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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

I very much feel that our duty is to produce a workable and legally watertight piece of legislation. I have some concerns that I want to put on record. We must not prevaricate, procrastinate and keep on discussing indefinitely something that has been discussed for decades prior to its arrival here, but we need the confidence of the public that we have taken balanced views and have allocated sufficient time for witnesses. I put it on record that I am concerned there may be a public perception that the time we have over three days next week, although there is an extension to that time, is insufficient. If we need to return to this and if there is agreement that we need further witnesses, we need—somehow, within the circumscription of private Members’ Bills—the means to revisit that decision.

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

I want to briefly address the implication or inference that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, who is leading the Bill, has not produced an incredibly balanced set of witnesses, or indeed a scrutiny Committee. I put it on record that in principle I am in support of assisted dying, but I did not feel that I could support the Bill on Second Reading, as I had a number of concerns including the strength of the Bill. We will be listening to evidence and discussing the issue not on the basis of principle, but on the basis of the strength of the Bill, the deliverability of the Bill and the number of safeguards, among other things. We are not here to debate the principle—that is a really important point.

Points that have been made about the suitability or otherwise of the people coming to speak to us. It is wrong to imply that any of those individuals will use their personal feelings or principles and discount their neutrality. Are we really saying that the British Medical Association, the judges who have been mentioned or the chief medical officer will put their own views in place of their expertise and knowledge?

I should say for the public’s benefit, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley ensured that all Committee members were able to submit hundreds of names for consideration. In my view, she has come up with a panel of witnesses who are incredible experts in their field and have long-standing expertise in these areas, and we should absolutely listen to them.

I am sympathetic to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, who said that we may need extended time to hear from more people. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley would certainly be sympathetic to that and that we can look to do so, if it is necessary. However, the perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. We have to ensure that we move this Committee along at a decent pace and hear from all these people.

Our job is to scrutinise the suitability of the Bill, not the principles. On that basis I oppose the amendment, although I am not against some of the names that have been proposed. Maybe there will be an opportunity to hear from them in future, but I do not think that we can get into a situation where we are removing some names and adding others. We would be here all week if we did, so I will be opposing the amendment.

[The Chair]

I now call the promoter of the Bill. I will then call the mover of the amendment.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I am very mindful of the time, as it is now three minutes past 10. This will be the last question of the session.

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

Q Thank you, Professor Whitty and Duncan, for being with us this morning. Professor Whitty, in October you and a number of chief medical officers published an advice note to doctors about a range of guidance on this issue. In it, you said that a couple of things are “unanimous” for medical professionals. I am focusing on the line where it says that

“we must not undermine the provision of good end-of-life care for all including the outstanding work done by palliative care clinicians”.

Do we take it, by implication, that you are fearful that this Bill could undermine good end-of-life care? In your view, how might we mitigate some of those risks in the Bill?

Professor Whitty: I will give a view and then Duncan will be able, as chief nurse, to mention the parallel bit of advice that said similar things. I think all medical, nursing and health professionals very strongly believe that palliative care and pain alleviation, which is not the same as palliative care but overlaps with it, and end-of-life care, which is also not the same but overlaps with it, are essential, and in some areas are not to the high standard that we would hope for. That would be a common view across the medical profession.

My own view and hope is that the Bill should not make the situation either better or worse. It changes one particular aspect in a very important way, but it seems to me that on the principle that we should be improving end-of-life discussions, which is where end-of-life care starts from, as well as supporting further the alleviation of symptoms and the provision of palliative care, there would be no disagreement from anybody in the medical or nursing professions, any other professions or the general public. That must be fundamental to how the Bill is thought about—

[The Chair]

Order. That brings us to the end of our allocated time with these witnesses.

Professor Whitty: Duncan, do you want to say if you agree or disagree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Q Has the GMC undertaken a legal assessment of the openness to legal challenge around that Montgomery point—if those conversations were not initiated and patients say that they were not given all the options available to them?

Mark Swindells: We have not done a forensic legal assessment of that nature, but obviously Montgomery is in case law, and Parliament has the power to set primary law. I listened to what the chief medical officer said and what Dr Green says about how restrictive or otherwise that might be in terms of the doctor’s role with the patient.

[Jack Abbott]

Q This might sound like playing devil’s advocate, and I fully appreciate that you do not want to reduce this to a tick-box exercise, as you described it. Some might argue that the risk of what you describe is that it creates a lottery, because you would be relying on doctors to use their personal judgment as to when to have that conversation. For example, if a patient and doctor do not have a particularly close or long-standing relationship, the doctor may not know what the signs are, so the patient, who may need to have that conversation, may never have it. The risk is that you would be reliant on good relationships forming over time and doctors using their intuition, so that some patients will have the conversations they need but others will not.

Dr Green: Obviously, it would be great if we worked in a system where doctors had all the time they needed to deal with their patients. I believe that the Bill mentions a duty to provide information from the chief medical officer, and having read the Bill, to me it seems very much like this might be in the form of a website or leaflet. We believe that it is important that patients should be able to access personalised information, and we would like to see an official information service that patients could go to, either as a self-referral or as a recommendation from their GPs or other doctors. That would give them information not just about assisted dying, but about all the other things that bother people at this stage of their life, and it would mention social services support and palliative care. It could be like a navigation service as much as an information service. That might address some of your concerns.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Q The issue of coercion came up with our previous witnesses, and they were talking about GPs, doctors and nurses being able to spot it because of their level of training, experience and so on. How frequently does coercion, or lesser versions of it, such as familial pressure and societal pressure, come up in the day-to-day life of a medical practitioner? Is it like the asbestos awareness training that I had in a previous job—something I had to have because I might very rarely bump into asbestos—or is it a tick-box exercise?

Dr Green: You are right: all medical staff have safeguarding training, and of course patients make important decisions often with the influence and help of their family members. Usually this influence is helpful, and it almost always comes from a position of love. The point at which such influence becomes coercion is difficult to find out, but my experience is that it is rare. I would recommend that you look at what has happened in other parts of the world that have more experience with this, because they have it as part of their training modules. Certainly, we would expect capacity and coercion training to be part of the specialised training that doctors who opt in would receive. I anticipate that the general safeguarding training should be sufficient for other doctors, who would obviously only be involved at that very early stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Tidball]

Q But you believe that your members would be able to pick up on and identify issues such as coercion?

Professor Ranger: I do. They are professionals, and I believe they would be able to.

[Jack Abbott]

Q My question, which relates to some of the points made earlier, is for Glyn Berry. Your organisation has recommended a new role: the approved palliative care professional. To go into the detail a bit more, you make a number of recommendations on what that role would include, such as ensuring that the person has the mental capacity to make the decision. First, are you therefore saying that this new role should sit alongside the two-doctor process, which has already been outlined in terms of final decision making? If the approved palliative care professional felt, for example, that this person did not have mental capacity, should they be able to, as it were, stop the process?

Secondly, what level of training would that person need in terms of time? We have, for example, been talking about a two-year process. If this new role came into effect, how long would that person need to be trained for to fulfil it adequately? Thirdly, do you have a sense of how many of these professionals we would need to make this a functioning system? Those are three separate questions.

Glyn Berry: To answer the first question, we feel, for the reasons I outlined earlier, that the role of an approved palliative care professional would sit beside the role of clinicians, balancing clinical and social observation and assessment.

In terms of the training, we, as social workers, already have continuous training opportunities to become best interests assessors, practice educators and approved mental health practitioners, so we envisage that the training would very much be along those lines. Doing those roles currently requires a course of training at university.

Our thoughts, at the moment, are that that would be for palliative care social workers, whether they are in charities, trusts or local authorities, or are independent, because that is where things sit with us at the moment and we know our roles. We like to think that it would roll out to other professionals, however, because assessing capacity is not specifically the role of the social worker; other professionals are able to, and do, complete capacity assessments.

It is quite difficult to answer your question in terms of numbers at the moment. If we were talking specifically about palliative care social workers, we currently have around 200 members in our association, but there will be other people out there who are not members and we do not know who they are. It is a role that could expand.

One of our other recommendations is that palliative and end-of-life care, as an aside to your question, is also brought into qualifying roles for people in training, such as doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, as well as social workers. We could see that happening in the future.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Q Thank you for coming and giving evidence today, and for meeting with me recently. You both represent organisations that have neutral positions on assisted dying. I am really interested in this multidisciplinary approach that you are talking about, and I think it is a really valuable conversation, so thank you for raising those points.

I want to ask a bit more about what this end-of-life conversation looks like in your experience, because you are absolutely right; of all the people who are spending time with patients in their last few months of life, it is often nurses and palliative care social workers. You have a really important role to play.

I am also interested in what this would look like in reality. There has been talk of a kind of separation of palliative care and assisted dying, but, actually, I think we should be looking to embrace a holistic approach to end-of-life conversations and end-of-life care, which is what has happened in other jurisdictions. You might have a patient who has signed up for assisted dying but never does it because they have good palliative care and they work with their palliative care experts and specialists. Therefore, I think it is important that we do not try to separate these things.

I would like your views on that, but I think that one of the strengths is that having these conversations about death, about dying and about end of life is a really positive thing. Your members have an important role to play in that, so could you talk a little bit about the holistic approach that your members take?

Professor Ranger: You are right regarding the conversations and the care around dying. Having those conversations with people around pain management and symptom management is particularly the role of palliative care nurses. With assisted dying, I think the conversation is sometimes slightly different. It is talking more as a nurse in some ways, because the primary reason that assisted dying is often a discussion is a lack of autonomy, not pain. Therefore, the conversation generally tends to go in a slightly different way.

Symptom control, and being scared of pain, is understandable, and we absolutely have the ability to get that right for people, but when it comes to seeking assisted dying, the primary reason is usually autonomy, rather than pain and fear of dying. Therefore, in a practical way, I think an experienced nurse or doctor will start to gauge the difference in those conversations, because they are different. I think it is about being really clear around those conversations and really listening to what people have to say, and then having a way to be able to ensure that what an individual wants is something that you have got, and that you listen to.

I absolutely agree with Glyn about safeguards and all the things that we absolutely need to make sure are there, but the whole point of assisted dying is not to be paternalistic, but to respect autonomy. Whatever safeguards we put in with that, we have to be really careful not to ignore that right of autonomy, which is primarily what this Bill is trying to preserve.

I think it is about being really vigilant and listening. A primary role of a nurse is not to advocate their personal view, but to really listen to somebody else and to ensure that what they want is pursued. In all that discussion, it is really important that that does not get lost.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Q I have a question for Dr Clarke and Dr Cox about the registration of deaths, which is dealt with in clause 29. Do you feel that the provisions set out in the clause are sufficient? If not, what further bolstering would provide the oversight needed to ensure that the processes and procedures are followed correctly?

Dr Cox: My understanding of the plan is that in the Bill—forgive me, but I am sketchy on this—the aim is for the registration to be as a natural death. It would not be referred to the coroner, and “assisted dying” would appear on the death certificate.

I am also a medical examiner. My concern is that, as a medical examiner, I am obliged by law to scrutinise all deaths to ensure that a referral to the coroner is not required and to identify any learnings. What concerns me in that role is whether enough recording is happening around decision making and the process to do my job properly. With my medical examiner hat on, do I know what happened? I do not see anything written down in the Bill about the records that are to be kept. What happened when the patient took the substance? What happened afterwards? Were any actions taken in the meantime? That is not so much something I have thought about a lot with my palliative care consultant hat on, but as a medical examiner it concerns me.

Dr Clarke: For the sake of time, I do not have anything to add. I completely agree with that.

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

Q Dr Cox, may I follow up on one of the things you said earlier? Forgive me if I have misunderstood; I want to be clear. Earlier, I think you said that in the countries that do not have assisted dying, the state of palliative care has improved more quickly than in countries that do. Is that a fair representation of what you said?

Dr Cox: In European countries and American states.

[Jack Abbott]

Q The whole panel has painted—and we have heard this previously—a pretty bleak picture of the state of palliative care in the UK. Would you say that it was better or worse than it was, say, 10 years ago?

Dr Cox: I suppose it depends who you are. If you live in one of the postcodes where you cannot get palliative care, if you are socially deprived, if you are a member of an ethnic minority or if you have a lung cancer diagnosis, you will not get very good palliative care in this country. I think that is awful.

[Jack Abbott]

Q I guess what I am driving towards is that simply not having assisted dying is not necessarily causation for improvement in palliative care. In this country, for example, we have not seen palliative care improve from where it was 10 years ago, the last time this debate came to Parliament.

Dr Cox: The position we would ask you to consider is whether this is the right time to bring in a law to give people a choice of assisted dying, when they do not have the choice to have good palliative care.

[Jack Abbott]

Q Sure. That is a really fair argument. Again, what I am driving towards is the point you were trying to make earlier, which is—I think this is fair to say—that countries that do not implement assisted dying improve their palliative care system. Clearly, that did not happen in the UK, so my guess is that that is not direct causation, is it? There are a number of other factors, although I agree that—

Dr Cox: The NHS is very different from any other jurisdiction—

[Jack Abbott]

Yes, so the direct comparison is not necessarily relevant. Is that correct?

[The Chair]

Order. Can you address the Chair? This is not a dialogue.

[Jack Abbott]

Sorry. I was trying to make a point—

[The Chair]

I understand that, but address it through the Chair.

Dr Cox: Palliative care may well have improved in this country over those years when it also improved in other countries where assisted dying was not available. What we are saying is that there has been chronic underfunding of palliative care, so where we are now is inadequate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Q Alex, thanks for the written evidence and your experience in capacity assessment. We heard from the previous panel, especially from the practising Dr Clarke, how complex it is. She was explaining how she does not think everyone has enough training in capacity assessment, and it is so complex in NHS healthcare areas. You made an observation about multidisciplinary involvement, rather than just two doctors. Do you think having more than two people involved in the decision making can strengthen the Bill?

Alex Ruck Keene: I think for many reasons it can. On the pure capacity side, this is, at one level, an existential question. This is not a healthcare decision but an existential decision. The more people we have who are able to bring their different perspectives—the social work perspective on the person’s social circumstances or the medical perspective on their medical condition—the better, so that we have as many eyes on the person and insights into the person as possible.

It is about trying to make sure that the decision goes back to whether we are really satisfied that the criteria set out at the beginning of the Bill are met. I personally think we should have MDTs, for instance, as you would have in a Mental Health Act detention, so that we have more than one pair of eyes on it from more than one discipline.

[Jack Abbott]

Q Sir Nicholas, I am going to paraphrase a little bit, but you said people with Parkinson’s will never get a terminal diagnosis, so this Bill is no use to you at all—I think you used stronger language than that when you made your original statement.

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: I was sort of taken by surprise when she asked the me the question in the pub, and I would not have phrased it like that in court 50.

[Jack Abbott]

Q Sure. Let us phrase it in a different way today. Would you be able to expand on your thinking there?

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Parkinson’s is such a complex condition. The medically qualified amongst you will know this—there are so many symptoms, and with the rate of development and the direction of travel, it is an enormously complex condition to know. That is why it is commonly accepted that you do not die from Parkinson’s, you die with Parkinson’s, and it is almost impossible to give a mortality rate as to when that is likely to happen—almost impossible.

When I was doing my research, I was slightly surprised to see that last year 6,000 death certificates had Parkinson’s written on them. They do say that the experts in Parkinson’s are the people with it, but the people you talk to are quite clear that it is impossible to predict and it is a really complex thing. That is why this arbitrary—I use the word technically—six-month period is a problem. If a doctor opines conscientiously and honestly, unless the Parkinson’s patient has already developed pneumonia, sepsis or something of that nature, or complications from falls—the common reasons for death—you will never get that six-month ticket. That is the thing; that is the problem.

[Jack Abbott]

Q In your view—I think you kind of said it before, and I would hate to put words in your mouth—are you saying that Parkinson’s sufferers and other similar—

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Neurodegenerative.

[Jack Abbott]

Yes, those with such conditions. Are they left out of this debate?

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: They are.

[Jack Abbott]

Q In your view, and that of the rest of the panel, is there a way to legislate to include them?

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: It has been suggested that I want to expand the definition of terminal illness. I do not want to expand it. I want to redefine it so that it is more appropriately focused, in my opinion, on what this Bill should be about, which is the relief of suffering. That is what I believe the Bill should be about. You should get the permission to have an assisted death if you are suffering intolerably within five months of death or seven months of death—there should not be this arbitrary line.

Moreover, it should not be open to people who are not suffering, but who happen to have a six-month life expectancy. There are probably quite a few of them, for one reason or another, whose life expectancy is short, but their pain is well-managed. I do not believe that assisted dying should necessarily be available for them. I do believe very strongly—this is not an expansion, but in my view, a more appropriate focused redefinition of terminal illness—that it should be, as in Spain and in Holland, focused on suffering.

