary or harmful. Indeed, the selective approach of referencing only some elements of GMC guidance in the Bill increases legal uncertainty. Clauses 7 and 9 include only some elements of GMC guidance on the information that doctors must give to patients. There are five areas that the GMC says information should usually include, but the Bill omits

“uncertainties about the diagnosis or prognosis, including options for further investigation”

and

“the potential benefits, risks of harm, uncertainties”

and so on. The guidance explains:

“By ‘harm’ we mean any potential negative outcome, including a side effect”.

Those are quotes from the GMC guidance that are not reflected in the Bill at the moment. Some parts are, but some are not. I think the fact that some guidance has been excluded would be treated as legally significant by the courts. I would be interested to know why the hon. Member for Spen Valley takes the position that those aspects of the guidance should be excluded, and whether she feels that uncertainties and risks of harm are not relevant to the discussion that doctors should have.

We are often told that this Bill is the safest in the world. Other jurisdictions that have inspired the Bill specify in more detail what informed consent should consist of. In Oregon, the doctor must cover the potential risks, the probable result of taking the medication and the feasible alternatives. In Victoria, the doctor is required to discuss the potential risks—in fact there is a whole series of obligations on them. Interestingly, they are encouraged to inform the registered medical practitioner, so to tell the patient’s doctor what is happening, if they do not know already. South Australia specifies all the same things. In his amendment 50, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) is trying to mirror precisely that. That is exactly what should be in the Bill, and yet we are told that it is the safest legislation in the world.

Other amendments in this group address who should do the preliminary discussion or referral, and who else should be involved. Amendment 108 in the name of the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), which would require the doctor to offer a referral to a palliative care specialist, is very helpful. It is significant that the Committee has already voted not to mandate referral to a palliative care practitioner at the early stage—that fork in the road that we debated earlier—so people will be facilitated down one fork in the road only. This is an opportunity to ensure that there is in fact a referral to a palliative care specialist.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I just want to let the hon. Gentleman and the Committee know that I met my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet last night, and I am delighted to support her amendment 108.

[Danny Kruger]

I am very pleased to hear that. That is very encouraging news, because I have been concerned that the hon. Lady was resting her case on amendments to clause 12, which would not require a palliative care specialist. I am grateful to her for intervening to inform us of that.

Nevertheless, we need to go further. The amendments in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) would require that a specialist, rather than just a GP, leads the initial assessment. The fact is that despite their enormous range of expertise, general practitioners are not qualified or confident in making prognoses of terminal illness. The written evidence from the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland cited a 2021 paper showing that over half of GPs were not consistent in how they applied their predictions to different patients. It is important that specialists in the relevant conditions should be involved in these assessments so that patients receive expert input with a lower risk of error.

It is significant that, during the Second Reading debate on 29 November, the House was unanimous in its appreciation of, and praise for, palliative care specialists. It seems strange that their expertise should not be considered essential to a terminally ill person’s consideration for an assisted death. When we look at other countries, we see that it is not an exceptional safeguard. South Australia’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2021 specifies:

“Either the coordinating medical practitioner or each consulting medical practitioner must have relevant expertise and experience in the disease, illness or medical condition”—

we are not using that any more—

“expected to cause the death of the person being assessed.”

I urge the Committee to reflect on the South Australia model, which is good in this regard.

I turn to amendment 53, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, and amendment 275, in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central. The Bill currently requires doctors to discuss “available” palliative care options, but that may limit what patients are told. Amendment 275 would provide that patients should be informed of “all appropriate” palliative care alternatives, even if they are not readily available in their local area. We do not want patients choosing assisted dying simply because of unequal geographic provision of palliative care making them unaware of alternatives that could improve their quality of life.

I would go even further in support of amendment 53, which hits the nail on the head. Fundamentally, we have always said that assisted dying should be available only to people who palliative care cannot help. That is what amendment 53 entails: it states that assisted dying should be available only for people for whom the relevant palliative care is actually an option and, if they decline it, that would be their choice.

Finally, I will speak to amendments 425 and 426 in my name, which express the need for a proper multidisciplinary team at the right stage of the assisted dying process. The hon. Member for Spen Valley has emphasised the importance of multidisciplinary teams, and I welcome everything she said. It is very good to get her agreement, through the amendments that she has tabled, that two doctors working alone are not enough to protect and support every patient. I welcome that recognition.

Amendments to clause 12 attempt to fill this gap by introducing the expertise of a psychiatrist and a social worker, but they do not fulfil the role of a multidisciplinary panel. Rachel Clarke, one of the witnesses who told us to consider multidisciplinary assessments, has written subsequent to the amendments being tabled: “A ‘judge plus’ panel”—there will not actually be a judge, so perhaps we should call it a “lawyer plus” panel—

“is not an MDT…the panel’s scrutiny comes only at the end of the process, not at the beginning, when a patient first asks for the intervention of assisted dying. Yet this is a moment of peak vulnerability.”

We will get on to the question of whether a judicial panel should replace a High Court judge, but I emphasise very strongly that the introduction of this process is not the equivalent of having a proper multidisciplinary team considering the application for an assisted death at the appropriate moment.

As the Association for Palliative Medicine said last week, the Bill

“does not align with the standard multi-professional team…decision-making process used across the health service.”

It said that the panel is too distant from the patient and comes too late in the process. It said that the Bill would be stronger if the initial assessments were

“carried within a multi-professional team model”.

It is at the stage we are debating here—in the initial assessments—that the MDT needs to apply. For the record, if it has not been properly noted before, I also state that when the hon. Member for Spen Valley quoted Dr Sarah Cox on the importance of multidisciplinary teams, Dr Cox was not endorsing clause 12, but explicitly arguing for earlier introduction of the multidisciplinary process.

[Kim Leadbeater]

To be clear on the multidisciplinary approach, the point that I was making in that contribution was that that happens already. We are misrepresenting what goes on in current practice with terminally ill patients if we say that there is not a multidisciplinary approach, as indeed various witnesses told us. It is important to acknowledge that.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that is what witnesses told us, but we need to ensure that it happens in all cases; the purpose of these amendments is to ensure that good practice is universal. In the case of assisted dying, bad practice would be terrible. Of course, good doctors seek the guidance of others and do not operate in isolation, but the Bill would allow them to do so. It is important to ensure that the system lives up to the good practice that she refers to.

Committee members will be glad to hear that I am not going to rehearse the arguments about capacity and coercion, but those concerns are why it is important to have a multidisciplinary team at an early stage. The Committee has rejected all attempts to strengthen the capacity test, but it could at least allow a psychiatrist to have an earlier role in the process of checking for capacity. We heard from multiple witnesses about the importance of doing that, and that is what National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance states. As the hon. Lady said, it is good practice, so as Professor House said in his evidence to us, it would not be “a terribly radical thing” to do it.

On coercion, as the social worker Jess Carrington wrote to us:

“The only people who are comprehensively trained to recognise signs of abuse, in particular, coercive control, are social workers.”

According to research by Dr David Ross, doctors suspect less than 5% of cases of elder abuse. I will not rehearse the arguments around coercion, but I hope that the Committee will note that the only way—or the best way; it will not be foolproof—to ensure that coercion is spotted is by having a social worker at the very beginning of the process.

I think that is enough from me, Mr Efford—I am sure you agree.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendments 108, 343 and 344. I am delighted that the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, has said that she accepts amendment 108, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet. It would require a doctor who was having an initial conversation with a person about assisted dying to “offer” to refer them to a palliative medical specialist. That would give the patient a chance to discuss end of life matters in depth with somebody who has the necessary expertise.

We have spent much time in previous sittings on palliative care options, and there was some understandable concern about removing autonomy from those looking for assisted dying. I hope that amendment 108 strips away that concern, because it is about offering, not mandating, more information. When we are talking about autonomy, I think that all Committee members would agree that anybody making an autonomous choice could only benefit from more information, rather than suffer as a result of it.

The Bill says that when a doctor has an initial conversation with a person about assisted dying, they should explain and discuss

“any available palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.”

The amendment aims to ensure that the patient has access to the best available information to make a decision about what they do next. It would act as a safeguard to prevent people from choosing assisted dying because they did not have a chance to have a thorough and accurate discussion about the care options available to them.

As I said, several people were concerned about autonomy, and providing people with the opportunity to meet a specialist. The written evidence from Hospice UK explains that there are currently wide misunderstandings about hospice care at societal level. It says:

“Implementation of assisted dying without care given to public awareness about palliative care is likely to worsen individuals’ ability to make decisions regarding their end of life. People will need access to information about the services and support available to them.”

That reminds the Committee that terminally ill people at the end of their life often may not know the options available to them. I am sure that every Member in the room wants to avoid that situation, and the option of a discussion with a specialist aims to ease some of that fear and provide accurate information.

In order to make palliative and hospice care a genuine choice, it is important that patients with concerns are able to speak to someone who can answer all their questions and offer accurate information. Marie Curie’s written evidence says:

“There must be clear recognition within the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that genuine choice at the end of life cannot exist unless dying people are able to choose to receive high quality palliative and end of life care”.

Unfortunately, we know that the state of palliative care in this country is not yet of evenly accessible quality. The amendment would not solve that problem—there is quite a lot of work to do in that regard—but it would at least improve the Bill. It would give every patient the option of a discussion about palliative medicine and would make some ground on access. We all want to ensure that those with terminal illnesses are given good support and confidence in their decision at the end of their lives. Amendment 108 would do that, and would give people the opportunity of a real, informed choice, which is why I am delighted that the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, has agreed to it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, who tabled amendments 343 and 344, has a distinguished record in policymaking in health and social care. She served as chief analyst and director of quality and strategy at the Department of Health. Both amendments are very thoughtful, and we would do well to adopt them. It would be helpful to explain what they would do before I set out why I think that hon. Members should vote for them. Amendment 343 would change clause 4(4), on page 2, which reads:

“If a registered medical practitioner conducts such a preliminary discussion with a person, the practitioner must explain to and discuss with that person—

(a) the person’s diagnosis and prognosis”.

If the amendment were made, subsection (4)(a), on line 28, would go on to read

“, including any relevant probabilities and uncertainties surrounding the person’s diagnosis and prognosis.”

