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

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Paul]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s intervention, but the point I am making is not about coercion; it is about the subtleties in families’ relationships. I was trying to bring to life a situation—sometimes it is families who understand the relationships, the dynamics and the pressure points. It is very hard for professionals to get underneath that.

In a sense, families are the greatest experts, but the process as drafted excludes that expertise. Under my amendment, if a family member had knowledge that could make the difference between life and death, they would be able to apply to the panel. If there had been a clear error in applying the eligibility criteria, the application would be reconsidered. It is true that the panel will be informed by at least one of the doctors and that it has the option of hearing from others. Perhaps the panel will always be incredibly thorough and explore every avenue, but we have to legislate for every situation, including situations that are not ideal.

We can learn a lot from other jurisdictions. In written evidence, the academic Christopher Lyon from the University of York describes his experience in Canada. Dr Lyon writes that his father, who was “openly suicidal” and had a “history of mental illness”, qualified for medical assistance in dying in 2021. In Dr Lyon’s words:

“He was classed as having a ‘foreseeable natural death’ (i.e., terminal illness), my family was told, because he had momentarily skipped some meals at his residence and had an elevated but unremarkable white blood cell (WBC) count that the AD doctor suggested might be an infection that, if untreated, might become lethal, despite being a common side effect of his arthritis medication.”

Dr Lyon says that when he was informed two days before the event, he pushed for an urgent psychiatric assessment to be carried out. Dr Lyon has obtained a copy and says that it is

“full of errors. It claims he wasn’t suicidal, when he had a whole history of suicidality. It states he didn’t think he was depressed, and yet on the list of medications there was listed antidepressants.”

Dr Lyon’s concerns about his father’s prognosis, the assessment and other aspects of the events were widely shared, he says:

“After he died, the provincial regulatory college, police, and even other AD clinicians suggested his death was questionable or even wholly unlawful. However, privacy law and the continuing resistance from the local health authority have so far succeeded in blocking access to his medical records necessary for a full investigation”.

In Ontario, meanwhile, the chief coroner has published a report detailing the assisted death of an anonymous patient, Mr A, who had inflammatory bowel disease. He was unemployed, dependent on his family for housing and financial support, and struggled with alcohol and opioid misuse. He received an assisted death on the basis that his illness was advanced, irreversible and causing intolerable suffering. According to the coroner, the family were not consulted by those involved with processing the application, even though it was recorded that the family expressed concerns. Most members of the death review committee thought that shutting the family out was a mistake. The committee concluded:

“Engagement with family and/or close relations in the MAiD process should aim to be a key component of MAiD practice.”

We can hope that these were exceptional events, but they are the kinds of situation in which a panel might have benefited from a family perspective, which is the reason why I cite them.

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

As my hon. Friend heard yesterday from the hon. Member for Rother Valley, there are multiple points in the new system at which family could make their views known. Indeed, they could apply very quickly for an injunction if they thought something was untoward.

My hon. Friend has talked a lot about families knowing best. Surely it should be the dying person who chooses how best to handle their family. The evidence overseas is that giving dying people choice about the manner and time of their death also gives them the choice about how to handle their family, and particularly their children. My hon. Friend might have a particular approach, and mine might be completely different, but I should have that choice. She seems to think the family know best for the dying person—how come she does not think the dying person knows best for their family?

[Rebecca Paul]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not think family always know best. There are situations where someone rightly will want to exclude their family from the process, and I totally respect that choice. I am saying that there will be other situations in which family do have something valid to input that could impact the panel’s decision making. My right hon. Friend also mentioned injunctions; I am keen to understand more about how that process works as a protection, so perhaps the Minister could respond on that, because that may well give me some reassurance. I will come to judicial review in a moment.

My right hon. Friend is right that this is not easy. I am not saying that family should be involved in all situations. I am saying there is a balance to be struck, and I do not think we are getting it right, because at the moment it is all about full autonomy. The working assumption is that input from family must always be ignored if the patient wants that. There must be a balance, and it is difficult to say where that should sit, which is why we have such an incredibly difficult job with the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

This is a really important opportunity to share all these examples. I have to be honest that I am not sure I see the relevance of how a case is funded, and I cannot speak on that person’s behalf. I am going to talk about some of the inequalities that come from this, because there will be people—we will come to this when we discuss judicial review—who will rely on legal aid to challenge a decision. If we do not get this right, we are in danger of creating a situation in which poor families cannot appeal and rich families can. That could give rise to the less than ideal situation the hon. Gentleman has raised. If we get this right and make sure that an appeals process is available on an equal basis to everyone in the country, that will prevent the kind of situation the hon. Gentleman has raised. I thank him for that, because he has helped to support the case for my amendment.

[Kit Malthouse]

I have to say that my concern about the hon. Lady’s amendment is growing. We have talked in the past about policing the conversation and the process to the point that it becomes guarded. Say I had a strong, long-standing conviction that I wanted assisted dying if I was in extremis, but I had a child who I knew was violently against assisted dying; if the hon. Lady’s amendment were in place, and there was the possibility of appeal, surely my tendency would be to keep my disease and diagnosis, and my approach to the system, secret from that person. By opening this formal door, I would effectively be encouraged to conceal the process from a family member who I know may object.

I say that particularly in the light of the fact that, as we heard from overseas experience, coercion more often than not comes the other way. That is certainly what they see in Australia, where families try to persuade somebody not to do it. I think the hon. Lady has good motivations, but I am concerned that she might actually produce the opposite effect and drive people into secrecy.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that alternative perspective. The appeal process is valid only if there is new and relevant information that the panel did not have. For someone who is absolutely eligible, nothing has been excluded from the process that would change their eligibility. There is nothing to worry about here, so I am not sure that I concur that my amendment would prevent sharing information. However, it would provide important protection when a bit of relevant information has not been shared with the panel, which I think is the greater harm. We are trying to weigh up the harms to make sure that they do not outweigh the benefits; I honestly believe that the amendment would help to balance the scales a little better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

That comes under subsection (2) of my amendment:

“The Commissioner will allow the application for reconsideration if the Panel’s decision was—

(a) wrong, or

(b) unjust”.

It is implied that the decision is wrong because there is missing information. Missing information is one example; other things would enable an appeal, but the obvious and most likely reason in this instance would be that a certain bit of information had not been shared.

I am not saying that the amendment is perfect in any way. It is set out clearly in guidance on the private Member’s Bill process that amendments will not necessarily be drafted perfectly and that it is incumbent on the Government to take the spirit of what is intended and get the clause to an appropriate place to deliver that. I am happy to work with the Government to ensure that the wording works and is clear. I think the hon. Lady’s point may be that it is unclear; I am happy to work in any way to improve that clarity.

[Kit Malthouse]

Through my hon. Friend, may I respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire? It is not necessarily about not having faith in the panel. Somebody may, for example, have a relative driven by a strong religious faith who wants to create some form of delay in the system, just to put off the awful day. Even if a commissioner were to take that relative’s application and decide that it was not valid, that would inject delay into what is naturally a time-limited process.

A person may want to retain the right to handle their family themselves, and have the choice about how to do that. If the state, rather than the dying person, is effectively deciding how the family should be handled, we are naturally giving that person an incentive to keep this thing quiet until they are ready to tell their family, which may be well towards the end of the process. As the hon. Member for Rother Valley said, there are multiple points at which the family can intervene if they know. My concern is that this kind of—what is the word we have been using?—embroidery actually drives people in the opposite direction to the one my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate wants to achieve.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that point, because it gives me a wonderful opportunity to draw everyone’s attention to subsection (3) of my amendment, which states:

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

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that time is of the essence and that there will be situations in which it is right that things move as quickly as possible. I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring him that I am trying to come up with amendments that are balanced. I am aware that we have two different examples here; I am genuinely trying to make sure that I do not make it harder for those genuine cases, because I totally understand how important it is and I understand that there is a lot of pain and suffering, for all the reasons that have been set out. I hope that I am getting the balance right, but I am always happy to have further discussions.

Sir James Munby was one of the first to criticise the High Court safeguard; the hon. Member for Spen Valley says that she has taken those criticisms on board. His criticisms of the panel seem similarly acute. I hope that the Committee will agree that my amendment answers a real need and recognises the important role of family in the death of a loved one in most situations, although I accept not in all. It has a profound and long-lasting impact on them too, and their needs should not be entirely disregarded in the name of autonomy. The hon. Member for Rother Valley gave a very powerful speech yesterday on the subject, setting out that the amendment is not required because any decision could be judicially reviewed. I am not qualified to opine on whether judicial review would be relevant with this panel, but I look forward to the Minister covering the matter in her closing remarks. We need to be clear on that front.

Judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than to the rights and the wrongs of the conclusion reached. It is important that this is understood. A judicial review just checks that the process was followed, not whether the right decision was made. That is why our role in setting the process is so important. If the new clause remains unchanged and there is no requirement for a panel to accept relevant evidence from a family member, there will be no avenue for appeal under judicial review if such information is not taken into consideration when making the decision, because the process will have been followed.

Our role on this Committee is a heavy one. It is about getting it right and setting the process for judicial review to work as it should. We have an appeal process in the new clause for when a panel wrongfully turns down an application, but not for when it wrongfully approves one. Why not, if judicial review is available and suitable? I suspect that it is because, as the hon. Member for Rother Valley is aware, the judicial review is not the best way to do it. It is a long, onerous process involving application for permission and, in some situations, the securing of legal aid, which is fraught with difficulty. I say gently to the hon. Member that if judicial review is not suitable when the panel has wrongfully turned down an application, then why is it suitable when they have wrongfully approved someone for an assisted death?

I think it is clear that my amendment is needed as a safeguard to prevent wrongful deaths under the Bill. It is a helpful safeguard. No panel will ever want to see someone assisted to die who should not have been, just because it did not have all the information. I suggest that the safeguard will help to secure panel members, because they will feel reassured that a process is in place to avoid mistakes. If my amendment is not agreed to, and if wrongful approvals have to rely on judicial review for a remedy, I suggest that the impact assessment will need to take into account the likely impact on socioeconomic groups that rely on legal aid for funding. I suspect that, owing to a lack of funds, they will find themselves with no avenue at all to appeal. I do not think that any of us wants a two-tier system in which rich families can intervene and poor families cannot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bill makes provision that the eligibility panel

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

It clarifies that

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

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

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

[Kit Malthouse]

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

[Jack Abbott]

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

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

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

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

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Would everyone ensure that electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? Tea and coffee are not allowed in the Committee Room. We continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I remind Members that interventions should be short and raise points of clarification or questions; they should not be speeches in and of themselves. Members who wish to speak should bob, and continue to do so throughout the debate until they are called. When Members say “you”, they are referring to the Chair.

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

Or “youse”.

[The Chair]

Yes, “you” or “youse” should not be used to refer to one another during the debate.

Clause 12

Court approval

Question (11 March) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am about to come to that. I am going to suggest how we could have done it better. I take the hon. Member’s point. I do need to answer that question.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am just intrigued. My hon. Friend is talking a lot about the evidence. Did any evidence on anything in the Bill change his mind on any aspect of it?

[Danny Kruger]

Was there any evidence that changed my mind?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

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

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

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

[Kit Malthouse]

To be clear, does my hon. Friend envisage that I would either be in the hearing, or lying in my bed listening to the hearing—the fungating tumours in my neck restricting my ability to breathe—having gone through all the eligibility criteria, but having to listen to someone argue that I should go through a death that I am trying to avoid, by arguing that I do not have capacity? Does he not see that that could be profoundly distressing to someone who is in the closing moments of their life? In many ways, it might actually be cruel and traumatic for me to hear somebody arguing, frankly, that I should endure the pain, in their opinion.

[Danny Kruger]

I regret that my right hon. Friend is making that argument. The fact is that the panel is already going to consider whether it is appropriate. There might not be some professional who is there with the purpose of suggesting that there are other things that the panel should consider, but the patient is already lying there waiting for powerful people in another room to make a decision about whether they are going to get an assisted suicide or not. That process is already going on.

