Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department of Health and Social Care
Kim Leadbeater
Main Page: Kim Leadbeater (Labour - Spen Valley)Department Debates - View all Kim Leadbeater's debates with the Department of Health and Social Care
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting)
Kim Leadbeater ExcerptsTuesday 25th March 2025
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 March 2025 - (25 Mar 2025)
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has mentioned a couple of companies. I have to say that I do not know very much about those companies. Are they healthcare providers? Do they deliver healthcare?
Naz Shah
Some of them do, or they deliver parts of healthcare. Any company can bid or design a service to recruit doctors, as I said earlier. That is the reason I mention these companies. Big companies already do provide some services to our NHS, albeit that they may be in different areas at the moment.
Stephen Kinnock
New clause 36 specifies that the Secretary of State will, by regulation, set out the operating framework for the delivery of the assisted dying service. That will be the change to the legislation that is required. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I am missing something. I do not know whether we are talking at cross purposes here. What I am saying is that new clause 36 provides the basis for the delivery of the service. I am sorry if I am missing his point, but that is my understanding.
Kim Leadbeater
The Minister is absolutely right. The point is that new clause 36 provides that provision for assisted dying services can be made through the NHS. It gives flexibility: if the NHS Act needed to be amended, it could be, but that is certainly not the intention at this stage. The Act has been amended on numerous occasions, not least by the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. It is very helpful, because I perhaps did not quite understand what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said. My hon. Friend sets out very clearly the optionality represented in new clause 36.
The new clause further ensures that voluntary assisted dying services provided as part of the health service must be free of charge, unless charging is expressly provided for. Subsection (6) confirms that regulations made under this new clause can make provisions with the same effect as an Act of Parliament, including amending other primary legislation. However, they cannot amend the provisions in this Bill. The amendment also defines voluntary assisted dying services.
Amendment (a) to new clause 36 would prohibit regulations being made that authorise the provision of voluntary assisted dying services by the NHS in England. The Secretary of State would still have a duty to ensure that arrangements are made for the provision of assistance, but not by the NHS. The Secretary of State could, for example, make arrangements for another body to provide assistance, which would mean that the Secretary of State could not ensure that assistance was provided in accordance with the Bill or through the NHS in England. This would apply only to England, not Wales. Welsh Ministers could still make regulations for the provision of voluntary assisted dying services by the NHS in Wales. This could result in a divergence between England and Wales in the provision of assisted dying services.
Stephen Kinnock
I was cut off in my prime, but I am ready to start again.
New clause 37 will give the Welsh Ministers a power to make regulations about voluntary assisted dying services in Wales, including regulations to secure that arrangements are made for voluntary assisted dying services to be provided in Wales. Such regulations can make any provision that could be made by an Act of Senedd Cymru and that would be within the legislative competence of the Senedd if it were contained in such an Act. The Secretary of State will be able to make regulations about such services where this would be outside the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru.
Subsection (6) confirms that regulations made under the new clause can make provisions with the same effect as an Act of Parliament, including amending other primary legislation. However, they could not amend the provisions in the Bill. I hope that those observations have been helpful to the Committee.
Kim Leadbeater
We have had some excellent and extremely thorough debates covering all aspects of the Bill since the Committee first met. There has been an unprecedented level of scrutiny, and rightly so, given the gravity of the issue. The clause before us is one of the most important that we will consider. Without it, the Bill’s objective of offering a compassionate and dignified choice to terminally ill adults could not be met. The injustices of the status quo would remain, with too many people travelling abroad to seek an assisted death or taking matters into their own hands here at home, alone and often before they need to, in order to protect their loved ones from the threat of prosecution. Those people would be left, as they are now, with no protections against coercion or pressure to end their life and, crucially, with no ability to choose the manner and timing of their death so that they can say goodbye and be remembered by their loved ones as they would wish.
Clearly, some hon. Members do not want those people to have that choice. They are fully entitled to that view. However, if Parliament decides otherwise and gives that choice, it is our responsibility to ensure that it can be exercised without adding constraints and impediments that would serve only to make people’s last days and weeks more traumatic, not less. That is one reason, although not the only reason, why I am clear that the process must be available as part of the range of services available to patients under the NHS and free at the point of need. It must be for the Secretary of State to make provision for the service in England, and for Ministers in Wales to do the same in Wales if the Senedd agrees. The House of Commons must have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations under the affirmative procedure.
Despite the challenges that it faces, the NHS is a trusted institution staffed by some of the best qualified and skilled health professionals anywhere in the world. Not all of them will want to participate, and it is their absolute right not to, but patients and the wider public should be reassured that assisted dying services would be commissioned and regulated in the same way as other services through the NHS, a system with which they are familiar.
There is another very important reason why I do not believe that voluntary assisted dying should be a service that is separate from the core responsibilities of the NHS. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire and others have described the decision to request an assisted death as a fork in the road. I fundamentally disagree. “Fork in the road” implies that once someone decides which route they will take, that is it: they have chosen their direction of travel. That goes completely against the principles behind the Bill.
The option of an assisted death is just that: it is an option throughout. Right up until the final moment, the person can decide not to exercise that choice. Experience from around the world suggests that consistently 30% to 40% of people do not, but knowing that they have the option has given them the comfort and reassurance that they need to make their final days less stressful and less fearful. It is crucial that the option of a voluntary assisted death remain part of an holistic approach to end-of-life care. If other options—including palliative care or the comfort provided by a hospice or other institution—are working for the individual, they have no need to take it up, but if it remains their clear, settled and informed wish to do so, that is their decision.
My belief that a person requesting an assisted death should be guided through the process, in a health and care environment that they trust and are familiar with, extends to private provision. Other commissioned and regulated services are supplied by a range of providers; the same should apply in this context, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said.
NHS trusts and ICBs may use private providers in some circumstances, as they already do. This provides flexibility, which is important, but what matters is that the safeguards and protections in this Bill will apply no matter where the service is supplied. The same requirements on doctors will apply, including the need to prepare reports and send them to the commissioner, and the stipulation that a medical practitioner cannot benefit financially or in any material way from the death of a person and can only receive reasonable remuneration for providing the service. My new clauses 36 and 37 make provision for this. The amendments to the new clauses seek to frustrate or delay that intention, and I cannot support them.
Perhaps it is the Committee that is at a fork in the road. One route leads towards the correction of an injustice that has already lasted too long, and it offers a safe and compassionate choice at the end of life. The other route is to say that we are okay leaving things as they are, that the status quo is defensible and that people do not deserve to be given that choice.
Danny Kruger
I hope the hon. Lady does not really think that I or others think the status quo defensible. There are clearly major problems with our palliative care system that we all recognise and want to improve. I would be grateful if she acknowledged that we need to improve palliative care.
On the hon. Lady’s point about remuneration, the Bill specifies that it would not be regarded as illegitimate for doctors to earn reasonable remuneration. What does she think “reasonable” is? How would we designate the appropriate remuneration for doctors? Does she agree that there is nothing in the Bill to stop private providers supplying the service and making money from it?
Kim Leadbeater
The approach to reasonable remuneration would be the same as in any other service commissioned by the NHS. There are tariffs for services that doctors provide. That is not for us in Parliament to decide; it would be up to the NHS and the commissioning bodies.
I understand that some people might be uncomfortable with private providers. If so, I suggest that they are probably uncomfortable—which might be surprising, given their politics—with the concept of private healthcare provision per se. Whatever our moral view on that is, we cannot take assisted dying out of the system that we currently have. I think it is really important that the choice is given to terminally ill patients within the framework that we have.
Danny Kruger
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 disagreed to.
Clause 33
Notifications to Chief Medical Officers
Kim Leadbeater
I beg to move amendment 539, in clause 33, page 19, line 34, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring a registered medical practitioner to notify the Commissioner of the occurrence of an event of a specified description.”
This amendment replaces a power to make regulations requiring practitioners to notify the relevant Chief Medical Officer of certain events, including any events specified in regulations, with a power to make regulations requiring practitioners to notify the Commissioner of any event specified in the regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 172, in clause 33, page 19, line 34, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to require any registered medical practitioner to notify the relevant Chief Medical Officer of any notifiable event.
Amendment 540, in clause 33, page 20, line 17, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision enabling the Commissioner, by notice, to require persons (or a specified description of persons) to give the Commissioner information (or a specified description of information).”
This amendment confers a power to make regulations enabling the Commissioner to require persons to provide information to the Commissioner.
Amendment 541, in clause 33, page 20, line 18, leave out “subsection (1)” and insert “this section”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 540.
Amendment 542, in clause 33, page 20, line 19, leave out “the notification” and insert
“a notification under subsection (1)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 541.
Amendment 543, in clause 33, page 20, line 20, leave out second “the” and insert “such a”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 541.
Amendment 544, in clause 33, page 20, line 22, leave out from “section” to end of line 23 and insert
“‘specified’ means specified in the regulations.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 539 and 540.