Amendment 344 would change paragraph (b) on the next line, which says that the doctor must discuss with the patient

“any treatment available and the likely effect of it”.

If the amendment were made, paragraph (b) would go on to read

“, including the risks and benefits of such treatment, potential side effects, and the impact of the treatment on the person’s quality and length of life.”

Like amendment 108, amendments 343 and 344 are both intended to improve the quality of information that patients receive when they have their initial discussion about assisted dying. The first amendment addresses what many of the expert witnesses have identified as a key problem with the Bill. Clause 2 requires a doctor to have prognosed that

“the person’s death…can reasonably be expected within 6 months.”

I will not go over the various arguments that we have already had in Committee about that, but many of the very senior doctors who gave evidence to the Committee have said that it is extremely hard for medical professionals to give a prognosis with such assurance.

The Marie Curie palliative care research department at University College London also submitted written evidence, numbered TIAB 39. Those experts said:

“The Bill’s requirement for a prognosis of death within 6 months could lead to significant errors, where individuals either receive assisted dying prematurely or are denied it when desired. The variability in prognostic accuracy, especially for non-cancer illnesses, may exacerbate inequities in patient care.”

They went on to say:

“We also question how the term “reasonably” will be interpreted by doctors, and this is likely to vary between doctors, but also by the same doctor with different patients”.

The Marie Curie palliative care research department also said that predicting someone’s death “too soon” can result in early palliative care, and that such early care is

“not a harm in the same sense as might be implied in the context of assisted dying.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

As far as I see, under the Bill there is an initial discussion when a patient who is requesting assisted dying goes to see a medical practitioner. It does not specify what type of practitioner, which is good because it means they can ask either the oncologist or the general practitioner. That initial discussion is with a doctor, and then the doctor will refer for the first declaration, or they may do the first declaration themselves. That is how the Bill is set out, but the general practitioner will have had specialist opinions on the patient. They would not just say, “Well, maybe you’ve got less than six months to live—I don’t really know, but let’s have a guess.” This will be based on informed information from a specialist.

[Danny Kruger]

I do not want to labour the point, but does the hon. Member not acknowledge the Bill does not require that at the moment? He is saying that it will happen. Why will it happen—just because the doctors do their job well? Does he recognise there is no obligation to have this wide consultation with other specialists under the Bill? The doctor could do just as he has described and take a decision on their own.

[Dr Opher]

Again, this is a really interesting part of the Bill. If a doctor is routinely giving prognoses of six months where that is not appropriate, they will come up against the General Medical Council for being poor doctors, and the regulation around poor doctors is within the medical profession. If it is proven that someone has given a diagnosis that they cannot back up in any way, they would then be subject to their own professional standards. That is one of the things here: we cannot go through this Bill and specify the medical requirements at every stage, because that comes under a different format, which is called the General Medical Council. If someone has given a prognosis of six months or less, and if that is clearly inaccurate and would be contested by other doctors, they would be brought before the General Medical Council.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

Again, I bring my hon. Friend back to the fact that this is a Bill in law, and what we have to guide us as doctors is the General Medical Council, which sets standards for doctors. That is how we do it. If we are hemmed in by legal matters, we can break the law without being aware of it, if we are not careful. If too many legal parameters are set around medical consultations, the patient will get less good care because the doctor will not be free to offer it. I can see that my hon. Friend does not agree with that, but it is the case.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman is praying in aid the General Medical Council as if it is some sort of effective backstop. He says that the guidance does not need to be in the Bill because it is there hovering over doctors anyway, but the Bill makes explicit reference to GMC guidance—some of it is in there. If he objects to our suggestion to include the full GMC guidance in the communication that should be had, why does he support the presence of some of the guidance that doctors should give? The Bill does not include what the GMC requires: uncertainties about diagnosis or prognosis. Why not include the full GMC guidance in the Bill, seeing as we are including some of it already?

[Dr Opher]

I just do not think it will strengthen the Bill. I thank you for your intervention. It is a moot point.

--- Later in debate ---

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud made some valid points. I do not feel that amendment 285 undermines what he said; I think his points actually strengthen the argument for the amendment, which would put the detail on the face of the Bill and would clarify a great deal. I do not expect it to tie us up in legal proceedings or to bring the fear of legal proceedings to doctors. As he said, the fear of being pulled up by the General Medical Council if they do something wrong already exists for doctors every day.

[Danny Kruger]

I am afraid the situation is even worse, because the fact is that under the Bill they will not be liable for mistakes made in pursuit of the scheme set out in the Bill. They will be exempt. They are indemnified against civil liabilities for malpractice in the course of their job. It is only guidance, and GMC guidance specifies that breaking the guidance is not itself necessarily considered a serious matter. The provisions are not strong enough at all.

[Naz Shah]

The hon. Member makes a valid point. That brings us to a very important question: do we wait for something to have happened? In this instance, people will have died.

If we were considering kidneys, for example, and the issue of consent, it would require somebody independent. It needs a specialist. We come back to the point about specialisms: whether they relate to diagnosis, coercion, the care pathway, palliative care or the drugs that bring a person’s life to an end, which we will discuss later, these are specialisms. I know that later my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley will speak to her amendment about the panel, which is intended to require expertise. That is what amendment 285 speaks to, and I hope hon. Members will support it.

Amendment 286 would set out the requirements for the co-ordinating doctor and ensure that the standards are upheld throughout the process of assessment, so that the patient and clinician have the highest levels of advice available. Even though the co-ordinating doctor might already have sought the advice of specialists as part of their assessment, the purpose of having an independent doctor is to assess the patient without preconceptions influenced by the co-ordinating doctor’s decision-making process. It is therefore important for the clinician to have access to the same level of advice to inform their clinical decision making.

In medical practice, should a second opinion be sought, the person providing that second opinion might consult a range of sources to establish an opinion. This measure would therefore be in line with normal medical practice. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 183 would enable us to mirror that provision in the Bill. It would achieve the strengthening that I sought on Second Reading, by ensuring that a preliminary discussion must include explanation and discussion of the person’s diagnosis, prognosis, any treatment available and its likely effect, as well as all appropriate palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.

[Danny Kruger]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

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

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. My understanding is that we are planning to sit a bit later today, which is fine by me. I wanted clarity from you that the Committee has no hard deadline—that although the intention is that Report stage will take place on 25 April, if the Committee wished to go further, it could. I was a little concerned by some of the remarks made in this morning’s sitting about people being conscious of time; there is a sense of being asked to speed up as we go. Am I right in saying that the Committee can take as long as it needs to, and that in fact it should, to debate this very important matter?

[The Chair]

The short answer is yes. I think Members will inevitably deal with this in as sensitive and conciliatory fashion as possible, notwithstanding that point.

Clause 4

Initial discussions with registered medical practitioners

Amendment proposed (this day): 342, in clause 4, page 2, line 23, leave out

“may (but is not required to)”

and insert “must”.—(Danny Kruger.)

This amendment would strengthen the requirement for a registered medical practitioner to conduct a preliminary discussion.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I will try to keep my comments as brief as possible because we have had another very thorough discussion. First, my amendment 424 is, as the Minister said, a simple drafting change in clause 40 that confirms that “preliminary discussion” means a discussion as per clause 4(3).

Amendment 275 from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central would, in many circumstances, broaden the scope of the conversation that the doctor would have with the patient, and I am happy to support it.

I am also happy to support the very sensible amendment 108 from my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington). It is perfectly acceptable to ask the doctor to offer to refer the patient to a specialist, as they would probably do in most cases anyway, but the amendment is for clarity.

I refer colleagues to the comprehensive comments on my amendment 183 earlier in proceedings, and also to the support of the British Medical Association. Following Second Reading, I listened carefully to Members’ concerns about the possibility of doctors only discussing assisted dying with patients. Even though the Bill states that that cannot be the case, for the avoidance of any doubt the amendment emphasises that the initial discussion mentioned in clause 4(3) may not be conducted without also explaining and discussing the matters mentioned in subsection (4). Accordingly, such a preliminary discussion may not be conducted in isolation from an explanation of and discussion about the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection—that is, doctors cannot discuss the option of assisted dying in isolation but only in conjunction with discussion about all other available and appropriate treatment.

Indeed, Andrew Green of the BMA told us that

“some patients find it very difficult to bring up sensitive subjects with their doctors, even when those are the most important thing on their mind.”

He asked us to

“please do not pass legislation that makes it harder for doctors to understand their patients.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 42, Q24.]

That concludes my remarks.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 270, in clause 4, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) Before conducting a preliminary discussion under subsection (2) the registered medical practitioner must ensure that the person has no remediable suicide risk factors which pose a significant risk to their life.”—(Danny Kruger.)

This amendment requires that the doctor ensures that there are no remediable suicide risk factors before proceeding to the initial discussion about assisted dying.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

This amendment emphasises that the initial discussion mentioned in subsection (3) may not be conducted without also explaining and discussing the matters mentioned in subsection (4).

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 4, page 2, line 31, at end insert—

“(4A) The practitioner must, following the preliminary discussion under subsection (3), refer that person to the Assisted Dying Agency if the person asks them to do so.”

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and would establish a pathway by which a person is referred to the Assisted Dying Agency.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 72, in clause 5, page 3, line 16, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) has been assigned to the person by the Assisted Dying Agency,”

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and provides that the coordinating doctor must have been assigned to the person by the Assisted Dying Agency.

Amendment 73, in clause 7, page 4, line 21, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—

“(b) provide the person who was assessed and the Assisted Dying Agency with a copy of the statement.

(3A) Upon receipt of the statement specified in subsection (3)(a), the Assisted Dying Agency must assign to the person, as soon as practicable, another registered medical practitioner who meets the requirements of section 8(6) for the second assessment (‘the independent doctor’).”

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and would require the coordinating doctor to send a copy of their statement to the Assisted Dying Agency. That Agency must then to assign an “independent doctor” to the person.

Amendment 75, in clause 8, page 5, line 9, leave out “coordinating doctor” and insert “Assisted Dying Agency”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4.

Amendment 74, in clause 8, page 5, line 16, at end insert—

“(ba) has been assigned to the person by the Assisted Dying Agency,”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4 and provides that the independent doctor must have been assigned to the person by the Assisted Dying Agency.