On my right hon. Friend’s point that it is intolerable for somebody to hear the case made against their assisted death, let me put to him an alternative hypothesis. Rather than somebody in the situation that he describes, let us imagine somebody who is the victim of years of coercive control, who has undiagnosed mental health conditions, who is feeling a burden on their family and whose relatives want their money. None of that has yet been fully identified through the initial doctor’s stage of the process, but it has been commented on in some of the evidence that the multidisciplinary team heard. That person might hope that somebody is there making the case for them, as might their family.

It is totally appropriate for a court to hear that this procedure should not go ahead because of those other factors, which are only now being properly understood by the decision maker. That decision maker is doing so openly, not in a private session. The decision is being made not by people who are committed to the procedure and process of assisted suicide, but by an independent judge, sitting in their judicial capacity in open court, with all the safeguards and accountability that the judicial system has. That feels to me like a perfectly appropriate safeguard, and I suggest that it is, in principle, what the House of Commons thought they were getting when they supported this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I appreciate that. None the less, I will speak briefly to the amendment as I still have concerns. The amendment provides an absolutely necessary safeguard and I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has accepted it. I am pleased that it extends to panel members, but it does not meet the safeguarding needs when it comes to people of ethnic minority backgrounds, coercion, cultural competence and so on. People and organisations have raised concerns about that.

The truth is that the Bill is very gendered: the analysis by women’s organisation The Other Half has found that if the Bill passes, and trends follow those of Australia, 1.65% of all deaths in this country could take place via assisted dying. If so, as many as 1,400 domestic abuse victims could die each year through that process. It is vital that Members on both sides of the debate are conscious that we are opening up a new avenue for domestic abuse through the Bill. That is what the amendment speaks to. To save the Committee time, I will not go over the detail because it was covered during our discussions of the previous three amendments.

[Kit Malthouse]

I rise briefly to amplify a couple of points from the excellent speeches by the hon. Members for Rother Valley and for Ipswich. First, in clarification, I understand that there are situations where judges can sit in essentially supervisory positions—not least, for example, on the BBC board—and they can of course be Cross Benchers in the House of Lords. They are allowed to undertake other charitable trustee roles, although they are restricted in their activities.

[Danny Kruger]

I think this is important. Those roles are what those judges do in their spare time—they could also chair a football club or something as well. The point is that they are being asked here to fulfil a function on behalf of the Government in their working hours, explicitly because they are a judge—yet they are not sitting as one. Surely my right hon. Friend acknowledges that that is essentially unprecedented.

[Kit Malthouse]

No, I do not acknowledge that at all. Over the years we have started to use judges relatively flexibly—even, for example, for non-statutory inquiries; my hon. Friend has referred only to statutory inquiries—and that is so much the better. I am not a lawyer myself but I believe in the rule of law, so I think that having judges opining on our freedoms or otherwise is generally good for the country.

I want to amplify a couple of points. On Second Reading, I made the case for the High Court to be involved. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire: at that stage, I was very happy for there to be effectively a scrutiny and authorisation third layer to the Bill. My understanding of judicial opinion was that, certainly in Lord Sumption’s view, that level was unnecessary; I think he referred to it being a profoundly intimate conversation that really should just be between the patient and the doctor. However, I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire is right that the weight of the moment and opinion in the House then was that there should be that third layer of scrutiny and opinion.

I also dismiss the argument about the capacity of the judiciary to absorb this. I fear that if we start to accept that argument, we go down a very difficult road for Parliament—not least, for example, because we should then have opposed the Bill that went through the House on Monday night, because of its greater impositions. As many will know, the Crime and Policing Bill went through without a vote. It will impose new burdens on the judiciary and the police, as will the new offence of spiking. No doubt the immigration Bill coming through will also put significant extra burdens on the police and the courts.

There are two separate questions here: one is what Parliament does, and the other is the capacity of the public sector to absorb that. The answer is not to say, “Well, I am afraid all you people have to go through a death you do not want to go through”; it is to say that we do not have enough judges and to recruit more judges, if that is required. In my personal view it is not, but at the time my view was that if as a footballer I could show up in the middle of the night and get an injunction to stop The Daily Mirror from publishing unpleasant stories about me, then the judges should be able to find time in their schedule to accommodate the requirements of my death.

[Danny Kruger]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If Parliament decides that we should proceed, then we should, and the public sector will be obliged to make accommodation and provide the necessary resources. Does he agree that, on that basis, it would be appropriate for the Government to have clarified by this stage what the resource requirements of the new system would be, to make clear that there is the capacity in the system to do it? Does he share my regret that that has not been done?

[Kit Malthouse]

No, I do not share that regret, because until today, and until we all vote on it, the Government do not actually know what they are facing. They have undertaken that they will produce exactly the assessment that my hon. Friend is talking about between the end of this process and Report, so we can all have a look at what it will be.

At that point, Members can put a price on other people’s death and other people’s pain if they want to, but there are lots of situations where the House of Commons decides about things on the basis of moral principle and public interest, and then we ask the public sector to absorb it. If that causes operational problems, then we solve those separately. In my 10 years in the House, I cannot remember anybody ever standing up and saying, “We shouldn’t do this because the public sector can’t cope.”

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

I recall being on the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee. We heard time and again from public sector representatives that bringing in changes such as a domestic abuse register would bring extra work and be difficult. It is their job to flag up those points, but it is our job to assess what is the right thing to do in legislation.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady puts it exactly right. These are two separate questions, and we should not conflate them. Certainly, we should not allow the House of Commons to be constrained by those capacity constraints from doing what it thinks is the right thing. We should do the right thing, and then put pressure on the Government to provide the facilities that we think are required.

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

On that point, in our oral evidence we were not able to hear from witnesses about the changes to the clauses, because we did not understand what the repercussions would be at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

As I recall it, there were a number of questions at the oral evidence stage about the notion of there being a panel, specifically when we had the panel of lawyers. We asked about that. But the hon. Gentleman is right; the issue was an emerging one at the time. That is the nature of the kind of iterative policymaking, or legislative process, that we are going through at the moment. The Government have said that they will produce an impact assessment, so we can all have a look. It will not be long—three or four weeks—and then we will all be able to make a judgment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend has developed her thinking, and the Government have worked with her to reflect that policy intent. I think she is right that the panel is capable of doing just that and it could operate in that way.

Amendment (c) to new schedule 2 relates to the issue of domestic abuse training. It would make the voluntary assisted dying commissioner responsible for ensuring that all panel members had received training on domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse. Persons appointed to the list of eligible panel members would already be qualified in the field of law, psychiatry or social work, and would have done all the training that pertains to receiving a professional qualification in those fields.

In addition, under new schedule 2 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, the commissioner would be able to give guidance to the panels, which could include training requirements, and the panels must have regard to that guidance in the exercise of their functions. That is all I propose to say about that. It might be seen as an example of something that would typically—I am not saying it has to—be left to regulation or the guidance, rather than being in primary legislation.

Amendment (d) to new schedule 2 relates to the panel sitting in private or in public. It seeks to ensure that panels sit in private by default.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am not sure that my amendment (d) was selected—unfortunately, I missed the deadline— so the Minister does not need to cover it.

[The Chair]

Order. I will suspend the sitting—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

And the panel.

[Sarah Olney]

The point is that we want to preclude the possibility, at whatever stage it might happen, that somebody could deliberately render themselves terminally ill by the voluntary stoppage of eating—

[Kit Malthouse]

But they already are terminally ill.

[The Chair]

Order. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to make an intervention?

[Kit Malthouse]

Forgive me, Sir Roger. Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Olney]

I will.

[Kit Malthouse]

I share the confusion of the hon. Member for Spen Valley. By the time we get to clause 13, my understanding is that the two doctors and the panel are already satisfied of the person’s eligibility, so they are by definition terminally ill. I do not understand why they would then seek to render themselves doubly terminally ill by adding the characteristics the hon. Lady is talking about. Maybe I am getting confused. I could understand the hon. Lady’s case if she had made it way before, but at this stage the person has been through two doctors and the panel and got permission to go ahead. I do not understand why they would then starve themselves.

[Sarah Olney]

The point is that they may take the opportunity to use the further provision that exists for people whose death is expected within one month.

[Kit Malthouse]

But they do not need to if they have got to this stage.

[The Chair]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is speaking from a sedentary position again.

[Kit Malthouse]

Sorry, Sir Roger.

[Sarah Olney]

I take the point, but I still think it is necessary to have this additional safeguard to close a loophole that means that people could render themselves terminally ill within the space of a month and use the opportunity presented by the additional provision in the Bill for reducing the 14-day waiting period. This is a real concern of people who have reviewed this legislation. There is a possibility, as has been seen in other jurisdictions, that people could—I do not necessarily want to adopt the right hon. Gentleman’s language—hasten their eligibility for assisted dying through this particular method. All I am asking is that we close the loophole so that people will not be tempted to follow that very damaging path.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Bambos Charalambous.)

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

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Would everyone ensure that electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? Tea and coffee are not allowed in the Committee Room. We continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I remind Members that interventions should be short and raise points of clarification or questions; they should not be speeches in and of themselves. Members who wish to speak should bob, and continue to do so throughout the debate until they are called. When Members say “you”, they are referring to the Chair.

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

Or “youse”.

[The Chair]

Yes, “you” or “youse” should not be used to refer to one another during the debate.

Clause 12

Court approval

Question (11 March) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am about to come to that. I am going to suggest how we could have done it better. I take the hon. Member’s point. I do need to answer that question.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am just intrigued. My hon. Friend is talking a lot about the evidence. Did any evidence on anything in the Bill change his mind on any aspect of it?

[Danny Kruger]

Was there any evidence that changed my mind?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

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

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

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

[Kit Malthouse]

To be clear, does my hon. Friend envisage that I would either be in the hearing, or lying in my bed listening to the hearing—the fungating tumours in my neck restricting my ability to breathe—having gone through all the eligibility criteria, but having to listen to someone argue that I should go through a death that I am trying to avoid, by arguing that I do not have capacity? Does he not see that that could be profoundly distressing to someone who is in the closing moments of their life? In many ways, it might actually be cruel and traumatic for me to hear somebody arguing, frankly, that I should endure the pain, in their opinion.

[Danny Kruger]

I regret that my right hon. Friend is making that argument. The fact is that the panel is already going to consider whether it is appropriate. There might not be some professional who is there with the purpose of suggesting that there are other things that the panel should consider, but the patient is already lying there waiting for powerful people in another room to make a decision about whether they are going to get an assisted suicide or not. That process is already going on.

On my right hon. Friend’s point that it is intolerable for somebody to hear the case made against their assisted death, let me put to him an alternative hypothesis. Rather than somebody in the situation that he describes, let us imagine somebody who is the victim of years of coercive control, who has undiagnosed mental health conditions, who is feeling a burden on their family and whose relatives want their money. None of that has yet been fully identified through the initial doctor’s stage of the process, but it has been commented on in some of the evidence that the multidisciplinary team heard. That person might hope that somebody is there making the case for them, as might their family.

It is totally appropriate for a court to hear that this procedure should not go ahead because of those other factors, which are only now being properly understood by the decision maker. That decision maker is doing so openly, not in a private session. The decision is being made not by people who are committed to the procedure and process of assisted suicide, but by an independent judge, sitting in their judicial capacity in open court, with all the safeguards and accountability that the judicial system has. That feels to me like a perfectly appropriate safeguard, and I suggest that it is, in principle, what the House of Commons thought they were getting when they supported this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I appreciate that. None the less, I will speak briefly to the amendment as I still have concerns. The amendment provides an absolutely necessary safeguard and I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has accepted it. I am pleased that it extends to panel members, but it does not meet the safeguarding needs when it comes to people of ethnic minority backgrounds, coercion, cultural competence and so on. People and organisations have raised concerns about that.

The truth is that the Bill is very gendered: the analysis by women’s organisation The Other Half has found that if the Bill passes, and trends follow those of Australia, 1.65% of all deaths in this country could take place via assisted dying. If so, as many as 1,400 domestic abuse victims could die each year through that process. It is vital that Members on both sides of the debate are conscious that we are opening up a new avenue for domestic abuse through the Bill. That is what the amendment speaks to. To save the Committee time, I will not go over the detail because it was covered during our discussions of the previous three amendments.