Amendment 173, in clause 33, page 20, line 24, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
This amendment would mean that any regulations made under this section (Notification to Chief Medical Officers) must be made under the affirmative rather than the negative statutory instrument procedure.
Clause stand part.
New clause 38—Information sharing—
“(1) The Commissioner may disclose information to a person within subsection (3), for the purposes of any function of either of them.
(2) A person within subsection (3) may disclose information to the Commissioner, for the purposes of any function of either of them.
(3) The persons within this subsection are—
(a) the Care Quality Commission;
(b) the General Medical Council;
(c) the General Pharmaceutical Council;
(d) the Nursing and Midwifery Council;
(e) any other person specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) The Commissioner and the Secretary of State may disclose information to each other, for the purposes of—
(a) any function of the Commissioner, or
(b) any function of the Secretary of State relating to the operation of this Act.”
This new clause enables the sharing of information between the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and certain persons.
New clause 39—Obligations of confidence etc—
“(1) A disclosure of information which is required or authorised by or under this Act does not breach—
(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or
(b) any other restriction on disclosure (however imposed).
This is subject to subsection (2).
(2) This Act does not (and regulations under it may not) require or authorise the disclosure of information which would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether a disclosure required or authorised by or under this Act would do so, the requirement or authorisation is to be taken into account).
(3) In this section ‘the data protection legislation’ has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”
This new clause provides that disclosures on information required or authorised by or under the Bill do not breach any restrictions on disclosure, but that this is subject to the data protection legislation.
Kim Leadbeater
The purpose of these amendments is to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the notification process within the context of the Bill and to ensure that the commissioner, who plays a key role in monitoring and reporting, receives the necessary information to fulfil their duties effectively. The amendments will empower the Secretary of State to make regulations that require registered medical practitioners to notify the commissioner of any events specified. This change is a critical step towards centralising the notification process and will ensure that the commissioner is directly involved in overseeing these events in a manner that supports the broader goals of the Bill.
Under the amendments, the Secretary of State will have the authority to make regulations that require medical practitioners to notify the commissioner and that grant the commissioner the power to request information. They are designed to enhance the commissioner’s ability to effectively monitor the operations of the Bill.
New clauses 38 and 39 are designed to facilitate the proper and secure exchange of information between the commissioner, various regulatory bodies and the Secretary of State in relation to the voluntary assisted dying framework. These provisions are critical to ensuring that the operation of the Bill is transparent, effective and within a secure, legally compliant framework.
New clause 38 seeks to create a structured system for the exchange of information between the commissioner and key bodies involved in healthcare regulation and oversight. This is an essential provision to ensure that all relevant parties can co-operate in the administration of the Bill and that the commissioner has access to the necessary data to fulfil their duties effectively.
New clause 39 addresses a critical issue regarding the disclosure of information under the Bill. It will ensure that information can be shared as required without compromising data protection laws or breaching confidentiality obligations; it seeks to ensure that while the Bill facilitates necessary data sharing, it will not override the existing protections for privacy and confidentiality. That is crucial both for the professionals and for the individuals involved in the processes established by the Bill.
New clauses 38 and 39 will ensure that the voluntary assisted dying commissioner can effectively share information with key bodies while maintaining strict adherence to confidentiality and data protection laws.
Rebecca Paul
I rise to speak briefly to amendments 172 and 173, in my name, but amendment 172 will fall if amendment 539 is voted through. The point of amendment 172 is to ensure that the commissioner has adequate data about important events. It turns a “may” into a “must”. It means that the Secretary of State must issue regulations requiring a doctor to notify the chief medical officer, or the commissioner as in all likelihood it will be, of any notifiable event.
Kim Leadbeater
I will double-check, but I am pretty confident that those reporting mechanisms are covered elsewhere in the Bill. I am very happy to confirm, but I think they are covered in clauses 7 and 8.
Rebecca Paul
It would be reassuring if that were the case because such data can be very useful. By making sure we get into the routine of providing it, it is there if we ever need it.
Amendment 173 provides that any regulations under the clause must be made under the affirmative rather than the negative statutory instrument procedure. In the interests of using our time well, I will not repeat the arguments that were made last week on this. However, if amendment 539 is accepted, the Bill will again defer a lot to ministerial powers and non-binding guidance and codes of practice. Under the negative procedure, Parliament is reduced to watching rather than properly participating in the decision-making process.
Naz Shah
I rise to speak in support of amendments 172 and 173, tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate, and against amendment 539, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.
Clause 33 currently provides that the Health Secretary “may” bring forward regulations to require a doctor to report any notifiable event to the chief medical officer. That would be either the CMO for England or the CMO for Wales, according to where the assisted death takes place. The clause lists those notifiable events, such as the first declaration, the two statements by the doctors, including when they refuse to make such a statement, and the final statement that follows the person’s death. The weakness in the clause as originally written is its use of the word “may”. It should not be optional for the Secretary of State to make such regulations. Amendment 539 retains that weakness, while adding what I view as a new problem. The new weakness is that the amendment removes the requirement for doctors to notify the CMO of the events. Instead, it specifies that they should notify the voluntary assisted dying commissioner.
By all means let us have doctors reporting these events to the commissioner, but they should still be required to report the events to the chief medical officers too. There are at least two good reasons for that. First, the chief medical officers are extremely experienced, senior doctors. They and their staff have the ability to look at this kind of data from a medical and especially a public health perspective. The VAD commissioner will come from a legal, not medical background. They will have other abilities but they will not look at this through the lens that a senior doctor would. Secondly, it cannot be good governance that the only person who must see the data is the commissioner—the official who runs the assisted dying system and who appoints all the panel members.
Kim Leadbeater
I hope that my hon. Friend can take some reassurance from amendment 455, which says that
“the Commissioner must consult… the Chief Medical Officer for England”
and
“the Chief Medical Officer for Wales”
when making a report.
Naz Shah
I will come on to that point.
As I have said previously, this Bill will not just create a VAD commissioner, but give them the power to assess their own work. That means it is much less likely they will critically assess the data for any signs of a major problem. We all suffer from unconscious bias, even the very senior legal officials who will be eligible to become VAD commissioners. If the data were sent to the chief medical officers as well as the commissioner, that would mean two sets of officials with different perspectives and fields of expertise looking for problems. We would have a much better chance of locating problems earlier that way.
Amendment 172 would change the clause so that the Health Secretary must bring forward such regulations. As things stand, regulations brought forward under the clause would be subject to the negative procedure, which, as all hon. Members know, considerably reduces the amount of parliamentary scrutiny they receive.
Amendment 173 would make regulations under the clause subject to the affirmative procedure. I honestly try to see the arguments for and against each amendment, but I have real difficulty in seeing what the arguments against these two might be. Clearly, notifiable events are important information that must be collected nationally for a transparent assisted dying system. Equally, they need to be governed by regulations so that all doctors participating in the scheme have a clear picture of their responsibilities.
Finally, on such an important matter, Parliament should be required to vote to accept such regulations, as that will increase the scrutiny from both this House and the other place. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley drew my attention to her amendment, which says the commissioner must consult the chief medical officer. However, it does not specify whether the consultation should include data or if it is the beginning of the process; those things are not stated on the face of the Bill. That leaves it open to interpretation, which is why I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate. I thank her for tabling those two very sensible amendments and I urge hon. Members to vote for them. From my perspective, amendment 539 weakens the Bill and we should vote against it.
Kim Leadbeater
I beg to move amendment 382, in clause 34, page 20, line 26, leave out “relevant Chief Medical Officer” and insert “Commissioner”.
This amendment provides for monitoring, investigation and reporting functions under Clause 34 to be carried out by the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner (instead of the Chief Medical Officers for England and for Wales).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 383, in clause 34, page 20, line 29, leave out “the relevant national authority” and insert “an appropriate national authority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.
Amendment 384, in clause 34, page 20, line 30, leave out “relevant national” and insert “appropriate national”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.
Amendment 385, in clause 34, page 20, line 31, leave out “relevant Chief Medical Officer” and insert “Commissioner”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.
Amendment 449, in clause 34, page 20, line 32, after “to” insert
“Parliament or Senedd Cymru as appropriate and”.
This amendment requires the relevant Chief Medical Officer to submit an annual report to Parliament or the Senedd Cymru and the relevant national authority.
Amendment 386, in clause 34, page 20, line 32, leave out “the relevant” and insert “each appropriate”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.
Amendment 387, in clause 34, page 20, line 34, leave out “relevant Chief Medical Officer’s” and insert “annual”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.
Amendment 389, in clause 34, page 21, line 1, leave out subsections (3) to (7) and insert—
“(3) An appropriate national authority must—
(a) publish any report received under this section,
(b) prepare and publish a response to any such report, and
(c) lay before Parliament or Senedd Cymru (as the case may be) a copy of the report and response.
(4) In this section “appropriate national authority” means the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.