Amendment 76, in clause 9, page 6, line 14, leave out paragraph (e).

This amendment is consequential on NC4.

Amendment 77, in clause 11, page 7, line 18, after “appointment,” insert

“by the Assisted Dying Agency”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4.

Amendment 78, in clause 14, page 10, line 7, leave out from “person)” to end of line 12 and insert “the Assisted Dying Agency”.

This amendment is consequential on NC4.

Amendment 79, in clause 16, page 11, line 18, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—

“(1A) The Assisted Dying Agency must, as soon as practicably possible, record the making of the statement or declaration.”

This amendment is consequential on NC4.

Amendment 80, in clause 17, page 11, line 36, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—

“(1A) The Assisted Dying Agency must record the cancellation.”

This amendment is consequential on NC4.

New clause 4—Assisted Dying Agency—

“(1) There shall be a body known as the Assisted Dying Agency (‘The Agency’).

(2) The purpose of the body is to coordinate requests from people to be considered for assisted dying, including assigning, at the appropriate junctures, a coordinating doctor and independent doctor for a person seeking assistance to end their own life.

(3) Where a person has previously been referred to the Agency, no future referral relating to that person can be proceeded with by the Agency unless it considers there has been a material change in the person’s circumstances.

(4) The Secretary of State must make regulations setting out—

(a) the staffing and remuneration of such staff,

(b) the procedures of the Agency, and

(c) the means by which the Agency can pay coordinating doctors and independent doctors for services rendered under this Act.

(5) The Agency’s expenditure is to be paid out of money provided for by Parliament.

(6) The Agency must, for each financial year, prepare accounts in accordance with directions given to it by the Treasury.

(7) The Agency’s chief executive is its accounting officer.

(8) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year, the Agency must prepare a report about the performance of its functions during that year and lay that report before both Houses of Parliament.

(9) Regulations under subsection (4) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause would create a new body that was principally responsible for coordinating and recording statements and declarations in relation to a person’s request for assistance to end their own life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Although these provisions may seem irrelevant to the Bill—I do not think any of us wishes to see the creation of an assisted dying agency—I am nevertheless grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for tabling them. He is playing his usual role of keeping us honest.

It is extraordinary that nowhere does the Bill lay out exactly how the assisted dying service would be delivered—whether it would be an NHS service, a private service or some mix of the two. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for being clear in his suggestion that it should be a non-NHS service and that, if we are to pass this law, we should establish a bespoke agency for the explicit purpose of delivering that service. It is a rather macabre but logical way of delivering on the proposal in the Bill.

The fact is that many doctors, faced with the prospect of being asked to participate in assisted dying, have expressed their preference for it to be delivered outside the NHS. In its written evidence, the British Medical Association, which has been cited a number of times today, says:

“There is nothing in the Bill about how an assisted dying service might be delivered, although the possibility of a separate service is mentioned in the explanatory notes.”

The BMA’s view is that assisted dying

“should not be part of the standard role of doctors or integrated into existing care pathways”.

I stress that point, because it has often been suggested in the course of debate that the way assisted dying will work will be as part of a holistic range of options—pretty indistinguishable from palliative care or other treatment options put before patients. The BMA is clear that assisted dying

“is not something that a doctor can just add to their usual role.”

The Royal College of General Practitioners has also pointed out in evidence that the shape of the service is not set out in the Bill.

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

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. In his opening sentence, my hon. Friend said that none of us wanted to see the creation of an assisted dying agency. My interpretation of our speaking to a particular amendment is that we have to address what it intends to do in the Bill. My hon. Friend said that he does not want what the amendment intends and that he is speaking more generally about the delivery of the service. Could we have your guidance as to whether that is in order? One of our problems is that we are having very expansive debates, and previous Chairs have sought to keep everyone in order. I am anxious that my hon. Friend does not exhaust himself by straying from the central point in the amendment.

[The Chair]

The fact of the matter is that the hon. Member does not have to agree with the amendment, so he is perfectly entitled to speak in that regard.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to you, Mr Dowd, and to my right hon. Friend for his concern for my welfare, which is much appreciated. However, he will be relieved to know that I have plenty of energy and can keep going.

To speak seriously, it is very germane to the Bill that the amendments are considered. As I was explaining, GPs and other medical practitioners have been concerned about the absence from the Bill of clauses to specify the delivery of the service, so I am grateful that we have this opportunity to discuss that and to hear from the Minister and the sponsor how they imagine the Bill would operate and whether it would, indeed, be appropriate to establish some kind of agency along the lines proposed. The reason I object to an assisted dying agency is that I object to assisted dying, but I see the logic of the proposal if we are to proceed with the principle of the Bill.

It is extraordinary that this crucial question is not set out. In his evidence to us, Chris Whitty said rather airily that it was for Parliament to decide how the service should be delivered. I would stress that most medics involved, particularly in palliative care and care for people at the end of life, are very hostile personally to the suggestion that they should participate in assisted dying. The BMA’s 2020 survey of its members found that 76% of palliative medicine doctors would be unwilling to participate if assisted dying were legalised. The Royal College of Physicians 2019 members’ poll found that 84% were opposed.

[Kit Malthouse]

This is not in order; it has nothing to do with the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I am grateful, Mr Dowd.

[Danny Kruger]

I, too, am grateful, Mr Dowd. I stress that I am discussing the suggestion in the amendment that assisted dying be taken out of the NHS and not be part of the normal pathways doctors are invited to participate in. It strikes me as relevant that most doctors, were the law to be passed, would wish for something along the lines of the amendment to be included.

We do not know exactly how that would work. We know that it could potentially be private, according to the scheme set out in the amendment, or it could be within the NHS. We know from the references in clause 40 that private provision is envisaged, because of the talk of reasonable remuneration for the provision of services. So it would be outside the normal service expectation of medical professionals employed by the NHS; indeed, we know that it could be a lucrative market.

[Sojan Joseph]

Does the hon. Member think that, if we bring in an agency from outside the NHS—from the private sector—this will become like a business?

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The opportunity is there in the Bill for private businesses to be established to deliver assisted dying services. Indeed, it would be quite a lucrative money-making enterprise. Estimates have been given of between 5,000 and 17,000 assisted deaths per year, depending on how they are arrived at. If the charges employed by Dignitas—which is in a sense the model being proposed here—are anything to go by, it could be in the region of £5,000 to £10,000 per patient. Even a small proportion of that would be significant—a multimillion-pound business would be possible under the Bill. Advertising would also probably be possible; we saw TfL suggest that the Dignity in Dying adverts in the tube before Second Reading were compliant. There is no prohibition in the Bill on advertising or on people making money from it.

However, the Bill also specifies that this would be a state-protected service, so if it were to be a private enterprise, it would have all sorts of state protections that would not normally apply to private providers of anything. Under clause 25, the providers would be exempt from any civil liability for providing assistance under the Bill. Under clause 29, a death would be exempt from investigation under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Clause 30 says that a failure to comply with any code of practice

“does not of itself render a person liable to…criminal or civil proceedings”.

The only monitoring that would be done would be undertaken by the voluntary assisted dying commissioner, who is not an independent figure, but the person responsible for setting up the panels that approve the deaths.

[The Chair]

Order. We need to get back to the assisted dying agency. Can the hon. Member keep to that, please?

[Danny Kruger]

I shall—I am winding up now, Mr Dowd. These amendments go to the heart of this great absence—this blank space—in the middle of the Bill, which is how on earth it will be delivered. Who would deliver it, and under what regulation? What would be their terms of engagement? All of that represents quite a scandalous gap in the Bill, and my concern is with that enormous gap.

I want to conclude with a reflection on that lack of clarity. Elizabeth Gardiner, who I understand was the very experienced parliamentary drafter who contributed her time to draft the Bill, talked on the Hansard Society podcast of the opportunity that drafting has to change the law. She noted that if the law

“is a restriction that would curtail the ability of this to be delivered through the National Health Service, the Bill could change that.”

So it has been suggested that the Bill would require changes to the National Health Service Act 1946 to remove what the Hansard Society calls the “duty to protect”.

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Gentleman heard what I said earlier, and I do not want to reaffirm it, but can we get back to the substance of the assisted dying agency provision, please?

[Danny Kruger]

I have one last point to make, Mr Dowd, which I hope you will regard as in order because, as I said, it goes to the heart of things. At the moment, the Bill does not specify how these things should be done, and Elizabeth Gardiner, the drafter behind it, said on the radio:

“we didn’t have time to go into all the detail of how those regimes work and to make the provision on the face of the Bill. And so there are regulation making powers there, which enable that provision to be set out”—

I believe that that is in clause 32. Enormous Henry VIII powers are being established. I deeply regret the gap in the Bill, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who tabled these proposals, for enabling us to have this debate.

[The Chair]

Order. I remind the hon. Member to keep to the issue that we are discussing, because if he or any other Member does not, and goes beyond the scope of what they really should be sticking to, I will take a much less lateral approach in future. I say that gently and with the best intention.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing to add, other than to agree with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire; I do not think any of us on the Committee are keen on the implementation of the assisted dying agency.

[Danny Kruger]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[The Chair]

Too late.

[Danny Kruger]

I really regret that we have had such a small debate on the enormous question of how on earth assisted dying would actually be delivered. We are leaving it to Ministers, subsequent to the passage of the Bill, to design this service. The clear possibility is that a private enterprise could run the service. It might be an NHS service. The fact that that is unclear in the Bill is shameful, but I am grateful we have had the opportunity to debate the matter, sort of, and I am not going to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 

Amendment proposed: 276, in clause 4, page 2, line 31, at end insert—

“(4A) A medical practitioner must not conduct a preliminary discussion with a person under subsection (3) until a period of 28 days has elapsed, beginning with the day the person had received a diagnosis of the terminal illness.” —(Naz Shah.)

This amendment would mean a doctor could not conduct a preliminary assessment until 28 days from the day the person received a diagnosis of the terminal illness.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before I call Danny Kruger to move amendment 412, I remind Members to keep within scope and to ensure that any points raised are relevant and not repetitive, or I will intervene.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to move amendment 412, in clause 4, page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (5).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 341, in clause 4, page 2, line 33, leave out from “subsection (3)” to the end of line 36 and insert

“is not required to refer the person to another medical practitioner but must ensure that the person is directed to where they can obtain information and have the preliminary discussion.”