[Rebecca Paul]

Q My questions are to Alex Ruck Keene. Thank you for your written evidence, which I read with great interest. I have two questions for you. This follows on nicely from the discussion we have just had. Is there any risk that if the terminal illness definition were to remain in the Bill, it could be challenged under the European convention on human rights?

My second question, which is completely different—just to mix it up—is on a really interesting point in your written statement about how we need to give consideration to the national suicide prevention strategy. I found that really interesting, because the Bill potentially turns on its head the way we view suicide, and obviously we have been sending a certain message out there, particularly to our young people. Could you elaborate on the point you were making in your written evidence to the Committee?

Alex Ruck Keene: Gosh—yes. There is absolutely no way that you can stop people trying to challenge whatever Act is passed; there is no way you can stop people seeking to challenge that under the ECHR. We then get into this enormous argument about whether it is inevitably discriminatory. Courts to date have been very clear: “We are not going to get into this; it is for Parliament to decide whether to make assisted dying legal.” Once it is made legal for some people, but not for others, there is a difference in treatment. Whether it is discriminatory, and therefore contrary to articles 8 and 14 of the EHCR, depends on whether that difference is justified.

I am trying to be very careful in my language, because I try to do that. The Bill Committee and Parliament need to be very clear how, if you are going to limit this to a cohort of people—I feel acutely conscious that I am sitting next to somebody who would be excluded—it could be explained to somebody that they are not eligible and that there is a difference in treatment but it is perfectly justified. If you cannot do that, it will be discrimination.

The courts have been very clear that you do not have to have a system, but if you are going to have one—for example for social security benefits—then you need to have one that is non-discriminatory. That is the answer I can give to that. The one thing I can say is that you cannot stop lawyers trying to challenge. That is what they will do.

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: All laws discriminate; 69 mph is not an offence but 71 mph is. All laws discriminate. The question is whether it is justifiable.

Sir Max Hill: It is also a question of providing legal certainty, which is why the definitions in the Bill are so important. Provided that it is articulated clearly and within what the European Court so often calls the margin of appreciation, which it gives to sovereign states, then although I agree with Alex that a challenge may be possible, I cannot see a successful challenge to the Bill if it is drawn with the sorts of provisions we have here. Indeed, we have not seen local nation state examples of this sort being struck down by the European Court elsewhere in Europe, so I think it is very unlikely that we would see such a strike-down here.

Alex Ruck Keene: I really hate to get into it with such eminent lawyers, but there has not been a case in Strasbourg seeking to say that a limited class of case is discriminatory, so we just do not know.

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: I agree with that. I have changed my mind twice about this subject.

Alex Ruck Keene: Do you mind if I quickly touch on something else?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

Q I will keep my question quite short. Is there anything about the law in either of your jurisdictions where you think there could be improvement, and that we can learn from in drafting our legislation here?

Dr Kaan: The thing I have been reading about that is concerning to me is the court approval that you seem to have written into your law. I heard your discussion this morning about how that might be done and whether it is a committee or the High Court and so on. I think that that is really going to limit access to this, and that makes the process a much lengthier one.

Again, these are people at the end of their life. People are not looking, by and large, to cut off a huge amount of their life; they are looking to shorten their death, not shorten their life. By making people go through a court appeal in addition to two qualified physicians, as well as the waiting period, I think that you are going to limit access for people who desperately want this option. It seems like that might be baked into your law, but I would say that that is a concerning feature to me. I think that you are going to limit access that way.

Dr Spielvogel: Something that it turned out was not in our law, but everyone thought that it was for a few years, and it really limited our practice, was that many people were under the impression that the physician could not bring up assisted dying with the patients, and that the patients had to bring it up themselves. That turned out not to be in our law, but that idea really hampered our ability to take care of patients, so I would strongly recommend that there not be anything like that in your Bill. People cannot make informed decisions for themselves if they do not know what their options are. While this is top of mind for all of you and for the doctors—we all know that this exists—even if this Bill becomes law, the general population is still not going to realise that it is an option.

I eat, sleep and breathe this. I am a primary care physician, and when I am going through the options with patients who are newly diagnosed with a serious life-threatening illness, I say, “Okay, here’s what disease-directed treatment would look like. We can continue with your chemo. Here are some side effects and complications that you might have, and here are the benefits of that. Here’s what palliative care or hospice care would look like.” Then I say, “I don’t know if you know this, but in our state we have this other option for people nearing the end of their lives when they have intolerable suffering. You can ask me to fill a lethal prescription for you to help end your suffering sooner.”

The number of times that people look at me and say, “You can do that? That’s an option here?” is astounding. I would say that nine out of 10 of patients I have conversations with have no idea that that is even legal. If they do not know it is an option, they are never going to ask for it. For physicians to do their jobs properly and deliver care to people, and for people to actually have a choice, physicians need to be able to discuss it with their patients.

Dr Kaan: I will just piggyback on that. I cannot count the number of times I have given a presentation or a talk to communities, and people—usually family members of someone who have died, not using this law—have come up to me afterwards and said, “Thank you for what you said. My loved one was interested in having this information, or wanted to talk to their doctor about it, but their doctor never brought it up, so we weren’t sure if we should be bringing it up.” It is a huge burden to put on patients and their loved ones if they have to bring it up themselves. I would highly caution against any sort of language that requires that, because it is just not fair to them. They are already going through so much and, as Dr Spielvogel said, you cannot have an informed decision-making discussion with a patient if they do not have all the options available for discussion.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

Q I want to drill down a bit more on the question of training. Could you say a bit more about how the training works? Is it mandatory for everyone who takes a medical qualification to a certain standard? How many class hours are required? Is there an in-practice shadowing process? Is there an assessment process to verify that the person is qualified as a result of the training? I am just trying to get a better sense of the detail of the training. I will perhaps start with Dr Kaan.

Dr Kaan: That is a really important question, because this is a really important topic in the United States. Our laws are very clear that participation is voluntary, so there is no such mandatory training across medical training in general. It is always voluntary. If a physician or provider wishes to have training, they can seek it out. What is available and the standard of care differ from state to state. Certainly, in the state of Washington, where I am the medical director of the organisation that is most largely involved with this, the bulk of my job is doing training, mentoring and shadowing. There is no exam at the end of that process, but there is certainly shadowing and a feedback process.

I am also heavily involved with the Academy of Aid-in-Dying Medicine, which has been very active in creating professional training. We have a Journal of Aid-in-Dying Medicine, which is a peer-reviewed journal that puts out articles that are relevant to the topic. The Academy of Aid-in-Dying Medicine is now undertaking certification pathways, so each level of provider—social workers, chaplains, physicians and anyone else who might be involved in the aid-in-dying process—will be able to take these certifications. A more uniform education system will be available. We are just at the beginning of creating those, but it is very exciting, and we are very happy to have those out. A lot of resources are out there in the world already, in general, to train providers in how to do this well, and it would be really smart to have something in your Bill that outlines what the training should be, whether you will make it mandatory or voluntary and perhaps some sort of certification pathway.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Order. I did say one question per person; we have to stick to the timings.

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

Q Dr Fellingham, given your experience of both the British and the Australian healthcare systems, do you believe there are any fundamental differences that would affect how assisted dying is implemented in this country? If there are, how might we be able to mitigate them?

Dr Fellingham: In the UK you are missing a number of the challenges that we have, such as the geographical challenges in a state as vast as Western Australia. You also have a golden opportunity to look, as you are, across every jurisdiction that already has laws in operation and cherry-pick the best bits of what is working well in those jurisdictions, and so create the very best, most robust and most patient-centred legislation you can.

The healthcare systems are broadly similar. We are both first-world, developed western countries. We are still operating in a context of resource limitation, but not resource limitation that is so prohibitive that it would make it particularly difficult to enact a law in the UK. The United Kingdom would be broadly able to follow any of the laws that exist in Australia and implement them very successfully.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for joining us this morning. I am interested in following up on what Dr Mewett said about the relationship with palliative care, which has an important role to play in end of life treatment. What is the relationship between assisted dying and the palliative care world like? Also, I would like to hear a bit more about the multidisciplinary board, which I think you set up, Dr McLaren. What does the multidisciplinary approach look like in your jurisdictions?

Dr Mewett: There is no doubt that traditionally palliative care has eschewed any idea of voluntary assisted dying, for a number of historical reasons that I have spoken about in other fora and will not go into now. But it is changing, and there is a general change in attitude, especially among the younger palliative care training doctors and young clinicians, who see this as part of patient-centred care, honouring the patient’s autonomy and choice, while still addressing deeply their concerns and suffering in pain management and so on.

That will see a change. I do understand where it has come from. When one looks at it almost forensically, it does not stack up and will continue not to stack up to have someone saying, “Well, VAD is not part of palliative care.” VAD is part of patient choice and it will be part of palliative care ongoing. That will evolve over time.

I am sorry but I did not quite catch the meaning of the question about the multidisciplinary aspect, Ms Leadbeater.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you. This will have to be the last question.

[Jack Abbott]

Q I have a question for Mr Amin. You worked on the judicial review of Noel Conway in 2018. For the benefit of the Committee and those watching, Mr Conway had terminal motor neurone disease and he looked to bring a judicial review in order to have the option of assisted death, when he was in the final six months of his life. Mr Amin, what were your experiences from that case that may inform the Committee’s learnings when looking at the Bill?

Yogi Amin: Mr Conway was an extremely intelligent and brave individual who campaigned in this area. His strong view about autonomy led him to bring that case, and what he was arguing for in that case forms part of what you have here in the Bill. He was certainly asking for a process in which a decision could be made and some robust safeguards could be provided, which would end up with a court process, and that is what you have within the Bill. I also learned through that case, and others over the years, what the Human Rights Act, the European convention and parliamentary sovereignty mean here. On all three counts, the cases have always said that it is Parliament that makes the decision—so it is you who are deciding. I do not see a court overturning that.

The courts in the Conway case—the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court—were all very clear that it is a matter for Parliament. I really do not see the European Court of Human Rights overturning it in any way at all, and that is from my long experience. The margin of appreciation is very strong with this Parliament to make the decision. I also think, from a drafting perspective, the Bill very carefully defines the individuals—it has drawn the line. Certainly, the courts cannot do it; they cannot extend that line and they will always defer back to Parliament. If you craft the Bill as it is, I am very confident that it will be left here.

[The Chair]

Order. I am terribly sorry but we are out of time.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

Q On that point about palliative care, I will direct my question to Dr Furst. What has been the response from palliative care professionals to the introduction of assisted dying in Australia? We have heard evidence from people working in the sector in the UK, but I am keen to hear about your experience in Australia. I understand that Palliative Care Australia’s national workforce survey explicitly looked at this, so I am keen to hear what its findings were.

Dr Furst: It has been a journey, certainly. Victoria started their voluntary assisted dying in 2019. I would be lying if I said that the palliative care community were completely on board with it at that point, but over the last five to six years there has been a real shift in mentality. We have seen that they can go hand in hand. Palliative care is about end-of-life choices. Voluntary assisted dying is about end-of-life choices. It is about putting the patient and the individual front and centre, and working with them. That is fundamental to palliative care. We have realised that voluntary assisted dying is a promotion of palliative care and it gives back choices.

Probably some of the older palliative care clinicians have not embraced voluntary assisted dying quite as much. That is probably very generalised, but certainly new consultants and new doctors that are coming through really see this as something that they want to do. I do not think that there is any animosity any more between the practitioners that choose to work in this space and those that do not. I get huge amounts of support from other palliative care physicians that do not necessarily act as practitioners. There is no real divide. It has been embraced, to be honest. In another five years, I think there will probably be very few palliative care practitioners who do not support this, unless they are true conscientious objectors for their own reasons—I guess, probably religious reasons. Palliative Care Australia and the peak medical bodies in Australia have generally shifted to see this as part of patient choice.

Alex Greenwich: The journey to voluntary assisted dying in New South Wales, and indeed across every Australian state, has benefited palliative care access and funding. In New South Wales, 85% of people who have accessed voluntary assisted dying are receiving palliative care. As part of the process, the co-ordinating and consulting practitioners also advise them on palliative care. The doctors are trained on the latest advances in palliative care. Baked into the principles of our legislation is access to palliative care for all citizens of New South Wales. Importantly, throughout our debate, whether Members supported or opposed the reform, our entire Parliament came together to ensure palliative care received an increase in funding and any access issues were addressed. The Australian experience with voluntary assisted dying is that it benefits and strengthens the palliative care system.

Professor Blake: Can I can I add to that? The Voluntary Assisted Dying Board in WA, as in all the other jurisdictions, produces a report. The very strong sentiment of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Board, and indeed within the Western Australia community, is that voluntary assisted dying is seen as part of the end-of-life journey. The board’s report states that the statistics and experience of Western Australians

“confirms…that voluntary assisted dying is an established and enduring end of life choice”.

For that reason, there has been quite a significant awareness that practitioners should be able to bring up voluntary assisted dying with the patient as part of that suite of end-of-life choices. That has been something that the evidence has suggested is very important, because if the practitioners are feeling that they cannot raise it in that context, that is having a detrimental effect on the patients who would like information on it. That has been our experience in Western Australia.

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

Q My question is to you, Mr Greenwich. I understand that in New South Wales—and please do correct me if I am wrong—similarly to the Bill we are proposing, you adopted legalised assisted dying for those who are terminally ill and will die within six months, but you also added an additional criterion, which was within 12 months for a neurodegenerative disease such as motor neurone disease. That element is not proposed in our Bill, but we have heard from other witnesses over previous days about that issue. What reflections might you have regarding that, and why did you add that element into the Bill beyond the six months that we are proposing here?

Alex Greenwich: Thank you very much for your question. At the outset, I will just stress that every jurisdiction should legislate the form of voluntary assisted dying that is appropriate to them. In New South Wales, that was six months for a terminal illness, or 12 months if that terminal illness was a neurodegenerative disorder. We had learned from the other schemes in Australia that that was going to be important because of the decline that occurs in neurodegenerative disorders like motor neurone disease, for example. It was because of that that we went down that path.

Professor Blake: I should add that in Queensland, there is no such distinction in life expectation between other diseases and neurodegenerative diseases. Queensland legislation is different: it sets a 12-month period of expected death, and the reason for that approach was in response to feedback from people living with neurodegenerative disease that they felt that they were being put in a different position to people suffering from, or experiencing, other terminal illnesses. The Queensland Parliament took a different approach to address that particular feedback.

Dr Furst: From South Australia’s perspective, we are similar to New South Wales; we have less than six months for all conditions bar neurodegenerative conditions, which is less than 12 months. As a clinician, personally, I think that 12 months for neurodegenerative conditions is really helpful, because—as you have heard—if you are looking at prognosis and trajectories, with things like cancer, a patient will be going along and then often have quite a steep and rapid decline. That six-month prognosis is quite noticeable, but for patients with conditions like motor neurone disease, their decline can be slow and very distressing to them. Also, when trying to balance the prognosis along with getting them through the process, 12 months is really helpful, so if there was any chance, I would be strongly advocating for that.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

Q Thank you to the witnesses for joining us this morning. I would like to address my comments to Alex Greenwich, if I may, but also come back to Dr Furst and Professor Blake.

It is really valuable for us as a Committee to hear your reflections on the experience of the process of passing this legislation. How did you manage to keep that process patient-centred but also take into account the concerns around the broader societal issues, particularly when it comes to equality and human rights—those really important issues? What was that process like, and what are your reflections on it? Also, Dr Furst and Professor Blake, one thing that I feel really strongly about is having really good training around assisted dying, and end-of-life care and choice. Would you like to make any comments on what that looks like?

Alex Greenwich: Thank you very much for that question. I will take you through a little bit of the journey to voluntary assisted dying in New South Wales, what encouraged action, and then the safeguards that we put in place.

The New South Wales coroner had reported to us that there were a number of really horrible suicides of people with terminal illnesses who felt they had no option—that those were cruel and lonely suicides. That was backed up by paramedics and police who would arrive on site. Myself and my parliamentary colleagues decided, “We can do better, and we can regulate in this space.” Voluntary assisted dying in New South Wales is an important form of suicide prevention. What voluntary assisted dying does, in the model that we legislated, is ensure that a person who has a terminal illness and knows that it is going to be a cruel and painful end of their life is instead directed to a doctor—a doctor who will be able to take them through all of their palliative care options, provide and link them with social supports, and give them the choice to have a death that is better than their illness would otherwise provide.

It has been important to make sure that our legislation is limited to that cohort of people who are terminally ill and know they will have a cruel end of life. Our legislation is not about people with anorexia nervosa. It is not about people with a disability. It is not about people who are feeling a burden. It is about a very limited and narrow cohort of people who know that they are going to have a very cruel and painful end of their life, and want that control to know that they can have a death that is better than what their illness would otherwise provide.