Kim Leadbeater
Amendment 382 and the consequential amendments provide for monitoring, investigation and reporting functions under clause 34 to be carried out by the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. The commissioner will submit an annual report to the appropriate national authority—Parliament or the Senedd—on the operation of the Act, as set out in amendment 389. The appropriate national authority must publish any report received under this section, prepare and publish a response to any such report, and lay before Parliament or Senedd Cymru a copy of the report and the response. I think the Committee is in agreement about the importance of reporting and monitoring under the Act, and I hope it can support these amendments.
Danny Kruger
I appreciate that the amendments are necessary for the new design of the Bill, but I want to express my concern that they establish an assisted dying regime that is left to monitor itself. When the person who facilitates these profound decisions is also the one who reviews them, it threatens not just the integrity of the system but the safety and trust of those it serves. Without labouring the point, other jurisdictions have significant problems with reporting and the information being the responsibility of those delivering the service. In Oregon, where assisted dying has been legal since 1997, the state relies on doctors to self-report compliance. We are left trusting that every form filled in will tell the whole story.
Robert Clark, the former Attorney-General of Victoria, is very concerned about the operation of the legislation in Australia. He has highlighted how the voluntary assisted dying review board, which is a similar arrangement to the commission proposed here, relies on paperwork from the doctors themselves, with no routine audits or real-time checks. He pointed out that a tiny group of doctors—in fact, only 10—handled 55% of all cases in 2023-24, according to the review board’s data. Many of those doctors were advocates for the legalisation of the programme. I am concerned about the implications of a system that effectively trusts doctors to provide information without any proper review.
Lastly, with all due respect to whoever comes in as commissioner, the replacement of the chief medical officer with the commissioner represents a downgrading of the scrutiny the Bill offers. We know that the commissioner is likely to be a retired judge, which is a very distinguished position, but they will not be somebody with the serious political status of the chief medical officer. The CMO role is equivalent to a permanent secretary. I am sure the hon. Member for Spen Valley acknowledges that our current CMO is probably the best-known public servant in the country. It is very significant that we are proposing to downgrade the role fulfilled by the CMO. I do not think a retired High Court judge will have the same status.
Kim Leadbeater
I thought the hon. Gentleman was quite keen on a judge, but now maybe less so. I hope he is reassured by amendment 455, which requires the commissioner to consult the chief medical officer. That shows really clear intent for the post to have judicial and medical expertise and oversight.
Danny Kruger
I am keen on actual judges who sit in court with the full authority of a judge, not a retired judge sitting at the head of a quango very far away from the decisions made about assisted dying. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I appreciate the fact that there will be a duty to consult. We want to have as much input from the CMO as possible in the administration of the service.
Kim Leadbeater
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. At the risk of repeating what has already been said before by various members of the Committee, amendments 455 and 456 are important amendments that further strengthen the oversight, transparency and implementation of the Bill, particularly in relation to protected characteristics.
Clause 34(1) already establishes the requirement of an annual report to be produced, but amendment 455 goes further by mandating that this report must also include detailed information about how the Bill applies to individuals with protected characteristics. Those are the groups identified in the Equality Act 2010, such as by age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion and others. Furthermore, the amendment ensures that the report will not only cover those protected characteristics, but any other group that may be specified in regulations set by the Secretary of State, which provides the ability to adapt and to ensure that the Bill is applied fairly to all groups as societal needs and considerations evolve.
Amendment 455 also ensures that the commissioner consults relevant stakeholders when preparing the annual report, specifically, the chief medical officers for both England and Wales, along with representatives of groups advocating for those with protected characteristics. This collaborative approach ensures that the report is as comprehensive as possible. Of course, the report will also be supported by additional details and regulations, the doctors’ reports, and the review of the Bill as set out in clause 35. As such, I am confident that the reporting mechanisms set up under these provisions provide a thorough oversight for the assisted dying process.
Amendment 450 negatived.
Amendments made: 387, in clause 34, page 20, line 34, leave out “relevant Chief Medical Officer’s” and insert “annual”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.
Amendment 220, in clause 34, page 20, line 36, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) a report about the first assessment of a person does not contain a statement indicating that the coordinating doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 7(2)(a) to (g);
(b) a report about the second assessment of a person does not contain a statement indicating that the independent doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in section 8(2)(a) to (e);”
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;”. —(Kim Leadbeater.)
This amendment is consequential on NC21.
Amendment proposed: 451, in clause 34, page 20, line 43, at end insert—
“(e) there were complications in the procedure.
(2A) The Commissioner’s report must include analysis of the following—
(a) information about the patients’ diagnosis/es;
(b) information about the patients’ prognosis;
(c) any instances where concerns were raised about the patients’ capacity;
(d) any instances where concerns raised about the patient being coerced;
(e) any concerns raised by the multi-disciplinary panel;
(f) any concerns raised by family members;
(g) and demographic data on the patients, including socioeconomic data, information on protected characteristics; and
(h) data obtained from the recording of the consultation.” —(Naz Shah.)
This amendment would require reporting under section 34 to include various information on diagnoses, complications, concerns about capacity and other matters.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will be brief.
I am in favour of retaining the Bill as it stands. The key thing is the interplay between this clause and clause 42, on commencement. I would have been minded to support changes to the reporting period had the Bill been commencing within two years, as clause 42 as drafted sets out, but my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has tabled an amendment that will change the backstop of the commencement period to four years. The timescales set out in this clause are from the day on which the Bill is passed. It makes no sense to carry out a formal review of the operation of the legislation before the services have come into being. We will have a four-year timetable, potentially, for the backstop of the commencement. Throughout that time, the annual reporting requirement of the commissioner, who will undoubtedly have been appointed in advance, will kick in.
I also draw the Committee’s attention to new clause 35, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, which speaks to some of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. I strongly support the new clause, and the establishment of a disability advisory board to report annually on the effect on disabled people of not just the Act but the implementation. Picking up any concerns or views about its effect on people with disabilities would happen in a timely manner under new clause 35.
Kim Leadbeater
My hon. Friend makes a really important point, which I will come to in due course, but the thing that we need to analyse is the operation of the Bill. That will not start with the passing of the Bill; it will start with its commencement. It is important that we join the dots between the relevant clauses.
Lewis Atkinson
That is exactly right. For those reasons, I think we need to retain the full five-year review period. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley outlined, the review of the Act by the Secretary of State will be in addition to the annual reporting from the commissioner and, if we accept new clause 35, in addition to annual reports from the disability advisory board. Clearly, over the course of multiple amendments, we will have strengthened the reporting requirements both in advance of and post implementation.
Stephen Kinnock
Amendment 526 would impose a duty on a Minister to arrange for the report on the review of the operation of the Act to be debated by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords within 14 sitting days, beginning with the day after the laying of the report. That goes further than laying the report before Parliament as currently required under clause 35. I hope those observations were helpful.
Kim Leadbeater
I will speak briefly to this clause, because some of what I say will be covered in our debate on other clauses. The title of the clause is “Review of this Act”, so it is important to be clear about what we are reviewing. I am sure members of the Committee agree that it is the operation of the Act that needs to be considered. As such, it is important to join the dots between the relevant clauses of the Bill and differentiate between the passing of this legislation and the commencement of its provisions.
I have tabled amendment 548 to clause 42, “Commencement”, which provides that the commencement of the provisions of the Act could be up to four years beginning with the day on which the Bill is passed. I sincerely hope it is sooner than that, but I have tabled the amendment none the less. New clause 40 provides that, until the Act is implemented, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the first anniversary of the Act being passed, with subsequent reports being laid every six months up to full implementation. It is a comprehensive reporting system, and it is really important to look at what we are reporting on. The reality is that the commencement of the Act could be between two and four years, so a five-year review makes sense.
Amendment 452 negatived.
Amendment proposed: 493, in clause 35, page 21, line 31, leave out “5-year” and insert “3-year”.—(Daniel Francis.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephen Kinnock
This group of amendments relates to clause 35, which sets out requirements for review of the Act. Amendments 491 and 492 aim to broaden the scope of the assessment criteria for the review.
Amendment 491 would expand the scope of the report that the Secretary of State must prepare at the end of the initial five-year period to include an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of appropriate care services, as well as health services, to persons with palliative care needs. Care services play an important role in supporting terminally ill individuals with care needs in settings such as care homes and in the community. However, it is not clear what the term “care services” would cover. It could include, for example, unpaid care, private or local authority-funded care, or non-statutory care services such as befriending.
Amendment 492 would extend the people the assessment will cover to include those receiving end-of-life care as well as those with palliative care needs. The Committee may find it helpful to note that, while palliative care focuses on improving quality of life for individuals with life-limiting illnesses at any stage, end-of-life care specifically addresses the needs of an individual in their final year. The Committee may also find it helpful to note that, under clause 2(1) as amended by the Committee, a person is considered terminally ill if their death, in consequence of an inevitably progressive illness or disease that cannot be reversed by treatment, can reasonably be expected within six months.