This amendment would provide that a registered medical practitioner who is unable or unwilling to have the preliminary discussion with a person must provide information to the person about where they can have that discussion, but that this need not take the form of a referral.

Amendment 338, in clause 4, page 2, line 34, leave out from “so” to end of line 36 and insert

“direct them to another registered medical practitioner or the independent information and referral service established under section [Independent information and referral service]”.

This amendment, which is linked to NC13, would mean that a registered medical practitioner who was unwilling to have preliminary discussions would direct the person to another registered medical practitioner or an independent information and referral service.

Amendment 287, in clause 4, page 2, line 34, leave out from “practitioner” to end of line 36, and insert

“who is qualified to undertake such a preliminary discussion, and set out palliative medicine options to provide the patient with appropriate end of life care, including referring them to a palliative medicine expert.”

This amendment means that the medical practitioner who is unwilling to have an initial discussion with a person must, both refer them to another registered medical practitioner and set out the palliative care options including referring them to a specialist.

New clause 13—Independent information and referral service—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to establish an independent information and referral service to—

(a) provide information to persons who are, or may be, eligible for assisted dying in accordance with this Act, and

(b) where requested, facilitate the person’s access to assisted dying in accordance with this Act.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make provision for an independent information and referral service.

[Danny Kruger]

I rise to speak to this important group of amendments, which are all relevant to the duty to refer, whereby a doctor who does not want to advise a patient on assisted dying is obliged to send them to somebody who does. In different ways, we each seek to provide more protections for those medical professionals.

There are two main reasons why doctors may not want the obligation to refer that is in the Bill. The first is the central point that this is not a healthcare treatment, as is traditionally understood. Assisted dying does not address the condition or treat the illness; it treats only the symptoms, in the sense that it obliterates the existence of the patient. Like the advert for bleach says, it “kills all known germs”—it kills every experience that the patient has or could have. It is not part of the range of treatments that a doctor should have to offer, as clause 4(1) makes clear.

That point similarly relates to the question of referring to somebody who can offer that discussion. I suggest that the act of referring is an act of endorsement, just as offering the intervention itself is an act of endorsement. Dr Green from the BMA made it clear during oral evidence that the BMA does not like the word “refer”, as it implies assent to the option that is being offered. Indeed, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, in conversation with Dr Green during evidence, accepted that the word “refer” was “not…quite right”, as she put it, because it has the particular implication and expectation of a form of endorsement.

We have heard the same opinion from multiple witnesses in written and oral evidence to the Committee, particularly from Muslim medical professionals and their trade body. Those representing pharmacists also expressed significant concern that they might find themselves included in the definition of medical practitioner. The Association of Anaesthetists and the Royal College of Nursing were worried as well. A range of professional bodies and representative organisations share my concern that imposing a duty to refer—an obligation to assist somebody to have an assisted death by finding them a doctor who will conduct the preliminary discussion—is itself a breach of their rights of conscience.

The second reason follows from the first. Doctors may reasonably conclude that being in a position to help with assisted dying puts them in a totally different relationship with their patients. That is why the BMA is so unhappy and has asked for the requirement to be removed. It has an alternative, which some of these amendments also propose. It said:

“We urge the committee to remove the referral requirement and, instead, make it clear that the doctor’s duty is to direct patients to where they can obtain information”.

That is what amendment 341, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), would do. The BMA suggests that

“this should be an official body set up to provide individual information and advice to patients, to which patients could be referred or directed to, or could self-refer.”

My preference would be not to have any obligation on doctors to make any kind of referral, but I respect the aspiration of the amendment, which is to ensure that there is an independent body to give advice that patients can seek out themselves or that they can be advised of, so there is no expectation of a referral to a doctor who can facilitate the assisted death.

The Royal College of General Practitioners is also unhappy about the provision. It suggests that instead of expecting doctors

“to refer directly to a medical practitioner who is ‘willing and able to conduct that discussion’”—

as per the Bill—

“the doctor’s duty would be to direct patients to an official service where they can obtain objective and accurate information”.

I think we should pay heed to the advice of the professionals.

As ever, I would like to refer to the experience of foreign jurisdictions, because we are constantly told that this Bill is the safest in the world. None of the legislation in Australia or New Zealand, or the legislation currently going through in the Isle of Man, puts an obligation to refer on to doctors. Victoria and South Australia’s legislation says that a doctor has the right to refuse to participate in the request for assistance process and to give information about voluntary assisted dying, so there is no duty to refer—not even a duty to provide information.

I conclude with an observation that was submitted to us by Dr David Randall, a consultant nephrologist. It was very telling that he said in written evidence:

“I would not be willing to act in accordance with Section 4(5) of the Bill. I am a doctor in good standing with the GMC, and who has always striven to provide the highest standards of care to patients. Passage of this Bill would place my practice in direct opposition to the criminal law.”

He talks about “moral injury”, which is a very important principle. We have an obligation to protect the conscience and human rights of medical professionals.

We are still unclear whether this process will take place within the NHS or outside it. Nevertheless, the obligation to refer in the Bill would be a direct breach of doctors’ rights and would impose a moral injury on them. My preference is to remove clause 4(5) altogether, as that would be consistent with the Abortion Act 1967 and similar legislation on assisted dying in other countries. If we are not prepared to do that, we should at least restrict the obligation and provide more protections, as per the amendments in the names of other hon. Members.

[Rebecca Paul]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 341 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. It would provide that a registered medical practitioner who is unable or unwilling to have the preliminary discussion must provide information to the patient about where they can have that discussion, but that need not take the form of a referral.

One of the messages that we heard loud and clear in the evidence sessions was that medical practitioners do not wish to be put under an obligation to refer a patient to another registered medical practitioner by the Bill. “Referral” has a very specific meaning in medicine, and it is that word and the corresponding action required of it that many doctors have an issue with. A referral puts a patient on a pathway, whereas the provision of information merely indicates where such a pathway can be found. During oral evidence, Dr Green said:

“The word ‘referral’, to a doctor, means writing a letter or communicating with another doctor to see, but some doctors would find themselves not able to do that. For that reason, we believe that there should be an information service for the doctor to direct to.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 48, Q41.]

We are well aware that assisted dying is a complex issue and a matter of conscience for many. It is therefore important that we respect the personal views of medical practitioners. One of the points that I have made several times in these proceedings is that assisted dying affects not just the patient but other people participating and supporting. Some medical practitioners will be comfortable with it, but many others will not. It is therefore vital that we recognise their rights and needs, not just the patients’, when formulating this law. If for whatever reason a doctor does not want to refer a patient, they should not have to. Their legal responsibility should be limited to directing the patient to where they can find the relevant information that they need. Doctors should have no further obligation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I rise to speak to amendments 341, 338 and 412 together, and I welcome the debate on these important amendments. Choice is one of the key tenets of the Bill, primarily—but not exclusively—for terminally ill adults with a limited time to live. Choice is also very important for medical practitioners, and I am very respectful of, and acknowledge the importance of, conscientious objection for doctors. When it comes to assisted dying, I believe that they should also have choice. Indeed, the Bill is written so that they can choose not to participate in the process for any reason. That is the BMA’s view, and I agree with it.

The BMA has a position of neutrality on assisted dying, and there are a range of views within medical professions, as there are within all groups of people. That is why I have adopted its position of an opt-in model for the purposes of the Bill. Nevertheless, the process must remain patient focused at all times, and that means enabling them to have a discussion on such an important matter. It would not be right to rely on online advice or even the best-designed written materials. As we have already established, doctors are used to having sensitive and compassionate discussions with people who are terminally ill, and there can be no substitute for that. While a doctor may not wish to participate themselves, and I fully respect that, they still have a responsibility towards their patients, and that should include ensuring that they can speak to a properly qualified medical practitioner at such a difficult time.

I understand that the BMA and others would not be comfortable with the word “refer”, which I understand to have a special meaning within medical practice. The GMC guidelines use different language. They talk about where a doctor has a conscientious objection, in which case they are advised that they must make sure that arrangements are made for another suitably qualified colleague to take over their role. The BMA’s guidance says that patients must be able to see another doctor, as appropriate, and that it need not always be a formal procedure. It is not, however, sufficient to simply tell the patient to seek a view elsewhere—I agree completely.

The BMA supports amendment 341, which says that a doctor

“must ensure that the person is directed to where they can obtain information and have the preliminary discussion.”

I am therefore happy to support the amendment today and, if it were to need further adjustment, I am very happy to consider alternatives based on existing best practice. I would be very happy to meet with the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, who is herself a doctor, to discuss her thoughts and draw on her considerable medical experience.

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 341, in clause 4, page 2, line 33, leave out from “subsection (3)” to the end of line 36 and insert

“is not required to refer the person to another medical practitioner but must ensure that the person is directed to where they can obtain information and have the preliminary discussion.”—(Rebecca Paul.)

This amendment would provide that a registered medical practitioner who is unable or unwilling to have the preliminary discussion with a person must provide information to the person about where they can have that discussion, but that this need not take the form of a referral.

[Juliet Campbell]

I beg to move amendment 125, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, leave out from start of line to end of line 36 and insert

“who is on the Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners.”

This amendment provides that only a medical practitioner who is on the Register of Assisted Dying Medical Practitioners as provided for in NC7 would have a person referred to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

At this point, I will not necessarily call Members, including the Minister, unless they particularly want to speak. If Members do wish to speak, will they please bob?

[Danny Kruger]

I think that we are just concluding one of the most important debates that the Committee will have: the debate on clause 4. I welcome the concession from the hon. Member for Spen Valley, particularly her commitment to modify the obligation to refer. That is welcome and will make the Bill a little safer.

In our debates on the clause, there has been clear confusion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate has just mentioned, about the extent to which assisted dying is a healthcare treatment. That speaks to the question of whether there is an obligation on doctors to offer this treatment—as there should be, if it is a treatment that is one of a range of options for which the patient is eligible—or whether it is something that they are not obliged to offer. That confusion, which was present in the Committee’s exchanges, remains. I want to record in hon. Members’ memory the fact that that question was unresolved. In my view, that is extremely unsatisfactory.