We have ensured that decision-making capacity needs to be enduring. We have ensured that a person cannot be under any form of coercion. We ensured that we had a really strong period of implementation, from the time the Bill was passed to 18 months later, when it came into effect, to make sure that our health system and the various doctors required training.

In New South Wales, the experience of voluntary assisted dying is that it has been a form of suicide prevention, and that it has also been, as I explained earlier, very pro-palliative care. As I reflect on our parliamentary debate, it was also one of the first times that our Parliament had grappled with the concept of death. We were very honest about it, and we were very honest in having to admit that we are all going to die, that there are some people with some terminal illnesses who are going to die in a really cruel and painful way, and that we could provide them with an option of control, peace and respect. We believe, and our annual reports into our legislation indicate, that we have been able to provide that. I am happy to answer any further questions, but I will wrap up on that.

Professor Blake: Given that the Western Australia legislation has been in force rather longer than the other jurisdictions that have been talked about today, we have had the opportunity to reflect upon it—I am speaking here as a lawyer; I assume that is why I have been invited to talk—and that has revealed some of the very good things about the working of the legislation, but also some of the challenges that have emerged.

As Dr Furst has said, the legislation in all Australian jurisdictions varies slightly, but it follows a particular legislative model, and is highly prescriptive. It requires a number of requests and, in Western Australia, assessment by two different practitioners. In Western Australia, there is no judicial double-checking of that process. Although I note that that is contemplated within the UK law, that is not something that we have found to be necessary or even appropriate in Western Australia, and I think that would be the case in other Australian jurisdictions.

One of the issues we have experienced is that there is a struggle to get people to take up the training, whether that be medical practitioners or nurse practitioners. One of the thoughts around that has been the very prescriptive nature of the model, which requires a lot of work on the part of the practitioners. It is worth bearing in mind when looking at your piece of legislation that the more prescriptive it is, the more work it requires on the part of practitioners, and that is a lot of work. We need those people to undergo the training in order that the process is done properly and all the safeguards that are included within the legislation—and they are extensive—are respected. That is something to bear in mind.

We have prescriptive provisions around capacity and voluntariness and lack of coercion. I would add that we also have a requirement around residency. If we are looking at when the legislation has come before a tribunal or judicial body, the only circumstance—in Western Australia, at least—where it has come before the tribunal, which is the State Administrative Tribunal, has been where the practitioner has regarded the patient as not eligible on the grounds of not fulfilling the residency requirements. There has been no other ground on which a matter has been taken to a judicial body.

You asked about the training. That is an essential requirement for practitioners who are involved in making assessments and in the whole process. It is intrinsic to the operation of the Act. The feedback I have heard is aligned with what Dr Furst has said—that no divisions have arisen within the practitioners here, and that those who have chosen to do the training are indeed very valued and very much appreciated by the people who have accessed the scheme.

I will say two more things about the regulation. One is that in the report that has been handed down, the only negative feedback has been about delays. That has been identified as being due to a lack of education among health professionals. One of the recommendations of the report is that education really needs to increase so that people’s journey on VAD is not unnecessarily delayed and, perhaps, their wishes are not able to be granted.

The second thing is on conscientious objectors: 13.7% of applications for VAD in Western Australia from 2023 to 2024 were declined on the basis of conscientious objection. But in Western Australia, unlike some other Australian jurisdictions, if a practitioner declines to become involved in the process, they are required by law to give the patient an information sheet outlining options around voluntary assisted dying. That is actually mandated in the legislation.

I have probably said enough for now, so I will hand over to Chloe.

Dr Furst: I completely agree with Meredith that the training is fundamental. For most jurisdictions, it probably takes a full day. It is often an in-person event followed by an exam, which you have to pass. In South Australia, we had a whole lot of mandatory questions that you actually had to pass to be eligible, to make sure that you were upholding the legislation.

This is so different from anything else in medicine. In any other part of medicine that I practise, if I see a process that I think can be improved—if I see efficiencies that can be made or bits of the system that are not adding to patient care—I can choose to adapt the process as I see fit to give the patient the care that I want to give or that is compatible with what the patient wishes. That is so different from voluntary assisted dying, where, as Meredith said, it is so legislated, down to who can be a witness for various documents. As a doctor, the amount of documentation that is required for voluntary assisted dying is second to nothing. We just do not do that kind of documentation in any other areas of medicine. So it is quite different, and it really does require being quite precise around that documentation and making sure that you are meeting all the timeframes and guidelines. The training is hugely important in terms of the operational component.

There is also the training around end of life and conversations, and how you support the patient and the families. That is a lot harder to teach. That is, I guess, why people will fall into this, and why a large number of palliative care doctors will do it—because it is already second nature to them or they already have the relationship with the patient and they see these conversations as something they are good at and good at facilitating.

So there are two parts of that training that are really important, and then, as Meredith said, there is also the training we need to be giving to the rest of our workforce, and really all health practitioners. A patient might ask the social worker, the orderly or the dietician about assisted dying, and they have to know how they can respond and how they can connect that individual to the right practitioner. That is really important. We have done a lot of work in South Australia, as all the other jurisdictions have, around upskilling the whole workforce, because this is everyone’s role and job.

I also wanted to speak briefly on what we in South Australia call the gag clause. In South Australia and Victoria, we are not allowed to bring up voluntary assisted dying with patients, and that is really, really problematic. From my perspective, it leads to poor provision of care. In medicine, when I am talking to a patient, in every other area, if they needed treatment, I would be obliged, and it would be good practice, to tell them about all the treatment options that are available to them. If someone had cancer, I would want to be telling them about good palliative care, potentially surgery, and radiotherapy and chemotherapy, yet voluntary assisted dying is the one thing we are not allowed to talk about and is taken off the menu. Some people may not know that voluntary assisted dying is available to them. They might be waiting for me as the doctor to bring it up to them. I have brought up every other option for them; why am I not able to talk about voluntary assisted dying? I just think it is really important that we do not stigmatise voluntary assisted dying and that we see it as a valid option for people.

Professor Blake: To add to what Chloe said, in Western Australia practitioners can raise voluntary assisted dying as long as it is in association with other end-of-life choices, but the way the legislation is worded is confusing, so one of the recommendations in the most recent report is that that be removed altogether so that voluntary assisted dying is treated like any other treatment option. As Chloe indicated, the evidence was that treating voluntary assisted dying differently can compromise the whole end-of-life journey, because it interferes with discussion of other end-of-life options. The strong recommendation from the board is that it be removed altogether and that voluntary assisted dying be treated just like any other appropriate treatment option so that the patient has a true choice.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you.

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

Q286 Professor Owen, you have talked extensively about the complexity of the Bill. I think it fair to say that our previous witnesses this week believe that the simplest safeguards are the safest. I stress that the simplest does not necessarily mean the weakest; it means a straightforward plan. Do you agree with the points that the chief medical officer and others have made about simplicity? Where do you stand on that, and on the broader point about complexity?

Professor Owen: I am somewhat reminded of the old adage that for every complex problem there is a simple solution that is false. We are dealing with complexity here—I think we have to accept that—but complex law or poor law will not provide good safeguards. If you step back and think about what the Bill is really about, at its simplest, it is about the decisional right to end one’s own life in terminal illness.

Associated with that is the concept of mental capacity. I have had over 20 years of research interest in mental capacity. When I look at the issues relating to mental capacity with the Bill, they are complex, but the other important point to understand is that they are very novel. We are in uncharted territory with respect to mental capacity, which is very much at the hub of the Bill.

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

Q To elaborate on that point, Professor Owen, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 sets out the principles that a person must be assumed to have capacity, that a person cannot be treated as lacking capacity unless all practicable steps have been taken to support them and that a person cannot be treated as lacking capacity merely because their decision is unwise. Is it those issues that are causing you concern about capacity, or is it something else?

Professor Owen: It is a bit more fundamental than that, actually. If you look at how mental capacity features in the Bill, the test or the concept that clause 1 rightly invites us to consider—rightly, I think—is the capacity to decide to end one’s own life. The Mental Capacity Act comes in at clause 3.

I have looked at mental capacity a lot in research, and there is no experience of the decision to end one’s own life. It is outside the experience of the Mental Capacity Act, the Court of Protection, the associated research and practitioners on the ground. The reference to the Mental Capacity Act in clause 3 puts you into an area where there is no experience of the central capacity question under consideration. It is very important that Parliament be clear-eyed about that. I can talk about the Mental Capacity Act in detail if you like, but that is the main point that I want to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Q My question is for Claire Williams, about the drugs that are used in the various jurisdictions and how that interplays with your view on whether this law comes into place. What are your views on the drugs that would be put forward for assisted dying?

Claire Williams: I am not familiar per se with the types of drugs that will be used for assisted dying cases. In terms of my experience in research ethics, we make life and death decisions on a daily basis and decide whether we would offer patients the opportunity to take very experimental drugs. That is particularly difficult when dealing with terminally ill patients. What is so beneficial with using a committee-based model is that those decisions can be made collectively—decisions that are very similar and have real parallels in terms of ensuring that patients have fully consented, that they have capacity and that there is no coercion involved in recruiting them to clinical trial. That is how I see those parallels and how I feel assisted dying cases should be considered.

[Jack Abbott]

Q Professor Preston, you have extensive research into palliative and end-of-life care. It would be really helpful for the Committee if you could describe some of the underlying motivations about why people come to the decisions they do when choosing end-of-life care, and how you feel assisted dying would sit as an available option for those making those decisions, if it was available.

Professor Preston: The decision to go into palliative care is often made more by a clinical team, recommending that there be changes in the goals of care and what we are to aiming do. There are two big European studies looking at that at the moment, in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cancer. It is about trying to get triggers so that those changes in care can happen, because people cannot make decisions unless they are informed and they are aware.

Equally, when it comes to assisted dying, we have done interviews with bereaved families and healthcare workers in the United States, the Netherlands and Switzerland, and also with British families who access assisted dying through Dignitas. We hear from the family members that it is something they have really thought about for a long time. It might come to a crunch point where they know they are potentially going to lose capacity, they are potentially going to lose the abilities that are important to them—although for someone else, losing them may not be an issue.

That is when people start to seek help. They usually first seek help from one or two family members. There is often secrecy around that, because you do not want everyone talking about it. It is quite exhausting to talk about. It is a decision you have made. Then they seek help from healthcare professionals, and that is where they get a varied response depending on who they access. It is a bit of a lottery, because it only a minority of doctors will be willing to do this. That is where the challenge comes in.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Q Professor Preston, in your written submission, you effectively propose reversing the presumption of capacity that is set out in the Mental Capacity Act. Could you go into a little more detail about that and the reasons behind that proposal?

Professor Preston: The submission was with my colleague, Professor Suzanne Ost, who is a professor of law, and that very much came from Suzanne.

I think the aim is to have that bit of extra concern, so that we do not presume capacity, but instead almost presume that there is not capacity. It would be a bit like if you go to A&E with a child and they have a fracture. The presumption there is to ask, “How did this happen?” and “Do we need to rule anything out?”, rather than just assuming “Well, they have just fallen over” and that things are exactly as said. There is an element of that, where we are not presuming capacity, but are actually going into it and switching it around within the training to ask, “Do they have capacity?”. I think that would be a change within the Mental Capacity Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon]

Q We have had a lot of conversations and taken a lot of evidence over the last few days about a gag clause to prohibit medical professionals raising assisted dying as part of the options at end of life. We have heard from different states and jurisdictions on whether or not that is something that they had. Broadly speaking, the consensus was that it did not seem to work. Dr Mulholland or Dr Price, I wondered if you had any comment on that.

Dr Mulholland: That is something we have been thinking about carefully at the RCGP. Part of our normal discussion will often open it up for patients to lead discussions around their end of life. We see there could be potential restrictions for that clinical consultation with a gag order. We very much follow the opinion I heard from Dr Green from the British Medical Association earlier in the week. We go along with that.

We are very protective of our relationship as GPs, and want to give patients the options that they might want to choose for themselves. We are not usually pushing anyone to any decision, but supporting them through their end-of-life journey. We would want to protect that in whatever way, so we therefore feel that a service we can signpost to would be the most appropriate thing as the next step.

Dr Price: As a psychiatrist and as a representative of the psychiatric profession, it is noted in the Bill that mental disorder is a specific exclusion. It is very unlikely that a psychiatrist would suggest or bring up assisted dying in a conversation.

I think a concern allied to that is people with mental disorder who request assisted dying from their psychiatrist. It may be clear to all that they do not meet eligibility criteria for that, but it is not absolutely clear in the Bill, as it is written, to what extent a psychiatrist would have to comply with a wish for that person to progress to that first assessment. There is quite a lot involved in getting to that first official assessment, such as making a declaration and providing identification. A psychiatrist might therefore have to be involved to quite an extent in supporting that person to get there if that is their right and their wish, even though it may be clear to all that they do not meet eligibility criteria if that is the primary reason for their asking to end their life.

[Jack Abbott]

Q My question is also for you, Dr Price. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has been really clear in its statement that we as parliamentarians have to consider the outstanding questions about a person’s capacity to decide to end their own life, and whether it can be reliably assessed, and you particularly cite the implications for those with mental disorders, intellectual disabilities and neurodevelopmental conditions. Do you believe that anyone requesting assisted dying should be assessed automatically by a psychiatrist, or that certain criteria should have to be met for a psychiatric assessment to be undertaken?

Dr Price: If I take you to thinking about what an assessment of capacity would normally look like, if we think about clinical practice, a psychiatrist would normally get involved in an assessment of capacity if the decision maker was unclear about whether that person could make a decision. The psychiatrist’s role in that capacity assessment would be to look for the presence of mental disorder, and at whether mental disorder was likely to be impacting on that person’s decision making. They would advise the decision maker, and the decision maker would then have the clinical role of thinking about that information and assessing capacity with that in mind.

Psychiatrists sometimes assess capacity and make the determination, but it is usually about psychiatric intervention and issues that are within their area of clinical expertise, such as care and treatment, capacity assessment around the Mental Health Act 1983 and whether somebody is able to consent to their treatment. In the Bill, I am not absolutely clear whether the psychiatrist is considered to be a primary decision maker on whether somebody should be eligible based on capacity, or whether their role is to advise the decision maker, who would be the primary doctor or one of two doctors.

Should a psychiatrist be involved in every case? If there is a view that psychiatric disorders should be assessed for, and ideally diagnosed or ruled out, in every case, a psychiatrist might have a role. If they are seen as an expert support to the primary decision maker, that decision maker would need to decide whether a psychiatrist was needed in every case. We know from Oregon over the years that psychiatrists were involved very frequently at the beginning of the process, and now they are involved by request in around 3% of completed assisted dying cases. We do not have data on what the involvement is across all requests.

[Dr Opher]

Q Conveniently, my question follows on from that. On our first day of evidence, we had Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, saying that when you are assessing capacity, the vast majority either clearly have capacity or clearly do not, and there is a small section in the middle. Michael, would you say that a role of a GP would be to inform those definite yeses and definite noes, and then they would perhaps not have the skills for the intermediate ones? I am just suggesting that.

Dr Mulholland: As GPs, we can assess capacity. In this situation, the college’s position would be that we feel the GP should not be part of the assisted dying service, so we would see a standalone service that we can signpost our patients to. The GP role may go on to a different route afterwards, and it may be part of other things with palliative care and looking after the families. We think that some GPs may want to be involved and take that step, but we know from our membership surveys that we have had at least 40% of members in the past who would absolutely not want to have any part in that.

Similar to other services, such as termination of pregnancy, we think that the best option would probably be that the GP could signpost to an information service, such as something like what the BMA suggested the other day. They would not have to do anything more than that, and they would not withhold any option from the patient. We could discuss that these things exist, but we would not be doing that capacity assessment. Obviously, to give patients information about what they are going to, as you know, we would assess their capacity to take that information in, retain it and do the right thing with it for them. We would be doing that level of capacity assessment, but not further on in the process, where you are assessing whether a patient is able to make a final decision. I think Chris Whitty referred to the various levels of capacity. As the decision gets more difficult and complex, you want a greater understanding with the patient that they really know the implications of what is going on, and we just would not be doing that in general practice.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point—the Committee can see that I was an orthopaedic surgeon, not an endocrinologist. It is not necessarily a progressive condition; it is a condition that can be managed and maintained. It does not fall within the wording of the Bill. We are not talking about a condition that is inevitably progressive, and for which there is no treatment option available to pause, reverse or prevent its progression. We are talking about a relatively limited group of conditions that will inevitably lead to death when someone, for want of a less blunt phrase, has reached the end of the road in terms of their therapeutic treatment options.

