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

Jake Richards Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

Requiring the doctor, when considering a patient’s request for assistance to end their life, to decide whether it is appropriate to advise them to discuss it with their next of kin introduces several problems. It places a subjective burden on the doctor. The term “appropriate” is very vague. Does it hinge on the patient’s family dynamics, their emotional state or indeed the doctor’s own biases?

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

The amendment that the hon. Member is supporting speaks of a doctor having to consider what is

“in the person’s best interests”,

which is wholly subjective. Does he not agree that the same difficulties he identifies with the current drafting are extrapolated greatly by the amendment?

[Danny Kruger]

I am afraid there is a huge degree of subjectivity throughout the Bill, and we are putting an enormous obligation on doctors to use their best judgment. However, I think it is right to stipulate more clearly that it is appropriate, in general, to inform patients’ families. Leaving the vague term “appropriate” essentially implies that it is either/or—that it is a 50:50 choice whether they do so. So it is important to specify that the expectation is that they should do so. Of course, there will be circumstances in which that would not be the right thing to do, but as the amendments make clear, they should explain that clearly if they are not going to do so.

A doctor might hesitate to suggest a discussion with family if they suspect that there are strained relationships within it. My concern is that, without clear guidance, that judgment could be inconsistent or legally challenged. The doctor might know the next of kin and believe that they would try to stop the patient from ending their life. We have heard quite often the concern about the family being some sort of coercive force, trying to prevent people from fulfilling their autonomous choice to end their life, and that we should put in place barriers to stop families trying to dissuade their loved one from assisted suicide. We heard that repeatedly, particularly from the Australian witnesses.

My concern—this goes specifically to certain communities within our country—is that doctors from individualistic cultures, which we have in western Europe and North America, would prioritise personal autonomy. They would deem it inappropriate to suggest family involvement, viewing that as an intrusion on the patient’s rights. We need to state clearly that that is not the expectation and that the expectation is that they should consider involving the family in the discussion.

My concern is also about an exaggerated respect for medical confidentiality. As the Committee knows, my belief is that this is not a healthcare treatment at all, but if it is to be regarded as such, we should not assume that medical confidentiality applies in an absolute sense. There are specific differences between this so-called medical treatment and others, which do justify an override of the assumption of total medical confidentiality. It is therefore appropriate, as in certain other medical procedures, that family members should be involved.

I want to cite the written evidence from Dr Rosemarie Anthony-Pillai, who pointed out that clause 9

“lays bare the reality that in trying to, rightly, diminish any accusation of coercion or family disagreement, this Bill will lead many to a lonely death.”

She also said:

“Families/loved ones finding out only after the event how the person died will have its own bereavement issues that this Bill in no way seeks to consider.”

I also cite the written evidence we had from AtaLoss, which is a UK charity dedicated to ensuring that bereaved people can access support. It said that discovering the decision that somebody has had help to take their own life without prior warning

“can replicate the distress often associated with sudden or suicide-related deaths, thereby intensifying bereavement trauma and potential suicide contagion.”

That is a very significant threat. We will not rehash the argument about whether suicide increases in countries with assisted suicide, but my strong view, from the evidence, is that it does.

In terms of the patient’s safety, if the process is kept secret even from those who know the patient well, the assessing doctors and the panel will be asking very difficult questions about the patient’s feelings and circumstances partly blindfolded. If a patient is in a controlling relationship, they and the person abusing them are not going to volunteer to the doctor or the panel that there is any pressure going on—indeed, the patient may not even understand it to be pressure. It is very common for an abusive partner to try to isolate the victim from their close friends and family. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) wrote recently about how this has come up in her constituency. The ex-husband of her constituent’s sister reappeared on the scene, charmed and isolated this woman, and got her to change her will in his favour. That is a technique of coercive control. Some level of required notification to the wider family would make it much harder for a controlling partner to push someone through this process without it being exposed.