[Kit Malthouse]

I rise briefly to amplify a couple of points from the excellent speeches by the hon. Members for Rother Valley and for Ipswich. First, in clarification, I understand that there are situations where judges can sit in essentially supervisory positions—not least, for example, on the BBC board—and they can of course be Cross Benchers in the House of Lords. They are allowed to undertake other charitable trustee roles, although they are restricted in their activities.

[Danny Kruger]

I think this is important. Those roles are what those judges do in their spare time—they could also chair a football club or something as well. The point is that they are being asked here to fulfil a function on behalf of the Government in their working hours, explicitly because they are a judge—yet they are not sitting as one. Surely my right hon. Friend acknowledges that that is essentially unprecedented.

[Kit Malthouse]

No, I do not acknowledge that at all. Over the years we have started to use judges relatively flexibly—even, for example, for non-statutory inquiries; my hon. Friend has referred only to statutory inquiries—and that is so much the better. I am not a lawyer myself but I believe in the rule of law, so I think that having judges opining on our freedoms or otherwise is generally good for the country.

I want to amplify a couple of points. On Second Reading, I made the case for the High Court to be involved. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire: at that stage, I was very happy for there to be effectively a scrutiny and authorisation third layer to the Bill. My understanding of judicial opinion was that, certainly in Lord Sumption’s view, that level was unnecessary; I think he referred to it being a profoundly intimate conversation that really should just be between the patient and the doctor. However, I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire is right that the weight of the moment and opinion in the House then was that there should be that third layer of scrutiny and opinion.

I also dismiss the argument about the capacity of the judiciary to absorb this. I fear that if we start to accept that argument, we go down a very difficult road for Parliament—not least, for example, because we should then have opposed the Bill that went through the House on Monday night, because of its greater impositions. As many will know, the Crime and Policing Bill went through without a vote. It will impose new burdens on the judiciary and the police, as will the new offence of spiking. No doubt the immigration Bill coming through will also put significant extra burdens on the police and the courts.

There are two separate questions here: one is what Parliament does, and the other is the capacity of the public sector to absorb that. The answer is not to say, “Well, I am afraid all you people have to go through a death you do not want to go through”; it is to say that we do not have enough judges and to recruit more judges, if that is required. In my personal view it is not, but at the time my view was that if as a footballer I could show up in the middle of the night and get an injunction to stop The Daily Mirror from publishing unpleasant stories about me, then the judges should be able to find time in their schedule to accommodate the requirements of my death.

[Danny Kruger]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If Parliament decides that we should proceed, then we should, and the public sector will be obliged to make accommodation and provide the necessary resources. Does he agree that, on that basis, it would be appropriate for the Government to have clarified by this stage what the resource requirements of the new system would be, to make clear that there is the capacity in the system to do it? Does he share my regret that that has not been done?

[Kit Malthouse]

No, I do not share that regret, because until today, and until we all vote on it, the Government do not actually know what they are facing. They have undertaken that they will produce exactly the assessment that my hon. Friend is talking about between the end of this process and Report, so we can all have a look at what it will be.

At that point, Members can put a price on other people’s death and other people’s pain if they want to, but there are lots of situations where the House of Commons decides about things on the basis of moral principle and public interest, and then we ask the public sector to absorb it. If that causes operational problems, then we solve those separately. In my 10 years in the House, I cannot remember anybody ever standing up and saying, “We shouldn’t do this because the public sector can’t cope.”

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

I recall being on the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee. We heard time and again from public sector representatives that bringing in changes such as a domestic abuse register would bring extra work and be difficult. It is their job to flag up those points, but it is our job to assess what is the right thing to do in legislation.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady puts it exactly right. These are two separate questions, and we should not conflate them. Certainly, we should not allow the House of Commons to be constrained by those capacity constraints from doing what it thinks is the right thing. We should do the right thing, and then put pressure on the Government to provide the facilities that we think are required.

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

On that point, in our oral evidence we were not able to hear from witnesses about the changes to the clauses, because we did not understand what the repercussions would be at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

As I recall it, there were a number of questions at the oral evidence stage about the notion of there being a panel, specifically when we had the panel of lawyers. We asked about that. But the hon. Gentleman is right; the issue was an emerging one at the time. That is the nature of the kind of iterative policymaking, or legislative process, that we are going through at the moment. The Government have said that they will produce an impact assessment, so we can all have a look. It will not be long—three or four weeks—and then we will all be able to make a judgment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend has developed her thinking, and the Government have worked with her to reflect that policy intent. I think she is right that the panel is capable of doing just that and it could operate in that way.

Amendment (c) to new schedule 2 relates to the issue of domestic abuse training. It would make the voluntary assisted dying commissioner responsible for ensuring that all panel members had received training on domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse. Persons appointed to the list of eligible panel members would already be qualified in the field of law, psychiatry or social work, and would have done all the training that pertains to receiving a professional qualification in those fields.

In addition, under new schedule 2 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, the commissioner would be able to give guidance to the panels, which could include training requirements, and the panels must have regard to that guidance in the exercise of their functions. That is all I propose to say about that. It might be seen as an example of something that would typically—I am not saying it has to—be left to regulation or the guidance, rather than being in primary legislation.

Amendment (d) to new schedule 2 relates to the panel sitting in private or in public. It seeks to ensure that panels sit in private by default.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am not sure that my amendment (d) was selected—unfortunately, I missed the deadline—so the Minister does not need to cover it.

[The Chair]

Order. I will suspend the sitting—

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

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

It is unlikely that I would ever vote for an assisted dying law but, if we are going to have one, I want to make it as safe as possible, which we all want. On those terms, in the spirit of a Bill that is going to pass, why not include these specific pieces of information? The hon. Lady says that, while it would not make the Bill more dangerous, it would overcomplicate it. Again, how does it overcomplicate it to add a few clauses specifying information that must be clearly communicated?

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

Amendment 50 requires that whoever is medically assessing capacity is also able to understand the legal implications. The final point of the amendment says that they have to understand what the insurance implications are likely to be, which would mean that they would have to inquire into the individual’s financial circumstances. They possibly might need to understand what provision they have made for their family.

It also references what the designation of death is likely to be, which again requires them to decide there and then what they will write on the death certificate, when it happens. As the hon. Member for Stroud said, much of what is in amendment 50 is already either in the Bill or implied by it. As Ministers have said before, we have a duty to the statute book not to embroider it to the extent that it becomes overcomplicated and unworkable. I do not think that any of us would necessarily argue with the points in amendment 50, other than perhaps the last one about legal expertise, but clarity leads to certainty, which leads to safety.

[Danny Kruger]

By that logic, the safest, clearest Bill would be one that simply authorised an assisted death without any of these checks whatsoever. My right hon. Friend made the point that this amendment requires the doctor to discuss with a patient all the implications of their death. That is perfectly appropriate—in fact, if that is not being done at some stage in the process, and if that is not clear in the Bill, it absolutely should be. Otherwise, how can we be sure that the person is making a settled, informed decision, with all considerations taken on board?

I am sorry if that imposes a little extra burden on the doctor. One of the great challenges of the Bill is that, if we are to do it properly and genuinely make it a Bill that is strong in its safeguards, a whole lot of people will have to do a whole lot of work. There will be a huge demand on all parts of the public sector. This is required, I am afraid. I do not accept that the content of the amendment is either already in the Bill or implied in it. There might be some remote piece of GMC guidance that touches on this, which we would hope is properly applied, and I appreciate the point about embroidery. Nevertheless, this is not embroidery; this is upholstery—it is necessary for the Bill to be strong.

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

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kim Leadbeater]

That brings me on very nicely to my next point, so I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. At the moment, the Bill accommodates a two-year implementation period, which is really important because it will take time to put the procedures in place: it will take time to train people and it will take time to work holistically with the overall healthcare system. It could end up being longer than two years. If that is the case to put all the robust systems in place—to improve things, and to work holistically with palliative care and other aspects of the NHS—then that is the right thing to do, and I would be open-minded to a conversation about that.

To finish, I also note that the General Medical Council’s “Good medical practice” guide, which is the framework of professional standards, already provides that in providing clinical care a doctor

“must refer a patient to another suitably qualified practitioner when this serves their needs”.

This is what doctors do: they refer if they need extra advice; they take a holistic approach.

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

I just want to quickly point out that we have a check on the conversations that happen in the first stages. In clause 8, which covers the second doctor’s assessment, that second doctor must be satisfied that the individual has a “clear, settled” and, critically, “informed” wish to end their own life. So, there will be a doctor who is verifying that the person is informed properly about their options. My concern about the amendments is that, as the hon. Lady says, we are inserting now a third doctor into a system which, with regard to the panel, will already have three, four or five specialists involved in the assessment of the care.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It feeds into comments that have already been made about how difficult we are making the process. I agree that this should be a difficult process—it should be a robust process, with thorough checks, safeguards and balances throughout—but we are in danger of forgetting the dying person at the heart of the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

We are all being very courteous, and it is absolutely right that we should be. I have absolute respect for the good faith of every Member here, but let us not use cotton wool in these debates. I am sorry to say that I do not accept that the Committee has listened—well, it might have listened closely, but it has not accepted a single amendment, including amendment 281, which would have put into law the principle in which the hon. Member for Bradford West believes, which is that palliative care should be an option. Why was that not accepted? The Committee has decided that it will proceed with the Bill as it is.

The fact is that the Bill will give maximum autotomy, within very broad parameters, to patients, many of whom will be very vulnerable. It is an autonomy Bill masquerading as a safeguarding Bill. When we attempt to strengthen the safeguards, they are described as bureaucratic hurdles. If the Bill becomes law, I worry about what will happen to the very limited safeguards that do exist. What we see elsewhere will happen, which is that the safeguards that do exist are treated as bureaucratic hurdles. They are in fact treated, and explicitly described, as we heard from the Australian witnesses, as barriers to a human right. What were safeguards become discrimination. I am afraid that that is the road we are going down.

The point about autonomy is often made. As I say, I think that this Bill actually has autonomy at its heart. The hon. Member for Spen Valley is right to make that point. That is really what is going on here. She wants people to be able to request help to commit suicide—to end their lives. The fact is that for the most vulnerable people, creating this option, especially when we have now switched off the obligation to seek a palliative care pathway and directed people straight down the road towards an assisted death—

[Kit Malthouse]

That is a misrepresentation.

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry if it offends Members, but the fact is that the Bill in its present form, with the amendments rejected, will place no obligation on doctors to refer people to palliative care or to seek a palliative care consultation. Many will do so, of course—many good doctors will do exactly that—but they will not be obliged to. If we are imagining that every doctor will be as brilliant as the best doctors, I am afraid that I will have to talk about the Liverpool care pathway and the many tragic scandals that we are constantly dealing with. It is simply not the case that the option of a palliative care consultation equates to the absolute expectation that it will happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that might be the case too, and I was wondering about that, but I am very concerned about some of the evidence that Professor Whitty gave. I regret that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has removed the role of the chief medical officer from the process that she is designing by introducing the new commissioner, but I will not be sorry to see that particular chief medical officer excluded from the process. He has made significant mistakes; he had to write to the Committee to explain that he had misrepresented the Mental Capacity Act, and, on his evidence, the Committee voted to reject certain amendments.

I am concerned about what Professor Whitty said, but if the reason for including “medical condition” is to reflect the fact that there might be multiple diseases or illnesses that, together, mean that somebody is terminally ill, that is what should be stated in the Bill. It could very well include “a combination of illnesses or diseases that amount to terminal illness”. My concern is about this new concept of a medical condition, which, as I have said, implies something different from a disease or illness.

The Bill would say “the person’s death in consequence of illness or disease”—if we remove “medical condition” —so that would be the qualification or eligibility. If there is a number of illnesses or diseases that amount to a fatal prognosis, that would be captured in the clause, even once we have excluded medical condition, because the singular “illness” or “disease” would, as I understand it from our guidance on statutory interpretation, include the plural. If it is about there being a number of illnesses or diseases that add up to a fatality, the Bill as I propose to amend it would be adequate to the scenario that the hon. Member for Sunderland Central described and that Professor Whitty accounted for. The question is, what is additional illness or disease, or illnesses or diseases, that are captured by the term “medical condition”?