Despite some welcome concessions, the Committee has just decided to reject a series of amendments that would have protected both doctors and patients. Most concerningly, we rejected an amendment to give children the right to be protected from the suggestion of an assisted death before they are even eligible for it.

I will conclude by referring to evidence, which I do not believe has been referred to so far in the debate, on the question of how assisted dying is received as a suggestion or offer, particularly by marginalised groups. I was very concerned by the oral evidence that we took from Professor Ahmedzai, who supports assisted dying. In written evidence, he has said explicitly that he especially wants the option to raise assisted dying with

“patients who are poorly educated, ill-informed or seem to be unaware of the option”.

He has explicitly required and requested the opportunity to put it to these disadvantaged, marginalised patients: “poorly-educated, ill-informed” people. Compassion in Dying, the sister organisation to Dignity in Dying, which supports the Bill, makes the same point: that marginalised people will need to be “directly prompted” with the offer.

I am afraid to say that, in rejecting the amendments, the Committee has endorsed the approach that people who are particularly marginalised and disadvantaged need to have this suggestion explicitly made to them. I am astonished that the Committee proposes to proceed on that basis, which completely misunderstands the dynamic of vulnerable people in the face of authority. I am very distressed to find that the Committee thinks that acceptable, and I am very sorry that apparently we are proceeding with the clause. I do not propose to put it to the vote, because the Committee’s will to proceed is fairly clear, but I hope that everybody is fully aware of what they are doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful for the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire. I will speak briefly to amendments 403 and 404, which would create an expectation that a patient at least addresses the question of whether their family is aware of the decision they are making. In an amendment that has not been selected for debate today, I proposed simply to make that expectation clear.

My personal view is that I do not accept that this is healthcare, and therefore that a doctor would have an obligation to ensure that the next of kin of somebody to whom they are proposing to give lethal drugs is informed. However, in the spirit of the Bill, which is all about autonomy, and in an attempt to be constructive and put forward amendments that might be accepted, I accept that this is a decision for the individual in the same way as a healthcare decision, and that there is therefore no obligation under rules of patient confidentiality and the expectations around healthcare that the family should be informed.

Nevertheless, creating a moment at which the first doctor the patient speaks to gently encourages them to consider telling their family before taking the enormous step of signing the first declaration is appropriate. The amendment would give the patient three options: first, to confirm that they have informed their family of their wish to be provided with assistance to end their life.

[The Chair]

Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to touch on that amendment, but it has not been chosen today. He is talking about the declaration that the person has informed their family of their decision and taken their opinions into consideration. We are not dealing with that today.

[Danny Kruger]

Nevertheless, amendments 403 and 404 have been selected for debate, and it is those amendments that would effect that declaration in the Bill.

[The Chair]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to take the spirit of what I am saying into account.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to you, Mr Dowd, but I want to explain why these amendments are appropriate to the Bill.

The patient would have the opportunity to declare clearly that they do not have a family. I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire; it is not always clear what a family is. Nevertheless, if the patient wants to specify that they have no family or do not want to inform their family, the amendments would give them that right. I want to emphasise the importance of this consideration. I recognise that clause 9, which will come later in the process, includes consideration of the family. It states that, in so far as the assessing doctor considers it appropriate, they may advise the patient to inform their family, so there is recognition of that question a little later. My suggestion is that it should come earlier because it needs to take place before the first declaration is signed.

Crucially, we need to consider the wider impact of not considering or involving the family, particularly when children or dependants are involved. The Bill accepts the scenario where a family can find out after the fact—not through any formal notification, they just discover—that their loved one has ended their life with the help of doctors and the state. Families can be badly impacted by an assisted suicide: clinical grief disorders, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder are all harms that can follow from a family member taking an assisted death. It is unethical and irresponsible not to factor that in as we discuss and design the new law.

A parent may choose to end their life under the Bill, but is not required in any way to consider notifying their family. I wonder if the sponsor could clarify what would happen if they were the sole carer of a minor—would there be an obligation for anyone to inform the child that this was happening? One hopes that that would be an extremely rare scenario; nevertheless, it is possible under the Bill.

I want to mention two more groups quickly. In written evidence, a group of anorexia nervosa sufferers and carers said:

“The Bill does not anticipate situations where someone seeks to end their life as a result of cognitive symptoms inherent to the illness, as is the case with AN. For these patients, families would often be needed to advocate for their loved ones and their potential to recover…Without family involvement, patients may make decisions in isolation, potentially influenced by cognitive distortions or feelings of hopelessness inherent to the illness.”

I hope that we do not want to allow that scenario.

Finally, Dr Jamilla Hussain, who we have heard from a few times, said in written evidence that in her

“consultation with structurally disadvantaged ethnic minority groups”—

which include Pakistani, Roma and Black Caribbean community groups, they showed much concern about the exclusion of families. She said:

“it was emphasised that, traditionally, family and community members provide hope and strength when someone feels like life is too much. There is apprehension that such expressions of care and support could be reframed through a medical or legal lens as coercion.”

That is the saddest thing, which was hinted at quite strongly—in fact, stated explicitly—in some of the evidence sessions. It has been suggested that wanting a loved one to live is seen by doctors as a form of coercion that should be resisted; that trying to argue a loved one out of an assisted death is the coercion that we need to guard against and, on that basis, we should not be making any expectation that families are informed. What a tragic thing for us to say. To enable doctors to issue lethal drugs that kill people without their family knowing is an absolutely tragic thing. I beg the Committee to consider what on earth we are doing allowing that.

[The Chair]

I apologise to the Member, who was within his rights to speak to amendments 403 and 404.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I rise to set out why—reluctantly—I cannot support amendments 403 and 404, which have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire. It is not because of the principle involved, because my hon. Friend was very clear in setting out the amendments. They would not provide for a prescriptive situation where an individual must tell their family. A range of options are set out, which I anticipate that any sensible and responsible doctor or clinician would take a patient through, encouraging them to involve their family in their decision making.

The issue that I have is around the legal clarity of the wording of the amendments, because under the English and Welsh legal system there is no statutory definition of “family”. There is a concept of family, but the concept of family to me may be very different from that of my neighbour, or from that of someone who lives in another city. For example, for some people stepbrothers, stepsisters and step-parents are very much part of their family; for others, they are not. For some people, unmarried couples with children are a family; for others, they are not. For some people, unmarried couples without children are a family; for others, they are not.

[Danny Kruger]

I take that point; families are difficult to define. Nevertheless, the Bill currently refers to the opportunity for a doctor, or the suggestion that a doctor,

“in so far as the assessing doctor considers it appropriate, advise the person to consider discussing the request with their next of kin and other persons they are close to.”

That is more precise. Would my hon. Friend accept an amendment along the lines that I have proposed, prior to the first declaration, but using the language that is currently in the Bill about

“their next of kin and other persons they are close to”?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

That would satisfy me. The reason I say that is because at the moment the wording is too broad and ill-defined. The question is: is this about the closeness and proximity of a relationship? The suggested wording that my hon. Friend just put forward would be much closer to that and much clearer, and more akin with the language of medical registration. When someone turns up in A&E, they are asked to give the name of their next of kin. That defines the closeness, the proximity and the permanency of that relationship.

If my hon. Friend was perhaps to consider withdrawing this amendment and tabling it again in an alternative form, or rewording it, that would certainly be something that I would be open to supporting. I have outlined why, as the amendments currently stand, I cannot support them.

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

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point, and he picks up the observation by the hon. Member for Bradford West that there is a link, through the Equality Act, with disability. It is absolutely right that we address that. Does he agree that the way to do so is not to accept amendment 181 tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, which would retain the dangerous words “only” and “for the avoidance of doubt”, but to accept amendment 11, which would exclude those words and ensure that someone could not get an assisted death by reason of disability or mental illness? Because of that concern, perhaps we need to table a further amendment to exclude the Equality Act from the operation of this clause, and I await the Chair’s ruling on whether that is possible at this stage. Amendment 181 does not refer to the Equality Act, although the Bill does, so we should follow that point. Rather than accepting that amendment, which would not move us forward, we should accept amendment 11. I hope that that is clear and that it might satisfy the hon. Gentleman’s concern.

[Daniel Francis]

I will return to that. I understand what amendment 11 seeks to do, but I think we should have a hybrid, because I do not think either amendment would completely achieve what we want. I will seek the Minister’s advice in due course. I understand the legal advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on this matter, and I understand that all the amendments have been tabled in good faith, but I am concerned about the loopholes that could remain.

We heard on Second Reading that assisted dying will not be available to disabled people, but let us imagine an individual who does not consider themselves to be disabled. If they were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, our current legislation states that they would be disabled from the point of diagnosis. They could live with that cancer and receive treatment for a considerable time, while continuing to have no other disability. When they receive a six-month prognosis, they would be eligible for assisted dying due to the same disability they have had for a very considerable time, and it would remain the only disability they have had in their entire life. I remain concerned that my hon. Friend’s amendment still talks about disability, potentially leaving that loophole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I would like to make a short comment. It is very important that the Committee does not get too hung up on anorexia, because the Bill is very clear about what is excluded. Deprivation of nutrition is always reversible. Someone who is anorexic and about to die would go into multi-organ failure and be unconscious and unable to give any sort of consent. Before that, the nutritional deprivation is reversible and therefore not covered under the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

I just wanted the hon. Gentleman to comment on the reality in our NHS at the moment that people are described as terminally ill with anorexia. They are given the label of being terminally ill and put on palliative care pathways because it is assumed that their condition is not reversible. Doctors today, in this country, are concluding that people with eating disorders are going to die and are treating them accordingly. Is he aware of that, and how does it affect his comments?

[Dr Opher]

I am not aware of that. I believe that this is always reversible until a person goes into the absolute terminal stage of multi-organ failure. Before that, we can reverse nutritional deprivation. I do not accept that point, and I think it is important that we look at the Bill in all its detail. I think it has enough safeguards to exclude someone with anorexia.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Although it is for Parliament to progress any Bill, the Government have a responsibility to make sure that legislation on the statute book is effective and enforceable. For that reason, the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley; where changes have been agreed mutually between her and the Government, I will offer a technical, factual explanation of the rationale for those amendments. That applies to amendment 181 in this group.