It was made clear earlier today that the Bill’s supporters do not want any hard-edged reasons that count as bad reasons to die to be stated in the Bill—they do not want it asked at all why someone wants to have an assisted death. As it stands, the doctors and the panel would have to approve the death as long as it was the patient’s clear, settled and informed wish, but involvement of those who know the patient well might demonstrate that it was not clear, settled or informed. They may have regularly gone through patches of feeling unloved and unsupported all their life, and that could change. That is information that only the wider family would know.

To conclude, there is real suffering hereto—as I have said, nobody exists in a vacuum. I want to reference the opinion of Judge Elósegui in the European Court of Human Rights. Her opinion was a partial dissent in the Mortier case, which has been discussed before. She said:

“it should be underlined that it cannot be said in an exhaustive way that the principle of autonomy always and at all costs has primacy over the other three principles of bioethics. In particular, we must take into account the consequences of our actions on the rest of the family unit and on our circle of friends.”

That is highly relevant. If we see cases where somebody dies by assisted suicide, and the first thing their child or parent knows about it is they are told to come and collect the body, that will be a scandal. That has happened in other countries, and the Mortier case is a case in point.

I mentioned other cases in which it is obligatory to consult and inform family members. At the moment, that is what happens at the Court of Protection with much less serious applications. Practice directive 9B requires doctors to notify

“at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified”.

That is in the case of organ donation and other procedures. Families are required to be notified, and an indicative list is given, which is supposed to be worked through in order—spouses, people who live with as a spouse, parents, children and so on. The authorities are to jump along through that list, again with some discretion given to them.

To end, on the standard guidance referred to in judgments on that procedure, the judgement of Senior Judge Lush in the Court of Human Rights included the observation that the decision not to notify someone who would otherwise be entitled to be notified is not something that just affects the applicant. It is not just about their interests; there is a wider concern for the whole of society and indeed the family. That is why I support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

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

I feel that we are dancing on the head of a pin, but I oppose the amendment. Members across the debate have recognised that, as Dr Sarah Cox from the Association for Palliative Medicine said, it is always for the patient to decide. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley pointed out, both the original clause and the amendment rightly retain that decision with the patient. They also retain the discretion of the doctor, whether that is on an appropriate test or a best interests test.

I note that in its submission the Royal College of Physicians advocated the removal of the clause, saying that it goes beyond current practice. I support the clause on balance, because of the importance of these conversations and so on, but the physicians who are likely to carry out the conversations think that it is inappropriate to specify these conversations in primary legislation.

There are two phrases in the amendment that I think are entirely inappropriate. First, there is “concluded in good faith”. I am sure it is not the intent of the author and mover of the amendment, but it suggests that in other instances people might be acting other than in good faith. I commend the words from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich. We have to start from the point that doctors are operating in good faith. It is dangerous to set up a good faith test, as opposed to an “other faith” test, in primary legislation.

Secondly, I am certainly not trying to reopen the long debates we had about the Mental Capacity Act, but Members will recall that in those debates we were very clear that the “best interests” test should not and does not apply. Introducing language about best interests the first time in the Bill is very dangerous, and totally against the spirit and principle of what we have debated so far. For those reasons, I am against both amendments.

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central has made many of the points that I planned to, so I will be brief. The primacy of patient autonomy when it comes to familial relationships is a principle that should not be interfered with in the medical sphere, which this is—we can call it treatment or something else, but it is undoubtedly a relationship between a doctor and a person.

I agree with my hon. Friend on the term “good faith”. I do not doubt the motives, but it put forwards the proposition that a doctor would act in bad faith and not tell a family member. It is a rather bizarre drafting, and wholly unhelpful for the intent for which it was put forward.

The most alarming is the second part and the issue of “best interests”. I will not labour the point that my hon. Friend has made, but what is a doctor to do? A doctor is not a social worker. A doctor is not a family support worker. What questions are they to ask? If someone says, “Oh, I don’t really want to tell my next of kin, who is my sister. We fell out last year because of tit for tat,” is the doctor going to make a value judgment as to whether that argument is profound enough to stop the notification?