[Kit Malthouse]

Let me give a quick example. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is described as a condition rather than a disease or an illness. ALS is not dissimilar to motor neurone disease, but nevertheless people regard themselves as having a condition rather than a disease.

[Danny Kruger]

Again, I am interested in that, because I would be surprised if that condition were not adequately captured by the term “illness” or “disease”. If not, we should seek further clarification, because we need to be very specific. Illness or disease has been adequate; it is adequate in the current law on terminal illness for eligibility for benefits and pensions. I await clarification on what is added by the term “medical condition”, because my concern is that it opens the door to frailty. Going back to Chris Whitty’s evidence, I am concerned at his suggestion that frailty should be an eligible condition for an assisted death.

I will wrap up shortly so that hon. Members have time to speak to other amendments, but I will quickly refer to amendment 181 tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley and amendment 11 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), which attempt to do the same thing as my amendments. They seek to protect disabled or mentally ill people, but they do so explicitly by disapplying the provisions of the Bill for those groups, or they attempt to do so. Only amendment 11 actually does, while amendment 181 fails to do so, in my view.

Let us look at subsection (3), which attempts to protect disabled people and those with mental disorders, but which, on closer inspection, is ineffective or even meaningless. In statutory interpretation, the first phrase,

“For the avoidance of doubt.”

indicates that the subsection does not add anything to the Bill except clarity. It is intended not to change the law that is being enacted by the Bill, but to clarify the meaning of the Bill. My point is that it does not add anything—in fact, it signals that the clause can be disregarded. It is like an explanatory note and not actually relevant to the Bill. Its effect therefore negates the point that it tries to make. In including it, the hon. Lady protests too much and exposes the weakness that the clause fails to overcome. It invites a court to disregard the protection it pretends to offer by stating that that protection has no force except what is elsewhere in the Bill.

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

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Paul]

My hon. Friend makes the point powerfully. I say to everyone in this Committee—we had this discussion yesterday—that I am not opposed in principle to the concept of assisted dying, but I see my role here as to protect the vulnerable. That is what I am trying to do, and I know everyone here wants to do exactly that. I cannot really see any downside to these amendments. Why would the Committee not want them included, if we want to protect the most vulnerable? Yes, it may put a bit more onus on clinicians, because they would need to look for a lower level of coercion. But that is absolutely right—of course they should have to do that. We are talking about assisted death. It is really important that we have a higher level of consideration.

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

I understand that much of the difference between us on this may founder on our perception of what is actually happening. She speaks of suicide, and to some of us—certainly to me—suicide is a healthy person taking their life, but what we are talking about is somebody who is seeking to take control of their inevitable death in these circumstances. For me, those two are qualitatively different.

I am concerned about my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate injecting an element of jeopardy into what should ordinarily be normal conversations with one’s family. For example, I could see a point at which, if I were in those circumstances and was thinking about seeking assistance to end my life, I would discuss that with my wife: “Darling, am I doing the right thing? Is it the best thing for the kids? I think I’m going to have a horrible death, and I’m trying to decide.” We heard from families—and have done over the last 10 years—who, very often in anguish support their loved one, even to the extent that they are willing to break the law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, the line between support and encouragement is quite fine. If somebody were to come forward and say, “Well, I’ve spoken to my family. They all think I am doing the right thing”, could that not be interpreted as encouragement? I am conscious that we should not try to police what should be open and natural discussions between families in a way that injects jeopardy for them and the person to the extent that they might start to modify what they say to the doctor to ensure that they get the outcome they want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. There has already been a test case, and the Court of Appeal has ruled that undue influence is relevant to medical decisions and that doctors must look at it. If that is already a ruling, I struggle to understand the resistance to adding the words “undue influence” to a Bill that, in the promoter’s own words, should be the safest in the world. A judge has already ruled on it. We already know that we are not going to get to a judge. I struggle to understand this.

[Kit Malthouse]

As the Minister pointed out, the concepts that the hon. Lady is trying to embed in the Bill are already covered by what is a settled legal interpretation and a framework that, over the last 10 years, has become used to dealing with those issues. Do not forget that families who are going through such situations will be advised and will examine the legislation quite carefully. I am nervous about injecting yet another level of consideration for them that might mean that conversations are interpreted—by them, but not necessarily in a legal sense—in a way that is not beneficial to the patient.

I understand the group that the hon. Lady is seeking to protect—that is what we are all trying to do. But what about the majority of people in such circumstances, who might say, for example, “Darling, I am thinking about taking an assisted death because of my horrible disease. If you were me, what would you do?” If I then say, “Well, painful though it is for me, I would do exactly the same thing,” how would families interpret that?

I also want to respond to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. He made a strong point, but I am not sure he is exactly right. I think that if at nine months I have a disease that is progressing, and somebody in my family says to me, “When it comes to it, Kit, you have absolutely got to take an assisted death. We really want you to,” and then when I get into the six-month period I do, and I tell the doctor, my interpretation is that would be covered under the Bill.

I think what the Minister was eloquently trying to establish was that we have to be careful about the clarity of the legal language, and not make it embroidered in a way that makes interpretation by laypeople as well as by lawyers more difficult and complicated. I will come on to this in the next grouping, but we must not use language in a way that skews behaviour, or that makes what should be healthy and fulsome discussions within families guarded and nervous.

[Naz Shah]

I have to respectfully disagree with the right hon. Member that this is a settled position. I also challenge, on the record, what the Minister said. I struggle to understand how the Minister and the Government can say that this is a settled position without having gone to consultation on the Bill and without having an impact assessment. That does not satisfy me. My role when I agreed to be on the Committee was to come in to scrutinise and help strengthen the legislation. In doing so, these are the things that I am pointing out, because the safeguards are not strong enough for me.

I come back to the Court of Appeal. This would be a medical intervention, albeit to end somebody’s life. It would be administering a lethal drug to end somebody’s life, and it would be done by medics. Medics are involved in every stage. If there is case law that has already established that doctors have to look at undue influence in medical decisions, then I say to every single person on the Committee: what are we resisting? When the Court of Appeal has already said so, why is the Committee debating keeping this language out because it makes things complicated?

Let us go back to the words of Dr Jamilla Hussain, who gave evidence to the Committee. She is a clinician, and she absolutely accepts that there are some people who would really benefit from this law. As a clinician, she wants to get there. Indeed, I spoke to Professor John Wright, and he said, “Naz, absolutely—this is where we need to be.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady. May I say how much I agree with what she has been saying and the purpose of her amendments, which I will be supporting if we get the chance, as I will the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate?

I do not want to repeat what I said yesterday, but my general point is that we make decisions in a context. We are directly influenced by the people around us. I want to highlight the very powerful phrase that my hon. Friend used. She said that love can shroud decision making, and the influence and pressure that is applied to us can be shrouded in love.

Professor House, who gave evidence to us, talked about the enmeshment of people’s decision making with the influence of their loved ones and people around them. The fact is—hon. Members have made this point—that power dynamics in families are complicated, and where there is an imbalance of power, there is risk. The Bill implicitly acknowledges that through the safeguards that it attempts to create, but I do not think they are strong enough.

I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire is concerned that strengthening the Bill in this way will create an opposite risk, which is that a family member who was behaving perfectly properly could somehow be dragged into a prosecution, or that the application would be denied on the basis of a reasonable conversation that had taken place between loved ones—“My darling, do you think I should do this?” It is a lovely fictional conversation, a sweet exchange between a loving couple, but saying to somebody that you agree with the decision they have made and that you would support it, or that you are content with it or understand it, is not the same as undue influence—it is not even the same as encouragement. It is similar to the debate we will be having in due course about the role of the doctor making an overt suggestion of an assisted death, rather than consenting to a suggestion that has been made by the patient.

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is asserting that those two things are different, but obviously, those assertions would be tested in court. If a person were to appear in front of the co-ordinating doctor and say, “Doctor, I want an assisted death and my husband thinks I should do it,” is that interpreted as encouragement? Is it support? Under the current legal framework, that would be interpretable and inquirable. However, as I said to my hon. Friend, I am not necessarily nervous that families would be dragged into some kind of legal conflict. I am concerned that they would seek to not get there at all, because the insertion of those words would make them so nervous about the conversation that they would become guarded.

We know from other jurisdictions that over time, people will come to understand this process. As I will refer to during our debate on the next grouping, they will also start to understand what they should not say, if we put into the Bill that there are things that will play negatively if they are revealed to the relevant authorities. My concern is that unless we keep the Bill simple and clear, and leave families and medics the space to have free, frank and open conversations that—from the medical point of view—cover the full range of options, we will start to restrict and police the conversation, and therefore make it that much more difficult.

[Danny Kruger]

The risk of gaming—of patients playing the game, and doctors seeking out words to say or not say—is an issue throughout the Bill. That is a general problem with the Bill; thankfully, it is not just a free-for-all. However, in the scenario that my right hon. Friend suggests, that is exactly my concern: if the patient says that their spouse agrees with them or encourages them, that should be a red flag. Under the current Bill, it is not clear that it would be. There is no obligation on the doctor to record that there has been undue influence or to push back, because at the moment, the doctor is looking only for evidence of coercion. As I will come to later, that bar is too low to use, so if the doctor hears those words, I would like him or her to start asking questions, to push back, and to satisfy himself or herself that there has been no overt encouragement or undue influence. That is the point of what we are trying to do.

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

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

Okay. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

We have received significant written and oral evidence on how common it is, sadly, that vulnerable people experience this sort of subtle coercion—the undue influence from which we all want to ensure that people are protected. The lawyer Tamasin Perkins was referenced earlier, but not fully quoted. She is a private wealth disputes partner, so deals with a lot of complexities around people’s deaths. She has said:

“Coercion can be very difficult to spot as a legal professional (and for medical professionals too)…the real influence occurs behind closed doors.”

She went on to talk about

“frailty and vulnerability…a too close involvement in the decision-making process, or a sudden and inexplicable change of heart.”

All that is often teased out only through the course of the quite in-depth relationship that a lawyer can form in the course of supporting somebody to settle their financial affairs. That is not what is proposed in the Bill. The law firm Scott Bailey has made the point that

“sadly, we all too often speak to individuals who do not realise they are victims until they talk to us about their relationship”.

While the Bill correctly seeks to protect people from direct coercion, indirect coercion is much harder to spot, as is the coercion that people apply to themselves, which we will come to in the next group of amendments. I recognise that the Committee and the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, have taken pains to ensure that we prevent coercion. I put on the record my support for the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) about the importance of providing training to all the professionals involved with coercive control, but I am not sure that training will be sufficient. It is important to insist that doctors who assess such applications are required to look directly for these particular forms of influence.

Let me explain our concerns as crisply as I can. At the moment, encouraging suicide will remain illegal under the Bill. That is an important principle. Clause 24 specifies that to assist someone to die according to the processes of the scheme set out in the Bill will not be treated as assisting suicide. The implication is that encouraging assisted suicide remains illegal. To the point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, if we are worried that there might be a chilling effect due to the concept of encouragement still being illegal, logically the Committee should amend clause 24 to explicitly allow encouragement in order to prevent such a chilling effect. Either encouragement is okay, and we allow it as a concept, or we do not.

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

Forgive me, but I think my hon. Friend might have misunderstood me. My point was that the more we attempt to police discussions in families, the more guarded they will become; it was not necessarily that we should specifically authorise encouragement, or whatever he has suggested. He referred a moment ago to professionals being able to have conversations with individuals freely about their circumstances, their thinking, and how they had come to their decision. I am concerned—there are relevant amendments in the next grouping—that families will interpret these words in such a way that they start to talk about things they should not say. They might think, “I’ve got to be very careful not to do this or say that; because of the state of my body and the disease that is ravaging it, I am determined that I want an assisted death, and I am going to make sure that I do not say anything wrong in the discussion.” The more that we police it, the less likely people are to be open and free in their conversations, both within their families and with the professionals we want to assess them.