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

rose—

[Sarah Olney]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

I am grateful to the hon. Member; he has given way a number of times, and I am sure he wants to make some progress. To return to the scope of the debate—I am sure you will be delighted to hear that, Ms McVey—part of the rationale cited for making this change from “capacity” to “ability” is depression, and given what we are talking about, there is a very real possibility that someone will become depressed after diagnosis. In the hon. Member’s experience, are patients with a clinical diagnosis of depression currently deemed capable under the Mental Capacity Act of making potentially life-changing decisions about treatment or whatever it might be? Are there any scenarios in which he would offer or remove certain treatment because of their depressed state? What I am getting at is that there are a huge number of scales and considerations to factor in with depression, but does the Act allow us to look at those when it comes to depression?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis]

I thank the Member in charge for her comments. That is the conversation we had when she invited me to join the Committee, and we will continue to have conversations as amendments come forward.

My concern is about some aspects of the Mental Capacity Act, which was not written for these scenarios, and the hon. Member for Richmond Park talked in particular about the statutory principles in it. I am not an expert on these issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud behind me is more of an expert on some of them. However, there is no obligation in the code of practice under the Act to consult carers involved in a person’s life. The code says:

“if it is practical and appropriate to do so, consult other people for their views about the person’s best interests”.

Therefore, given the way the Act and the code of practice are worded, there is no obligation in the scenarios I am discussing.

There is another issue I was going to raise before I took that intervention. Mencap does considerable hard work. At my local branch, there are many people whose parents are in their 70s and 80s and have cared for their child all their life. I am not being rude, but their child, who is in their 40s or 50s, does feel like a burden to their parents. They know the obligation their parents have to care for them for their whole life. I ask Members to consider what the Mental Capacity Act says: those adults are at a level of capacity to make decisions, but they have been supported in those decisions all their lives and do not—

[Jack Abbott]

We have spoken a lot today about further safeguards and provisions, beyond the Mental Capacity Act. However, I note that my hon. Friend has tabled amendment 339, which states that if a

“person has a learning disability or is autistic”

they

“must be provided with accessible information and given sufficient time to consider it”

and that, additionally, there must be a “supporter” or “advocate” with them. If that amendment was passed, would that satisfy some of my hon. Friend’s concerns about the Act?

[Daniel Francis]

I am hearing that that amendment will need some rewording, but it would address some of my concerns. I am working with Mencap, and further amendments will be tabled to later clauses of the Bill. I understand that one of our colleagues has also tabled amendments, which I welcome. However, I would still have concerns about the interpretation—and there are different interpretations—of the current code of practice when it comes to the involvement of carers and loved ones. Those concerns brought me to the place I came to on Second Reading. I did not seek to be the person standing here; indeed, a year ago, not only did I not believe that I would be a Member of Parliament, but I did not believe that I would be on this side of this argument. It is this particular point that has driven me to this position.

I will talk a little about evidence. The Law Society has a neutral position on the Bill, but it has said that, before the provisions become law, a comprehensive consultation should be undertaken to allow resident experts to share views on the appropriate definition of capacity for the purposes of the Bill. That is the position of the Law Society.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

I will be quick, Mr Efford. I appreciate that we have been exhaustively over the detail of the amendments. I deeply regret that none of the amendments that were tabled to introduce stronger safeguards has been accepted. I want to take this opportunity to explain briefly what the Committee has done by rejecting those amendments and what we will be doing by agreeing to the clause without the amendments. I will not seek to divide the Committee on the clause, because I recognise that it enables the whole Bill to proceed, as the House wished on Second Reading, so I recognise that the principle of the Bill is represented in the clause. We wanted to tighten it, but have failed to do so.

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

I say gently to the hon. Member that—particularly on the previous clause—I have been very sympathetic to several of the amendments. Candidly, however, with due respect to all the hon. Members across the House who submitted this, I do not think that they have been particularly well written. I think that they leave quite a lot of ambiguity in a lot of areas. We had a discussion in the week before the recess, on a number of areas, about the word “only”. I heard it suggested earlier that the principle is about the spirit in which things are taken.

The reality is that I am very sympathetic to a lot of what is proposed, but a number of the amendments leave quite a lot of open ends. That has been a particular issue. I have been very open and have said that in principle I am supportive of assisted dying, but that I could not support it because the Bill was not strong enough in its current state. I do not think that the amendments tabled so far will strengthen the Bill; in fact, they might leave a lot of open ends, despite the very good intentions behind a lot of them.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining why, having opposed the Bill on Second Reading, he now seems to be supporting it. I wish I had heard, during our debates in the past two weeks, his specific objections to the amendments. If he felt, as he says, that the Bill is not strong enough, we would have welcomed his own amendments to strengthen the Bill in a form of words that he would find adequate. Perhaps that is what we will hear from him.

[Jack Abbott]

I did articulate a number of times where I felt that some of the amendments were not tight enough in those areas.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman has been on his feet; I appreciate that and am very grateful for his contribution to the debates that we have had.

I simply want to make the point that what the House voted for on Second Reading was the principle of assisted dying. What many members of the public who support the Bill think they are getting is a Bill that is safe—a Bill that is restricted explicitly to people at the very end of their life, who face extreme pain and suffering as they die; who are fully informed of what they are doing; who face no questions of external or indeed internal coercion; who have the absolute ability to understand what they are doing. Those are the things that people want to see in the Bill; those are the things that we have sought to effect through the amendments that we have tabled, and which the Committee has rejected.

Very explicitly, as a result of the rejection of these, I believe, very plainly written amendments, the fact is that under this Bill you can be depressed and suicidal and still regarded as having capacity to have an assisted death. You can be very marginalised—you can be a prisoner, you can be homeless—and still be regarded as eligible. You can have been influenced or encouraged by others and still be eligible. You can do it because you feel a burden. You do not need to be in any kind of pain. You do not need to be in the tiny proportion of cases that palliative care cannot help. As the hon. Member for Spen Valley accepted in the previous sitting, you can seek an assisted death for the sole reason of saving your family money, and you would be granted an assisted death on those grounds. The fact is that in rejecting these amendments, the Committee has decided and has demonstrated that the Bill is much wider than the campaigners portray.

I want to end with this point. I think there are two ways of approaching assisted dying—two essential framings of a Bill to legalise it. One is an autonomy Bill, which simply says that if people seek help to commit suicide, within certain broad parameters they should be able to do so, and there is no question of other people interfering with that choice; if they sign the requisite paperwork, they should be able to have an assisted death. The alternative is what we might call a safeguarding Bill—one where eligibility for the procedure is strictly limited and there are very strong, robust safeguards in place to protect the most vulnerable people.

The hon. Lady, and Members speaking in support of the Bill, have repeatedly emphasised that this is a safeguarding Bill. They want this Bill to be built around safeguards for the vulnerable. They respect the arguments that we make about the dangers that an open-ended assisted dying Bill would create. But the fact is that, as we have seen in the course of the debates on this clause, this is not a safeguarding Bill; it is an autonomy Bill. It is one that allows people to proceed to an assisted death because they want one, if they meet certain very loosely drawn criteria.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

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

Most of the discussion on amendment 181 has centred on the word “only”. Just to get clarification on this point, would someone with an eating disorder who was later diagnosed with a terminal illness still be able to access an assisted death, if that were required under the amendment?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My answer to that question is yes. My understanding is that so long as the terminally ill, six-month criteria are met, that person would qualify for assistance under the Bill.

[Jack Abbott]

Just to be absolutely clear for everyone in the room, and in case I was not specific enough, if that terminal illness is a result of the eating disorder, rather than, say, of that person also being diagnosed with a terminal illness such as cancer, would they be covered under amendment 181?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My understanding is that amendment 181 is clear that the qualification for accessing assisted dying has to be based on the definitions in the main body of the Bill. If passed by the Committee, the amendment will make it clear that an eating disorder does not qualify for access to that service. There has to be another, clear definition that does qualify under the terms set out in the main body of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, for making it clear that they would not vote for the amendment. I also thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for bringing forward an amendment that discusses those issues. However, whether it is withdrawn or not, it is an amendment that we are debating and talking to.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who tabled the amendment, no doubt feels very strongly that the conditions of patients with neurodegenerative diseases make a case for relaxing the six-month prognosis to 12. There may well be a good case for doing so, but we can only consider the case for extending the prognosis to 12 months because of the challenges created by neurodegenerative diseases if we have first considered that extremely complex subject.

We cannot say that the Committee has studied the difficult subject of neurodegenerative diseases and how they would affect the administration of the Bill. We have not heard from witnesses on the subject, and we have not been able to ask them questions. We did solicit evidence on whether neurodegenerative diseases would affect the ability to self-administer lethal drugs, but we have not had time to study the written evidence.

I appreciate that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is not going to press the amendment to a Division, which leaves some of what I wrote earlier obsolete. I appreciate the hon. Member’s efforts. We are sent here by our constituents to represent them to the best of our ability. I certainly try to do that, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley always tries to do that—I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and all others are trying to do that. We vow to represent our constituents, and had the amendment gone to a Division I would not have been able to support it, simply because we cannot make those difficult decisions without being properly informed. We cannot make up our minds to change the Bill because of a complex set of diseases.

[Jack Abbott]

Just as a point of clarification, I remember asking one of the witnesses at our oral evidence sessions about this very issue—Sir Nicholas Mostyn, an esteemed judge who has written and spoken about the issue extensively. We asked his views about neurodegenerative diseases and extending the time to 12 months, so it was something that we were aware of and discussed as a Committee. In fairness to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, it has not come completely out of the blue.

[Naz Shah]

I agree that we did hear that, but we did not hear from experts in the Bill, and at that point it was not discussed. While I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s point that we did speak to Sir Nicholas Mostyn, we did not have further evidence, and this measure was not in the Bill when we took evidence from those witnesses.

--- 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.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

We will not press amendment 49 to a vote, but I support the principle. Let us be clear what we are doing here: allowing people with learning disabilities to make unwise decisions and assuming capacity in all cases. Let us be honest about what we are doing if we proceed with clause 3 unamended.

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

Upcoming amendment 339 to clause 4 addresses that specific point. The hon. Gentleman has been asked this a number of times today, but would he be satisfied if that amendment was passed?

[Danny Kruger]

Sorry—remind me of the detail of the amendment.

[Jack Abbott]

Essentially, the amendment would require that if a person is autistic or has a learning disability, they must be given accessible information and sufficient time to consider it. Additionally, there must be at least either a supporter or an independent advocate there. That amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and will be discussed later.

[Danny Kruger]

I would indeed support that amendment; it would go a long way to addressing the concerns that we have here. When we discuss clause 4, I will come on to some suggestions for how we can make sure that people with learning disabilities are properly supported, particularly people with Down’s syndrome.

To finish, I will speak to amendment 50, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. If we are going to proceed with the MCA, we need to have it on the face of the Bill, to ensure standardisation —hon. Members have confidently asserted that it happens anyway, although the evidence we have been presented with demonstrates that it does not in all cases. Let us be much more explicit about the requirements that are needed. We should specify the minimum of what needs to be understood for capacity, including understanding the likely process of all treatment options, including non-treatment, and prognostic uncertainty. It is not acceptable, in my view, to have all of that worked out later by clinicians. Parliament must clearly say at this stage what is important.

While Members are looking at the quite extensive terms of amendment 50, it would be good to know what in that list they would object to and why any of it should not be included. It does not change the Mental Capacity Act; it preserves the integrity of the Act. It simply specifies more precisely and gives clear guidance to doctors to ensure that they do the best job they can. Lastly, it states that the patient must have full understanding of the consequences of

“requesting assistance in ending their own life”.

That includes the potential for medical complications at the end. That is a point that has been touched on a little in debate, but I will quickly say a word on that.

It is very important, in my view, that we are clear about what the patient should do, what the doctor should do, what the patient is entitled to do and what the doctor will do, in the event of complications at the end. This is not an abstract question. The Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland gave evidence to us, stating:

“It is important to highlight the lack of scientific evidence for the effectiveness, failure rates or complications of any ‘approved substance’”,

and pointing out that the proposals in the Bill fall quite short of

“the usual practice of approving treatments in the UK, which mandates careful assessment of drugs and their combinations.”

We do not know how that will be applied in this case. It is a point for later in the Bill how we consider which drugs should be used, but it is relevant at this stage to insist that patients are made fully aware of the drugs that will be used and their potential complications. We often refer to Oregon as an inspiration for the Bill, and the law in Oregon requires the applicant to be fully informed by the attending physician of the

“potential risks associated with taking the medication to be prescribed”.

It might be worth considering that.

Professor House, in evidence to us, pointed out that informed consent—which is obviously a principle of the Bill—

“is not really specified properly. The doctor is required to ask the person what they want to happen in the event of complications without having previously explained to them what all the complications might be.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 169, Q216.]

So I think it is important that we specify that those complications are explained to them clearly at the outset.

This is not an abstract point. Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying—my least favourite organisation—wrote in her book “Last Rights”:

“We have to move away from idealised, sanitised, nursery-rhyme accounts of what death can be…towards truthful, no bullshit, plain-spoken explanations of what could happen.”

I do not think Dignity in Dying applied that test when putting those disgraceful adverts in the tube, showing people dancing round their kitchens anticipating their lovely death, but she is right that we need to be very clear about what actual death can be like with these drugs.

I want to end with a reference to the work of Dr Joel Zivot, an American academic. The only proper study that can be done into people who have been given lethal drugs to die, using any of the drugs that will be used in this case, is of people who have been executed in the United States. Of course it is not possible to do many studies into the after-effects on people who have had an assisted death, but there have been some studies of people on death row. Dr Zivot’s point is that there is real evidence of what looked like trauma, distress and pain suffered by people as they died. Even if they themselves look peaceful—because often the first drug that is administered is a paralytic, so they are rendered immobile, and they may look very peaceful—it is evident that in some cases there is real distress going on beneath that peaceful exterior. We need to do a lot more work on understanding which drugs would be used and what their effects would be, and that needs to be properly explained to patients. All of that would be captured in amendment 50.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kim Leadbeater]

I rise to speak first to my amendments 185 and 186, which would make important changes to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations about the training, qualifications and experience required to act as the co-ordinating doctor, as the Minister says. Moving from “may” to “must” would make it a legal requirement that such training take place and would thereby strengthen the Bill. In its present form, the Bill gives the Secretary of State that power to make such regulations but does not legally require him or her to do so.

Amendment 186 would ensure that regulations must include training about

“(a) assessing capacity;

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

Colleagues will appreciate that it is difficult for me to resist the temptation to put the entire training manual in the Bill—we all want to show the thorough approach that has been taken—but doing so would not make for good, clear legislation and can be limited in terms of flexibility and future-proofing. However, given the importance of the matters of capacity and coercion, I felt that it was important that this level of detail be specified in the Bill, because those issues have been at the heart of so many of our deliberations on this hugely sensitive and important issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, who tabled amendment (a) to my amendment 186, has made a compelling argument, as always. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, I have some concerns that the amendment would limit the number of disabled people who are covered and that it would not cover people with mental disorders, but I understand the concerns around autistic people and those with learning disabilities.

I am also mindful, given that people with Down’s syndrome will typically have some form of learning disability, that amendment (a) may help to address some of the concerns that were expressed yesterday about ensuring that the Bill meets their needs and takes them into consideration. I take on board the Minister’s comments about the Health and Care Act 2022, but I am minded to support the amendment and work with my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and others as necessary to make any further changes as the Bill progresses.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting that amendment. We have often debated the level of detail that should be set out in the Bill. I fully appreciate that she does not want to include the whole training manual; I will not discuss my amendment, which concerns culture and trauma-informed care, because I recognise that it is much too detailed in that respect. However, does she agree that where possible, and where it does not create unintended consequences or loopholes, we should reassure not just colleagues across the House but members of the public, who want to see these sorts of thing on the face of the Bill?

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Bill passes, it will be a huge change. We have a duty to the public to show that we are including sufficient detail in the Bill and to provide reassurance in any way we can. To be honest, I would quite like to put the entire training manual in the Bill, but I appreciate that from a legislative perspective that is not possible. However, there are occasions when, for the avoidance of doubt, we should make certain provisions clear on the face of the Bill.

That brings me to amendment 20, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, who has a huge amount of experience and expertise in the field to which it relates. Her amendment states:

“Regulations under subsection (3)(a) must specify that training in respect of domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse is mandatory.”

At the moment, there are no safeguards for terminally ill victims of domestic abuse, financial abuse or coercive control. That concerns me, and it feeds into the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West.

If a victim of domestic abuse or coercive control—it is often a woman, as we know—is also terminally ill, I can only imagine what a lonely place that is. At the moment, that person is under no supervision. Sadly, there have been instances in which those people have taken their own life. They will continue to be the victims of their incredibly difficult personal circumstances on top of having a terminal illness, which is an absolute tragedy. Opening up the conversation with doctors and healthcare professionals about their circumstances has to be a good thing. It will shed light and transparency on what must be an incredibly difficult situation.