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The point that the hon. Member makes is, I think, exactly the case—raising this conversation and talking about it is probably not in anyone’s best interests in the first instance. I think about my own situation. If I were to find myself terminally ill and falling within the scope of this law, and my mum had passed away, then my dad, who I have not spoken to in over a decade, with whom I have a very difficult and estranged relationship, would have to be notified and we would have to have a conversation about it. On my deathbed, the last thing I want to be thinking about is some childhood trauma being brought back before me in the confines of that terminal illness. Does the hon. Member agree that, while the intention might be good, the consequences could be damaging to the patient and their best interests?

[Jake Richards]

I agree. I think in some of these debates—I am probably guilty of this as well—we forget the context in which we are operating: someone is dying, imminently. Therefore, how we approach these conversations, these assessments and this process must take that into account.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman accurately points out that doctors are not social workers or psychiatrists, and we are asking them to make a difficult judgment, in consultation with the patient, about whether they should engage wider family in the discussion. That goes to the broader point: we are imposing a huge obligation on doctors to make very complicated decisions about capacity, coercion and the psychosocial circumstances of the patient. The value of this amendment’s saying, “I think we should involve the family if it is safe to do so”—it might very well not be in certain circumstances—is surely to assist them in having the wider conversation that is necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

As we heard in evidence from the chief medical officer, doctors deal with capacity issues on a day-to-day basis; I am not sure they necessarily need assistance from family members in that regard. However, I appreciate the point—I was going to come to that—

[Daniel Francis]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Jake Richards]

I am going to make some progress, because I am not sure that point is crucial to the debate about this amendment; I am sure my hon. Friend will grab me afterwards. I did not mean to mischaracterise the evidence on that point.

I accept that there is a tension here. No man is an island, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire notes, and of course this process may cause upset to others. Equally, the input of third parties to the assessment of all the issues of eligibility is worth while, but it has to be dealt with in a proportionate way. When we debate clause 12—hopefully shortly—perhaps we can discuss that, and I hope to speak to that point.

However, this amendment is trying to crack that delicate nut with a huge hammer. It fundamentally changes the relationship between doctor and patient, and puts the doctor in a position where they do not have the skills or expertise to make that best interest decision. The amendment therefore fails, and that is why I will vote against it.

[Rebecca Paul]

I am concerned that maybe I am misunderstanding the debate. For clarity, right now clause 9 says that

“in so far as the assessing doctor considers it appropriate,”

they should

“advise the person to consider discussing the request with their next of kin and other persons they are close to.”

It will read very similarly if the amendment is agreed to. Instead, it will say,

“unless the assessing doctor has concluded in good faith, that this would not be in the person’s best interests, advise the person to consider discussing the request with their next of kin and other persons they are close to”.

That is a very subtle change—it is just a little more encouragement to consider contacting the family. No one here is telling the doctor that they must tell the patient to contact the family; it is just a little bit of strengthening to encourage that. I invite the hon. Gentleman to confirm if I have misinterpreted, but that is my understanding of the clause.

[Jake Richards]

I will double check whether this is right, but the explanatory statement suggests that that is not the case. It says:

“This amendment would require the assessing doctor to inform the person’s next of kin that the person wishes to seek assistance to end their own life unless it is not in the person’s best interests.”

[Rebecca Paul]

That is not what it says.

[Jake Richards]

Even if that is not what it says, and even if the explanatory statement is wrong, it is not appropriate for doctors to advise patients what they should do with their family. Yes, they should consider it, but that is what this clause does. I will be voting against this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Juliet Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that explanation.

I move on to amendment 410, which would remove the ability of the court to hear from and question any person other than the person who made the application or the declaration for an assisted death and the assessing doctors. I have strong reservations about using a proxy or giving another person the right to speak on behalf of an individual who wishes to have an assisted death, and I question the scope of those people who could be the proxy to speak on behalf of a person requesting an assisted death. Who exactly would those people be?

One of the arguments we have consistently debated in this Committee is around coercion and patient autonomy. When multiple third parties such as family members or caregivers are allowed to testify, there is an increased risk that an individual might influence the court’s decision in a way that is not aligned to the true wishes of the applicant. In some cases we have talked about pressure from family members or loved ones, for whatever reason—whether their vested interest is financial or something else—to have the applicant hasten their death or have an assisted death. I would not want that kind of pressure to be put on the person and I do not believe any third party should be allowed to speak on their behalf or to be a proxy.