[Danny Kruger]

I recognise my right hon. Friend’s argument. The fact is that encouraging assisted suicide is theoretically illegal—in fact, it will be illegal under the Bill—so there is already that potential for the policing of conversations. If it is concluded that a family member has encouraged somebody to an assisted suicide, that would be illegal, because that has not been specifically allowed. The law already specifies that it is illegal; we are concerned about ensuring that that is fully checked for in the early conversations that people have with their doctors—that the applicant does not simply have to get over the coercion bar, but that they have to get over this lower but just as important bar around the potential for encouragement and undue influence. If my right hon. Friend is concerned that the concept of encouragement will have a chilling effect on family conversations, he should legislate accordingly, so as to prevent it from being used at the later, criminal stage.

[Kit Malthouse]

We need to think about this in practical terms. If the word “encouraged” is included in the Bill, a co-ordinating doctor may feel that it is their duty to say to somebody, “Has anybody encouraged you to take this decision?” They will use that specific word, rather than have a general conversation that is designed to detect coercion, which, as has been pointed out, covers the concept of encouragement or undue influence.

My hon. Friend may think that that point is semantic, but we have to remember that the words will be interpreted relatively literally, certainly in the early stages after the passage of this legislation. To ensure that they are within the bounds of the law, a doctor may feel that they have specifically to say, “Have you been encouraged to do this?” That will then start to be interpreted by families in the way that they respond. What we really want is instead a general discussion, which is where, in my experience, professionals are expert at teasing out the understanding and motivation of individuals.

[Danny Kruger]

If my right hon. Friend just wants a free and easy, free-flowing discussion that has no specific questions that need to be asked or answered, there should not be any requirement for them to be testing for coercion. There is already a requirement to ensure that there has been no coercion and that the person is making the decision voluntarily. That imposes an expectation that they would be asking a specific question to the applicant. Personally, I think it is appropriate to ask the applicant, “Have you been encouraged? Has influence been put upon you?” If the answer is, “No, it’s all fine; my wife agrees with me, but I have not been encouraged to it,” then the test is passed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

The issue for us in the conversation on this amendment is that we have talked about coercion, undue pressure, undue influence, encouragement and all that, but we have not talked about the benefit to others. It is simply a different conversation; it is about understanding that a person has been coerced and so on, but also for what reason. What is the benefit to others? That is my understanding of the amendment, and that is why I am speaking to and supporting it.

Unfortunately, the Bill as it stands does not have all the necessary safeguards for all those who see themselves as burdens to others, and that is why I support the amendment.

[Kit Malthouse]

I have listened very carefully to the hon. Member, who represents the fine town of Bradford, and to her personal experiences, which have coloured her view. I understand that of which she speaks, and she might be interested to know that I was the author of the first ever violence against women and girls strategy in the country when I was at City Hall. I dealt closely with harmful cultural practices in that strategy, so I do understand the difficulties she elaborated with detecting and combating the influences to which she referred. However, I am going to disappoint her, because I am going to explain why I believe that the amendments make that more difficult and run the risk of making the Bill less safe.

I should mention first, though, that she said that we are dealing with notions of autonomy and trying to achieve a position where people seeking an assisted death do so as a matter of free choice, and she is exactly right: that is what we are all about and trying to achieve. However, as I hope I can illustrate, the amendments may make that more difficult on three levels.

We have talked a lot over the last few hours about precision and novel terms in legality. My first issue with the amendments is the lack of that precision. For example, what does “physical pain” mean? Is it all pain? Is it something as minor as a headache? Is it perceived or actual pain? Is it fear? Does fear become a physical pain, or is it a mental pain?

In the closing stages of bowel cancer, for example, a number of things may happen and a number of things may cause somebody to die. They can have a perforated bowel caused largely by a blockage, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley would say. That would be incredibly painful and lead to peritonitis and organ failure, which eventually leads to death. However, there is a situation where a blockage in the bowel causes a person to vomit effectively semi-digested food and faeces. Is that painful? I do not know whether that is a classification of physical pain. It is certainly uncomfortable and unpleasant, but is it actually painful? I find that the definition of “physical pain”, undefined as it is, and which may be a matter of degree, injects complexity for doctors and lawyers in their assessment of the motivation of a person seeking assisted dying.

Similarly, I do not really know what “benefit” means in the amendments dealing with that. Does it mean financial benefit? Does it mean emotional benefit? Is it perceived or real benefit? Does the doctor have to assess whether a third party is actually getting benefit? Let us assume that it is emotional benefit and that I say—I think it is perfectly legitimate, as my hon. Friend said, for me to say this—“I do not wish my child to witness, know or even learn that the way I died was from the fungating tumours in my neck bursting and,” as we heard on Second Reading, “me drowning in my own bodily fluids. I do not want to get to that stage, and I do not want to burden my child with that.” Do I have to say to the child, who is perhaps an adult child, “How do you feel about it? Are you going to benefit from this or not?” They will respond, “Absolutely not. I want my dad to live as long as possible,” or, “I want my dad to have what he wants to have.”

It is very difficult in these circumstances—do not forget that this will be crawled over by lawyers and doctors—to understand what is actually meant by “benefit”. These are new words—novel concepts—that are being introduced into the law. I did look to see whether there were similar circumstances elsewhere in legislation, and I could not find any. To me, they inject an element of complexity into what we hoped would be, as we discussed earlier, a settled and comprehensible legal framework, in which doctors have previously operated, and should operate into the future. As I say, my first objection is that the amendments inject novel concepts that are largely undefined and that may be actual or perceived, both by the person who is being assessed and by those who are presumably to be in receipt of the benefit.

I am afraid there is also—I am not sure, particularly on the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree—a question in my mind about where my “sake”, whatever that word means, collides with someone else’s “benefit”. As the hon. Member for Ipswich said, if it makes me happy—if part of my dying is me taking satisfaction in the fact that I am not burdening my children with the emotional trauma of watching me die in horrible circumstances—is that for my sake or for their benefit?

[Naz Shah]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. In response to the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, people can have, and will have, an incidental benefit when somebody with autonomy makes a decision. The Government could table tidying-up amendments to clarify that and make this amendment stronger, if it gives an extra safeguard for those who are seeking assisted dying, should the Bill become law.

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but I am afraid that the amendments do not say that. Even if they did, there would be some difficulty, because you are asking for a further level of complexity in what should be, we hope, a decision made between doctor and patient, in private and confidential circumstances where sensitivity is needed and where we are asking medics to tease out motivations from individuals. I hate to use a pejorative word like “woolly”, but I find the lack of precision in the language troubling. I think it will create yet more complexity and jeopardy for doctors and lawyers.

[Tom Gordon]

I just wondered whether the right hon. Member shares my concerns that the amendment would end up in the territory of legislators and parliamentarians almost trying to act as thought police, when we should be respecting the autonomy of people in the decisions they make.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he brings me to my second point, which is exactly that—autonomy. We heard in oral evidence, and it comes through from some of the written evidence, that people’s motivations for seeking an assisted death are often a mixture—a cocktail—of different reasons. Some are about pain, and some are about trauma, for them and for others, but the overarching motivation is always this notion of control. What people seem to be most concerned about is, “If I contemplate my end, I want to have some kind of say, as I get to the end, about what it will be like. That end may be a variety of different outcomes.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley, or any of the doctors in the room, will know, if someone is dying of bowel cancer, any number of things may kill them. Palliative care is able to help with some of them, but not others. In my experience, the notion in people’s minds is that, as they approach that point, they just want the reassurance that they can control it and have the option, if they so wish. That is often their primary motivation. As the hon. Member for Bradford West said, there may be ancillary results and reasons why people want that control, but the primary purpose is control.

[Danny Kruger]

My right hon. Friend says that the primary purpose is control, and that is certainly the argument made by some of the most passionate advocates of this sort of legislation. However, does he recognise that, in the majority of cases, in jurisdictions where this is legal, being a burden is a primary cause for people to seek an assisted death? People request an assisted death explicitly for the purpose of not being a burden on others. If my right hon. Friend is content with that because he respects their autonomy, and he thinks that that is an acceptable reason for people to want to die, that is fine, and let us say so. However, I do not think it is acceptable to hide behind the idea that we are talking about people who simply want to control their own passing. In fact, many want to do this because they are concerned about being a burden on others.

[Kit Malthouse]

I will make two points in response to my hon. Friend. First, I am not sure that it is entirely accurate that burden is the primary purpose. It is certainly the case that when people going through this process in other jurisdictions are surveyed and rank their reasons, burden may be one. We heard that in some of the evidence that we had from overseas, but as I said at the start of my remarks, it depends what we mean by “burden”. Personally, I think it is perfectly legitimate for me to want to spare my children from witnessing, knowing or even learning that I may have died in a particularly unpleasant way. I may therefore wish to go a few weeks before that eventuality and say goodbye to them, gathering them around my deathbed—we heard very movingly about this from one of the witnesses—to say farewell while I still can, before my body is ravaged by the final stages of the disease that is destroying me. I do not think that relieving them from a traumatic burden is anything negative.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that “burden” here encompasses many different types of burden. One that weighs heavily on many of my constituents is financial burden—in particular, the cost of care at the end of life. That is very directly something that they would wish to relieve their children and descendants of. Does he not accept that the word “burden”, while I hear what he says about it being imprecise, nevertheless contains many different examples, rather than just the one to which he referred?

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady is quite right, and she makes my point very neatly for me: the language here is so wide-ranging that it could be anything. Other provisions in the Bill deal with exactly the concerns she expresses. A specific part of the Bill talks about people benefiting financially and how they may not participate. We had a long discussion about coercion and pressure.

[Dr Tidball]

I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point. Inserting the amendment—and the language of, and focus on, “benefit”—in a paragraph that deals with the two criminal concepts of coercion and pressure, actually undermines the existing focus of the paragraph. Does he agree that it is better and stronger to keep the focus on the two criminal concepts, which would require the mens rea—which I think some colleagues are indicating—and the actus reus, and that that is not achieved by inserting the language about benefits?

[Kit Malthouse]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who has made the case much more eloquently than I could have done. She is quite right. We have heard endlessly from witnesses and others that simplicity is best, and that by inserting this kind of complexity, we create yet more difficulty.

I have two other things to say. From the point of view of autonomy, the amendments are trying to police the thoughts of the individual who comes forward in a way that, as I said, may mean that they become guarded in conversations with their physicians. One of the things that I have learned over the past 10 years or so, and that we have heard from witnesses, is that many people who are in extremis at their end are very determined that they will achieve a death other than what nature has laid out before them. That determination comes through from those who go to Switzerland, often in the teeth of the wishes of their family. They will go in secrecy, not telling anyone, because they do not want to put anyone else under threat of criminal prosecution.

We have heard lots of stories over the years—some were mentioned on Second Reading—of people who have killed themselves in terrible circumstances, again, secretly determined that they will not go through that end. My concern is that if we insert such amendments into the Bill, we start to police the conversation in a way that means that people determined to achieve an assisted death will do other than have a free and frank exchange in a sensitive way with their physician. Instead, they will try to tread the path to get what they want.

For example, if the issue was physical pain, the conversation might go: “Why do you want an assisted death?” “Well, of course it is just the pain. It’s all the pain. That is all I want—I’m just frightened about the pain.” “Are you doing it for the benefit of others?” “No—absolutely not! I am doing it completely for myself.” We can see how people might start to modify their conversation, rather than having what should be a sympathetic, empathetic, conversation between doctor and patient about where they should go.

My concern is that, as with a previous grouping, this attempt to micromanage and police the conversation, at the same time as attempting to police the way people should be thinking, threatens the whole concept of assessment and relationship, which we have heard about from many physicians—that is done on a daily basis in not dissimilar circumstances, where life and death is at stake. That complexity and those extra layers, in my view, start to make the Bill less safe.

[Sarah Olney]

I want to pick up on the right hon. Gentleman’s point about wanting patients to be able to have a free and frank conversation with their doctors. In a hypothetical scenario, someone suffering from a terminal illness and in the last six months of their life might say to their doctor, “I would like to explore an assisted dying option.” The doctor asks, “Why is that?” They say, to hark back to my previous example, “Because I want to save my children the cost of my end-of-life care bills.” How does the right hon. Gentleman think the doctor should react in that circumstance, given that that is a free and frank explanation of the person’s reasons?