--- Later in debate ---

On amendment 427, I think we covered the relevant points yesterday. As I have said, I am very open to continuing the conversations to ensure that the Welsh language is fully respected in the Bill.

[Jack Abbott]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said that if amendment (a) and amendment 186 are agreed to, that will negate the need for amendment 340. I seek clarity on whether that is the case.

[The Chair]

It is not for me to make that decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

For clarity, at what point in the conversation does the hon. Member expect the question to be raised? In reference to an assessing doctor, do I take it that the question must be asked twice, at different times, by both the co-ordinating and the independent doctor?

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for his very good questions. I suggest that it be asked twice, because it makes a lot of sense to ensure that the patient is given the chance to really explain what is driving their decision. It is the simplest of questions, but it is amazing what can sometimes come out of the simplest question.

I return to the safeguard against coercion. In a sense, this is not a new safeguard; rather, it confirms and bolsters the other safeguards in the Bill, which are there to explore the reasons for assisted dying. Asking why will help doctors to better understand what is driving a patient’s decision and to give that patient an opportunity to validate that they are truly eligible. It is the simplest of questions, driving the most significant conversation that a doctor and patient can have. I hope that hon. Members will support my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I agree. Sometimes it will be the simple thing of asking the question as a human being—among all the conversations that are happening, just stopping and asking why.

[Jack Abbott]

I appreciate that my hon. Friend has given way a number of times, but I gently suggest that we already know the crux of the Bill and what we are debating. The “why” is that people with a terminal diagnosis, with six months to live, would like a course of action to end their lives in a pain-free way and to have the autonomy to do so.

We are in danger of over-legislating for a range of different permutations that could potentially happen in conversations. I agree that these kinds of questions are absolutely crucial, but it may satisfy my hon. Friend that amendment 21, to which we agreed a few moments ago, requires medical practitioners to take training on

“domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse”.

That sort of protection and safeguard has already been agreed to.

We will rely on highly specialised individuals to pick up on these issues. They may want to explore, through further questioning, why people are making these decisions but we cannot legislate for all the different sorts of conversations, and all the emotions that may be going through people’s minds. If someone comes back and says, as my hon. Friend put it, “Well, it’s none of your business,” or whatever the answer may be, we will rely on the specialised professionals to pick up on danger signs. However, that would not necessarily lead them in every single conversation to have a suspicion of the patient’s motives. Life and conversation do not work like that and we cannot legislate in that way.

[Naz Shah]

I absolutely agree that life does not work like that. Life is very complicated and that is why I want the conversation to happen. My hon. Friend referred to amendment 21, which we have just agreed to. I spoke extensively about why that is a brilliant amendment that moves us towards much more safeguarding, but I also think that it does not go far enough for women, marginalised communities and people from ethnic minority backgrounds. I genuinely do not feel that amendment 468 is about over-legislating. It is just stating an obvious fact: sometimes, even in normal life, we go around the houses to get to a conversation and get to the right point. That is what I want to get to.

[Jack Abbott]

To follow up on the example my hon. Friend gave earlier, if—to be glib—someone said, “None of your business”, she would want the doctor to keep probing. At what point does that end? If someone genuinely does not want to have that conversation and says, “I want to end my life because I have a terminal diagnosis. I live in fear of the pain that could await me and I don’t really want to go into much detail,” where does that end? Where does that conversation continue to?

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend makes my case for me. If that person says, “It’s none of your business, but I have so much pain,” at that point, automatically, as we naturally do as human beings—

[Jack Abbott]

But this is a pure example.

[Naz Shah]

That example is a good example that strengthens my position.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Francis]

I hear what the hon. Member says. My concern has always been the scenario that I described. If this legislation is passed and we push it forward, one death that occurs where somebody has concerns about the process would be one too many. I said that clearly when we debated clause 3, and that remains my principal concern. It is not necessarily about two sides, but in cases where there are concerns, we need to do everything we can to ensure that that does not happen.

I have a query about the resourcing of the panel. Part of the reason why we ended up here was the queries about the resourcing of the judicial role in the process. We would need to find skilled professionals, especially consultant psychiatrists and social workers, to sit on the panel. If we look at the per capita rates in the Australian and American states that have assisted dying, we can estimate that the number of cases of assisted dying each year in England and Wales would be in the low thousands. Any consultant psychiatrist or senior social worker who sits on these panels will have to spend hours on each case. We do not yet know how many hours it would be on average, but for complicated cases, it could be many hours. What analysis has been undertaken of the capacity of consultant psychiatrists and senior social workers? Their professional bodies are beginning to look at that, but again, we were not able to ask them that during oral evidence, and because the written evidence was submitted so heavily in advance of these amendments and new clauses being tabled, we do not have that information in front of us.

We hear about the resourcing of our NHS mental health services and the fact that we do not have enough psychiatrists, so I query whether we have enough senior social workers. A senior social worker visits my house every year, but I have never seen the same social worker twice, because of the turnover issues, capacity issues and the lack of staff.

What will the Government do to ensure that the panels fulfil their responsibilities? We would be dealing with applicants who have very little time left, and being able to properly staff the panels must be a priority. We must not take psychiatrists and social workers away from their other work, while ensuring that people seeking an assisted death do not wait a long time. That is another matter on which we would have benefited from oral evidence from expert witnesses. We would also have benefited from the normal consultation that there would have been on a Government Bill, because we would have been looking at that matter for several months.

In summary, I accept that this set of new clauses and amendments is an effort to fix problems with the Bill, but problems remain, and there are probably some new ones as well. I will therefore not support a number of the provisions.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to several new clauses and to amendment (e) to new clause 21.

There were many comments yesterday about the fact that a number of Members across the House had cited the judicial stage as an important reason why they supported the Bill. I challenge the notion that they voted for it exclusively for that reason, but I recognise the strength of feeling. To be frank, I was not one of them. I was not persuaded, not least because of a number of points made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley, that the judicial stage would be anything other than a rubber-stamping exercise. I am certainly not going to go into “good judge, bad judge”. I hugely respect the legal profession, of which there are many representatives present.

The legal profession has a huge range of expertise and experience, but it could not be expected to cover in depth the psychiatric and social care aspects of the process, about which we have being raising concerns for weeks. For that reason, and especially given that we are retaining legal experience on the panel alongside social workers and psychiatrists—a triple-threat approach, as it were—I fail to see how anyone could reasonably argue that this approach is weaker. In my eyes, it is much stronger.

Of course, some people will always say that it does not go far enough; we have heard that several times. As has been acknowledged, we will never convince everybody that an amendment is safe or good enough. An uncomfortable truth that is rarely recognised but is worth mentioning—I am sure that I will shortly be misrepresented on social media for saying it—is that no safeguard that we could put in any Bill, on any subject, will 100% ensure that there will never be any mistakes.

We have to do our level best to ensure that the probability is reduced to an absolute minimum. However, when someone goes into surgery, there may always be complications that cannot be foreseen, and we know that there have been awful miscarriages of justice; as a new Government, we have spoken about them, from the Post Office scandal to infected blood. We also have to rely on the fact that we are entrusting experienced, trained professionals with carrying out this work. Not only more often than not, but in nearly every situation, bar the awful cases of which we are all aware, they do their work to the best of their ability, and we have to be absolutely honest about that.

We should not look at the new clauses in isolation. They are part of a package. A number of amendments have been agreed to, about coercion and about ensuring that medical professionals are trained to the right standard. Like my hon. Friend, I hope we will see further amendments on special educational needs and learning disabilities. Those things are really important, so it is worth recognising that in addition to the new clauses, which in my view ensure a much stronger approach to the final judgment, we have agreed to a number of other amendments.

I want to pick up the issue of whether the process should be adversarial or inquisitive. I am sure that hon. Friends who have served at the Bar will tell me if I am wrong, but in my view an adversarial process is one of competition: it pits someone trying to prosecute an argument against someone trying to defend it. In contrast, an inquisitive approach is about asserting the truth. In my view, people who are not only going through agonising pain but making agonising decisions about what to do with the remaining days of their life should not be on trial. We should approach them from a position not of suspicion, but of support. Of course, that is caveated by all the things we have talked about, particularly on things like coercion. If there is any idea that a person has been coerced into the decision, of course we should investigate that, but the process should not be adversarial.

The connecting element is that we should ensure that we get the balance right between safeguards and safety. We should not add so many barriers and layers that a person can never access the process because it is too cumbersome. I do not want people to spend the remaining days of their life sitting in endless meetings, consultations and an adversarial court process, or whatever it might be. But we absolutely have to have all the right safeguards: as we have said, if there is any suspicion that someone may have been coerced or does not have mental capacity, of course we should go down the relevant routes to ensure that that is not the case.

Part of the reason why people will make the decision is that they want the autonomy to go out on their own terms, plan their remaining months and enjoy experiences with their family. We must ensure that those precious days are spent with their family, not in endless meeting rooms, so we absolutely have to get the balance right. As has been acknowledged, the diagnosis is a really important part of it. We regularly talk about the six-month point in the diagnosis, but we know when many people receive their diagnosis, their final days will be much shorter, so in the main people do not have time to go through a lengthy, difficult process.

[Danny Kruger]

Is the hon. Gentleman not making a case against a third stage altogether?

[Jack Abbott]

No.

[Danny Kruger]

I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could explain that. If his concern is about asking patients to go through a third stage, after the doctor’s assessment—

[Jack Abbott]

indicated dissent.

[Danny Kruger]

In that case, what is the difference? It is not necessarily the case that the judicial stage has to be incredibly time-consuming, onerous or distressing for the patient. It is about the legitimacy of the process and the rigour that is applied to it. If the hon. Gentleman wants people to be sped through the process without going through the distress of further explanations, surely he should be objecting to the panel too.

[Jack Abbott]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, but he is entirely misrepresenting my position. I have said that there should be a balance between safeguarding and ensuring that the process works for people. I have just spoken in support of the panel stage, and I think it is important that it is robust. We are including social care workers and psychiatrists alongside legal professionals. I have not for a moment used any language that suggests that I am not in favour of that. I am talking about the idea that it does not go far enough. We have spoken a number of times about adding additional layers beyond the processes that are already in the Bill, which we are debating today.

[Danny Kruger]

I was not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman opposed the panel. I recognise that he is speaking in support of it. My concern was that he was suggesting that there was a problem with the High Court stage. I now appreciate that he is objecting to some sort of fourth stage that some people might be suggesting on top of the panel. I personally am not proposing that; I think that there should be a multidisciplinary team as part of the assessment process and then a judicial stage, as originally planned.

[Jack Abbott]

In case I was not clear enough about my misgivings about the judicial stage, I will set them out again. In my view, the people making a High Court judgment probably do not have the breadth of knowledge and experience to pick up a number of the things that we have debated over the past few weeks. One cannot expect legal professionals also to be experts in palliative care, psychiatry or whatever it might be. I was saying that I had misgivings for that reason and that the approach that the panel is taking is more broadly in line with some of the Committee’s misgivings. It is an enormous improvement. I was not saying that we should remove that stage, dilute it or anything else. In fact, I am saying that it is much more robust and that it puts in the right safeguards, while getting the balance between safety and a recognition that people do not want to spend the last days of their life in perpetual meetings.

We have spoken about coercion a number of times. It is an incredibly powerful and important argument. I am sure my comments will be misrepresented, but we have to be clear that in some abusive relationships—which are pernicious, evil and subtle, as an hon. Member has mentioned on a number of occasions—someone might encourage their partner, or whoever it might be, not to go through with assisted dying so as to extend their days in pain and agony. We have to recognise that abuse takes many forms and is endemic in our wider society. That goes back to my point about why it is important to have a wider range of expertise on the panel. It is crucial to have psychiatrists and experts in fields beyond law. It is important to look at new clause 21 not in isolation, but in parallel with other amendments that we have agreed to, such as amendment 21, which specifically refers to coercion, training and so on. It is incredibly important to look at it in the main.

Finally, I will talk broadly about the questions of capacity and burden. We have spoken about not being able to police discussions. I would not necessarily go that far; I recognise that the relationship between the assessing doctors and the patient in the immediate term should approach this in the right way. However, these conversations take many forms and can be articulated in many ways, beyond what we can legislate for.

We have talked about the question of burden. If I, as someone who has just received a terminal diagnosis, have said, “I don’t want to spend my remaining days in absolute agony and fear, and I don’t want my family to go through that either,” that should not preclude my going through the decision-making process. However, I appreciate the nuance and the difference between that and someone saying or hinting that the decision has been taken out of their hands.

Another reason could be depression. I am sorry to put this incredibly glibly, but if I got a terminal diagnosis, I would feel pretty depressed about it; I might also be clinically diagnosed as depressed. Some previous amendments were about whether my past medical history—let us say that I had suffered from depression a number of times in my life—should preclude me from going through with the process.

The argument about family and friends saying, “Actually, Jack has suffered from depression at two or three moments in his life—maybe he should not access this,” although I think I am making the right decision, is powerful. To a degree, we have to rely all the time on a doctor, psychiatrist or anyone else to use their good professional judgment as to whether a person’s depression or otherwise is impairing their fundamental judgment on going down this route. I do not think that we can ever legislate 100% for that. We have to trust and rely on good practice, while giving people the training, skills and safeguards that we need to go down this route.

There is particular interest in the role of the commissioner. It is fairly regular procedure to have individuals being ultimately held to account in their various guises across the board. If there were not that single point of reference, people would be equally upset that no one could ultimately be held accountable for the wider system. It would be the same if the High Court system were retained; people would quite rightly ask who is actually overseeing the process. As well as the commissioner, with safeguards, the people ultimately responsible would be the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care or the appropriate authorities.

One question that perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley can answer is what the role is for the commissioner in Wales. Would there be separate commissioners for England and for Wales, or would the Secretary of State appoint one commissioner for both jurisdictions?

Amendment (e) to new clause 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove), is on a similar theme to my amendments 414 and 415; I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and the rest of the Committee for supporting them in order to ensure that there is an informed consent procedure in the Bill. The amendment seeks to ensure equity for everyone who otherwise meets the eligibility criteria and who wishes to request assistance as set out in the Bill.

The Bill makes provision that the eligibility panel

“may hear from and question, in person, the person who made the application for the declaration.”

It clarifies that

“‘in person’ includes by means of a live video link or a live audio link.’

That is sensible because, for a number of people, travelling to a specific venue simply would not be possible, owing to their medical condition. However, the challenge around equity arises because several terminal illnesses also mean that people face significant, prolonged and unplanned pain episodes. It may make appearing before a panel via a live link at a specific, booked time slot all but impossible for some people. It would unduly and unfairly delay or at least make more difficult their wish to request consideration for assistance while they are in pain. Further panel appointments may not be straightforward to arrange, because of the number of people who would need to attend. A similar pain episode may happen again. Pain is not plannable, as we all know.

I am sure that none of us in this room thinks that the unintended consequence of excluding people who suffer from such pain episodes is in keeping with the intention of the Bill. This simple but important amendment would ensure that there is provision, where necessary, for otherwise eligible adults to pre-record their answers to the questions set by the panel in advance.

[Kit Malthouse]

The amendment is very sensible, not least because there are some conditions in which people experience a very significant decline at the end. In a matter of days, they may lose the ability to speak, while retaining capacity, so the ability for people in a small number of cases to give pre-recorded answers is incredibly sensible.

[Jack Abbott]

I agree wholeheartedly. It is important to emphasise that this provision will apply only in a relatively small number of cases, but it is a very important one. It would be subject to clear guidance developed following the passage of the Bill, as with the schedules and other related items, and would be subject to the same safeguards as the live link provisions already included in the Bill. Essentially, it would provide equity of access to request assistance for all otherwise eligible adults, no matter the pain or any other specifics of their terminal condition. Nobody should have to wait longer because of the pain that they are in.

My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke has tabled the amendment based on her experience. A close family member of hers, who has a terminal illness, has been experiencing pain episodes that would make it impossible to plan to join a meeting with a panel at a specific time slot via a live link. To require her to do so would only increase stress and distress at what is already an incredibly difficult time for her and her family. If the Bill becomes law, it would not be right to exclude anyone eligible from being able to request assistance as a result to the impact of the terminal illness itself. I encourage Committee members to join me in supporting the amendment.

I appreciate that bandwidth has come up several times. I admit candidly that it was a small factor in my thinking when I voted on Second Reading. By “bandwidth”, I mean the bandwidth of the professionals we are asking to do this work. By and large, I think we have done very well to keep politics out of this room, which is extraordinary, given the length of time that we have spent in here. However, there were a couple of moments of candour from Opposition Members on the Committee when they expressed concerns about whether the NHS has the capacity—

[The Chair]

Order.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

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

Amendment 371, in clause 13, page 9, line 5, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

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

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

Amendment 61, in clause 13, page 9, line 5, leave out from “the” to “has” and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.