This group of amendments is linked to how the Bill’s definition of a terminal illness applies to those with a mental disorder or disability. Amendments 399 to 401 would remove the term “medical condition” from the Bill’s definition of a terminal illness, so that only those with an inevitably progressive illness or disease would be able to request to end their life, rather than, as under the current drafting, those with a “disease or medical condition”.

The amendments could narrow the scope of those who may access assisted dying services. However, clinical advice suggests that the use of the terms has changed over time, may not be used consistently and remains debated in both medical and lay circumstances. Removing the term “medical condition” may lead to disputes or protracted debates about whether a particular condition is or is not a defined disease or illness, despite there being medical consensus around whether it will lead to death within six months.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful for that clarification, but it rather concerns me. Can the Minister elucidate exactly which conditions might fall into the category of medical condition that would not be captured by “illness” or “disease”? Does he accept the point that I made in my speech—that the interpretation of the law by the court will be that the phrase expands the definition of a terminal illness beyond illness or disease, as it is in the current law? What are the new conditions that will be captured by the term?

[Stephen Kinnock]

What the hon. Member will have picked up throughout this debate, on every day that we have met, is that the Government are concerned about adding or taking away terminology that delivers clarity, stability and familiarity.

I have to say that I am quite torn on the hon. Member’s amendment 399, because I absolutely see where he is coming from. It is one of those situations in which my position as a Government Minister is made somewhat more complex by my personal view that his amendment is perfectly reasonable. My instinct—speaking personally as a Member of Parliament, rather than as a Government Minister—is that the remaining terms in the Bill, if we removed “medical condition”, would continue to cover the waterfront or spectrum of conditions. It is possible that this is a case in which there has been an overabundance of caution on the part of the Government. I am delivering the Government’s position, but I want the hon. Member to know that that will not necessarily determine how I vote if this amendment does go to a vote.

[Danny Kruger]

I was going to remind the Minister that he is, in his strange Jekyll and Hyde personality, speaking as a Minister but voting as a Member of Parliament, so if he has given the Government’s view that my amendment is not acceptable, but he personally thinks that it is, I hope that he will vote for it.

[Stephen Kinnock]

It is a well-made case; I am still reflecting on it, because of the somewhat complex nature of my role on this Committee, but I am inclined to support the hon. Member’s amendment.

Amendment 11 also seeks to amend clause 2(3). Our assessment of the effect of this amendment is that a person who has a mental disorder and/or a disability may not qualify under the Bill as terminally ill, even if they have an inevitably progressive illness and can be reasonably expected to die within six months. There might be concerns from the point of view of the European convention on human rights and the Equality Act if the amendment were passed as currently drafted, because its effect would be to exclude people from the provisions of the Bill if they had a disability or a mental disorder. That may not be the intention of the hon. Members who tabled the amendment.

I turn to amendment 181. In executing our duty to ensure that the legislation, if passed, is legally robust and workable, the Government have advised my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley in relation to the amendment. It clarifies that a person who seeks assistance to end their own life based only on a mental disorder or a disability, or both, would not be considered terminally ill for the purposes of the Bill. Such a person would therefore not be eligible to be provided with assistance to end their own life under the Bill. Someone who has a disability or a mental disorder, or both, and who also already meets all the criteria for terminal illness set out in the Bill would not be excluded by the amendment, as drafted. The amendment therefore brings important legal clarity to the Bill.

Amendment 283 sets out that a person who has one or more comorbidities, alongside a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, would not be considered terminally ill by virtue of those comorbidities alone. The reality of modern healthcare is that many patients, not least those towards the end of life, will be dealing with several conditions or comorbidities. The term “comorbidity” in a clinical context can sometimes be used to distinguish the main problem that someone has experienced experiencing from additional but less serious problems, but it can also be used by those specialising in one or more other aspects of a patient’s care to distinguish their area of focus from other issues.

In the context of the Bill, the essential test is whether any morbidity, comorbidity or otherwise, meets the requirements in the Bill. Although it is unlikely that a terminal morbidity would be thought of as a comorbidity, it is not inconceivable that it might be, for the reasons that I have set out. The phrasing of the amendment, notably the term “alongside”, potentially increases that possibility. The effect might be that a condition that would otherwise be considered terminal would instead be considered a comorbidity alongside a mental disorder. The amendment would prevent a person with a mental disorder who would, but for the amendment, have been considered terminally ill from accessing assisted dying services under the Bill.

As I have said, the Government have taken a neutral position on the substantive policy questions relevant to how the law in this area could be changed. However, to ensure that the legislation works as intended, we have advised the sponsor in relation to amendment 181, to further clarify the Bill such that only having a disability and/or mental disorder does not make a person terminally ill and eligible for assistance in accordance with the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

My apologies; I am speaking to amendments 399, 400 and 401. I will be happy to come back to that point at the appropriate time, but I first want to finish my comments on those amendments.

As I have said, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has done a good job this morning of improving the clarity of the issue. That shows that the Committee is doing its job and working effectively. I am therefore open to supporting those amendments.

[Danny Kruger]

I am delighted to hear it. I am grateful to the hon. Lady and to other hon. Members who have indicated their sympathy for the amendment. I look forward to the Division and to the Minister’s decision.

May I follow up on a point made by the hon. Member for Bradford West? I do not know whether the hon. Member for Spen Valley would like to intervene to help me understand the point. Amendment 181 would redraft clause 3(2) to make it clear that a person does not qualify as terminally ill

“only because they are a person with a disability or mental disorder”.

It would add to clause 3(2) the following additional sentence:

“Nothing in this subsection results in a person not being regarded as terminally ill for the purposes of this Act if…the person meets the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b)”.

Does the hon. Member for Spen Valley agree that that will essentially mean that the clause does nothing? It confirms the terms of eligibility set out earlier in the Bill, and confirms that a person would still be eligible to receive an assisted death if they had conditions that were a consequence of a mental disorder or a disability. If she feels like intervening on me, I would like her to help me understand what that additional sentence adds. To my mind, it negates the purpose of the clause.

[Dr Tidball]

I stand here as a disabled woman. Under the Bill, as a disabled woman, I would not —by reason only of being a disabled woman—be eligible to have access to assisted dying. The amendment clarifies that I would not be eligible only through being a woman who has a disability. However, if I develop a condition that means that I have a terminal illness, leaving me with only six months left to live, I would be permitted to have that choice. It is right, I think, that I should have that choice. As I said in my Second Reading speech, this is about giving people access to a good death and living a good death. This is about giving that choice, where they choose to make it, to disabled people, while building in sufficient safeguards so that this is not something pressed upon them—

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful, Mr Dowd. I recognise the force of what the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge is saying. To be clear, the amendments that I am supporting would not deny disabled people any of the other rights that are being awarded in the Bill. She is absolutely right that a disabled person with a terminal illness would qualify just as much as someone who was not disabled. That is absolutely right.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that people whose illness is a direct consequence of a mental disorder in particular would not be eligible. The reference to disability is because of the confusion, which I expect the hon. Member for Spen Valley recognises in current law and guidance, about where the distinction between disability and terminal illness lies. That is our concern. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that people would not be deemed as eligible for an assisted death in consequence of disability or mental illness. I know that is what the hon. Lady is trying to do with the amendment, and with the clause that it amends, so we are on the same page. Our concern is that, by including the words “For the avoidance of doubt” and the word “only”, we will be leaving quite a large loophole, through which, I am afraid to say, some vulnerable people might fall.

I look forward to the Division on the amendments. We have not been able to discuss them all in close detail, but I am grateful to Members for the debate that we have had.

Amendment 399 agreed to.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 123, in clause 2, page 1, line 23, leave out “an inevitably” and insert “a typically”.

This amendment changes the definition of what it is to be terminally ill from having an “inevitably” to a “typically” progressive illness, disease or medical condition that cannot be reversed by treatment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Absolutely not. That is not the point that I am making. Eating disorders are reversible, but it has been found that where this kind of legislation has been enacted, across the globe, somebody who has anorexia and decides not to eat then falls within the scope of assisted dying because it becomes a terminal illness.

[Danny Kruger]

I do not want to cut off the hon. Lady in full flow, but I want to echo her points. The hon. Member for Stroud has made his point before and we have had an exchange on it. There is quite a lot of research, to which I refer him, that shows how people in the UK, being treated by the NHS, are having diagnoses of terminal anorexia. It is happening. I refer him to Professor Agnes Ayton, the campaigner Hope Virgo and the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group in this place, which is looking at that. It seems bizarre to us, because of course someone can resume eating, but the fact is that anorexia is treated as a terminal illness in parts of the NHS today.

[Naz Shah]

I concur with the hon. Member’s remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I will be as quick as I can be. I recognise the powerful contributions that have been made on a number of the amendments. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Broxtowe, who made a very interesting speech in support of her amendment 123. I was struck by her point that we should do what we can to reflect the reality of clinical situations in people’s lives. I very much respect the power of the arguments she made. My concern is that by changing “inevitably” to “typically”, her amendment, although it might reflect reality more closely, would widen the scope of eligibility. I am afraid I will not support her amendment, but she made an important speech about how things actually work.

I will speak briefly in support of amendment 282 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and of amendments 48 and 402 in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford West. At the end, I will refer quickly to the amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). All those amendments, with exception of the last ones, fit the Bill to the campaign—they make the Bill more accurately applicable to the people whom the campaigners have been campaigning for and whom everyone has the most sympathy with.

Amendment 282 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central would restrict eligibility to people with a one-month diagnosis only. I stress that the amendment is probing and I do not propose to press it to a vote on her behalf. She tabled it and I am speaking to it to make the point that, if we are serious about the Bill being for people who are dying and not for people who are not—for people at the very end of their life, as we hear so often—we need to be much stricter about the period of prognosis. I will not repeat points that have been made by other hon. Members, but the fact is that the six-month test is literally as good as tossing a coin. It has a less than 50% accuracy. In particular for advanced cancers and neurological conditions, accuracy is very low.

[Jack Abbott]

A line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere. Will the hon. Member define what an adequate timeline would look like for him to be satisfied?