[Kit Malthouse]

The Bill makes it quite obvious that the doctor would not regard that as a legitimate reason to give people an assisted death, if that was their only purpose. As we said before, however, most people have a range of purposes for seeking an assisted death. In my view—certainly in my experience—the primary one is always having the option of control at the end.

[Danny Kruger]

Will my right hon. Friend explain what the doctor would do if he or she did not think that there was an appropriate reason to approve the death? The Bill simply requires there to be a settled and informed view. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park says, the motivation might be that the person wanted to save their children the care costs—at which point the doctor, if they could not find evidence of coercion, would say, “Go for it. That is a perfectly good reason.” Is that not the case?

[Kit Malthouse]

It would depend on the circumstances of whether the doctor perceived that the request was made under pressure or coercion. Pressure or coercion can be financial as well as emotional. I would expect and hope that a doctor would question a motivation on that basis. The point, however, is that we have to be very careful about making a law that attempts to police the thoughts of individuals. My concern is that if we start to delineate to an ever more exacting degree what is and is not acceptable as a motivation, we will start to steer people down a road on which they try—this phrase has been used—to game the system to get what they want.

As many of us know, because we have seen it, we live in an age of social media where it is perfectly possible to go on to the internet to get advice about how best to apply for certain benefits and welfare: how someone can best fill in a form, answer certain questions or go through a personal independence payment assessment to get what they want, even though that may not be appropriate for them.

I have no doubt that if, as it develops, we delineate the issue in such a way that there are certain things one should say and certain things one should not, we will run the risk of limiting the conversation that the doctor can have, in a way that is not safe.

[Danny Kruger]

Obviously, we do not want people gaming the system, but I would rather that there were a system, even if it were gamed, than to have no safeguards whatever—which, I am afraid to say, is the case with this Bill. The only coercion that the doctor is looking for is coercion from other people; we do not think that that barrier is strong enough, but it is about coercion from outside. But internal coercion—people saying, “I want to do this to save my family care costs, and not just the sight of me in agony”—would be perfectly acceptable under the Bill. Is my right hon. Friend content with that?

[Kit Malthouse]

I am not sure that that would be perfectly acceptable under the Bill; I would be interested to hear what clause my hon. Friend has in mind. As we have discussed, financial coercion is a well perceived concept. As we have heard from other Members, it can be subtle and implied. That will be for practice guidelines, but as far as I can see it is perfectly well covered in the legislation.

[Danny Kruger]

I am sorry to push my right hon. Friend further but to reiterate my point, we are not talking about external coercion. We are talking about the explicit motivation of somebody with a settled and informed wish that they want to die to save their family the cost of their care. My understanding is that the Bill would allow that. Does he agree and is he content with that?

[Kit Malthouse]

That is not my interpretation of the Bill, no. I would not be content for that to be somebody’s primary purpose—of course not. My point remains: we run into dangerous ground when we start, by legislation, to try to police the thoughts and motivation of an individual, other than in trying to detect external pressure from others. I am concerned that the amendments run us up that dead end.

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

Surely, if we are policing the thoughts of the individual seeking to avail themselves of the service, we are working actively against that individual’s autonomy?

[Kit Malthouse]

That is exactly my point, and the point on which I was going to conclude. All of the Bill is designed to put control in the hands of dying people as they face what they regard as an undesirable ending to their life. We are trying to do so within the scope of safeguards that protect those who are vulnerable and not able to make a decision freely for themselves.

If we continue down the line of inserting this kind of complexity into the system, I am afraid that we run the risk of creating a very narrow channel for people to navigate. That will mean either that they feel forced to navigate it in a particular way or that they cannot navigate it at all, which will serve to restrict the conversation between assessing medics and patients in an undesirable way. For those reasons and because of the legal imprecision with which they are drafted, I am afraid I will be opposing the amendments, well motivated though they are.

[Danny Kruger]

The purpose of the amendments, and the reason why I am supporting them, is that they make the Bill honest. They will make the Bill do what the public think it does and is the reason why so many people around the country and in Parliament have supported it: because they understand it to be for exactly the purpose specified in the amendments. In fact, the amendments add safeguards that at least two strong supporters of the Bill in the House of Commons—I will not mention them—thought were already there. Those people have gone on the record stating that these safeguards exist in the Bill, but they do not.

We need to acknowledge motivation. As I said in my exchange with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, my concern is that the absence of recognition of motivation is a significant lacuna in the Bill. Earlier—or perhaps it was yesterday—my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley sought to draw a distinction between a depressed person who wants to die because of their terminal illness and someone who wants to die because of their depression. But in the Bill as it is written, there is no requirement for any causal link between the terminal illness and the desire to die. Under the Bill, someone’s reason for wanting to die does not need to be linked to the terminal illness; in fact, no reason is required. The Bill is totally neutral—in fact, it is silent—on the whole question of motivation. My hon. Friend also talked in an intervention about people who want to end their lives because of suffering and pain—again, that is not mentioned in the Bill. I will come to that shortly when I discuss amendment 235.

There is no reason required to see a clear, settled and informed wish. As discussed earlier, I recognise that there are safeguards intended to detect coercion or pressure, but that does not include people putting pressure on themselves. It is important to consider people’s motivation in situations such as the example given of somebody who wants to spare their family the ordeal—the trauma—of witnessing a bad death. Those sorts of people do not write in to us, by the way. Evidence has been submitted by many people who have experienced the trauma of having watched their relative die badly, but there is also the experience of people whose relatives have been through an assisted death.

I was talking earlier to the noble Baroness Finlay, the former chair of the National Council for Palliative Care, who cited evidence heard by the Commission on Palliative and End-of-Life Care. A man requested and received an assisted death in the Netherlands for the explicit purpose of sparing his son from seeing him degenerate and die badly. The son was desperate for his father to stay alive—he wanted to go with him through the ordeal—but the father refused. The impact on that young man has been significant, traumatic and destructive.

Even if the patient wishes to do something for the sake of their children, it is not necessarily the case that that will happen or that it will be a good thing. Children can be traumatised by such decisions. Crucially, we should insist that the Bill does what it aspires to do and what many of its advocates have set out clearly over many months. Its purpose is to help people to die, specifically to avoid terrible pain and suffering—but crucially, for themselves and not because they fear that they will be a burden. The fact is that many people do feel that they would be a burden.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who has intervened a couple of times this afternoon and made a very coherent argument about the importance of autonomy. I think he was suggesting—my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire hinted at this, too—that it is an appropriate decision if a person seeks an assisted death because they do not want to be a burden on others.

In fact, that point was made by people giving evidence to us from abroad. Some of the Australian witnesses—and, I think, the American witnesses—openly said, “Why not? This is consistent with people’s autonomous choice, and if they want to die to save their children’s inheritance or to prevent them from seeing them suffer, that is legitimate.” I would like more people to say openly, as a reason to legalise assisted death, that that is appropriate and that nobody should object—that the judges, doctors and everyone else should nod that through. I do not think that was the sense of the House on Second Reading and I do not personally think it is the view of the public, but if people think that is an acceptable reason to legislate for assisted dying, let us hear it.

I want to emphasise the point about the number of people who genuinely seek an assisted death because they feel that they are a burden on others—not for their own sake, but to save their loved ones money or to avert their distress. A very large number of people—I said most, but I correct myself; I think it is getting on for half of the relevant people in Oregon, Canada and elsewhere—cite burden as the reason for seeking an assisted death.

I note in passing—I hope the Committee will pay attention to this point—that I am concerned that we often feel we are legislating into a vacuum: we pass a law, it will apply, and that is that. As I said yesterday, the law is a teacher and has a direct cultural effect on society. It is very noteworthy that in countries where there is data on motivation, the number of people seeking an assisted death because they feel that they are a burden has risen significantly. It all started, naturally enough, with just the very desperate cases that we are all familiar with and we all understand the rationale for, but the number rose sharply. In the early years, between 12% and 34% across those four jurisdictions cited being a burden as a reason for seeking an assisted death. That has gone up to between 35% and 59% in the four jurisdictions—from around a quarter to around a half in terms of people who seek it. We could pass this law for the small number of people we think we want to help, but in due course many more people will avail themselves of an assisted death because they feel they are a burden.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

[Kit Malthouse]

For clarity, is my hon. Friend saying that he supports the amendments because he believes that the only reason that someone should have an assisted death is to avoid physical pain, not the circumstances that we have talked about—bursting arteries and fungating tumours—and therefore that if pain can be controlled, the notion of autonomy, control and choosing the time and place of my own death should all be dismissed?

[Danny Kruger]

The amendment is clear that the primary purpose should be to avoid physical pain. That needs no further clarification.

Let me turn to the discussion of pain. As I have said, the amendment would make the Bill honest and make it do what most people out there want it do. It would also have the great benefit, in my view at least, of reducing those who would be eligible for an assisted death to very a small number. I have heard the Bill’s advocates make the point repeatedly that we are talking about only a very small number of people.

The fact is that the most common reason for assisted suicide in other countries is not pain. Usually, in those countries, the law was passed on a wave of sympathy for people in agony at the end of their life, but most people do not seek an assisted death for the purpose of avoiding pain. The most common reason in Oregon, according to research there, is existential angst—emotional distress—not physical suffering. The Committee heard evidence from Western Australia that the most common reasons are loss of dignity, autonomy and the ability to enjoy life. In Tasmania, another place where there has been research, only 16% of people cite avoidance of pain as the reason for seeking an assisted death.

In my view, if we focused the Bill on pain, we could do even more to reduce the number of people who die in pain, because it should be even smaller than it is. Let me say a word or two about the palliation of pain. We have no doctors in the Committee who are on my side of the argument to make this point, so I refer to experts outside the room. Quite a lot of weight has been put on research published last year by the Office of Health Economics that said that 20 people would die every day in pain, even with access to palliative care. The point is often made that palliative care is wonderful—we all agree that it needs more resourcing and it should be more widely available—but even if it were provided brilliantly for everyone, a large number of people would still die in pain.

Without digging into the problems with the research, I simply point out that the methodology was very suspect. It assumed that people who receive hospice care are the same with respect to pain as people who do not. It just looked at the hospice population and extrapolated more broadly. That is, of course, ridiculous, because people in a hospice are much more likely to be suffering and to be experiencing bad pain; often, that is the reason that they are admitted to the hospice. That extrapolation was inappropriate.

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

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

I recognise that, and that the Bill makes a distinction in respect of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, which would be the doctor doing it to us. The Bill specifies that the drugs must be self-administered. I do not understand the logic of that distinction, but I recognise that there is an attempt to make the Bill more palatable and that the distinction has been preserved. Nevertheless, the Bill would enable a doctor to prescribe lethal drugs with the purpose of ending a life. That is an act that is performed: a person is prescribed drugs to end their life. Whether they take the pills or press the syringe themselves, the act has been performed, and the prescribed drugs kill the person.

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

My hon. Friend will recall the evidence from Professor Hoyano, who said she could not legally see the distinction between a doctor handing the pills to somebody to take themselves and the doctor pulling the plug out of the wall to turn off the ventilator or whatever machine might be keeping the person alive. Both of them are an act by a doctor at the request of the patient to foreshorten their death and avoid whatever they contemplate at the end.

I realise we are dealing with semantics here. We might have an irreconcilable difference about such an act, but I have to say that from the point of view of a patient—the person approaching their death—those two acts seem to be broadly the same. In both circumstances I am requesting that a doctor do something to hasten my death, because I do not wish to continue living in the circumstances presented to me.

[Danny Kruger]

My right hon. Friend articulates the point well. I do not think it is a semantic decision: there is a real distinction. The fact is that unplugging the ventilator leads to death, but what kills the patient is not the administration of any treatment or drugs that have been provided. The patient dies naturally, whereas the administration of drugs designed to kill them is a qualitatively different event. I agree that of course the ultimate effect is the same, but the act that is performed is qualitatively different, and indeed the intention of the doctor is different.