This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.

Amendment 372, in clause 13, page 9, line 12, leave out from third “the” to end of line 13 and insert

“certificate of eligibility was granted,”.

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

Amendment 62, in clause 13, page 9, line 13, leave out from “the” to “or” in line 14 and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.

This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.

Amendment 373, in clause 13, page 9, line 17, leave out “declaration was made” and insert “certificate was granted”.

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

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;”.

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

Amendment 63, in clause 16, page 11, line 12, leave out “the” to “has” and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.

This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.

Amendment 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,”.

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

Amendment 64, in clause 18, page 12, line 9, leave out from “the” to “has” and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.

This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.

Amendment 381, in clause 27, page 16, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (iii) and insert—

“(iii) a certificate of eligibility,”.

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

Amendment 65, in clause 27, page 16, line 16, leave out from “the” to “under” and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.

This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.

Amendment 388, in clause 34, page 20, line 40, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—

“(c) a panel has refused to grant a certificate of eligibility;”.

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

Amendment 66, in clause 34, page 20, line 40, leave out from “the” to “has” and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.

This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.

Amendment 390, in clause 40, page 23, line 24, at end insert—

“‘certificate of eligibility’ has the same meaning as in section (Determination by panel of eligibility for assistance);”.

This amendment is consequential on NC21.

Amendment 391, in clause 40, page 23, line 24, at end insert—

“‘the Commissioner’ has the meaning given by section (Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner);”.

This amendment is consequential on NC14.

New clause 14—Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner—

“(1) There is to be a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.

(2) The Commissioner is to be appointed by the Prime Minister.

(3) The person appointed must hold or have held office as a judge of—

(a) the Supreme Court,

(b) the Court of Appeal, or

(c) the High Court.

(4) The Commissioner’s principal functions are—

(a) receiving documents made under this Act;

(b) making appointments to a list of persons eligible to sit on Assisted Dying Review Panels (see Schedule (Assisted Dying Review Panels));

(c) making arrangements in relation to such panels and referring cases to them (see section (Referral by Commissioner of case to multidisciplinary panel));

(d) determining applications for reconsideration of panel decisions under section (Reconsideration of panel decisions refusing certificate of eligibility);

(e) monitoring the operation of this Act and reporting annually on it (see section 34).

(5) In this Act “the Commissioner” means the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.

(6) Schedule (The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner) makes provision about the Commissioner.”.

This new clause provides for there to be a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.

New clause 15—Referral by Commissioner of case to multidisciplinary panel—

“(1) This section applies where the Commissioner receives—

(a) a first declaration made by a person,

(b) a report about the first assessment of the person which contains a statement indicating that the coordinating doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 7(2)(a) to (g), and

(c) a report about the second assessment of the person which contains a statement indicating that the independent doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 8(2)(a) to (e).

(2) The Commissioner must, as soon as reasonably practicable, refer the person’s case to an Assisted Dying Review Panel for determination of the person’s eligibility to be provided with assistance under section 18.

(3) But where the Commissioner receives a notification that the first declaration has been cancelled—

(a) the Commissioner must not refer the person’s case to such a panel, and

(b) if the person’s case has already been so referred, the Commissioner must notify the panel of the cancellation.

(4) Schedule (Assisted Dying Review Panels) makes provision about Assisted Dying Review Panels.”

This new clause provides for the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner to refer a person’s case to a multidisciplinary panel, to be called an Assisted Dying Review Panel.

New clause 17—Reconsideration of panel decisions refusing certificate of eligibility—

“(1) This section applies where—

(a) a person’s case is referred under section (Referral by Commissioner of case to multidisciplinary panel) to an Assisted Dying Review Panel (“the first panel”), and

(b) the first panel refuses to grant a certificate of eligibility in respect of the person.

(2) The person may apply to the Commissioner for their case to be reconsidered on the ground that the first panel’s decision—

(a) contains an error of law,

(b) is irrational, or

(c) is procedurally unfair.

(3) The Commissioner must consider an application without a hearing.

(4) On the application—

(a) if the Commissioner is satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in subsection (2) applies, they must as soon as reasonably practicable refer the person’s case to a different Assisted Dying Review Panel for a fresh determination under section (Determination by panel of eligibility for assistance);

(b) in any other case, the Commissioner must dismiss the application.

(5) The Commissioner must give reasons, in writing, for their decision.

(6) The Commissioner must notify the following of the outcome of the application, and give them a document containing their reasons for their decision—

(a) the person who made the application;

(b) the coordinating doctor;

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

This new clause provides for certain decisions of Assisted Dying Review Panels to be referred to a different panel for reconsideration.

Amendment (a) to new clause 17, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—

“(1) The person applying for assisted dying, their next of kin, any of their relatives (within the meaning of the Family Law Act 1996), the registered medical practitioners who are treating them and anyone who took part in proceedings before the panel or gave evidence to the panel may apply to the Commissioner for the Panel’s decision to be reconsidered.

(2) The Commissioner will allow the application for reconsideration if the Panel’s decision was—

(a) wrong, or

(b) unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings.

(3) The Commissioner may consider the application without a hearing if they consider it in the interests of justice to dispense with a hearing.”

New clause 21—Determination by panel of eligibility for assistance—

“(1) This section applies where a person’s case is referred under section (Referral by Commissioner of case to multidisciplinary panel) or (Reconsideration of panel decisions refusing certificate of eligibility) to an Assisted Dying Review Panel (“the panel”).

(2) The panel’s function is to determine whether it is satisfied of all of the following matters—

(a) that the requirements of sections 5 to 9 have been met in relation to—

(i) the first declaration,

(ii) the first assessment and the report under section 7 on that assessment, and

(iii) the second assessment and the report under section 8 on that assessment;

(b) that the person is terminally ill;

(c) that the person has capacity to make the decision to end their own life;

(d) that the person was aged 18 or over at the time the first declaration was made;

(e) that before making the first declaration, but when the person was aged 18 or over, a registered medical practitioner conducted a preliminary discussion with the person;

(f) that the person is ordinarily resident in England and Wales and has been so resident for at least 12 months ending with the date of the first declaration;

(g) that the person is registered as a patient with a general medical practice in England or Wales;

(h) that the person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life;

(i) that the person made the first declaration voluntarily and was not coerced or pressured by any other person into making that declaration.

(3) Subject to the following and to Schedule (Assisted Dying Review Panels), the panel may adopt such procedure as it considers appropriate for the case.

(4) The panel—

(a) must hear from, and may question, the coordinating doctor or the independent doctor (and may hear from and question both);

(b) must (subject to subsection (5)) hear from, and may question, the person to whom the referral relates;

(c) in a case to which section 15 applies, may hear from and may question the person’s proxy;

(d) may hear from and may question any other person;

(e) may ask any person appearing to it to have relevant knowledge or experience to report to it on such matters relating to the person to whom the referral relates as it considers appropriate.

In paragraphs (a) to (c) the reference to hearing from or questioning a person is to hearing from them, or questioning them, in person or by live video or audio link.

(5) The duty under subsection (4)(b) to hear from the person to whom the referral relates does not apply if the panel is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify not hearing from that person.

(6) The panel—

(a) must, if it is satisfied of all of the matters mentioned in subsection (2), grant a certificate to that effect (a “certificate of eligibility”);

(b) must refuse to do so in any other case.

(7) The panel must notify the following of its decision—

(a) the person to whom the referral relates;

(b) the coordinating doctor;

(c) the Commissioner;

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

Where it grants a certificate of eligibility, it must give a copy of the certificate to each of these persons.

(8) If the panel is notified that the first declaration has been cancelled, it must cease to act in relation to the referral (and, in particular, it may not grant a certificate of eligibility).”

This new clause provides for a person’s eligibility to be provided with assistance under clause 18 to be determined by a multidisciplinary panel (instead of the High Court).

Amendment (d) to new clause 21, in subsection (4), leave out paragraphs (a) to (e) and insert—

“(a) must hear from, and must question, the coordinating doctor and the independent doctor;

(b) must (subject to subsection (5)) hear from, and must question, the person to whom the referral relates;

(c) in a case to which section 15 applies, must hear from and must question the person’s proxy;

(d) must consider hearing from and questioning—

(i) persons properly interested in the welfare of the person who made the application for the declaration and other persons they are close to; and

(ii) any other person who has provided treatment or care for the person being assessed in relation to that person’s terminal illness; and

(e) may hear from and may question any other person, including any person appearing to it to have relevant knowledge or experience to report to it on such matters relating to the person to whom the referral relates as it considers appropriate.”

Amendment (c) to new clause 21, in subsection (4), after paragraph (e) insert—

“(aa) if it considers that the matters mentioned in subsection 2(c), (h) or (i) are established on a balance of probabilities but still considers that there is a real risk that they are not satisfied, then the panel must stay its proceedings until such further inquiries it orders are made,”.

Amendment (e) to new clause 21, after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) Where the panel considers it appropriate for medical reasons, it may make provision for the use of pre-recorded audio or video material for the purposes of subsection (4).”

Amendment (a) to new clause 21, in subsection (6)(a), after “satisfied” insert “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Amendment (b) to new clause 21, in subsection (6)(a), after “subsection (2)” insert

“unless it believes that there are particular circumstances which make it inappropriate for the person to be assisted to end their own life,”.

New clause 2—Tribunal authorisation—

“(1) Where—

(a) a person has made a first declaration under section 5 which has not been cancelled,

(b) the coordinating doctor has made the statement mentioned in section 7(3), and

(c) the independent doctor has made the statement mentioned in section 8(5), that person may apply to the First-tier Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) for a declaration that the requirements of this Act have been met in relation to the first declaration.

(2) On an application under this section, the Tribunal—

(a) must make the declaration if it is satisfied of all the matters listed in subsection (3), and

(b) in any other case, must refuse to make the declaration.

(3) The matters referred to in subsection (2)(a) are that—

(a) the requirements of sections 5 to 9 of this Act have been met in relation to the person who made the application,

(b) the person is terminally ill,

(c) the person has capacity to make the decision to end their own life,

(d) the person has relevant and available palliative care options available to them,

(e) the person is not liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983,

(f) the person was aged 18 or over at the time the first declaration was made,

(g) the person is ordinarily resident in England and Wales and has been so resident for at least 12 months ending with the date of the first declaration,

(h) the person is registered as a patient with a general medical practice in England or Wales,

(i) the person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life, and

(j) the person made the first declaration and the application under this section voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making that declaration or application.

(4) The Tribunal—

(a) may hear from and question, in person, the person who made the application for the declaration;

(b) must hear from and may question, in person, the coordinating doctor or the independent doctor (or both);

(c) for the purposes of paragraph (b), may require the coordinating doctor or the independent doctor (or both) to appear before the tribunal.

(5) For the purposes of determining whether it is satisfied of the matters mentioned in subsection (3)(g) and (h), the Tribunal may also—

(a) hear from and question any other person;

(b) ask a person to report to the Tribunal on such matters relating to the person who has applied for the declaration as it considers appropriate.

(6) In considering an application under this section, the panel must consist of—

(a) a sitting judge,

(b) a medical practitioner, and

(c) a lay person.

(7) In subsection (4)—

(a) in paragraph (a), the reference to the person who made the application includes, in a case where the person’s first declaration was signed by a proxy under section 15, that proxy, and

(b) “in person” includes by means of a live video link or a live audio link.”

This new clause would replace the role of the High Court with the tribunal system.

New clause 3—Tribunals in Wales—

“(1) For the purposes of this Act, the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal, in exercising functions under or arising from this Act in relation to Wales, are to be treated as devolved tribunals within the meaning of paragraph 9 of Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006.

(2) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make provision relating to the procedure to be followed by the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal in exercising functions under this Act in relation to Wales.

(3) Statutory instruments containing regulations made under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of Senedd Cymru.”

Amendment 67, in schedule 4, page 28, line 32, leave out from “The” to “has” and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.

This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.

Amendment 68, in schedule 5, page 30, line 6, leave out from “the” to “made” and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.

This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.

Amendment 69, in schedule 5, page 30, line 10, leave out from “the” to end of line and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.

This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.

Amendment 70, in schedule 6, page 32, line 3, leave out from “of” to “declaration” and insert “First-tier Tribunal”.

This amendment is consequential on NC2 and NC3.

New schedule 1—The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner—

“Status

1 (1) The Commissioner is to be a corporation sole.

(2) The Commissioner is not to be regarded as—

(a) the servant or agent of the Crown, or

(b) as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.

(3) The Commissioner’s property is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.

General powers

2 The Commissioner may do anything the Commissioner considers appropriate for the purposes of, or in connection with, the Commissioner’s functions.

Deputy Commissioner

3 (1) The Prime Minister must appoint a person to be the Deputy Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner (the “Deputy Commissioner”).

(2) The person appointed must hold or have held office as a judge of—

(a) the Supreme Court,

(b) the Court of Appeal, or

(c) the High Court.

(3) The Commissioner may delegate any of the Commissioner’s functions to the Deputy Commissioner, to the extent and on the terms that the Commissioner determines.

(4) The delegation of a function under sub-paragraph (3) does not prevent the Commissioner from exercising that function.

(5) The functions of the Commissioner are to be carried out by the Deputy Commissioner if—

(a) there is a vacancy in the office of the Commissioner, or

(b) the Commissioner is for any reason unable or unwilling to act.

Appointment and tenure of office

4 (1) A person holds and vacates office as the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner in accordance with the terms and conditions of their appointment as determined by the Secretary of State, subject to the provisions of this paragraph.

(2) An appointment as the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner is to be for a term not exceeding five years.

(3) A person may not be appointed as the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner if a relevant appointment of them has been made on two occasions. “Relevant appointment” here means appointment as the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner.

(4) The Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner may resign by giving written notice to the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State may by notice in writing remove a person from the office of Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner if satisfied that the person—

(a) has behaved in a way that is not compatible with their continuing in office, or

(b) is unfit, unable or unwilling to properly discharge their functions.

Remuneration

5 The Secretary of State may pay to, or in respect of, the person holding office as the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner—

(a) remuneration;

(b) allowances;

(c) sums by way of or in respect of pensions.

Staff: appointed by Commissioner

6 (1) The Commissioner may appoint staff.

(2) Staff are to be appointed on terms and conditions determined by the Commissioner.

(3) The terms and conditions on which a member of staff is appointed may provide for the Commissioner to pay to or in respect of the member of staff—

(a) remuneration;

(b) allowances;

(c) sums by way of or in respect of pensions.

(4) In making appointments under this paragraph, the Commissioner must have regard to the principle of selection on merit on the basis of fair and open competition.

(5) The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 does not require insurance to be effected by the Commissioner.

Staff: secondment to Commissioner

7 (1) The Commissioner may make arrangements for persons to be seconded to the Commissioner to serve as members of the Commissioner's staff.

(2) The arrangements may include provision for payments by the Commissioner to the person with whom the arrangements are made or directly to seconded staff (or both).

(3) A period of secondment to the Commissioner does not affect the continuity of a person's employment with the employer from whose service he or she is seconded.

Staff: general

8 (1) Before appointing staff under paragraph 6 or making arrangements under paragraph 7(1), the Commissioner must obtain the approval of the Secretary of State as to the Commissioner's policies on—

(a) the number of staff to be appointed or seconded;

(b) payments to be made to or in respect of staff;

(c) the terms and conditions on which staff are to be appointed or seconded.

(2) A function of the Commissioner may be carried out by any of the Commissioner's staff to the extent authorised by the Commissioner (but this is subject to sub-paragraph (3)).

(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply in respect of—

(a) the Commissioner’s function under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule (Assisted Dying Review Panels) of making appointments to the list of persons eligible to be panel members;

(b) the Commissioner’s function of determining applications for reconsideration under section (Reconsideration of panel decisions refusing certificate of eligibility).

Financial and other assistance from the Secretary of State

9 (1) The Secretary of State may—

(a) make payments to the Commissioner of such amounts as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;

(b) give such financial assistance to the Commissioner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(2) The Secretary of State may—

(a) provide staff in accordance with arrangements made by the Secretary of State and the Commissioner under paragraph 7;

(b) provide premises, facilities or other assistance to the Commissioner.

Accounts

10 (1) The Commissioner must—

(a) keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to them, and

(b) prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year in the form specified by the Secretary of State.

(2) The Commissioner must send a copy of each statement of accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General—

(a) before the end of August next following the end of the financial year to which the statement relates, or

(b) on or before such earlier date after the end of that year as the Treasury may direct.

(3) The Comptroller and Auditor General must—

(a) examine, certify and report on the statement of accounts, and

(b) send a copy of the certified statement and the report to the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament each document received under sub-paragraph (3)(b).