Clause 35(1) requires the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the operation of the Act, prepare a report on that review, and publish and lay the report before Parliament. The Secretary of State is required to do that during a period of 12 months beginning after the period of five years from the day on which the Bill is passed. Clause 35(3) provides a non-exhaustive list of what the report must set out. Amendment 397 would require that the report includes an assessment of the impact of the legislation on people with learning disabilities, including any concerns about the operation of the Act in relation to them. The amendment does not include a definition of “learning disabilities” and so may introduce legal uncertainty as to what must be included in the report. However, I note that there is an existing definition of “learning disability” in section 1(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983, which could be considered to mitigate this uncertainty if the amendment were agreed to.
Kim Leadbeater
Amendments 491 and 492 would expand the scope of the report that the Secretary of State must prepare at the end of the initial five-year period to include an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of appropriate services by including care services and end-of-life care. It is not clear what “care services” would cover, and I am concerned about the broadness of that term and the lack of a clear definition, so I am not minded to support amendment 491.
Amendment 492 would expand the population that the assessment will cover to include persons with end-of-life care needs alongside those with palliative care needs. That makes sense and, given the purpose of the Bill, the amendment seems sensible, so I am happy to support it.
On amendment 397, which would require consideration of the impact on people with learning disabilities, we have had this conversation several times with my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. As I have said previously, he makes a very valid point with reference to this cohort of people, and as such I am minded to support the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 546, in clause 42, page 24, line 18, after “Sections” insert:
“(Reporting on implementation of Act),”.
This amendment is consequential on NC40.
New clause 20—Annual impact assessment of assisted dying—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report on the effect of this Act.
(2) The report in subsection 1 must include an analysis the effect of this Act on people’s access to—
(a) healthcare,
(b) palliative care, and
(c) assisted dying.
(3) For the purposes of subsection 2, the analysis must include an examination of people’s access by reference to—
(a) protected characteristics, and
(b) socioeconomic status.
(4) The first annual report is to be laid before each House on their first sitting day after one calendar year from the passing of this Act.
(5) Each subsequent report is to be laid on the first sitting day one calendar year after the preceding report.”
New clause 28—12-month Assessment of this Act—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake, prepare and publish an assessment, within 12 months from the day this Act is passed, of—
(a) the extent to which the Act is on course to meet its aim of allowing adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own lives;
(b) the extent to which the Act is likely to meet that aim;
(c) an assessment of the state of health and care services to persons with palliative and end of life care needs and the implications of this Act on those services;
(d) any emerging concerns relating to the current or future operation of the Act; and
(e) steps the Secretary of State plans to take in response to those concerns.
(2) The assessment in paragraph (1)(c) must include the quality and distribution of appropriate health and care services to persons with palliative and end of life care needs, including—
(a) pain and symptom management;
(b) psychological support for those persons and their families; and
(c) information about palliative care and how to access it.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay any report under subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to undertake an assessment of the Act within 12 months, including an assessment of any concerns and services to persons receiving palliative and end of life care and the implications of the Act on those services.
New clause 40—Reporting on implementation of Act—
“(1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each reporting period, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish, and lay before Parliament, a report about—
(a) progress made in that period in connection with the implementation of this Act, and
(b) the Secretary of State’s plans for implementing the Act in subsequent reporting periods (including the expected timetable for implementation).
(2) For the purposes of this section the reporting periods are—
(a) the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;
(b) each subsequent period of 6 months (subject to subsection (3)).
(3) The sixth reporting period under subsection (2)(b) is the last reporting period.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make, publish and lay before Parliament a report about implementation of the Act resulting from this Bill. The first report must be made as soon as reasonably practicable after the first anniversary of the Act being passed, with subsequent reports being made in respect of the six subsequent 6 month periods.
Kim Leadbeater
I will speak to my new clause 40 and my amendment 546. The purpose of new clause 40 is to establish a requirement for regular reports on the implementation of the Act until all its provisions are fully implemented. This will ensure continuous oversight and transparency regarding the progress of the Act’s implementation.
The new clause will mandate the Secretary of State to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a report on the implementation and progress of the Act as soon as reasonably practicable after each reporting period. The reports must include the progress made on implementing the Act during the reporting period, and the Secretary of State’s plans for implementing the Act in future periods, including an expected timetable for further implementation. The first report must be issued one year after the Act is passed, and subsequent reports are due every six months. The sixth and final report marks the conclusion of the reporting period.
The new clause is linked to amendment 546, which will ensure that new clause 40 will be brought into force immediately upon the passing of the Bill, making the reporting requirements active right from the start. This provision is crucial for maintaining accountability and for ensuring that Parliament is regularly updated on the progress of the Act’s implementation and that any necessary adjustments or future plans are communicated effectively. It provides a structured timeline to track the implementation of the Act until all provisions are fully operational.
Daniel Francis
I wish to speak to my new clause 28, which was suggested by Marie Curie, the UK’s leading end-of-life charity. The new clause is more substantive than my two amendments in the previous group. It would require an additional assessment within 12 months of the Bill being passed, with the Secretary of State required to undertake an assessment of
“the extent to which the Act is on course to meet its aim of allowing adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own lives”.
Crucially, the assessment would incorporate an assessment of the current state of health and care services to persons with palliative and end-of-life care needs, and the implications of the Act for those services, including for the quality and distribution of palliative and end-of-life care services. The new clause seeks to mirror the requirement in clause 35 for an assessment after five years of the Bill passing, only within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, in order to provide a benchmark against which the later assessment can be measured.
There has been much discussion about the relationship between the Bill and palliative and end-of-life care services. Above all, the intention behind this new clause is to ensure that, outside the proceedings of the Committee and the progress of the Bill, that relationship is properly and thoughtfully considered by Government. We have heard a range of expert evidence throughout the Committee that, despite the very high quality of palliative and end-of-life care in this country and the phenomenal efforts of the clinicians and organisations delivering it, access to that vital care is all too often inequitable and subject to a postcode lottery.
As Marie Curie stated in its written evidence, if the fundamental aim of the Bill is to offer terminally ill people choice at the end of life,
“genuine choice…cannot exist unless dying people are able to choose to receive high quality palliative and end of life care”.
The sad reality is that in too many cases today people are not able to make that choice. There will most likely be consensus among us that action is needed to fix end-of-life care to ensure that all dying people can have choice and dignity, even if we disagree on whether that is most appropriately achieved on the face of the Bill or through other mechanisms.
There has also been a great deal of debate and discussion about what the impact of introducing assisted dying might be on palliative care services and reference to what might have happened in other jurisdictions. We should not leave this to chance and fool ourselves that improved access to palliative and end-of-life care would be an inevitability as a result of the debate or level of public interest in the Bill. By requiring an immediate assessment of the state of health and care services available to persons with palliative and end-of-life care needs through new clause 28, we can create a framework for accountability within this legislation and a firmer basis on which future policy and spending decisions on palliative care can be made.
It may be useful to recall that we have not had a national strategy for palliative and end-of-life care since 2008. While I appreciate that there are major policy milestones approaching, such as the 10-year health plan, that could help to address that gap, my hope is that an assessment of the quality and availability of palliative and end-of-life care services undertaken as part of the Bill can sit helpfully alongside other plans and strategies.
When introducing the Bill on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley chose to highlight that she had
“included in the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to report to the House on the availability, quality and distribution of palliative care.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 1013.]
At this point, the Bill requires such an assessment only after five years. I hope that she and other hon. Members will agree that it would be beneficial to support this new clause so that such an assessment may be undertaken within 12 months, in support of the ambition of seeing improvements in palliative and end-of-life care.
Stephen Kinnock
As drafted, clause 36 sets out individuals who are disqualified from acting as a witness or proxy. Amendment 454 would add to that list and exclude anyone from acting as a witness or proxy who would not themselves have capacity to request to end to their own life under the Bill. This would require there to be an assessment of the capacity of potential witnesses and proxies. There is no corresponding obligation placed on medical practitioners in the Bill to assess the capacity of potential witnesses and proxies, so it is not clear how a person would request, and be provided with, the required capacity assessment.
Kim Leadbeater
It is right that there are some exclusions for witnesses and proxies, as set out in the Bill, but although I have no doubt that amendment 454 comes from a good place, it seems both excessive and impractical to conduct a capacity assessment on witnesses and proxies. They are not the patient who is seeking assistance under the Bill, and the role they have is functional and will be overseen by the co-ordinating doctor. The panel can also ask to hear from them if they wish. As such, I cannot support the amendment.
Daniel Francis
I wish to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that invitation. Clause 38 is a form of insurance policy that enables the Secretary of State to respond to the evolving landscape and changes that may take place, including in the implementation period—for example, to respond to issues relating to data, substances, training or the setting up of the system. It ensures that there is a safety net or fall-back position to enable the Government to make changes that might be required.