By limiting the scope of the testimony to the applicant and assessing doctors only, the amendment helps to safeguard against such manipulative tactics and ensures that the court focuses solely on the applicant’s own will and the medical assessment of their eligibility, removing the potential for family dynamics or any other outside influence to interfere with the judicial review. It offers a necessary refinement to the Bill for assisted deaths, a request that is both efficient and respectful of the autonomy of all people involved. By limiting the court testimony to the applicant and assessing doctor, the amendment addresses several of the concerns I have spoken about.

[Jake Richards]

I will speak briefly, because many of these issues and themes will be debated in clause stand part and amendments 371 and the others from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. Amendment 267 was not moved, but I would have opposed it in any event, on the basis that the discretion given there was way too wide and I did not understand the basis of the amendment in any way. Amendments 105 to 107, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), attempt to add an adversarial element to proceedings. Again, I will not comment too much because that issue comes back in the fourth grouping under this clause.

I turn briefly to amendment 410, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe just spoke. My understanding is that, although this relates to the High Court—which may be deemed redundant as we move on through this clause—the amendment aims to limit the people that the judge or panel can hear from. In my view that would be wrong and dangerous. The purpose of a judge or a panel is to explore the circumstances in this matter. That must mean that they have discretion to hear from others as well. In my view, this amendment, if passed, would significantly limit the safeguards and be quite dangerous.

As my hon. Friend has already said, amendment 407 has been superseded, and I think we all agree on that.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. As I and my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg have made clear throughout the debate, the Government continue to remain neutral on this Bill and do not take a position on assisted dying. My remarks will therefore focus on the legal and practical impact of the amendments, to assist the members of this Committee in undertaking line-by-line scrutiny.

Amendments 267 and 105 to107, which have now been withdrawn, deal with the Bill as currently drafted in relation to the High Court. Clause 12 as currently drafted would require the High Court to make a declaration that the requirements of the Bill have been met, following a person’s first declaration to receive assistance to end their own life, with statements from a co-ordinating doctor and an independent doctor. The amendments relate to how the High Court will declare itself satisfied that a person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life and that they have not been coerced or pressured.

Briefly, amendments 407 and 410 seek to change who the High Court—as others have said, we might come on to debate some of these themes relation to the panel—would engage with when considering applications for assistance under the Bill. In determining whether the person has a clear, settled, and informed wish to end their life and that they have not been coerced or pressured, the High Court would be required to hear from and question the person seeking assistance, as opposed to having the option to do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley pointed out, in the later provision in relation to the panel, that has now become a requirement.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe made clear, under her amendment 410 the High Court would lose the ability to hear from or indeed question any other party other than the person seeking assistance and the assessing doctors. Removing the ability—whether of the High Court or, as we may come on to debate, of the panel—to hear from and question any other party may limit that body or court’s ability to interrogate wider evidence or points of view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful for amendment 6 and to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans for tabling it. I put on record, however, that I do not think that the panel that we are discussing addresses my earlier concerns. I wanted to make that absolutely clear by highlighting the further evidence from the Association for Palliative Medicine. The panel proposed by this group of amendments does not address its concerns, or the concerns of many other people who were saying that there needs to be a multi-professional team.

[Jake Richards]

I rise to speak in support of new clauses 14, 15, 17 and 21 and the accompanying amendments. I hope also to deal with some amendments tabled to new clause 21.

On Second Reading, I and many other hon. Members said that the Bill was the strongest and safest assisted dying law in the world. I want to be clear that I stand by every word of that, but this change will make the Bill far stronger and far more resilient to questions of capacity and coercion and therefore far safer. It will ensure a further independent layer of assurance: a panel of experts chaired by a senior lawyer to hold the process to account, to ensure that every avenue of inquiry has been explored and to hold professionals in our healthcare system to account when it is appropriate to do so.