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Member invites me to suggest that I think it would be possible to draw a safe safeguard. I do not. I think that one month is better than six months, because with one month we can have more accuracy and doctors are more genuinely right when they say that someone is close to death at that point, while six months is much more inaccurate and 12 months is notoriously inaccurate. If we restrict the Bill by using a time limit, that limit should be as close to death as possible in my view.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Does the hon. Member agree that if we were to reduce it to one month, there would be absolutely no way to have the robust process set out in the Bill—or, indeed, I would argue, to have any sort of robust process?

[Danny Kruger]

I accept that, which is why amendment 282 is probing only. It is trying to demonstrate the point. I recognise that even the expedited process is likely to take up to a month to get through, so that would be difficult. Nevertheless, if our intention is to restrict this to people who are literally in their last days, which is frequently what we hear, I think it would be appropriate to restrict the time.

[Naz Shah]

The hon. Member talks about the amendment being probing. Does he know why we went for six months? Was it was based on research? I am not sure whether he is aware or can help me understand that.

[Danny Kruger]

I am not. I think we have allowed six months to creep into common legal parlance because of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992; we now recognise in law that it is possible to have certain rights and entitlements on the basis of a six-month prognosis. I presume that is the basis of it. It does feel like a reasonable period, and I understand the rationale for it, but given the difficulty of prognosis and the intense seriousness of what we are doing, I think it is inappropriate and dangerous.

Another way of achieving greater safety—less precise but perhaps more generous to people who want an assisted death—is to tighten the definition of terminal illness to mean those whom doctors think it is reasonably certain, rather than reasonably expected, will die within six months. That is the intent of amendment 48 tabled the hon. Member for Bradford West. The amendment also insists that the condition is terminal even with “all recommended treatment”, so that somebody could not make themselves eligible by refusing treatment. That is a very important point that the hon. Lady is trying to insist on.

By the way, that does not mean—and I hope people will not conclude that it does—that someone is required to have every treatment that might be possible, including invasive and unpleasant chemotherapy. The point is that it would have to be treatment recommended by the doctor: if the doctor recommends it, then it is appropriate. A doctor might be offering chemotherapy, but they would not be recommending it in all circumstances.

For the avoidance of doubt—an important phrase— I think that the hon. Lady’s amendment 402 is very important too. Just in case nutrition is not seen as treatment—perhaps it is arguable that it may not be—it is very important that we specify explicitly that declining food or drink does not qualify someone for an assisted death.

[Naz Shah]

Does the hon. Member agree that one point that is really important in this afternoon’s debate is that a person has a right to refuse treatment, and indeed food and water, if they have capacity, but that malnutrition is practically reversible? The argument has been made by doctors in Oregon around the voluntary stopping of eating and drinking that doctors cannot legally force a person with capacity to eat, and if they refuse food, their condition can be considered irreversible and terminal. That is the crux of the point. Does he agree with me?

[Danny Kruger]

I think so. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is this difficult loophole that somebody may have capacity and be refusing food and drink and would therefore potentially be eligible. In the Bill as it stands, we have an expedited process for people whose prognosis is only a month. There, the 14-day waiting period could be reduced to just 48 hours. If a person stopped eating and drinking, their death would almost certainly happen within a month. In other words, a person who is not terminally ill could make themselves eligible for an assisted death within 48 hours simply by refusing sustenance. It is very important that we recognise that and explicitly exclude it.

I will refer quickly to other jurisdictions where this specific situation occurs and the voluntary stopping of eating and drinking is used to qualify for legal drugs. A peer-reviewed article in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society discusses this case—it may be the one referred to earlier. The authors noted that if anyone can access VSED—voluntary stopping of eating and drinking—then anyone can qualify for medical assistance in dying. In Colorado, 12 people qualified for assisted suicide based on a diagnosis of severe malnutrition.

The American Clinicians Academy on Medical Aid in Dying, an organisation of doctors who provide assisted suicide, acknowledges this loophole. Its guidance states that

“there is nothing in the letter of the law”

to prevent voluntary stopping of eating and drinking from being used in this way. It adds that that would

“essentially eliminate the criteria of terminal illness,”

because a person could always qualify as having terminal illness if they stopped eating and drinking. That is obviously not what the Bill’s sponsor and drafters wish. I hope they will consider accepting the amendment to close that loophole.

I will not repeat points made very eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, but I echo the need to ensure that the Bill is not for conditions that, although they cannot be reversed by treatment, can nevertheless be controlled or substantially slowed. I will therefore support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and to the people he speaks for in tabling amendment 234. I recognise absolutely that the MND Association has pointed out that the six-month rule would not work for all MND sufferers. It successfully persuaded the last Government to change the rules on benefits in recognition of that point, and its evidence to us, it has requested a clear and workable definition for assisted suicide. It was not very clear on what that would be, and there are practical problems with extending to 12 months, specifically the one we have with six months—the difficulty of prognosis, which would be twice as bad. I also refer to the evidence from Professor Sleeman, who made the point that a non-neurologist would find it particularly difficult to make an accurate 12-month prognosis for MND.

The main reason to object to the principle of the amendment—I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is not moving it, but it is an important principle to discuss—is that it makes no sense at all to have two different prognosis periods. Of course, we can see where it will go. The fact that the amendment has been tabled and selected, that it is in scope, and that people will support it in this Committee or beyond, or outside Parliament, is evidence of where things go. We saw it very clearly in the evidence we heard from witnesses from Australia, who pointed out that there is no logical reason to have two prognoses—one for cancer and one for neuro-degenerative disorders. Their response was, “Well, let’s make it 12 months for everyone,” and of course that is the way things would go.

I finish with a tribute to the great quixotic effort of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who is not on the Committee. Runnymede is the home of Magna Carta; the spirit of liberalism lives on in my hon. Friend, a genuine liberal who wants to scrap the period of prognosis altogether, because he genuinely believes in absolute autonomy. I have been trying to make the Bill live up to its claim to be a Bill for safeguarding; he wants it to live up to its claim to be a Bill for autonomy. In principle—in logic—he is absolutely right. If we think that some people should have access to suicide assisted by the state, then why should person A get it and not person B? Needless to say, I disagree with him.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I rise to speak in favour of the current, tightly drawn eligibility criterion of a six-month terminal diagnosis. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West that that was a central plank of the Bill as introduced and as debated across the House on Second Reading. I therefore rise to speak against all the amendments tabled to the clause.

Dying people want to put their affairs in order. That includes thinking about the death that they want and how they want to spend their time with their family. Dying people do not want to die, but they do not have an option to live. I feel that the way we talk about death perhaps has not been fully reflected in the debate we have had on the amendments.

In my mind, the evidence from elsewhere is very clear that those who seek assisted dying seek approval for it, going through the safeguards—significant safeguards, as set out in the Bill—so that they can spend the remaining time with their family, with enhanced feelings of control and autonomy, removing some of the fear that causes them to ask, “What if I will have no way out of inevitable pain?” That does not mean, of course, that people wish to die more quickly. The fact that the Bill sets out a six-month eligibility criterion does not mean that people will rush to end their own lives as soon as it is possible to do so. It means that six months is the threshold at which they can start potentially exploring the options and getting through the onerous—rightly onerous—process of eight different stages of capacity checks, three different stages of approval, multiple doctors and so on, so that they have the option. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley set out earlier, a significant proportion of people who have been approved for assisted dying elsewhere do not take up that option, because their end of life is not painful—and that is fantastic—or can be managed through palliative care. That is something that we would all want. However, knowing that they have the option significantly increases their quality of life, their ability to relax with their families and their ability to spend time with their loved ones.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 9

Ayes: 8

Noes: 15

[Danny Kruger]

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

“(c) their illness, disease or medical condition is found on a list that the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”

This amendment would require an illness, disease or medical condition to be specified in regulations that may be made by the Secretary of State to be considered a terminal illness under the Act.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 13, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

“(4) Regulations under subsection (1)(c) are subject to the affirmative procedure.

(5) The Secretary of State may, where they consider it appropriate, make regulations that expire after twelve months from their being made to include temporary additions to the list under subsection (1)(c).

(6) Regulations under subsection (5) are subject to the negative procedure.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 12 and specifies regulations under that amendment must be made by the affirmative procedure. Temporary additions could be made by regulations subject to the negative procedure.

[Danny Kruger]

I will be fairly brief in speaking to the amendments, but they go to the heart of things. We have tried to tighten the Bill by excluding medical conditions from the definition of a terminal illness; I am very pleased that the Committee has accepted that tightening. We have also sought to exclude illnesses that are consequent on mental disorders and disabilities; we have not succeeded with that tightening. We have further sought to tighten the Bill by circumscribing the prognosis period more precisely.

The amendments would tighten the Bill further by explicitly listing the illnesses that qualify. The argument is quite straightforward. The problem that we are trying to address is that, under the Bill, it will be up to doctors and potentially to the court—or a panel, if that is where we go—to decide whether a particular condition is terminal. It would be set by case law and by medical doctors deciding what conditions qualify.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I have some brief comments to make. Amendments 12 and 13 seek to further define a terminal illness for the purpose of the Bill; I will set out some details about their effect. The amendments would add a requirement that a list of a terminal illnesses for which people are eligible to seek assistance under the Bill be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. The effect would be that only a person who has an illness, disease or medical condition listed in regulations, and who meets the other eligibility criteria, would be eligible to be provided with lawful assistance to voluntarily end their own life.

I draw the Committee’s attention to the chief medical officer’s oral evidence given on 28 January, which was well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central. The CMO said that multiple diseases may interact, making it

“quite difficult to specify that certain diseases are going to cause death and others are not”.––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 32, Q5.]

It is also the case that many illnesses, diseases or conditions that may be terminal in one case may not be so in another. Committee members may therefore wish to consider where a focus on specific illnesses or diseases, rather than on the facts of an individual case, could aid clinicians in their decision making.

The amendments also include a discretionary power for the Secretary of State to make regulations that expire after 12 months in order to make temporary additions to the list of illnesses that meet the definition of terminal. It is not clear what types of illnesses, diseases or medical conditions are intended to be captured in such regulations. I hope that those observations on the purpose and effect of amendments 12 and 13 are helpful to the Committee in its considerations.

[Danny Kruger]

I sense that the wish of the Committee is probably not to accept the amendment, so I do not propose to press it to a Division, but we have just heard quite clearly, in response to the amendment, that the Bill is essentially permissive. Once again, we have declined to put clear parameters around the eligibility for this new law. We have heard specific conditions mentioned so many times in the course of the debates over the preceding months. It is a shame that we are not prepared to state those conditions clearly in the Bill, with the opportunity for Parliament to amend them over time.