Kim Leadbeater
Am I correct in thinking that this is a standard procedure, and it relates to very minor amendments, such as consequential and transitional provisions? It would be used not for any big changes to the Bill but for small amendments, and it would be burdensome to put such small changes before Parliament every time they needed to be made.
Stephen Kinnock
That is indeed my understanding. These would be minor changes, rather than major, fundamental changes to the Bill.
Stephen Kinnock
That is a good description of it. The wording used in the clause is “consequential and transitional provision”, which is another way of saying exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has described.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Regulations
Kim Leadbeater
I beg to move amendment 223, in clause 39, page 23, line 4, after “purposes” insert “, and
(b) incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provision.”
This is a standard power for regulations to include the power to make incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provision.
Kim Leadbeater
This is a standard power for regulations to include the power to make incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provision. This is a minor amendment, and it is a standard but vital measure to ensure the legislation works effectively and cohesively.
Sarah Olney
The clause, when amended by amendment 545, which we will vote on shortly, brings into stark relief how much of the Bill is to be left to regulations and how little say MPs will eventually get over it. When it comes to voting on Third Reading, MPs will have little certainty on how the Bill will actually operate—so much is to be taken on trust. If, through the gaps and grey areas, people come to harm, that will be on Parliament for failing to address these issues while we had the chance.
Let us consider all the powers that the Bill creates. Clause 5 creates a power to determine what goes into the first declaration, subject to the requirements of amendment 418. Clauses 5, 8 and 19 create powers to determine the training, qualifications and experience of the medical practitioners, with no minimum floor, and we do not even know who will ultimately decide the training—that, too, is to be left to regulations under amendment 186. Clause 6 creates powers to determine the forms of proof of identity, with no requirement for those to be photographic or to prove residency.
Clauses 7, 13 and 21 create powers to determine the statements, declarations and reports required from the doctors and the applicant. Clause 11 creates powers to make regulations for the replacement of the co-ordinating doctor if they have died, are ill or are otherwise unable or unwilling. Clause 15 creates a new power to determine who can be a proxy. Clause 20 creates a power for the approval of drugs and substances to end people’s lives. Clause 28 creates a power to determine the prescribing, dispensing and transporting of approved lethal substances —the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire has called this purely administrative. Clause 29 creates a power to make regulations relating to the registration, certification and recording of deaths. Clause 30 creates a power to issue codes of practice that practitioners must simply “have regard to”.
Clause 32 will create an extraordinarily broad Henry VIII power, as we are completely in the dark as to how the assistance will actually be provided. Clause 33 creates a power to determine which events should be notified to the commissioner and how to enable the exchange of information. That is all to be decided by the Secretary of State, with the detail removed from the Bill.
All those things are to be subject to the negative procedure, except the training and qualification requirement for the first and second doctor, the codes of conduct, and the power for the Secretary of State to arrange for delivery of assisted dying. When a statutory instrument is made through the negative procedure, there is no need for a vote. The only exception, by convention, is when the Leader of the Opposition asks for one, but they understandably would not do so on a conscience issue. In practice, Parliament will never get a say on these matters. Is the Committee content with that?
Even on affirmative statutory instruments, Parliament’s say is limited to a 90-minute debate on a motion that cannot be amended. Suppose that the Secretary of State published a code of practice on the assessment of capacity that MPs felt did not take sufficient account of mental health conditions. They would be faced with the option to vote for it despite its inadequacy, or to vote against it and risk creating a position where there are no codes of practice at all. That is an impossible position to place parliamentarians in, yet that is what the Bill does. It is a massive blank cheque to the Executive.
I say to Government Members, who I know have great faith in the Health Secretary, that according to the Interpretation Act 1978, “Secretary of State” means any Secretary of State. The powers will not necessarily be exercised by the Health Secretary; they could be exercised by another Secretary of State. Indeed, under the doctrine of ministerial delegation, they could be delegated to another Minister who is not a Secretary of State.
I make these points to illustrate that there is an issue of principle that cannot be waved away on the basis that we think someone sensible will exercise the powers. Parliamentary scrutiny matters, and I very much regret that the Bill avoids it through these wide regulation-making powers.
Kim Leadbeater
It is fair to say that we have had a very valuable discussion on the matters relating to these amendments. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge for the considerable amount of hard work that she has put into researching these issues. As always, her approach has been extremely thorough and diligent.
I have been on my own journey regarding the need or otherwise to place definitions in the Bill, but having undertaken the valuable discussions we have had through this Committee—I think this genuinely has been the Committee at its best—along with the expert legal input and advice that my hon. Friend and the Committee have had, I think we are in the right place to enable the courts to ensure that the law is as expansive as possible and to ensure that we do not create a scenario in which certain behaviours from those with mal-intent in relation to the Bill are excluded from its scope. I agree that we should allow the courts to do their job with the broadest possible powers to prosecute offences under the Bill. I echo my hon. Friend’s comments to the Minister about the need for the inclusion of details about these issues in guidance and codes of practice, but I thank the Committee for an extremely useful and productive discussion.
Dr Tidball
I am grateful for the thorough and thoughtful discussion that we have had from Members on both sides of the Committee Room. I am pleased and reassured that we have that discussion on record, so that those looking at the work that we have done in this Committee will understand the depths and levels at which we have thought about these important concepts in this space and the extent to which we have challenged and checked Ministers in making sure that they understand our concern about these provisions being properly put in place. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft for her important input, which I hope will be reflected in the training.
I am glad that we have come this far and that we have a level of unanimity across both sides of the Committee Room. That is a nice point to reach as the Committee comes towards the end of its journey, and it reflects the essence and the intention that were so evident on Second Reading. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Kim Leadbeater
I beg to move amendment 392, in clause 40, page 23, line 27, at end insert—
“‘first assessment’ has the same meaning as in section 7;
‘first declaration’ has the same meaning as in section 5;”.
This is a drafting change.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 424, in clause 40, page 23, line 37, at end insert—
“‘preliminary discussion’ means a discussion of a kind mentioned in section 4(3);”.
This is a drafting change.
Amendment 393, in clause 40, page 24, line 5, at end insert—
“‘second assessment’ has the same meaning as in section 8;
‘second declaration’ has the same meaning as in section 13;”.
This is a drafting change.
Kim Leadbeater
These amendments are drafting changes, but they are important drafting changes, in that they are about the definitions of first assessment, first declaration, second assessment, second declaration and preliminary discussion. They are small but important changes and I hope that the Committee will support them.
Stephen Kinnock
The Government have been working with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and some amendments—including all three in this group—have been mutually agreed by her and the Government with the aim of ensuring the workability of the Bill. I shall provide a brief technical, factual explanation and rationale for the amendments.
Amendment 392 would add the meaning of “first assessment” and “first declaration” to the list of definitions in the interpretation provision in clause 40. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that all references to “first assessment” and “first declaration” throughout the Bill are interpreted consistently.
Amendment 393 would insert the meaning of “second assessment” and “second declaration” to the list of definitions in the interpretation provision in clause 40. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that all references to “second assessment” and “second declaration” throughout the Bill are interpreted consistently.
I turn to amendment 424. Clause 4(3) states:
“Where a person indicates to a registered medical practitioner their wish to seek assistance to end their own life in accordance with this Act, the registered medical practitioner may…conduct a preliminary discussion about the requirements that need to be met for such assistance to be provided.”
Clause 4(4), as amended, sets out that where a practitioner conducts a preliminary discussion, they must explain and discuss certain matters with the person concerned. These are:
“(a) the person’s diagnosis and prognosis;
(b) any treatment available and the likely effect of it;
(c) all appropriate palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support”.
The preliminary discussion may not be conducted in isolation from an explanation of and discussion about these matters. Amendment 424 would add a definition of “preliminary discussion” to the list of definitions in clause 40 to ensure that all references to a “preliminary discussion” in the Bill are interpreted in line with the description of the discussion in clause 4(3).
Amendment 392 agreed to.
Amendments made: 226, in clause 40, page 23, leave out line 37.
The amendment is consequential on Amendment 545.
Amendment 424, in clause 40, page 23, line 37, at end insert—
“‘preliminary discussion’ means a discussion of a kind mentioned in section 4(3);”
This is a drafting change.
Amendment 393, in clause 40, page 24, line 5, at end insert—
“‘second assessment’ has the same meaning as in section 8;
“‘second declaration’ has the same meaning as in section 13;”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)
This is a drafting change.
Stephen Kinnock
The amendment is linked to clauses 5 and 8, which define who can and cannot be a co-ordinating or independent doctor. According to the clauses, a person who benefits financially from the death of the person cannot be a co-ordinating or independent doctor. As the Bill stands, clause 40(4) provides that a registered medical practitioner is not to be regarded as benefiting financially, or in any other material way, from the death of a person by reason only of the practitioner receiving reasonable remuneration for the provision of services in accordance with the Bill.