The change will replace a single High Court judge, a person with no particular expertise in the issues at hand, with a panel that will adopt a more holistic approach. The social worker will delve a little deeper into the personal circumstances of each individual. The psychiatrist will ask any necessary questions about capacity. They will serve alongside a senior lawyer to ensure that the process is necessarily formal and strict. They will have the powers to make further inquiries if they so wish.

On and after Second Reading, there were legitimate questions about the High Court function—what exactly were we asking the judge to do? I maintain that a High Court judge could have overseen the process, but it is far better and more pertinent to the issues at hand to have a multidisciplinary process involving a social worker and a psychiatrist.

This is our lawmaking process working efficiently: debate has pushed my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to think again. Working with the Government —whose role continues to be to ensure that the Bill will be workable if it is to gain Royal Assent, while remaining neutral on the principle—she has been creative in tailoring a process to the matters at hand. That must be welcomed.

This is new law. The change that the Bill would enact is profound and therefore requires a very new safeguarding process. This is the key point. The panel would not be there to adjudicate on a dispute, undertake a trial or undertake an inquiry; it would be there to ensure that the process is safe. A person would come to the panel seeking assistance to which they are entitled under the law, and the panel would ensure that the process through which their eligibility has been decided has been rigorous and safe.

It is also important to note that the panel would simply regulate and scrutinise an ongoing doctor-patient relationship. Even after a certificate of eligibility has been received, there is a period for reflection and continued assessment. That is crucial, because it means that normal rules of appeal are not appropriate—I will come back to some of the amendments in that regard. Even once the panel’s work is done, the co-ordinating doctor and the commissioner will remain available for reconsideration and oversight.

I want to deal with some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the change set out in the amendments tabled to new clause 21 and others. To my mind, the process should not be adversarial, because it is inherently inquisitorial. What is the dispute that is being decided? The person is deemed to have capacity by two doctors, and perhaps a psychiatrist, to make a decision, and is seeking an eligibility certificate. The starting point must surely be that the person should be allowed to do so. To set up some bizarre dispute where none exists would be counterproductive and unsettling to the person at the centre of the process. It would be a waste of public funds, but more importantly it would be a waste of time—time, in the context of a person who is dying.

The process is not analogous to the Court of Protection, where there are disputes as to capacity, best interests and welfare. It is not analogous to a court approval hearing, where there may be legal arguments as to the appropriate nature of an award or the arrangements for it. It is not analogous to a deprivation of liberty order, where in all likelihood a person would seek not to be deprived of their liberty. It is not analogous to private children’s proceedings, where the child’s welfare is paramount. This is a person seeking help for themselves. The principle of choice and autonomy at the end of life means that that process must be patient-centred and begin from an appreciation of those principles.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech in defence of the change, but could he help me understand something? He said that he supported the previous proposal, involving a High Court judge; he is now suggesting that it would be completely inappropriate to have any sort of judicial oversight of the process. How could it have worked better?

The hon. Gentleman talks about there being no need for any sort of adversarial system, but does he not recognise that there might be another side to the story, and that it would be appropriate for somebody, whether that is a judge or someone else, to hear arguments against the application?

[Jake Richards]

Let me deal with the first point first. A High Court judge could have exercised this function themselves. As I set out in public very soon after Second Reading, I was struck by the fact that we were asking a High Court judge to do this, even though they have no particular expertise in the issues that so concerned hon. Members on Second Reading, whether they voted in favour of the Bill or against it. I thought about the process more, as we are all doing, to try to understand what it would look like in practice. What questions might be asked? Where does a panel or judge need to go? To my mind, psychiatrists and social workers are much better placed than High Court judges to know what avenues to further explore.

I have forgotten the hon. Gentleman’s second question.

[Danny Kruger]

I was making the point that there is surely some value in what the hon. Gentleman describes as an adversarial process, in which the decision maker is required to consider whether there are circumstances that the applicant is not presenting.

[Jake Richards]

I will come on to that issue. First, there are avenues for the panel to have information put before it that will be pertinent to the decision at hand and that may be pivotal to that process. That is not quite adversarial. Secondly, there is always a route for an adversarial contest in this matter through judicial review. I hope that that will be very rare, but it is certainly possible, and that has to be maintained. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and the Minister would accept that that would be an avenue.