(5) In this paragraph, “financial year” means—

(a) the period beginning with the date on which the Commissioner is established and ending with the second 31 March following that date, and

(b) each successive period of 12 months.

Application of seal and proof of documents

11 (1) The application of the Commissioner's seal is to be authenticated by the signature of—

(a) the Commissioner, or

(b) a person who has been authorised by the Commissioner for that purpose (whether generally or specially).

(2) A document purporting to be duly executed under the Commissioner’s seal or signed on the Commissioner’s behalf —

(a) is to be received in evidence, and

(b) is to be treated as duly executed or signed in that way, unless the contrary is shown.

Public Records Act 1958

12 In Part 2 of the Table in paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the Public Records Act 1958 (bodies whose records are public records), at the appropriate place insert “The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner”.

House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975

13 In Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (offices disqualifying person from membership of House of Commons), at the appropriate place insert—

“The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner or the Deputy Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.”

Freedom of Information Act 2000

14 In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (public authorities for the purposes of the Act) , at the appropriate place insert—

“The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.”

Equality Act 2010

15 In Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (public authorities subject to public sector equality duty), at the end of the group of entries for bodies whose functions relate to health, social care and social security insert—

“The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.””

This new Schedule contains provision about the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.

New schedule 2—Assisted Dying Review Panels—

“Introduction

1 In this Schedule—

(a) “referral” means a referral under section (Referral by Commissioner of case to multidisciplinary panel) or (Reconsideration of panel decisions refusing certificate of eligibility) (and similar references are to be construed accordingly);

(b) “panel” means an Assisted Dying Review Panel.

List of persons eligible to be panel members

2 (1) The Commissioner must make appointments to a list of persons eligible to sit as members of panels.

(2) A person may be appointed to the list only if—

(a) the person (a “legal member”)—

(i) holds or has held high judicial office,

(ii) is one of His Majesty’s Counsel, or

(iii) has (at any time) been requested to act as a judge of the Court of Appeal or the High Court by virtue of section 9(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981,

(b) the person (a “psychiatrist member”) is—

(i) a registered medical practitioner,

(ii) a practising psychiatrist, and

(iii) registered in one of the psychiatry specialisms in the Specialist Register kept by the General Medical Council, or

(c) the person is registered as a social worker in a register maintained by Social Work England or Social Work Wales (a “social worker member”).

(3) In this paragraph “high judicial office” means office as—

(a) a judge of the Supreme Court,

(b) a judge of the Court of Appeal, or

(c) a judge or deputy judge of the High Court.

Tenure of persons appointed to list

3 (1) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph, persons on the list hold and vacate their appointments in accordance with the terms on which they are appointed.

(2) An appointment to the list is to be for a period not exceeding five years.

(3) A person who has held appointment to the list is eligible for re-appointment for one further period not exceeding five years.

Membership of panels

4 (1) The Commissioner must make arrangements for determining the membership of a panel.

(2) The arrangements must ensure that a panel consists of—

(a) a legal member,

(b) a psychiatrist member, and

(c) a social worker member.

Decisions of panels

5 (1) The legal member of a panel is to act as its chair.

(2) Decisions of a panel may be taken by a majority vote; but this is subject to sub-paragraph (3).

(3) The panel is to be treated as having decided to refuse to grant a certificate of eligibility if any member votes against a decision to grant such a certificate.

Panel sittings

6 (1) Panels are to determine referrals in public (but this is subject to sub-paragraph (2)).

(2) The chair of a panel may, at the request of the person to whom a referral relates, decide that the panel is to sit in private.

Staff and facilities

7 The Commissioner may make staff and other facilities available to panels.

Practice and procedure

8 (1) The Commissioner may give guidance about the practice and procedure of panels.

(2) Panels must have regard to any such guidance in the exercise of their functions.

Reasons

9 Panels must give reasons, in writing, for their decisions.

Money

10 The Commissioner may pay to or in respect of members of panels—

(a) remuneration;

(b) allowances;

(c) sums by way of or in respect of pensions.

House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975

11 In Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (offices disqualifying persons from membership of House of Commons), at the appropriate place insert—

“Person on the list of those eligible for membership of an Assisted Dying Review Panel.””

This new Schedule contains provision about Assisted Dying Review Panels.

Amendment (c) to new schedule 2, in paragraph 4, after

“(c) a social worker member.”

insert—

“(3) The Commissioner must ensure that each member of a panel has had training in respect of domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse.”

Amendment (a) to new schedule 2, in paragraph 4, after

“(c) a social worker member.”

insert—

“(3) Each member of a panel must have fluent proficiency in the Welsh language if services or functions in the Act are to be provided to an individual in Welsh.”

Amendment (b) to new schedule 2, in paragraph 8, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) and insert—

“(1) The Commissioner must give guidance about the practice and procedure of panels.

(2) Such guidance must prescribe a procedure which in relation to each application appoints a person nominated by the Official Solicitor to act as advocate to the panel.

(3) Panels must have regard to such guidance in the exercise of their functions.”

This amendment would require Assisted Dying Panels to follow an adversarial process to test the evidence by appointing an advocate to the panel.

I call Jack Abbott—you left us on a cliffhanger.

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

I feel huge responsibility for my “EastEnders”-style ending, Ms McVey. Unfortunately, my speech is not going to be as radical as some may have hoped.

I was discussing the bandwidth or capacity of the professionals involved in the process. We have been very good at leaving party politics at the door, but Opposition Members have mentioned the state of the NHS and the wider healthcare system on a couple of occasions. I could probably go further and mention the huge backlogs in the courts and wider criminal justice system. It is fair enough to consider the Bill in that wider context; I have considered that point deeply, as I know Members from across the Committee have.

We asked earlier whether there is capacity in the system to support the panels—that is, are there enough psychiatrists and social workers? However, it is inconsistent to then also say that we need more psychiatrists and social workers in other areas of the process. I am not sure that we can have it both ways. This is something to consider—the Committee has discussed it—but ultimately it is a matter for Members of the House.

The Committee is not here to debate whether the systems in place can deal with an assisted dying Bill. Whether or not assisted dying is introduced into our healthcare and judicial systems, it will not fundamentally change the challenges that the country faces in these areas. We are here to ensure that we present back to the House a Bill that has the safeguards and balances that I mentioned this morning, so that it can progress. I certainly would not want to produce anything that paralyses the system, but new clause 21 would not do so. In fact, in the long run, the panel approach would help the process along. For that reason, I am not sure that the capacity of professionals provides a valid argument against the panel—if anything, quite the reverse. As I said, that point really was not worthy of an “EastEnders” cliffhanger.

We have had positive murmurings and acknowledgments about amendment (e) to new clause 21. The panel approach represents a huge leap forward. I appreciate that Members in the room and across the House may say that the approach does not go far enough. I go back to my earlier point: for some Members, no amendment, change or safeguard will ever be enough for them to support the Bill. As a Committee, we have to come out with a strong, robust process that puts the patient first, and ensure that we are acting in their interests. We must make sure patients are safe and have the capacity to make these decisions, but I do not want any individual looking to go down this route to be stuck in endless meetings or courtrooms, when they should be spending time with their loved ones. I think this strikes the right balance between safeguarding—bringing in all of the professional expertise that we have been looking to do as a Committee—and making sure this process is fair and equitable. I urge Members to support amendment (e) to new clause 21, but I will also be supporting the new clauses today.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

On Second Reading on 29 November, the hon. Member for Spen Valley said:

“Under the Bill, any terminally ill person who wants to be considered for an assisted death would have to undertake a thorough and robust process involving two doctors and a High Court judge. No other jurisdiction in the world has those layers of safeguarding.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 1019.]

There can be no doubt that the High Court judge safeguard was presented to the House as globally exceptional, unusually thorough and robust, as compared to other jurisdictions. It was also a prominent feature of the public campaign around the Bill. We were told it was a Bill designed for exceptional circumstances, with robust safeguards—the High Court judge being the pre-eminent one. It was not a trivial detail; it was the centrepiece of a safeguarding regime arranged around a small number of vulnerable people. Over 60 Members of Parliament are on the record as saying that it was this safeguard that helped persuade them to vote in favour on Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry; I did not intend to give that impression. That is not what I am suggesting. What I am saying is that we have seen the rejection of a series of amendments that would have restricted eligibility, or ensured that only certain people would be eligible: those for whom we all understand the reason for the case for assisted death. Whether our amendments related to the burden, the pain, or questions around capacity and coercion, our amendments would have restricted access to only the most desperate people.

On that basis, it would have been appropriate to have a High Court stage, because the High Court could have accommodated that lower demand. Given the opportunity that the Bill affords to a larger group of people to gain access to assisted death, it has become obvious—I presume, in the mind of Government and others—that there is insufficient capacity in the court system to accommodate the regime being instituted here.

I think the question of High Court capacity has been driven by the desire for a system that can cope with many thousands of deaths per year. I have seen ranges suggesting between 6,000 and 17,000 deaths per year. If Members have other calculations or estimates, I would be grateful to hear them. In fact, it would be good to know whether the Government have done any estimation of the numbers we are looking at.

It is not simply a case of averting those desperate cases of people who help their relatives to die by going to Switzerland or who assist them in committing suicide in other ways—we heard from Max Hill that only a handful of cases cross his desk every year. It is clearly the intention to greatly widen the scope beyond that desperate group. It is unclear what the overall number is, but my strong sense is that we are looking at many thousands, and for that reason, it has been decided that the High Court would not have the capacity to cope with this.

[Jack Abbott]

We go back to the inconsistency argument. On the one hand, we are saying that we must have more psychiatrists, social workers and palliative care experts in the process. This change is now being proposed, and the hon. Gentleman is using that as a reason to say that there is bad faith here and the sponsors of the Bill just want to widen the scope. I do not think he can have it both ways.

[Danny Kruger]

I am not suggesting bad faith here. I think there is a genuine view, and it might well come from the Government’s official advice, that the Bill, as drafted and as amended, will allow many thousands of people to gain access to assisted death every year. On that basis, we will need a system that can cope with them. The judiciary clearly communicated that it could not cope, and I understand why it would do so.

[Jack Abbott]

I appreciate that, but just this morning we heard from the hon. Member for Reigate that, because there are not enough psychiatrists and social workers, this panel is not workable either. Again, there is an inconsistency here. There is either enough capacity in the system or there is not—which is it?

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member, but I am afraid I am going to have it both ways. I think the Bill is profoundly flawed, particularly if large numbers of people will be going through this system. Whether they are going through a judicial system or a panel system, there will be huge capacity constraints on the professionals involved, and we have transferred that responsibility and that problem from the judiciary to psychiatry and social work—unless, of course, it is a rubber-stamp exercise, which I fear it might be, but even then, we are still involving psychiatrists and social workers in a rubber-stamp exercise.

[Jack Abbott]

But that demolishes the central argument that the hon. Gentleman is making. On the one hand, he says that we are expanding access, but on the other, he says that the panel system will not be able to expand it. If the motive of the promoter of the Bill was to expand the system to make more people eligible, the hon. Gentleman has just said that the constraints of the panel will mean that that does not happen anyway. He is conflating different things and being totally inconsistent.

[Danny Kruger]

All right. I regret my failure to assuage the anxieties of the hon. Member.

Let me explain why it was so important that we had a judicial stage. My complaints were never against the principle, but always against the practicalities, for the reasons I have just given and will go on to say more about. The value of a judicial stage is that it gave the doctors certainty and, indeed, protection for the process they were responsible for.

I want to cite the evidence from the Medical Defence Union, which provides doctors with insurance against claims of medical negligence. Responding to the suggestion that judicial involvement could be replaced by some other decision-making body, it stated:

“The MDU strongly rejects this assertion. The involvement of the judiciary is essential. Its absence leaves doctors unduly exposed. Media reports suggest that an alternative safeguard is being mooted. No ‘independent panel’, however so constituted, can replace the legal authority of a course of action sealed and ratified by a judge. Doctors deserve that certainty when relying upon this Bill to provide the very best for their patients at the most delicate moment of their duty of care.”

I will also cite the evidence that we received from Ruth Hughes, a senior barrister with 17 years of experience in mental capacity law. I cannot say that she is a King’s counsel because she does not become one until later this month—congratulations to her. She stated in her written evidence that

“if there is no judicial declaration because the judicial safeguard is not enacted, then there is a risk that the estates of persons who have been assisted to die will be sent into turmoil. This is due to the possibility of arguments being made that beneficiaries of the estate have ‘influenced’ the person into obtaining the assisted death.”

She said that

“even if there is no conviction but another person asserts there was ‘influence’…not undue influence”—

and certainly not coercion, which is banned by the Bill—

“but a lower standard of ‘influence’ by a beneficiary of the estate…then the personal representatives will be advised to obtain directions from the Court as to how to administer the estate.”

Her point is that, even if the bar for the assisted death is met, in terms of influence, coercion and so on, the testamentary or probate challenges that the estates will then go into are considerable.

The fact is that somebody has to be the judge—somebody has to take legal responsibility for the decision that is made. In the common law system, we do not give powers of life and death to panels; we give them to legally constituted bodies with judicial authority. To cite the MDU again:

“To put it plainly, without judicial involvement someone will have to take responsibility for the legality of the action.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

I do not want to make implications about what the hon. Gentleman might be saying, but am I correct that, with the adversarial position that he is supporting, a person coming to the end of their life, who had gone through this process, would essentially have to argue their case in front of a judge?

[Danny Kruger]

No, I do not think it is necessary for the applicant to come to court and present their case—that might be completely impossible or inappropriate—but a case does need to be made to the judge about why it should proceed, which is part of the original proposal. Indeed, that is what is proposed under the panel system as well: the case is made for whether it should go ahead.

My suggestion is that there needs to be representatives of the applicant—who may want to appear themselves—but there also needs to be somebody who is putting the other side of the story: “Maybe this isn’t the right thing to do. Has the judge considered these parts of the evidence, or this aspect of the report from the assessing doctors?” That would be an appropriate procedure, which is completely consistent with how these important decisions are taken in other aspects of our system.

[Jack Abbott]

There is a difference between an adversarial system and an inquisitorial system, which is what I believe is proposed for this panel. The panel would take not an adversarial but an inquisitive position. I do not think that is a million miles away from what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but there is a distinct difference. If he is arguing for the panel to take an adversarial position, that is very different from where the panel currently is.

[Danny Kruger]

Yes; it would be inappropriate to ask a panel to operate in an adversarial system. It would be inappropriate to ask a psychiatrist and a social worker to act as a judge. We need a proper court system, as we always do with other important decisions in which two sides make arguments. Let me try to explain. I agree that what is being proposed is an inquisitorial system through a panel, which is completely alien to the British common law model of making important decisions. That is what is being suggested, but I do not think it is appropriate.

I do not believe in assisted dying; I think it is the wrong thing to do. But if we were to do it, we should have a proper multidisciplinary team at the outset—I sort of feel that that is where we have got to through these debates, and if the debates had happened properly and prior to the Bill being drafted, something more like this system might have been proposed. Perhaps a doctor does the first declaration as proposed, but we then go into a proper multidisciplinary team, rather than just having the options to refer to psychiatrists if appropriate or to maybe consult palliative care specialists.

The involvement of all the appropriate specialists in assessing capacity and coercion, making clear the alternatives that the patient has, making a proper diagnosis, and hearing from family members—all the appropriate processes that should be followed in a case like this—should happen at the very beginning of the process. There is no need for a lawyer at that stage on the multidisciplinary team that we have created; it will be a proper combination of clinical and social work professionals. Their reports would then feed into the judicial process, which would be the second or third stage, if we have a doctor at the beginning. The judge would then hear arguments from, as it were, both sides. That need not be a distressing or time-consuming process, but it would be an appropriate one under British law to make decisions of life and death. That court would clearly hear arguments made by both sides.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point, especially on the issue of coercion. Amendments on coercion training have been agreed to. Does my hon. Friend think the court system as it stands can deal with his concern about coercion, or will the panel be more able to deal with that kind of concern?

[Sean Woodcock]

That is my next point—and it is a good question. As I said, the panel is done with the right intention and would improve the process in many ways. My view is similar to that of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire—it is possibly one aspect on which we are in agreement—in that I think it comes at the wrong part of the process. If it was earlier in the process, it would improve things. Court capacity is an issue, but I take the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire that if we want the courts to do it, they need to get on and do it.

I keep coming back to the issue of what we are asking the state to do. Implementing the wishes and autonomy of the patient is important, but we also need to take very seriously what we are asking the state to allow to be done in its name. There is also the crucial matter of public trust, the condition of the national health service and the issue of capacity in the courts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich touched on, there is considerable disquiet and concern about how robust this process is going to be. Even though I think having the panel at the start of the process would improve what was put to the House on Second Reading, having judicial oversight at the very end would provide reassurance to the vast swathes of the public who are concerned about this, as well as to Members.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to conclude my remarks. I support amendment 429 because it is important to provide clarity that when we say “with the patient,” we mean in the room. However, I invite the Minister to expand further on the resource requirement of assisted dying. I want the doctor to remain with the patient, which I think is critical. That is why I support amendment 429, but the implication of the Bill is a considerable resource requirement, particularly for GPs, and I would like the Minister to respond to that.