I end by echoing a point that the hon. Member for Spen Valley made about the importance of good data. I hope that if the Bill passes, we will have the best data collection in the world. I am afraid to say that data collection is not good in other jurisdictions. Nevertheless, it is possible to see how often in Oregon, Australia, Canada, and Europe, albeit in a minority of cases, conditions that most people would not recognise as deserving of assisted dying, including anorexia, arthritis, hernias and diabetes, are listed as causes of death. Indeed, so is frailty, as I discussed earlier.

My fear is that if we pass the Bill, we too—if we do data collection properly—will have a shameful appendix to the annual report showing that people have had an assisted death for reasons that most people would regard as inappropriate. I will leave it there. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 401, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out “, disease or medical condition” and insert “or disease”.—(Danny Kruger.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 399.

Amendment proposed: 402, in clause 2, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(2) A person who would not otherwise meet the requirements of subsection (1), shall not be considered to meet those requirements as a result of stopping eating or drinking.”—(Naz Shah.)

This amendment means that someone who is not terminally ill within the meaning of subsection (1) cannot bring themselves within that definition by stopping eating or drinking or both.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

Danny Kruger Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

Thank you very much for that very comprehensive answer. Is there anything that our other guests would like to add?

Dr Mewett: As I was on the very first implementation taskforce, running blind, I probably could not add much more, except to say that it can be done. One has to focus on the readiness of practitioners, the readiness of health services, the readiness of the population and a whole range of other issues, including the pharmacy service. We have a state-wide care navigator service, which assists patients and doctors in the space. We had to set up a lot of services, and that gave us the time to do so. It was very successful and very challenging, but fortunately we did not have covid in our way.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

Q I am very grateful for your evidence; it is really useful. I want to state, for the record and for information, that we have before us today three professionals from Australia, all of whom support the laws in that country, and that we heard yesterday from two American doctors, who were also supportive of assisted suicide laws, even though in both countries there are many doctors who oppose what is happening. I regret that we are not hearing evidence from them, but it is very helpful to have your input.

Dr Fellingham, I was interested in your point about the distinction between the Australian model and the model in Canada and elsewhere. You are suggesting that most people who seek assisted death do so for what I think you called “existential reasons”. It is certainly not because of an absence of care, although we do see evidence of that in many countries. Can you expand on why you think it is so important that we have the terminally ill definition in the Bill, rather than recognising pain and suffering as the reason for seeking assisted dying, when I think most of the public who support a change in the law do so because they recognise that many people would naturally want to avoid pain and suffering? Yesterday, we heard from people who said that that is the right reason and that we should write that into the law. Why should we not do that?

Dr Fellingham: That is a very good question and I am grateful that you have asked it. We absolutely have to keep at front and centre that pain and suffering are primary drivers for people seeking access to relief of suffering, whether that is at the end of life or in any interaction that they have with healthcare providers. I speak to remind you that these laws apply to terminally ill people, because I feel that that is a lot easier for us to understand and get our heads around, but it does not detract from the fact that suffering can be a feature of non-terminal illnesses. There are people who can suffer terribly for very long periods of time—dementia being a clear example, but one that would be incredibly challenging to legislate for at this early stage.

What is interesting about the parallels you draw between pain and suffering is that it is a quite common conception that pain is suffering and suffering is pain, and that people seek access to relief of suffering at the end of life because it is the physical symptoms that are the most debilitating. Of course, the physical symptoms can be horrendous—pain, nausea, vomiting, anorexia; there are a multitude—but they are symptoms that we tend to be really quite good at treating. We have a whole range of medications in our palliative care spectrum that are very good at treating those physical symptoms, so it is quite rare that people prioritise those when thinking about this.

But suffering is subjective and it is context-dependent. What suffering is to me might be completely different from what it is to you, even if we are suffering from what looks to be, from the outside, the same disease. Suffering and distress—the thing that makes us human: the existential overlay of our own interaction with the world and how that is impacted by our disease process—is an incredibly personal journey and one that is extremely challenging to palliate, and it is very, very distressing for patients, their families and their practitioners if we cannot support people who are suffering at the end of life. Does that answer your question?

[Danny Kruger]

Q It does, very helpfully. Can I come back to you quickly? You point out that to suffer is essentially a subjective experience, so it is very difficult for somebody from the outside to determine whether somebody else is suffering to a certain threshold. By that reasoning, it should simply be the case that people who feel that they are suffering intolerably should be eligible. Why do you not think that that is what we should have in the law?

Dr Fellingham: In our law, in Western Australia, one of our eligibility criteria is that a person is suffering intolerably, in a manner that they consider intolerable, and that we have taken all reasonable steps to alleviate. The important thing about suffering is that it is a personal experience. It is not mine to judge as a clinician; it is mine to delicately and expertly tease out of a patient and to attempt to mitigate and treat to the best of my ability. Yes, suffering absolutely is what the patient says it is, and these laws are designed to honour individual patients who are dying. They are not designed for us as practitioners or clinicians looking in from the outside; they are designed to be supportive of an individual patient’s illness journey, and only they can know what the experience of that is.

Dr McLaren: It is a very good question, Mr Kruger. I think one of the distinctions is where the point of hope is and where the point of no return may be for that suffering. If you were to say that patients or people may apply for this or self-confess suffering in the absence of an end-of-life condition, that leads to questions about whether it applies to a 21-year-old with a decompensated mood disorder that could be treated or improved. When we are talking about patients within the last six months of their life, that suffering is very hard to come back from in the time that is given to them. It is about that recognition of the point of difference between hope for the future and a different type of hope—hope for improvement in symptoms or control of the situation, but not for physical improvement or a return to normal function or living. That is the real difference between legislating purely on the basis of suffering, versus in the context of suffering that will not get significantly better.

The point is that the line must be drawn somewhere. We have seen patients who have been ineligible under our laws where we have found immense suffering, and that is a difficult space to navigate in its own right, but those cases are going to happen regardless of where the line is drawn, and it needs to be in a place where people are comfortable to navigate on one side or the other. That is where the clinical education comes into the process, in terms of how we best manage that, recognise the suffering in the individual, try to make things better and work hand in hand with palliative care and other colleagues to try to improve symptoms for the patients who are not eligible under these laws.

Dr Mewett: As a palliative care physician, I spend all my professional life addressing people’s suffering in the context of an advanced, progressing, incurable illness. Palliative care, of course, approaches that from a range of different angles. I see VAD—assisted dying, voluntary —as an end-of-life choice among a range of end-of-life choices that people may or may not make. A minority of our patients will take that choice and have some control. They require and should have excellent palliative care up to the time that they die, whichever way they decide to die.

I think we should understand that despite the best palliative care in the world, there are still patients who suffer uncontrollably, unremittingly and intolerably. I believe that it is that small minority of patients who should have a legal option to take control of that stage when it is irreparable. It is not incompatible with palliative care; it is part of palliative care and an end-of-life choice, and not the philosophy of care that palliative care is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Thank you for coming to give evidence this morning—it is incredibly helpful. I am going to come back to clause 2 of the Bill, which concerns the definition of terminal illness. I am very clear on who the Bill is aimed at helping and who it is not aimed at involving. The definition says that the person has to have

“an inevitably progressive illness, disease or medical condition which cannot be reversed by treatment”.

It also says, for the avoidance of doubt, that this cannot be “a mental disorder” or “a disability”. I hear your concerns, and I want to support you and work with you on this. I am keen to know: what else do you want to see in the Bill that would reassure you that this is not about disabled people or people with mental disorders?

Dr Griffiths: I am conscious of time, so I will be very quick. My first point would be, why would you stick it at six months then? Why not have it at seven days, for example, as a way to take out our concerns? If you are talking about prognosis, let us go back to Chelsea’s point and the point that I made before. My condition is a neuromuscular condition. I have had meetings with clinicians where some have referred to it as a terminal illness, some have referred to it as a life-limiting condition, and others have referred to it as a progressive condition. The articulation of the ideas and the ways in which we think about conditions show the complexity of the issue. We are talking about terminal illness, and people who are terminally ill do constitute disabled people under the Equality Act, so you cannot make the distinction.

If you want to be quite proactive about it, then why not reduce the prognosis timeframe and make it as short as possible to take out the concerns about prognosis, and the concerns around whether individuals are going to live longer or could be facilitated access to alternative treatments to prolong life? I do not understand why we are fixated on a six-month prognosis because, as we have seen in other countries, as soon as you pass the legislation on six months, you will have individuals who say, “Why not seven months? Why not five months?” You will have campaigners who will say, “This does not include me and I have been campaigning for this.” There will be pressure to change and Governments will change. There is no guarantee that you can make that the eligibility criteria will be fixed.

[Danny Kruger]

Q I want to give Professor Shakespeare the chance to respond to the point that we have heard. I am interested in whether you recognise that many disabled people—in fact, not just disabled people, but anybody who declines treatment that keeps them alive—would qualify as terminally ill under the terms of the Bill? What protections we could give to prevent that?

Professor Shakespeare: First of all, a terminal illness is defined as a “condition which cannot be reversed by treatment” I know that that does not mean a cure; you are not aiming at a cure—but it says, “cannot be reversed”. Surely that would not include things like HIV and diabetes because they can be reversed. They cannot be cured; they are still there, but they can be reversed with insulin, antiretrovirals or whatever.

I think, yes, terminally ill people are disabled people almost always, but that does not mean that all disabled people are terminally ill. Even if you have a disease or a condition—like Miro does or like other people do—that will probably result in your death eventually, you are not going to die tomorrow or in six months. You may die in 16 years or whatever. It is very difficult to define terminal illness, and that is why six months, I think, is used in this Bill.

Very recently, my aunt died. She was unconscious for the last month or so of having cancer and then she finally died. She would not have been able to express her will and her preference to have assisted dying, even if she wanted it. Therefore, I think six months when you can have capacity, you can anticipate, you know you are going to die but you want to have control in the manner of your death, is more useful than seven days or less, when you might be unconscious and you might not be able to express a will or preference.

[The Chair]

I call Simon Opher.