The panel will have an array of information to consider. It will have two reports: one from the co-ordinating doctor and one from the independent doctor. In any event, it is often likely to seek medical records. It will speak to the co-ordinating doctor or independent doctor about capacity and any issues of coercion. Crucially, it will speak to the person themselves unless there are extraordinary circumstances that oblige it not to. One can imagine the vast array of circumstances that will come before the panel, but it will have the discretion and freedom to explore as appropriate. That will be a process that is appreciative of the specific facts before the panel.

I made this point earlier, but it is important to remember that this is a very human moment. A person is dying; they come to the panel seeking help. It is right to ensure that there are hurdles to consideration for eligibility, but the idea that a person should be forced to win a trial or a case, or see through complex litigation, is surely not right.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent and powerful speech. I thank him for putting the human being back at the centre of the process; sadly, in this Committee we can forget to do that. Early on, we had Nathaniel Dye here, who is a terminal cancer patient. He has just had a 12-month prognosis. The thought of making that man jump through hoops and over hurdles breaks my heart. I understand that we have to do it, but these are the people that we are actually talking about when we discuss the Bill.

[Jake Richards]

I agree, and I hope to deal with some of the points that my hon. Friend made in her important speech. To mandate that a barrister instructed by the Official Solicitor, or indeed the panel, has to put questions to a person who may have only a few weeks left to live is not only highly inappropriate, but unworkable. What instructions is this barrister working from? Do they have to suppose that somebody who clearly has capacity does not? If not, do they ask questions about the circumstances of the person that would be asked by the panel in any event?

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West suggested that the Official Solicitor would be working for the person. Well, the person is coming to this panel seeking assistance, so what on earth is the Official Solicitor or their legal representative going to ask of the person they are taking instructions from? To what extent would they be allowed to go on a fishing expedition, delving deep into a person’s relationships to assess any evidence of coercion? That goes back to my original point: what are their instructions? Who is asking them to do what?

I see the force in the amendments from my hon. Friend as to burden of proof, but I deem them inappropriate. The criminal standard does not fit neatly with the more complex issues at play, such as capacity. The Mental Capacity Act states that where there is a doubt about a person’s capacity, the burden of proof is on the person seeking to establish a lack of capacity, on the balance of probabilities. That is the correct approach. In any event, if the panel has any doubts as to capacity, surely it will be obliged—as is set out in amendment 6 to clause 9, which the Committee has just accepted—to seek further psychiatric assessment. It is important to note that the panel will have powers to instruct further expert assessment and reports.

If we implement the criminal standard, the doctors who are part of the process— not only the co-ordinating doctor and the individual doctor, but treating doctors, because we should always remember that someone who is terminally ill will almost certainly be receiving treatment in the NHS—will be working to a completely different burden of proof from the panel’s. The criminal standard does not fit neatly with the innately inquisitorial nature of the panel’s role. That is important. It is very easy to look at the definition of the balance of probabilities and find weaknesses in it, but when we consider what actually happens in practice, I submit that those weaknesses are not often there.

The panel will have a conversation with the professionals and with the person and will consider the response. If doubts creep in, it will not just stop and make a decision on the balance of probabilities; it will continue to search. The more serious the doubts it encounters, the more evidence it will need for those doubts to be overcome. That is how the law has developed on the balance of probabilities in all other areas, and no doubt it will be the same in this area. Importantly, unlike with many other tribunals or courts, the decision must be unanimous, so if the social worker spots something that the psychiatrist or lawyer does not, the case will go no further.

What about the role of third parties? As I have set out before, this is a personal decision, but I also accept that no man is an island—a phrase often used by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. The process has to strike a real balancing act: allowing third-party information to be considered, but in a proportionate manner that respects individual autonomy. To my mind, the views of third parties are not relevant. Their views on whether the person is making the best decision for themselves are not relevant. This is not a welfare decision. Equally, it must be right that third parties—family members and others—can ensure that the panel has sight of the relevant information. Even after a certificate of eligibility has been given, the co-ordinating doctor will continue to be responsible for assessing new information, and their duties will continue until the final moments, as the Bill sets out.