[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.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is referring to Oregon. Obviously every jurisdiction has its own methodology when it comes to assisted dying. Is he reassured somewhat by the evidence from Dignitas that for not one person did the procedure fail? A survey from Victoria in Australia showed that 1,076 deaths from the self-administration process took place, and 86% of patients died within one hour. There are different models, and it is important to look more broadly at this if we can.

[Jack Abbott]

I fully accept my hon. Friend’s points, and I agree. To reiterate, complications are not a regular occurrence by any means. They are relatively uncommon. In saying that, there are still 10% of people who did experience them. As she says, these complications are not huge, but there were issues with being able to ingest the substance or with regurgitating it. The figure of 86% that my hon. Friend refers to is absolutely correct, but that would suggest that for 14% of people it took longer than an hour. In my view, that is a relatively high percentage for what we are talking about here.

As I say, my amendment does not seek to stipulate in the Bill exactly what measures have to be taken in every single scenario. I am not suggesting for a moment that we have to legislate about what we must do in the event that, for instance, someone has difficulty ingesting the substance; I am sure that will come naturally with the GMC regulations. I fully appreciate the points made about how this will probably naturally occur, but it is important to provide a reassurance that we are looking at the long-term effects in such scenarios.

--- 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.

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend is making an important speech. He talked about percentages earlier. Is he aware of a study in the Netherlands that concluded that 21 people—18% of the cases in the study—were assisted with lethal injection? In five of those cases, that was because the person could not swallow, but in the rest, they were unable to complete.

[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 ---

[Jack Abbott]

I appreciate that point. Throughout this process we have spoken about the absolute need to ensure that very good palliative care options are being presented to everybody along this pathway. I do not think you can separate care homes and hospices from the Bill, but I fully appreciate and sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. As I have said, there may be some hospices that are simply not appropriate for this, so although amendment 533 does not seek to put that on the face of the Bill in terms of precluding any particular areas of our healthcare system, it would require the Secretary of State, through consultation, to make sure that the legislation is used properly, and make suitable recommendations.

[Naz Shah]

I rise to speak to amendment 436, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. The amendment concerns what would happen after a patient has suffered complications while going through the administration of lethal drugs. Let me stress that we know that people suffer complications when they are undergoing assisted deaths. Unfortunately, one thing we do not know is how common those complications are. Another thing we lack is data that would allow researchers to investigate whether certain drugs, perhaps in combination with certain medical conditions, were more likely to cause complications.

The reason that we do not know those things is because of the many gaps in the data collected in places that have assisted dying laws. It has been mentioned before, but very much bears mentioning again, that the Australian states’ reports on assisted dying do not publish data on complications suffered by patients who self-administer drugs, and that is the overwhelming majority of assisted deaths in Australia.

Western Australia’s most recent report does tell us how frequently there were complications in the cases that involved practitioner administration of lethal drugs—4.3% of those deaths were affected. I understand that the Bill does not allow practitioner administration, but that is not the relevant point. What is relevant is that first, the Australian data shows that some people given lethal drugs suffer complications, and secondly, those complications were ones that we would not wish on someone in their last minutes or hours of life. For example, five out of 198 practitioner administration deaths involved “other complications”, which included people coughing and/or reporting a burning throat after they were helped to swallow drugs,

“hiccups with gastric reflux, involuntary muscular contractions, and delayed loss of consciousness.”

Western Australia could be much better than other states on average in avoiding complications, or it could be worse. I am afraid that we really do not have the robust data that would allow us to make those comparisons. I repeat: the Australian state does not publish data on complications affecting the majority of assisted dying cases. They do not because they cannot, since no one is mandated to stay with the patient and observe their condition. We do not know, therefore, how common those complications are.

Record-keeping in other jurisdictions is also concerning. This House’s Health and Social Care Committee examined the records kept by the state health department in Oregon while inquiring into assisted dying. They found that Oregon authorities kept very poor records into how many patients suffered complications and what those were.

Amendment 436, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, would take a very different approach. Under this amendment, the doctor attending the person having an assisted death would have to make “a detailed record” if the person suffered complications. They would then have to declare that the person had suffered complications, on the final statement concerning that case. Finally, they would have to make a report, to both the chief medical officer for either England or Wales and the voluntary assisted dying commissioner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

I fully understand and am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s point about the family having privacy and space in the last moments. However—this is a genuine question—what happens if things start to go wrong? Although it is uncommon, we know it is possible. Do we expect the family members who are going through the last traumatic moments to have to go out of the room to find the doctor, albeit they might just be behind the door? I do not know that that would necessarily make it less traumatic, and for some people it could make it worse if the doctor is not there and present next to their bed.

[Dr Opher]

I think there is some truth in that, to be fair, but I believe we should leave it open to the family’s discretion, with the proviso that the doctor should be close at hand, whether that means outside the door or whatever. We need Government advice on whether amendment 429 is safe. I have nothing further to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying about the Secretary of State not stipulating every dot of every i and cross of every t in the regulations, but we are talking about something that has not been practised in this country, so we do not have existing guidance anywhere about what to do in this event. My hon. Friend may correct me, but I think it is really important that the Secretary of State has to give some direction through regulations on what a doctor is able or not able to do in these situations. I appreciate that there must remain room for a doctor’s best-case judgment in certain situations but, from a legal perspective and otherwise, the Secretary of State and the Department will have to give some thought to exactly how the regulations work.

[Lewis Atkinson]

To me, amendment 430, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, strikes the right balance. Under clause 30 the Secretary of State “may” make provision for codes of practice on these matters if that is required; I am uncomfortable with saying that the Secretary of State “must” do so, when it is likely that it will be more appropriate for the GMC or some other body to make those regulations. We get into a difficult precedent if the Secretary of State must specify the reaction in certain medical circumstances but we routinely leave that to medical regulation and practice more widely. I think a “may” power, as set out in amendment 430, would allow that backstop provision, but would not get into the issue of “must”. It is also likely to be more respectful of the conversations as outlined in clause 9.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Jack Abbott]

No, is the short answer to that question. Because a doctor has to be present, are we saying that doctors have to go to someone’s home to administer this? Would the Secretary State say, for example—this is not my personal view; it is for discussion—that it would have to take place in a medical facility, or could people choose to have an assisted death at home? The amendment stipulates that the Secretary of State would have to give that guidance at the time. I do not see how we can have doctors going out to individuals’ homes to assist the process.

[Lewis Atkinson]

It is by no means clear that doctors would not go out to people’s homes, but my hon. Friend asks whether doctors would have to do that—there are no powers of compulsion anywhere in the Bill, because the entire model is an opt-in model at every stage, including the example he gave in respect of hospices. It is a matter between the resident of the home and the treating medical practitioner.

In reality, healthcare procedures do not happen ubiquitously: they happen in appropriate places with appropriate cultural sensitivity. We do not specify in primary legislation for that to happen. Health professionals, and those involved in the management and commissioning of health services, currently have ample opportunities to co-ordinate and consider such matters.

[Jack Abbott]

I appreciate my hon. Friend giving way again. For people in the Committee and our colleagues across the House, there has to be clarity. Perhaps it is a question for the Bill promoter’s and the Government. As I said, I have no personal problem with it, but is there an expectation that assisted dying will take place at home as well as in medical facilities?

[Lewis Atkinson]

I cannot speak for the Bill’s promoter or for others, but a significant number of people wish to die at home.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Jack Abbott]

I appreciate what my hon. Friend is getting at in terms of what might happen down the line, but the amendment would not restrict any doctor’s flexibility at all or bind them in any way. All it would do is ask the Secretary of State to form a set of regulations.

[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.

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

Jack Abbott Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

I do not want to go over ground that we covered in the later hours of yesterday, but this is sort of the issue that my amendment 533 sought to resolve, albeit via regulations rather than in the Bill directly. I am sure that our colleagues on the Front Bench will be doing some thinking about it. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire alluded to, in some situations the question of place—of where we will be able to carry out these procedures—is not black and white. I fully appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying, which is that if someone chooses to end their own life in their own home, they should be able to do so. In some cases, however, the Government will need to give further thought to the issue of place. I think that is really important.

[Lewis Atkinson]

In considering the offer of any health or care-related activity, the appropriateness and suitability of the place is always in people’s mind, and clearly that varies. As I mentioned yesterday, we already have a licensing regime under which the CQC specifically licenses places for particular activity. I think my hon. Friend is right, but this is a normal part of decision making in the provision of health services and I do not think we should try to constrain it in primary legislation. However, as I started by saying, I recognise that we must enshrine the rights of individual conscientious objectors, which I think the hon. Member for East Wiltshire is trying to do with amendment 480, and I hope that we can do that, through some route, with the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member. What he said is really helpful.

I want to come back to the issue of opioids. As someone who suffers from chronic pain, my understanding is that I have a choice over whether I take opioids or other medication. So when people are allergic to opioids, they can potentially access other medication for pain relief.

[Jack Abbott]

A lot of the focus in the last few minutes has been about a care home having already made it clear that it does not support the process of assisted dying and the fact that anyone entering it would therefore know that. However, there is a clear scenario where some care homes might change their position over time. Someone may be in a care home for many years, but then the care home might change its position and say, “Actually, now we do not support assisted dying.” In that scenario, people would actually have gone into that setting thinking that it supported assisted dying.

Although I am sympathetic to the issue of place being made clear, it has real ramifications. Again, I do not think it is as black and white as saying, “This care home already had a set position.” Some care homes or other settings might change their position over time, even when residents are in situ for a long time. That is the big problem with this particular clause: the situation is not as straightforward as some Members have perhaps suggested today.

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point: it is not straightforward. That is why people are tabling amendments and having this discussion—to iron this issue out and make sure we nail it, to make the process as safe as possible.

There are laws in our country that protect people’s religious views—for example, we have the Equality Act 2010—and those laws are there for a reason. Speaking to all the amendments, I would not want to see hospices not being funded because they take a certain position. Also, from an employer’s perspective—I appreciate the scenario that has been mentioned, and I will come back to it—they may be recruiting in accordance with their values. We are all in politics, and we all sign up to a particular view of politics. When we recruit our staff, we put on the application form, or other information, that we would like applicants to believe in our value system. That is not discriminating against somebody who has a different value system. That would be my response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

I appreciate that, but as my hon. Friend has said a number of times over the last few weeks, some of these things unfortunately do happen. As I am sure we all do, I have had casework involving people with guide dogs saying that they have been refused certain services, including taxis, even though that is a civil offence because they have a guide dog with them. We have said a number of times that there are flaws in every single system. I appreciate that we want to adopt a good-will attitude, and I am sure the vast majority of settings across the country will operate on that basis, but we know that, in certain circumstances, that is not always the case. That is why, if we put anything in the Bill, it needs to have real clarity and not unintended consequences.

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to clarify this.

To sum up, this comes back to some of the questions I have for the Minister, and I wonder whether he can answer some of them. I say that especially because the Committee has had lots of debates on amendments tabled by the Government via my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley giving the Secretary of State statutory duties. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to clarify this issue and make it watertight using regulations.

Have we had an assessment of what the impact would be on the provision of healthcare if assisted death were permitted in either a hospice or care home, and is the Minister happy to share that assessment with the Committee? For example, if palliative care specialists are saying, “X amount of people would no longer want to be involved, so there is a real risk of an exodus of specialists from hospices,” we need to know whether there has been an assessment of that. Perhaps the Government can help us to understand that real concern from palliative care specialists.

Given that the Minister mentioned his visit to a hospice this week, has he had any discussions with Care England care homes about allowing this process to happen in care homes themselves? How have the concerns of clinical staff about allowing an assisted death in their healthcare facility been assessed, and have those concerns been put to him? How many staff have indicated that they would need to leave the NHS, care providers or hospices if an assisted death were mandated on their premises?

Coming back to beliefs, there is also the element of charitable bodies. Have we spoken to the Charity Commission about the impact on those bodies if they were pressured by the Bill into changing their charitable aims? Would they be protected from providing assisted death because of their charitable aims?

For me, this debate has raised more questions than answers, and there is much more discussion to be had. I am happy to listen to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, as I can then intervene and probe further.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Ms McVey, even though it is a little later than originally planned.

Amendment 480 is intended to extend the category of those protected from being obligated to participate in the provision of assisted dying under clause 23 from registered medical practitioners, registered nurses and registered pharmacists or pharmacy technicians to all individuals. The amendment also seeks to clarify what an individual can refuse to do under clause 23(1), by setting out a non-exhaustive list of activities under the Bill that an individual would not be obligated to participate in. The amendment also specifies that the ability not to participate in the provision of assisted dying does not override any duty to signpost someone to information about assisted dying; to perform clerical, secretarial or ancillary acts; or to perform life-saving acts or grave injury-saving acts.

The amendment would introduce significant legal uncertainty and may mean that a person who had opted in to providing services under the Bill could refuse to continue to do so or could use clause 23 as a justification not to perform their duties as described in the Bill. For example, they may use the amendment as justification for not checking eligibility criteria, discussing prognosis or palliative care options, or performing other requirements under the Bill.

Amendment 480 may also conflict with other provisions. It states:

“no individual is under any duty…to be involved, directly or indirectly, in the provision of assistance”,

in accordance with the Bill. That may, for example, mean that although doctors are required under the Bill to notify a cancellation, they would be allowed to refuse to do things under the Bill, even if they have opted in to providing assisted dying services. It is not clear which provision would take precedence, which could allow the doctor to decline to notify a cancellation, by arguing that they are relying on clause 23(1).

Amendment 483 is intended to extend

“the range of activities which medical practitioners and other healthcare providers are not under an obligation to provide to include activities closely related to the provision of assistance”

under clause 23(1).

Amendment 484 is intended to expand the protection from being subject to a detriment by an employer at clause 23(2), to include where a registered medical practitioner or health professional refuses to participate in activity closely related to the provision of assistance. The term,

“activity closely related to the provision of assistance”,

is not defined, and that could create uncertainty as to what types of activity it is intended to cover.

The Bill does not, as currently drafted, specify where the provision of assistance may or may not take place. Amendment 441 would prevent there being any obligation on a care home or hospice regulated by the Care Quality Commission or Care Inspectorate Wales to permit the provision of assistance to be carried out on their premises. The effect of the amendment may be to limit the places where assistance could be provided. It may thereby reduce access to an assisted death for those residing within a care home or hospice, if a care home or hospice did not wish to allow an assisted death to be provided on its premises. The amendment could preclude some people from accessing services under the Bill if they were near the end of life and leaving their usual place of residence was therefore impeded. It may result in inconsistent treatment for patients when seeking to access an assisted death. That could potentially engage a person’s rights under article 8 of the ECHR—the right to respect for private and family life.

Amendment 481 has two parts. The first aims to ensure that employees cannot participate in the assisted dying process in the course of their employment if their employer has chosen not to participate in assisted dying. The effect of the amendment could be to limit the places where assistance would be provided, and it may result in inconsistent treatment for patients when seeking to access an assisted death. That could engage a person’s rights under article 8 of the ECHR—the right to respect for private and family life.

The explanatory notes suggest that the second part of the amendment seeks to ensure that employers require employees to provide or not provide assisted dying under schedule 9 of the Equality Act 2010. That schedule enables an employer to specify that having a protected characteristic is a requirement of a job when having that characteristic is crucial to the post and a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The ability to specify occupational requirements is conferred by schedule 9 of the Equality Act, and reference to it in this amendment would not have any additional effect.

The purpose of new clause 22 is to provide that the owners or occupiers of a premises would not be obligated to permit the self-administration of an approved substance on their premises. This right to refuse would not extend to a person who has an interest in the land but who is not occupying or operating on those premises, such as a landlord. It is unclear if the term “premises” would apply to a residential property, care home or hospice. As a result, the amendment may mean that someone who is terminally ill and is residing in, for example, a care home or a hospice could be required to leave that care home or hospice in order to receive assistance under the Bill if the care home or hospice owner did not wish to allow assisted dying on their premises. That could engage a person’s rights under article 8 of the ECHR—the right to respect for private and family life.

[Jack Abbott]

Another example raised by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire was about hospitals under certain trusts—because of the word “premises”. In the Government’s view, would hospitals and other such facilities beyond hospices and care homes also be included within this new clause?

[Stephen Kinnock]

As I was saying, the scope of the term “premises” is unclear. Is it residential property, care home, hospice or indeed hospital? That is one of the challenges with the drafting of the amendment: the scope and definition of the term is not clear.