The amendment may broaden what is meant by “benefiting financially”, so that its effect may be to prohibit a person from being a co-ordinating or independent doctor if their remuneration is greater for applications that are accepted than for ones that are rejected. However, as drafted, it is not possible to determine the effect of the amendment with certainty, so further amending is likely to be required at a later stage should the Committee accept the amendment.
Kim Leadbeater
I will not test the patience of the Committee by repeating the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland Central and for Stroud and, indeed, of the Minister. I am comfortable that subsection (4) as it stands is perfectly acceptable on the remuneration that a doctor can receive. I will not support the amendment.
Danny Kruger
I must conclude from that that the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, and the Minister would be content with an arrangement whereby a doctor was paid more for accepting an application and processing it, and for referring a patient—
Danny Kruger
In opposing my amendment, the hon. Member is declaring herself content with the text of the clause as it is. The text as drafted would allow a doctor to be paid more, the more applications that they receive, process and refer on. That might not be, in her mind, how the system should work—I would be grateful to know how the system should work, because it is not in the Bill or in the amendments. We have a very vague arrangement here, whereby a private provider would be enabled to deliver assisted dying—indeed, a profit-making organisation would be able to manage the entire process from beginning to end, even referring a second assessment to another part of their own company.
Danny Kruger
In a moment. The potential—as would happen in other parts of genuine healthcare—is that the more work people do, the more money they get. My concern is that that induces a dangerous incentive into the system. Having a global fee paid to a provider who managed the service would be much safer. The crucial point is that we prevent people being paid for approving and enabling assisted deaths, and that is what my amendment would do.
Kim Leadbeater
The hon. Member is making some interesting points, but they are not related to the point of this amendment, which talks about the doctor being given more money for approving the request. That is not quite the same point that he is making.
Danny Kruger
I imagine that a doctor who works for the non-profit service I am envisioning would be paid a salary and do their work, but would not be paid on a per-client basis—they would not be paid a tariff for the number of people they passed through the system, let alone for the different chunks of the process. People need to be paid, but they should not be paid on a per-client basis, because that would introduce dangerous incentives into the system.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 547, in clause 42, page 24, line 19, at end insert—
“(1A) Section (Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner), except subsection (4) of that section, and Schedule (The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner) come into force at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This amendment provides that the clause and Schedule relating to the Commissioner, except subsection (4) of the clause, come into force one year after Royal Assent.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 531, in clause 42, page 24, line 21, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under subsection (2) bringing sections 1 or 24 into force unless they have previously laid before Parliament a report containing an analysis of—
(a) the readiness of services to provide assistance and related functions of this Act, and
(b) training that has been provided under the provisions of this Act.”
Amendment 488, in clause 42, page 24, line 22, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations which bring section 18 into force unless the condition in subsection (3A) is met.
(3A) The condition is that a Minister of the Crown has made a statement to each House of Parliament that sets out—
(a) that, in their opinion, all regulations necessary for the effective provision of assistance have been made under this Act; and
(b) a list of the regulations that have been made for the purposes of paragraph (a).”
This amendment would prevent the Minister from making a commencement order for section 18 without a statement first being made to each House of Parliament stating that all necessary regulations for provision of assistance have been made and setting out what those regulations are.
Amendment 489, in clause 42, page 24, line 22, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment would remove the automatic coming into force of provisions under the Act two years after it is passed.
Amendment 548, in clause 42, page 24, line 23, leave out “2” and insert “4”.
This amendment provides that any provision of the Bill not brought fully into force before the end of the period of 4 years beginning with the day on which the Bill is passed will come into force at the end of that period.
Amendment 536, in clause 42, page 24, line 23, leave out “2” and insert “5”.
This amendment would increase the time period given between the passing of the Act and the automatic coming into force of provisions under the Act to five years.
Amendment 535, in clause 42, page 24, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply in relation to Wales.
(3B) In relation to Wales, the provisions of this Act not brought into force by subsection (1) come into force on such day or days as the Welsh Ministers may by regulations appoint (and such regulations may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru).”
Amendment 490, in clause 42, page 24, line 30, at end insert—
“(7) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under subsection (2) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(8) The Secretary of State may not lay a draft of an instrument under subsection (7) unless they have already laid before each House of Parliament a report providing an analysis of the expected efficacy of services and functions performed under this Act.
(9) The report under subsection (8) must, in particular, set out—
(a) the extent to which the Act is expected to meet its aim of allowing adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own lives;
(b) an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of appropriate health services to persons with palliative care needs, including—
(i) pain and symptom management;
(ii) psychological support for those persons and their families;
(iii) information about palliative care and how to access it;
(c) any concerns with the operation of this Act which have been raised; and
(d) the Secretary of State’s response to any such concerns and planned actions to be taken in response to those concerns.”
This amendment would change the procedure for commencement orders to the affirmative procedure and require a report to have been laid providing an analysis of the likely impact of the Act.
Clause stand part.
Clause 43 stand part.
Kim Leadbeater
Amendment 548 is not one that I had hoped to table, but I recognise that it is necessary. It is important to be clear about what it says and what it does not say. It creates a four-year backstop, meaning that the provisions of the Act must be implemented within four years of Royal Assent. What it does not say is that it cannot be implemented sooner than that, and I hope and believe that it can. A backstop is not a deadline.
Hon. Members who have been in this House longer than I have will be very familiar with the idea of a backstop. In this, as in previous contexts, it is not intended as the desired outcome but a form of protection. The Bill as originally drafted stated that, if all its provisions had not been brought fully into force after two years, they would come into force at the end of that period. Under the amendment, that period would now be four years.
I cannot pretend that I am not disappointed about extending the commencement period, and I know I am not alone. When I started work on the Bill, I thought, “Gosh, two years to implement it. That is a long time to leave the law uncorrected. How many terminally ill people will face the trauma and expense of travelling to Switzerland or feel they have no alternative but to take their own life or suffer a deeply traumatic death as a result of their illness in that time? How many more families will face the possibility of a police investigation, or have the happy memories of their loved ones tainted by their final weeks or days, due to the impact of their terminal illness?” That sat very heavily with me.
But I thought then, and still think now, that however difficult it feels at times, this is not a process that should be rushed. It is more important to do this properly than to do it quickly. I am pleased that the Committee has improved the Bill in many ways, and added extra safeguards to what was already the strongest assisted dying legislation in the world—in particular, with the setting up of a new judge-led voluntary assisted dying commission, with multidisciplinary panels to look at every application. Inevitably this will take longer to implement than simply referring cases to the High Court, an institution that already exists.
The reporting and monitoring mechanisms and infra-structure, along with the comprehensive training programme that we have rightly discussed at length in Committee, will take time to put together. It is clearly important to dedicate the necessary time to implementing these safeguards, but I also know the upset and disappointment that many people will feel about a potentially longer commencement period, so it is with some reluctance that I ask the Committee to support the amendment.
As I have said, four years is very much a backstop, not a target. If the Bill receives Royal Assent, I for one—I know that I will not be alone—will hold the Government’s feet to the fire to ensure that its provisions are put in place as quickly as is practicable and safe to do so. To that end, amendment 547 would ensure that the voluntary assisted dying commissioner will be appointed within 12 months of the Bill passing. New clause 40, as previously debated, would confer a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament at that 12-month point, and every six months thereafter, until it has been fully implemented. Those are important steps to show progress and to demonstrate accountability and transparency.
At lunchtime today I met a group of people—many terminally ill themselves—representing thousands of others who are looking to this Parliament to finally offer them or their loved ones the choice and dignity of a better death. I know, because they have told me, that they are disappointed by this change. I said to them that I would not be making it if I had not been persuaded that it was necessary, but I also said that I will do everything I can to not keep them waiting a moment longer than we absolutely have to. I hope that the Committee can support the amendments.
Sarah Olney
I rise to speak to my amendments 531 and 535 and to amendment 490 in the name of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).
I welcome what the hon. Member for Spen Valley has just said about needing more time to get this right. As I said earlier, there is still so much that has been left to secondary legislation. I regard that as unsatisfactory in itself, but the fact that we are going to take time to get it right will surely go some way to mitigating some concerns.
I have heard raised around the estate on a number of occasions today the concern that the four-year gap between passing the legislation and implementing it will take us right up to the next general election. I have to say that I share those reservations, even though I am not a member of the party of government, about how the general election campaign will intersect with the implementation of this legislation. I share people’s fears that this whole process will get enmeshed in party politics, which we have hitherto been able to avoid in the Committee, but nevertheless could create a real danger for successful implementation.
I did think that the auto-commencement of this Bill after two years was a little bit reckless. The extension to four years at least permits some potential improvement in palliative care—to re-ignite the spirit of consensus, as that is something that we all want to see—but an NHS already grappling with long waiting lists and staffing shortages could buckle under the added burden of implementing a complex new framework leading to rushed or inconsistent application. An automatic commencement of the new laws, regardless of the situation in the NHS, could leave patients and healthcare workers unsupported.