[Naz Shah]

Given my hon. Friend’s expertise, does he anticipate JR being allowed in the panel setting? If so, would it be before the death or after? Can the decision by the panel be judicially reviewed?

[Jake Richards]

In my mind, any decision to give a certificate of eligibility could be subject to judicial review.

Third parties can put evidence before the panel to be considered, but it is not right that third parties might challenge the application. As I have set out before, this is not a dispute but a rigorous safeguarding process. If they have information about the person’s capacity, their diagnosis or any other relevant factors, they can and must ensure that the panel—if not the doctors or indeed the police—be seized of the information. Third parties can appeal the decision by way of judicial review. That would provide for a decision that was

“wrong, or…unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings”,

per amendment (a) to new clause 17. An injunction would be applied and the matter would have to be dealt with expeditiously. It is worth saying that all the evidence suggests that that would happen incredibly rarely. In Spain—

[Daniel Francis]

My hon. Friend is about to refer to Spain, as am I. Article 10 of the relevant Spanish law gives a right of appeal on a point of law to a higher court. Does he believe that we will be in line with the position in Spain? How long does he envision judicial review taking, given that we are dealing with somebody who is at the end of their life?

[Jake Richards]

The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes: judicial review is clearly an exercisable option in this case. I said “expeditiously” because lots of cases are heard expeditiously; High Court judges hear cases in the middle of the night, if there is a certain urgency. In these cases, one might imagine similar circumstances, but I must stress that they would happen incredibly rarely. All the evidence suggests that. In Spain, where a not dissimilar model is in place, such an approach is rarely used by family members. The vast majority of families attend the panel because they want to offer support and love to the person who has made the choice.

[Daniel Francis]

I just want to confirm that either side has the right of appeal in Spain.

[Jake Richards]

Yes.

The other side of the coin is that we must ensure that the process is workable. In Spain, 20% of people die before the panel hears their case. We must be very careful not to create something that is so burdensome as to be completely pointless. I believe that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley aim successfully between ensuring flexibility and rigour. Each case will be different—more so than in any other set of proceedings that I can imagine, and I have thought hard. There will no doubt be some that are incredibly complex, in which the panel may require further assessments and hear from relevant experts, but there will be far more that are solemn and serious but straightforward, and that is correct.

Other amendments, such as amendment (d) to new clause 21, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, seek to mandate certain procedural steps. While I have great respect for her as a former colleague, I fundamentally disagree with her amendment, which would require that the panel “must consider” hearing from persons who may be

“interested in the welfare of the person”.

I repeat that this is not a welfare decision. The panel, just like the High Court judge, is not saying, “What do I think is in the best interests of this person?” It is ensuring that the person has made the decision per clause 1, where we started: “settled”, “informed” and “voluntary”. We enter new ground with this law change, and that is why it is a new process, but to my mind it is safer and workable. Colleagues can be reassured, and I urge people to support the change.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way at the end of an excellent speech. Does he agree that the provision in new schedule 2 that allows the commissioner, who would be a sitting or previous judge, to give guidance and set procedure for the operation of panels would answer some of the concerns raised by those who think that there would not be sufficient judicial input into the procedure of the panels?

[Jake Richards]

That is an important point, because the change, as drafted in the various amendments, provides for real flexibility. That may cause others some concern, but to my mind it is a reassurance, because it will mean that a weighty figure, the commissioner, will be able to set out rules and regulations for the process to make sure that it is rigorous but is not so burdensome as to be pointless.

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

I rise to speak to my amendment (a) to new schedule 2. The assisted dying review panel comprises a legal member and the chair, a psychiatrist member and a social worker member. I welcome this third tier of safeguarding and its range of specialities, as laid out in new clause 21.

My amendment (a) would amend paragraph 4, which concerns membership of panels, by inserting a new paragraph 4(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.”