[Kit Malthouse]

Forgive me, but surely the whole point of what we are trying to do here is to give people the opportunity to avoid the natural death that is presented to them. We hear again and again, and we heard it from the families who gave evidence, that people profoundly wished to avoid their natural end because it was going to be degrading, unpleasant and profoundly painful on every level. That is the whole purpose of the act. To say that we should avoid that issue seems to me to negate our whole reason for being here.

[Danny Kruger]

We are trying to avoid suffering, pain and bad deaths. We all share that view. Indeed, later amendments look explicitly at the purpose of an assisted death and the question of the avoidance of pain. I am simply making the important distinction between the decision to withdraw treatment and the decision to administer fatal drugs, which, as I say, are qualitatively different—different in principle and different in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I know that my hon. Friend comes from a mental health background and has worked as a professional in this area. I absolutely agree that we need to strengthen the Bill, which is why I will support the amendment. I feel that we must strengthen it because the Secretary of State can make some interventions.

[Kit Malthouse]

I want to clarify what the Royal College of Psychiatrists actually said, because I realise that the hon. Member is relying a lot on that evidence. In an exchange with me in their oral evidence, the doctor from the royal college said that if I were to equate the decision to refuse treatment with the decision to request a hastening of my death in extremis as qualitatively the same, and of the same seriousness and outcome, then the Mental Capacity Act may well be appropriate for the decision. The difference was information. We would be relying on the notion of informed consent, and therefore on the information that the person was being given about the consequences of that decision.

We will be debating later in Committee the information that is given to a person to form that decision, but I do not think it is quite the case that the psychiatrist said that it could not be or was not fit for purpose. Actually, they said that it may well be sufficient if we equate those two decisions—and many of us do.

[Naz Shah]

I know the right hon. Member speaks with a huge amount of experience. I am very new to the subject, but I know that the evidence from the psychiatrist was very certain—not “may well be”. The language that they used, which I referred to earlier, was very clear that it is not a good standard. They said:

“We are in uncharted territory with respect to mental capacity, which is very much at the hub of the Bill”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 226, Q286.]

and there is an inequity in assessment using the Mental Capacity Act. There were other categorical statements made—there was no “maybe” in there. For me, a “maybe” does not cut it at this level; the test should be much higher in order to take the option of assisted death.

[Kit Malthouse]

If the hon. Lady goes to column 277 of Hansard from that oral evidence session, Dr Price said:

“You are equating a refusal of treatment, in capacity terms, to hastening death by assisted dying. If those two things are equated, in terms of the gravity and the quality of the decision, the Mental Capacity Act may well be sufficient, but there are differences. There are differences in the information that the person would need and what they would need to understand.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 277, Q361.]

It is clear what Dr Price said. To be honest, the question was partly prompted as we had become a little confused, because the whole practice of psychiatry in the UK is founded on the Act at the moment. She seemed to be implying that somehow the entire practice of psychiatry in the UK was on unstable ground—and I do not think anybody is claiming that.

[Danny Kruger]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

That is all right. Nevertheless, I am minded to refer the matter to the Clerk of the House for his consideration. This is no reflection on either of the hon. Gentlemen, or indeed on the Committee, but there are issues here that I think the Clerk of the House perhaps needs to consider in the broader context.

[Kit Malthouse]

rose—

[The Chair]

No, I am not taking any further points of order on the subject. I have made my judgment. If it is on a different matter—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

indicated dissent.

[The Chair]

It is not on a different matter. I didn’t think so.

[Kit Malthouse]

I was just going to say that it is not unprecedented: it has happened before, in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.

[The Chair]

For the moment, we will leave it there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady might well be right. I totally take that point. I dare say it is people who are homeless. I think the question put was, “Should those who are homeless simply be able to ask for assisted dying?” People in this country say no. In Canada, asked the same question, a quarter of people say yes. The effect of the law has been to institute this principle of assisted dying being an acceptable choice under any circumstances, which is indeed, I am afraid, what happens.

I will end with a powerful quote from Fazilet Hadi, who spoke to us representing disabled people. She said:

“This Bill is not an abstract exercise; it will land in a society that is rife with inequality.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 185, Q242.]

She said that the society the Bill will land in is the thing that needs to change, not the Bill. She thinks we need to change our society before we do anything like introducing assisted dying. I agree.

[Kit Malthouse]

I should start by recognising that my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, who is my constituency neighbour, has devoted much of his adult life to public service. He should know that I have always admired him for that, and particularly for his work with the vulnerable and underprivileged in prisons. As he knows, I have spent much of my time in politics working with a similar population, so, like him, I understand their particular vulnerabilities. However, I oppose his amendments, and I hope he will bear with me while I enumerate why.

I believe that there are some definitional problems with the amendments, as well as some quite serious moral and ethical problems, and they compound into a practical difficulty. The first definitional one is who exactly my hon. Friend means by “prisoners”. As he knows, not all prisoners are the same. Would he seek to deny assisted dying to prisoners on remand who have yet to be found guilty of a crime but are being held in advance of the criminal justice process? Would he deny assisted dying—which will be available to everybody else if the Bill passes—to people who are held in prison for not paying their council tax, for example, or for contempt of court? There is a variety of vulnerability in the criminal justice system, and prisoners are inside for different lengths of time and in different institutions. Quite a lot of white-collar criminals go to open prisons, for example. Would he seek to deny them?

To me, if my hon. Friend’s objective is to protect vulnerable prisoners, the definition that he is using is far too wide. There are many people who may well find themselves in extremis while they are in prison and are likely to be released at some point, after a short sentence or because of the nature of their sentence, who would therefore have their ability to access assisted dying foreshortened.

Similarly, when my hon. Friend speaks of homeless people and uses the definition in the Housing Act 1996, I think he actually means rough sleepers. The definition of homelessness that he referred to includes people who are staying with friends, people who are moving between homes and people who are likely to become homeless at some point in the future. It is a very wide definition, which covers a large number of people, some of whom would not necessarily be classified as vulnerable and may well be assessed as perfectly capable and have the capacity to make this decision. So my first point is that there is a definitional problem with the broad terms that my hon. Friend has chosen.

[Danny Kruger]

I accept those points. Nevertheless, the Bill itself has broad definitions and large exclusions—people who have more than a six-month prognosis, and so on. The Bill, I am afraid, operates in pretty broad brush strokes in order to try to defend large categories of people, so I think it is appropriate to exclude all people who are currently incarcerated—people who are in prison—whatever the reason or the length of their sentence, until they are released, and then they can start the process if they wish to and if they qualify.

On homelessness, yes, we should use the official definition of homelessness, which basically means “in precarious housing”. The purpose of the Bill is to enable people who have full autonomy to make a decision in their own best interest. I think it is legitimate to ask whether people who are living in insecure accommodation, whose lives are in flux, who are experiencing extreme precariousness in their lives, should meet the appropriate criteria for autonomy that we wish to set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I was about to come on to the fact that those questions would indeed be asked through the assessment that takes place. As my hon. Friend knows—we have had a long discussion about it—the Mental Capacity Act relies to a certain extent on context to assess capacity.

Turning to my hon. Friend’s point on prisoners, this may come as a surprise to him, but some people who are held on remand are found innocent and are released from prison. During their period on remand, which could be quite lengthy, they would be denied access to something they would not otherwise be denied access to.

[Danny Kruger]

My objection is not on the basis of criminality, innocence or guilt. I would not deny criminals this right because they are criminals. I would deny them what I regard as a dangerous opportunity because they are vulnerable. Whether guilty or not, whether they are on remand or not, they are in an equally precarious position and equally vulnerable, and that is why they should be excluded.

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but we are talking about people who do not have much time. We have to remember throughout this debate that we are talking about people who have limited time; they have been diagnosed, and their prognosis is six months or less. In fact, the experience from overseas is that quite a lot of people come to assisted dying beyond six months. We are operating on the basis that suddenly everybody at six months decides they are going to apply for it. Quite a lot apply with just days or weeks to go; time is therefore important to them, and so it should be to us. I am concerned that the definitions interfere with that.

Secondly, there is a distinct moral issue about the denial of services, particularly medical services, to groups of individuals based on their circumstances. We do not currently do that. We do not deny medical services to prisoners because they are prisoners. We believe it is a sign of a civilised society that they access the same healthcare as everybody else through our national health service. The same is true of those homeless groups. That includes allowing them to make the kind of decisions that we have talked about in the previous debate: decisions about life-threatening surgery and about the continuation of their life. It is certainly the case, as my hon. Friend will know from his work in prisons, that a number of prisons have developed hospice facilities within the prison to deal with end-of-life issues. Indeed those that do not have hospice care work closely with NHS palliative care outside and very often bring in specialists to deal with end-of-life issues in the prison.

[Rebecca Paul]

Some incredibly important points have been made. I would like to give an example. Let us consider someone who is homeless. Perhaps they are staying with friends, as my right hon. Friend said. If they find themselves to be terminally ill, they may well face difficulties in accessing palliative care and getting the right treatments simply because they are homeless. This is about protecting that vulnerable group from choosing assisted dying simply because they are in a precarious and difficult situation and assisted dying seems like the best option in the light of lack of palliative care and their current circumstances. Would my right hon. Friend concede that that is what my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire is trying to address?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I would certainly concede that; absolutely, I agree. The whole purpose of the safeguards in the Bill is to protect those who would be vulnerable, to ensure they have the capacity to make the decisions they want to make, and to ensure that they are making them for the right reasons. However, I think a lot of people would find it unfair and immoral that they were excluded not because of their own sense of themselves and their ability and capacity but simply because of their circumstances. As I am trying to point out, those who are homeless or prisoners in the widest definition of those words can find their circumstances changing quite significantly within the timeframe of six months. Given that they have only got six months under this Bill, we should not interfere with that and say, “Well, you are in; you are out.”

This may seem like a narrow example, but imagine that somebody diagnosed with a progressive disease were to commit a criminal act and end up going to prison, and during their time in prison, they reach the six-month period. Are they to be denied assisted dying if it is available to everybody else in the population? To me, that would not seem morally right, particularly given that we have a duty to deliver, and we do deliver, end-of-life services to them in the prison to help them cope with those circumstances. As my hon. Friend will know, there are charities which provide end-of-life care in prison as well.

[Danny Kruger]

In the circumstances my right hon. Friend is describing, the prisoner would be eligible for the compassionate release scheme.

[Kit Malthouse]

They would, yes.

[Danny Kruger]

That is what I hope would happen if it was necessary for the prisoner to be released in order to avail himself of opportunities on the outside. If he is terminally ill, that is what should happen.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am very pleased my hon. Friend raised that issue, because I was about to come to the practical difficulties that this presents, for exactly that reason. As he rightly pointed out, for a large number of prisoners, subject to assessment of the safety of the public, if they contract a terminal disease in prison, as they reach the end of their life, they qualify for compassionate early release. Often, that is within weeks of their death—naturally, as one would expect. It is carefully reviewed by prison governors and, I think, has to be signed off by the Secretary of State, as a final control. The problem with denying them the services while they are in prison is that if they are eventually compassionately released, they may have only a matter of weeks or days to go through what will be quite an onerous process to avoid a horrible death.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I support the amendment for a number of reasons. I have a huge amount of experience of dealing with women, domestic violence and prisons. The first time I came to this House was to lobby the then Labour Home Secretary to reduce my mother’s tariff, because she served 14 years in prison. When my mother was in prison, I was left homeless, so I have experience of that as well. I have experience of, while I was homeless, attempting suicide on two occasions, and I ended up having my stomach pumped. I therefore speak with a reasonable amount of experience in dealing with this.

From a domestic violence point of view, which is why my mother killed an abusive partner, and having been a victim of domestic abuse, I also understand the vulnerabilities concerning women in particular—less so men, although I know the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has done a lot of work on that in his adult life. The majority of women who end up in prison—we have seen this from review of the courts, time and again—are victims of abuse, whether sexual, domestic or another kind. The majority of our women prisoners are in that position.