It is important is that, before the moment comes—whenever that is—Parliament should be fully informed as to how the service will be provided and the strength of other provisions, so that MPs can be confident that those choosing to end their lives through this service are given a fair choice and are not being pushed down a single pathway. We must also have confidence that the medical professionals and panels involved have received adequate training.
Amendment 531 would ensure that at least we go into this with our eyes open and that shortcomings are flagged if not addressed. It would provide that the critical provisions of the Bill, without which assisted dying cannot lawfully operate, do not come into force until a report is made setting out the readiness of services to be provided under the legislation and that the training has been provided. Similarly, amendment 488, in the name of the hon. Member for York Central, mandates a statement from both Houses that all necessary regulations are in place. This would prevent a premature roll-out without clear rules. These steps would not halt progress; they would ensure we are ready to proceed.
Amendment 490, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, does two important things. First, it requires that if the Secretary of State wants to commence before the auto-commencement deadline, they must publish a report covering the same matters covered by the report under clause 35. This would not be a new requirement, but would instead bring it forward. Crucially, that report would include details about the provision and availability of palliative care services in England and Wales.
Secondly, amendment 490—this is it goes further than my amendment 531 and amendment 488—requires that regulations bringing the Act into force prior to the auto-commencement deadline use the affirmative procedure: in other words, that there will be a vote in Parliament. It stands to reason that if the Secretary of State wants to go quicker than the four-year deadline, then Parliament ought to be able to consider whether all necessary preparations have been done and to refuse early commencement if that is not the case.
Amendments 488, 490 and 531 would not interfere with the auto-commencement point in four years’ time: when four years is reached the whole scheme will come into force. Those amendments would not prevent that, but they would achieve greater oversight and accountability if the Secretary of State decided to commence early. I hope that even if the hon. Member for Spen Valley is not minded to accept striking out the auto-commencement provisions, she will still accept these amendments.
Kim Leadbeater
The hon. Member makes some very fair points, but I think they will be covered by my new clause 40.
Sarah Olney
I am grateful for that intervention, but the crucial point is the vote in Parliament, so that MPs get not only an opportunity to consider whether sufficient progress has been made—as per new clause 40—but a vote to confirm that they are content for the legislation to proceed.
Sarah Olney
I refer to my earlier comments: there are few enough opportunities for MPs to have any further control over how this legislation is going to be implemented. I do not think that it is asking too much to want a further opportunity to be mandated, and not left—dare I say it—to the vagaries of the Backbench Business Committee. There are Opposition days, but this is cross-party, conscience issue. I can speak only for my own party, but I think there are a number of other issues that the Opposition would want to use those debates to address. Taken together, these amendments would ensure that Parliament is properly informed if the Secretary of State decided to commence the scheme before the four-year auto-commencement deadline.
I want to address how the Bill will be implemented in Wales. On 23 October 2024, in anticipation of the Bill being published, Senedd Cymru debated a motion calling on the Welsh Government to
“a) support the principles of assisted dying; and
b) support Westminster parliament to introduce a compassionate assisted dying law in England and Wales.”
The motion was defeated 19 to 26. Among those who voted against were a number of Welsh Government Ministers, including First Minister Eluned Morgan, and I believe that in three political parties—Labour, Plaid and the Conservatives—there was a majority against. In that context—as Professor Emyr Lewis, who gave evidence to the Committee, has stated—it would be constitutionally wrong to pass the Bill without the consent of the Welsh Senedd. He believes that this is different from other instances where legislation has been passed by Westminster against the will of Wales:
“This is not the equivalent, for instance, of trying to re-base the UK’s internal markets following the chaos of Brexit. When the UK Parliament passed Acts ignoring refusal of consent from Cardiff or Edinburgh, it did so in what were considered to be the interests of the economic coherence of the UK. This Bill, however, is a different sort of creature. It is a Bill which would bring about a profound change in the law relating to life and death, where there are strongly held (and expressed) moral, religious and cultural views against as well as in favour. How can it be constitutionally appropriate for the UK Parliament to pass such a Bill for Wales, when the Senedd has indicated its opposition by democratic vote after a thorough debate?”
Kim Leadbeater
I hope the hon. Member can acknowledge that the motion voted on in the Senedd was very different from the legislation before this Parliament. I hope that I can reassure her, as I have previously, that I am in contact with the Senedd and will be meeting Welsh Ministers. New clause 37 will hopefully also provide some reassurance on issues around devolution.
Sarah Olney
I again refer to what I said earlier: I fear this is another example where, instead of debating and agreeing these points in Committee or elsewhere in Parliament, we are delegating these matters to be decided elsewhere by some other people, not in the legislation that we are debating and voting on.
I reiterate that the Senedd has already made its view clear. It may not have been a binding vote. It may not have been voting on this specific piece of legislation. However, I think the will of the Senedd is clear: they do not want an assisted dying Bill imposed upon them, and that is what the evidence of Professor Emyr Lewis told us.
Kim Leadbeater
I think that is a very inaccurate representation of the vote that took place in the Senedd.
Sarah Olney
I am sorry that the hon. Lady feels that.
The complicating factor here is that the criminal law is not devolved to Wales, but health is, as is safeguarding. One possibility is to seek to respect devolution strictly, by either changing the law or giving the power to the Secretary of State to change the law in respect of what is reserved, while giving to the Welsh Ministers the powers in respect of what is devolved. The problem is that the Bill does not quite do that, even with the amendments that have been tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. Those amendments fail to properly identify what is and what is not devolved; instead, they kick the can down the road.
Future litigation might be required to figure out the precise boundaries. For example, regulation of health professionals is a reserved matter, but adult safeguarding is a devolved matter, so is the training of those health professionals on spotting coercive control a reserved or a devolved matter? The Bill does not answer that question. The solution therefore carries a real risk. If Wales decides that it does not want assisted dying and therefore does not provide it on its NHS, and the Welsh Ministers decide not to set up proper training and regulatory programmes in respect of the safeguarding issues raised, the position in Wales will be that it is decriminalised, so the service can be provided by private providers charging a fee and not necessarily properly trained in safeguarding. That is not a sustainable middle ground, so it would naturally pressure Wales to move towards commissioning such services itself.
In other words, the Bill either respects devolution at the risk of creating a legal limbo, or it puts pressure on Wales to catch up with England, neither of which are desirable. Another alternative is to take away any choice that Wales might have on the matter entirely, and have the law apply in Wales in exactly the same way it does in England, including when it comes to the actual delivery of services. That would avoid the legal limbo problem, but at the cost of acting in a way that is constitutionally quite wrong.
That brings us to the solution that Professor Lewis proposed in his blog:
“How then might the Bill be amended to respect the Senedd’s vote on the matter of principle? One straightforward way would be to provide for different commencement provisions in the Bill. As things stand, under clause 42 of the Bill, most of the Bill will not come into force until the Secretary of State has brought it into force, with the approval of the UK Parliament. Why not provide that the Bill will only come into force in Wales when and if the Welsh Ministers bring it into force with the approval of the Senedd?”
That is what I seek to do through my amendment.
I can foresee three objections. First, it might be said that the criminal law is a reserved matter and therefore Parliament ought not to refrain from legislating for Wales or have different commencement arrangements for the criminal law in England compared with Wales, but Parliament is sovereign and can do what it wants. By the same reasoning, Parliament should never grant a temporary power to a devolved legislature to legislate on matters that are normally reserved, yet Parliament does do that.
The second objection might be that England and Wales are a single jurisdiction, and that there should not be a difference in the criminal law between them, but this misunderstands that, as a result of the devolution settlement, there are already differences in the criminal law of England and Wales. For example, in our law there is a defence of reasonable chastisement, which means that parents smacking their children would not be committing a criminal offence. Although the criminal law is not devolved to Wales, child welfare is and, using those powers on child welfare, the Senedd voted to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement in Wales. That means that there is a difference in the criminal law of England and Wales. A position whereby assisting suicide was partially decriminalised in England but fully criminalised in Wales would not be an oddity. There is no principle of our constitution that says that the criminal law must be the same on both sides of the border.
The key issue is that the decriminalisation of assisted suicide, which the Bill will bring about, is not a stand-alone measure. What we are introducing is not something like the Swiss criminal code, for example, which does not criminalise assisted suicide when the person acted for non-selfish motives. Rather, it is a decriminalisation of assisted suicide that is contingent with complying with a detailed healthcare regulatory scheme, which is an issue that is devolved to Wales.
Finally, it might be objected that this might create difficult cross-border issues. As Professor Lewis put it in his blog,
“that would be true also if, for instance, the Scottish Bill did not become law. Far more difficult cross-border issues were successfully accommodated in the context of legislation, also involving profound ethical considerations, when the National Assembly for Wales (as the Senedd was then called) changed the law on organ donations.”