I emphasise the “if”, because it is in certain circumstances. I have previously touched on the requirements of the Welsh Language Act 1993 and the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011. It appears that the panel can be defined as a legal proceeding and will therefore be required to follow the pre-devolution 1993 Act. Let us consider whether that is sufficient for the level of safeguarding that all Committee members want to provide.

Section 22(1) of the Welsh Language Act 1993 states:

“In any legal proceedings in Wales the Welsh language may be spoken by any party, witness or other person who desires to use it, subject in the case of proceedings in a court other than a magistrates’ court to such prior notice as may be required by rules of court; and any necessary provision for interpretation shall be made accordingly.”

I quote that as the nearest comparator. That means that the 1993 Act, in the situation we are discussing, enables people to speak Welsh and for interpreters to be provided as necessary. That gives people the right to speak Welsh, but it does not give them the right to be heard in Welsh in their own voice. If the legal personnel do not speak Welsh, their decisions will be based on the interpreted communication. The key question is whether we are content to accept the use of interpreters as intermediaries between the individual and the assisted dying panel.

Dr Sarah Davies, a consultant respiratory physician from Colwyn Bay, has written, with 78 other clinicians from Wales as co-signatories, to parliamentarians about their concerns. She states:

“In practice use of interpreters does not provide full communication of appropriate knowledge from clinician to patients. This is because interpreters are often not experienced and confident enough to discuss such complex and legal issues as assisted dying. Even the best possible practice by interpreters cannot match communicating in the person’s own preferred language. Every person whose preferred or primary language is Welsh and who communicates as a family or socially in Welsh should have access to important health information in Welsh. Any necessary assessment of capacity for purposes of consideration of assisted dying, and any assessment of coercion, must be in person and in Welsh if that is the person’s preferred language.”

Dr Davies further states that it is not possible to confidently assess the decision-making capacity of a Welsh speaker in their second language. Superficial conversations in English often fail to demonstrate that a Welsh speaker with significant health problems is confused or does not have a good understanding of their own health condition and treatment options. The presence of confusion or lack of information may become apparent only during detailed conversations with a Welsh-speaking healthcare professional. It can be extremely challenging to detect the presence of coercion, and the nuances of family dynamics will not be apparent to a non-Welsh-speaking professional when the language spoken in the family is Welsh, so it will not be possible to make any assessment of the presence or absence of coercion. That is what Dr Davies says.

The office of the Welsh Language Commissioner believes that there must be provision in the Bill to ensure that a person’s choice of language is considered, recorded and matched with further provisions, including a Welsh-speaking specialist panel. The commissioner’s office agreed that such an amendment relating to the specialist panel is very important. It stressed that a Welsh-speaking panel will be able to provide the same service in English to individuals who are not receiving assistance through Welsh, so the requirement in amendment (a) should not, in and of itself, necessarily mean recruiting more individuals or more panels. None the less, I feel that I must allay fears that it would require every member of every panel in Wales to be able to speak Welsh. It does not. That is not the intention of the amendment, nor is it in its wording. Fluent proficiency is required of all panel members only when the panel is making a decision in relation to a person whose preferred language is Welsh.

So far, the response I have received from Ministers is that this private Member’s Bill does not require specific requirements on Welsh language rights in it and that these rights are already enshrined in law. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and I have written to the Minister as regards discussing how the legislation should operate in relation to Wales and devolution—he had previously committed to a meeting—but we have yet to receive a response. I have withdrawn previous amendments in anticipation of that very meeting, but in this instance—as the provision of interpreters to communicate between the individual and the people charged with being the final guardians of safeguarding is wrong—I will push the amendment to a vote, because I do not believe that the issue is covered in legislation as things stand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins]

rose—

[Jake Richards]

rose—

[Naz Shah]

I am happy to take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire, and then I will come to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I disagree with my hon. Friend. Subconscious bias operates in society; this is not about being held to account. People are not doing these things deliberately, but because they have a subconscious bias.

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend is making a fine speech. She said that High Court judges make mistakes, which is undoubtedly true. She also said that the panel may be guilty of unconscious bias. Is there any layer of scrutiny that would satisfy her? What does she think about jury trials?

[The Chair]

Could the hon. Lady make progress now, please?