I accept that such a situation might require constitutional amendments at subsequent stages, but these could easily be made by the Government on Report.
Ultimately, when one looks at it in detail, having a different commencement provision for Wales is the only practical way of respecting the vote of the Senedd while not running the risk of creating a legal limbo. Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to the supplementary written evidence of Professor Lewis, in which he commends my amendment 535.
Regardless of where we stand on assisted dying, we should respect democracy. The people of Wales, through their elected representatives—acting as they should, as representatives—have voted against assisted dying. We should respect that choice and not impose it on them, in whole or in part, without their consent.
Stephen Kinnock
Thank you, Sir Roger, for giving me permission to remove my jacket. It is greatly appreciated. I assume that other hon. Gentlemen in the room are also able to do the same, should they wish to do so.
New clause 9 would make it a criminal offence for a person to advertise their services as a co-ordinating doctor or an independent doctor under the Bill. The offence would apply to a person who, in the course of a business, publishes or causes publication of an advertisement for the services of acting as a co-ordinating doctor or an independent doctor under the Bill, or who prints, devises or distributes an advertisement or causes that for the promotion of such services. The offence is wide-ranging and could include, for example, a person who unknowingly transmitted such advertising via electronic communications or social media.
Should the new clause be passed, further work may be needed to determine how the offence would be enforced. I also note that there is no provision for any defence in relation to the offences—for example, where a person responds to inquiries.
Restrictions on advertising always need careful consideration and drafting, given the potential unintended consequences and European convention on human rights impacts—particularly in relation to article 10, on freedom of speech. That is particularly so when breaches of the restrictions are made a criminal offence, as is the case here. However, article 10 is a qualified right, which means that interference can be justified provided that it is in accordance with the law, pursuant of a legitimate aim and necessary in a democratic society, so although the new clause could engage article 10, it may not violate it.
Kim Leadbeater
New clause 9 specifically relates to the advertising of assisted dying services. I fully understand the intent behind it—to prevent the unethical advertising of assisted dying services. I thank the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) for bringing the issue to the Committee’s attention. However, there are important nuances with the new clause as drafted that need to be addressed, to avoid criminalising individuals or organisations simply for providing information that is essential for those seeking access to those services. I have looked into this issue because it is an important point for the Committee to consider.
Section 4 of the Cancer Act 1939, a useful reference point, bans advertising for cancer treatment. It prevents the advertising of any treatments, regardless of whether they are evidence-based. Similarly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central mentioned, the Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 prohibits the advertising of surrogacy services. Both Acts are aimed at protecting individuals from misleading or unethical commercial activity.
The situation with assisted dying is more complex. The new clause is not about advertising unregulated or unproven services; it is actually about doctors who are offering a legal, regulated service to those who meet the criteria. I therefore have the same concerns as the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley.
Subsection (3) states:
“Distributing an advertisement includes transmitting it in electronic form, participating in doing so, and providing the means of transmission.”
That is particularly concerning because it could criminalise doctors involved in the process of simply communicating with their patients, such as by sending an email, if they were seen as participating in the distribution of an advert.
The intent is clear: we must prevent the unethical advertising of assisted dying services. However, we must ensure that the new clause does not inadvertently hinder access to legal services by criminalising the actions of doctors who are simply making themselves available in accordance with the law. We must not create barriers for those who need the service, nor should we penalise doctors for providing legitimate, legal services. I recognise the need to prevent the unethical advertising of assisted dying services, especially to avoid commercial exploitation or coercion, but it is essential that we carefully calibrate the clause to ensure that it targets unethical advertising practices without sweeping in legitimate and necessary actions that help people find the care they need in a manner that is lawful and respectful of their autonomy. As such, I am very happy to work with colleagues, including the hon. Member for Reigate, to look at how we can produce something to that effect ahead of Report.
Rebecca Paul
I thank everyone for all the very constructive points they made. I completely agree with the points raised; I think some work is needed, but I am pleased that the hon. Member for Spen Valley and other Committee members are willing to work with me and the tabling Member—my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire—to get this measure into a place where it does what we want it to do, without capturing things that we do not want it to capture. I completely take the point on the concern about emails; that is not what we want to capture.
Kim Leadbeater
I thank the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd for tabling the new clause. She has made extremely valuable points, as she has throughout the Committee, about the importance of respect for the Welsh language. I think she is absolutely right.
As the Minister said, there are some issues with the drafting, as to what the implications would be, not just in Wales but in England. It is my understanding that Ministers in the Senedd are happy to meet following the Committee’s proceedings, and I am happy to discuss these issues with them as part of our conversations.
It is important that the right hon. Member’s thoughts have been put on record, and we need to look at what we can put in the Bill ahead of Report to address her concerns.
Liz Saville Roberts
I honestly feel that the legislation as it stands—the Welsh Language Act 1993, and the 2011 and 2018 standards in relation to health—is not sufficient for what we are endeavouring to do. People have a right to use their first language, and it is of some regret to me that the only two languages protected by law in England and Wales are English and Welsh. I would be happy if there were more, but they are the only two I can discuss, and Welsh is obviously very close to my heart. On this last day, I feel my obligation to push the issue to a vote; otherwise, we will default to legislation that is not sufficient for what we are endeavouring to do.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Stephen Kinnock
New clause 30 would introduce a duty on medical or other healthcare professionals involved in a person’s care, including assessing doctors, should they receive an indication that the person is seeking assistance to end their own life contemporaneously with one of their family members.
The duty has two parts. First, the medical or other healthcare professional who receives the indication must notify the person’s co-ordinating doctor and a registered medical practitioner from the person’s GP practice. Secondly, if an assessing doctor receives notification of that fact, they must refer that person for assessment by a registered medical practitioner specialising in psychiatry and a registered social worker, and must take account of their opinion. The assessing doctor must share that opinion with the other assessing doctor.
In the absence of definitions, issues could arise as to who is covered by the term “family member” and as to the meaning of “contemporaneously”. The additional referrals would add to the length of the application process.
Kim Leadbeater
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich for tabling the new clause. I have some concerns around the broad definition of “family member”. I also feel that it would be potentially excessive if there were a coincidental situation in which, tragically, two members of the same family were terminally ill. I worry about the extra burden it would place on them of going through an even more rigorous process when they had both been assessed under the thorough regime of the Bill, including the multidisciplinary panel. However, the point is worth discussing and I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has raised it.
Jack Abbott
I appreciate the points made by the Minister and by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. “Family member” is a relatively non-specific description, but I think the thrust of the new clause is clear. Clearly, it is directed particularly at couples.
I fully understand why my hon. Friend does not want people to have to go through a huge number of extra layers; I have said at length several times that I do not want people at the end of their life to go through an awful period of sitting in endless meetings, assessments or courtrooms. However, I reiterate that although they would be relatively exceptional, there will be situations in which coercion and other sorts of pressure are potentially at play. I agree that that may be an incredibly rare scenario and that two people may just want to go through the stages towards the end of life together, but extra checks may need to happen at some point to ensure absolutely that there is nothing untoward such as other sorts of pressure or coercion, rare as that might be.
Stephen Kinnock
I associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire about the amazing work of the staff and the Clerks. May I say thank you very much to everybody?
New clause 34 seeks to prevent assisted dying under the Bill from being considered a medical treatment. As drafted, the Bill is silent on the question whether the provision of assistance under the Bill can be considered a treatment. If accepted, the amendment may be interpreted to mean that the term “medical treatment” in any other legislation may not be interpreted to include assisted dying. The term “medical treatment” is used in many different contexts across the statute book and has different meanings according to context. The clause is therefore likely to produce unpredictable and potentially unintended effects.
Kim Leadbeater
We are entering deeply philosophical territory, which is welcome and has happened several times before during the Committee’s proceedings. As ever, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has raised some interesting points, but my view is that his new clause should not be in the Bill. We all have our views on how we frame assisted dying and choice at the end of life, but I do not think that assisted dying should be defined—or rather not defined—in this way in the Bill.
Kim Leadbeater
I associate myself with the comments made by others, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, about the fantastic work done by my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge and for Bexleyheath and Crayford with regard to this new clause and other amendments. I also associate myself with the comments of the Minister for Care and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire about the fantastic work done throughout this Committee by our Chairs, the Clerks of the House and indeed all the staff of the House, and I pay tribute to colleagues who have served on this Committee; it has been hard work.
When I reflect on the criticism—sometimes, sadly, very personal—directed at me when we were putting the Committee together, I remember people saying that it would just be people who all agreed or people who would rush the Bill through. But here we are at this hour. I do not think this has been rushed through; I think we have taken an extremely thorough approach. “No amendments will be made” was the charge. We have made lots of amendments, and we will put the Bill back to the House in an even stronger position than it was in on Second Reading. I pay tribute to everybody involved in the process.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 35 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 6 disagreed to.
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.’”—(Kim Leadbeater.)
This new Schedule contains provision about the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the schedule be read a Second time.