The suicide rate among the population in England and Wales is 11.4 per 100,000, but for prisoners, that goes up to 108 per 100,000, which is nearly 10 times as high. We also know from research that one third of female prisoners in England and Wales self-harm. We know from the Home Affairs Committee report in the last Parliament on health in the English prison system that standards of health deteriorated in recent years due to budget reduction, loss of prison officers, staff shortages and overcrowding. We know that the Government have had to bring forward early releases, because the prison system is not fit for purpose after the cutbacks of the last 14 years.

All this speaks to me of vulnerability. I hear the points that both the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire have made that, in an ideal world, people should absolutely have equal access to healthcare, but the problem is that we are not in an ideal world. From my perspective, we have a prison system that has had to have emergency interventions since the Labour party came into government, because it is not fit for purpose.

From a healthcare perspective, going back to what Dr Jamilla said and the numerous bits of evidence we heard about health inequalities, I know from a place such as Bradford West that people from ethnic minority backgrounds have less trust in healthcare services. I know that we do not have equity in healthcare services. As a former NHS commissioner, I know that those health inequalities impact on quality of life and that it is a postcode lottery. I am thinking about New Hall women’s prison in Wakefield and Armley prison, which is near Bradford. I am not familiar with London prisons, but I imagine the vulnerability of the women at New Hall. This comes back to the conversation about capacity: by some definition, they might have capacity.

However, we also heard from eminent psychiatrists that when someone has a diagnosis, it impacts on their mental health. In this instance, we are talking about six months, which the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire referred to a number of times. In that six months, access to visitors might not come for another few weeks. A person might not even have a member of their family next to them when they get that diagnosis. They could well be innocent; they could well have been a victim of domestic violence and ended up in prison because they killed an abusive partner after years of abuse.

They could be in a number of situations, but the one thing I concur with is the amount of vulnerability here, in particular for women, which speaks to the issues of capacity and coercion. It speaks to all the things that we are debating here, which is why I support this amendment: it would protect those who are vulnerable. If there was a diagnosis, prison systems would kick in. If someone was given less than six months to live, they would invoke compassionate grounds to leave the prison system, but I would be really uncomfortable seeing anybody in prison being given the option without that comfort.

I cannot imagine being in the position of, say, my mum. I cannot imagine—I would not dare imagine; I do not think I could handle it—the idea of being taken away from my family and being incarcerated, rightfully or wrongfully, guilty or not guilty. I would be in a place, a system and an institution where, depending on which category of prison I was in, the institutional wraparound and the interventions are very different. It depends on the stage of the sentence that somebody is in. If they are in at stage 1 at a category A prison, there are much stricter rules and regulations. Imagine a person being faced with all that and finding out that they have six months to live. As the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said, there is no guarantee that it is six months—more than 40% of those diagnoses do not turn out to be correct, and they could live longer. What would the impact be on that person? Could they make that decision? From a capacity point of view, I am not sure that that would exist.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady is feeling towards the point I was trying to make, perhaps slightly incoherently. The point is that in my view, whether or not those people have access to this service, it should be based on an assessment of them as themselves, including their mental capacity, particular characteristics and their settled will, just as it would be for everyone else under the Bill. The fact that they are, at that point, a prisoner impacts on the context in which their capacity is assessed, which must be the critical factor. Having a blanket ban on all prisoners, capable or otherwise, seems cruel, if I am honest.

We know that prisons have to assess capacity in difficult circumstances. There are prisoners who decide to decline food and water and starve themselves to death. They are assessed as having capacity, if that is not the case, and in certain circumstances they are force fed, if it is seen that they do not have the capacity to take that decision themselves. In fact, the reason why prisons have created hospices within prisons is to deal with exactly such end of life decisions.

If we are doing it for non-assisted dying, why would we deny people the choice and autonomy, having been assessed as capable of making the decision, to do it in prison? Worse than that, if we are going to release them on compassionate grounds, why would we give them a shorter period to access the service than anybody else?

[Naz Shah]

I appreciate where the right hon. Member is coming from—I sincerely do. It comes back to the heart of the issue around capacity. We heard from the psychiatrist—her name escapes me, but she was on the right-hand side—that, where there is an increase of vulnerability, if somebody is told they would get pain relief, they would choose an alternative path. Those were similar words, and I will find the reference.

My point is that we do not have equal healthcare access in prison. We provide prisoners with healthcare, but it is in no way equitable. The health inequalities that exist outside prison are bad enough. Palliative care is not fit for purpose in our country—it is a postcode lottery. Depending on which prison someone goes to, that will determine what kind of access they have to palliative care. It is not a level playing field.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Yes, I think there should be a deprivation of that final act, because there are vulnerabilities with that prisoner while they are inside a prison. What they need is not an option of assisted death at that point. That speaks to the amendment that I tabled, which is about making sure that we do not have the conversation in the first four weeks in any case, because a diagnosis of terminal illness affects people’s mental capacity and mental health. We know that: we have heard it from the psychiatrists. It is common sense; it does not take a genius to work it out.

We know that people in prison have additional vulnerabilities. We are having a debate about the issue of capacity, which we have clearly not agreed on. A person-centred care package needs to be about supporting the person, removing vulnerabilities, giving autonomy, and offering choices around accessing palliative care and medication, so that they are in a much stronger position to make an informed choice.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene again. Can she not see that by supporting the hon. Gentleman’s amendment she is basically defining all prisoners as de facto vulnerable? It is not the case. Although many are vulnerable, both my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire and I have met a lot of criminals and prisoners in our time, and quite a lot of them are smart, capable people who made a stupid decision. They are not vulnerable; they deeply regret what they did and go on to live perfectly functional lives.

We should be applying to prisoners exactly the same criteria of assessment—around capacity, vulnerability and settled will—at the time they are diagnosed with a terminal disease as we do to everybody else, because if we are not going to differentiate among prisoners, in many ways we are dehumanising the entire population. We are saying, “You are all vulnerable—no question—and we are excluding you completely on that basis.” As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, that is in many ways a fundamental denial of a basic human right.

[Naz Shah]

The idea that it is the fundamental denial of a human right is not quite correct. We are talking about the denial of a provision in a Bill that has not come into law. It is a potential legal position; it is not necessarily a human right yet. If the Bill comes into force, at that point it becomes an option that could be denied. There are many prisoners. Prison serves many purposes, one of which is to reform. There will be many prisoners who go in there and get a degree in criminality because they are surrounded by other prisoners. There are people who make choices.

In the first four weeks we should not have the conversation around assisted death in any case. I have tabled an amendment to that effect and will speak to it when we come to it. In the meantime, a person has an added layer of pressure if they are in prison. It does not mean that everybody is necessarily vulnerable from a starting position. I agree that there may be prisoners who are not vulnerable, but there is an added pressure if somebody is homeless or in prison, not having family or security, that would no doubt compound their mental health. Whether that is a slight or a large impact is for somebody else to assess, but as it is I support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph]

I want to contribute to this discussion based on my experience as a mental health nurse. I worked in mental health services for 22 years, including managing a medium secure forensic unit. I have worked with many homeless people and people who were detained under the Mental Health Act by the criminal justice system in those medium secure units and who had been involved in criminal activities.

With my experience, I can categorically say that that group of people is very vulnerable. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said, self-harming and suicidal tendencies are very high among that group. As part of the risk assessments that we carry out in the mental health system, one of the questions is whether they are homeless. That question is asked to identify that vulnerability.

These amendments bring up the importance of a psychosocial assessment, which was highlighted in many pieces of our oral evidence. If we are looking to bring more safeguards into this Bill, that is something we should consider to safeguard this group of people.

I want to make one more point about what the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said: not all homeless people are homeless in the same way; some people choose to sleep rough. I am not clear whether, if somebody is sleeping rough and is diagnosed with a terminal illness, we are looking to bring them back into an NHS bed to assist them to die. I do not know whether there is a provision to identify how we would manage those sorts of situations.

[Kit Malthouse]

I was not necessarily saying what the hon. Member said that I said—that all homeless people are the same. However, it is the case that, for rough sleepers in particular, a number of charities, such as St Mungo’s, have had to develop on-street palliative care services for the rough sleepers who sadly do contract terminal diseases or are reaching the end of their lives. Very often, part of that service is to try to encourage them to come into some kind of institutional environment, such as a hospital, where their healthcare can be better served. It is a particular difficulty with that group, and there is a high incidence of mental health problems among the street homeless—not homeless people generally, but the street homeless—but that, in my view, would be caught by the general assessment that takes place.

In fact, the hon. Member may be interested to know that there is quite a lot of on-street mental health assessment taking place for people. People who are living on the street develop all sorts of disorders—indeed, there are often people with quite significant mental health problems on the street—and they are dealt with as closely as possible to the front end.

Therefore, it would not be beyond the capability of the state to make assessments about individuals that are appropriate to the context. I am trying to stress the point that we need to see the person as an individual, as well as within their context. With a blanket ban on particular groups, the human right that I was referring to is denied—it denies them the right to be seen as an individual and assessed as an individual, which is what we do in every other service that we provide to them.

[Sojan Joseph]

I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. To clarify, not all patients who are diagnosed as terminally ill are necessarily bedridden. They may be capable of carrying out their day-to-day activities as normal, even though they have been diagnosed with a terminal illness and have been given a prognosis of six months. They may still be walking around. Not everybody needs palliative care, in fact.

My question was: if somebody who is a rough sleeper is diagnosed with a terminal illness and they want help with assisted dying, will we make provision to bring them back into an NHS bed to facilitate their dying? It would be great to have that clarification. I support the amendment, as I have seen many highly vulnerable people who would be more likely to choose the path to end their life if they were given the option.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

What an interesting debate—I am grateful to all hon. Members who participated.

I am interested in what the Minister was saying about the ECHR. Notwithstanding my general point about the sovereignty of Parliament, when Lord Sumption gave evidence to the Committee two weeks ago, he stressed the wide margin of appreciation given to member states on the ECHR. Does the Minister think that that will apply in this case to ensure that the British Parliament could vote to exclude these categories of people? If his view is that the Bill could be subject to challenges on discrimination grounds, however, particularly under article 14, I think we will have a lot of problems in applying the Bill. I wonder whether, in due course, we will be able to tease out how the ECHR will intersect with the Bill.

As the Minister says, the crucial point is that any discrimination must be justified on the basis of achieving a legitimate and proportionate aim. My suggestion is that there is an absolutely legitimate aim, and that this is a proportionate means of achieving it.

The debate got quite philosophical, which I found very interesting. I observe that my constituency neighbour, esteemed colleague and great Conservative, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, has a vision of our particular political creed that is entirely individualistic. He stresses the absolute importance of individual autonomy, treating everybody as an individual without reference to the context in which they live. I suggest to him, and to the Committee, that our freedom and autonomy depend on our relationships. Our autonomy proceeds from our socialisation. We do not emerge fully formed into the world with all our values and attributes; we acquire them by virtue of the people around us.

The crucial thing about the prison experience is that it disrupts the relationships that can make an individual genuinely free. Homelessness does likewise, and it sets up all sorts of new relationships and new socialisations that can often be very negative.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind words, but he will know that the foundation of our beliefs stretches from Magna Carta through to Mill and is based on a legal notion that I am to a certain extent my own island—that I have autonomy over myself. From habeas corpus to making decisions about my own medical treatment, I should have rights. That is not to say that my decision-making capacity should not be assessed within the context in which I live.

What I was trying to communicate to my hon. Friend and his supporters in respect of this amendment is that I think it profoundly wrong to paint all prisoners with the same brush and see them as a homogeneous whole, rather than seeing them for the individuals they are, specifically when they are taking a very individual, personal and private decision about their own life and death.

[Danny Kruger]

I trace our liberties to an evolution of British law, and of English law, that recognises the essential nature of our individuality as being socialised. We belong to one another and we derive our freedom from other people. Our autonomy, Magna Carta and all the liberties of the individual proceed from that. None of us, no man, is an island. That is what I suggest to my right hon. Friend. His point was about treating everybody as solitary individuals, making independent private decisions. That is not the way any of us operate; it is certainly not the way people in the most vulnerable circumstances operate. What actually happens is that we are heavily influenced by the people around us, by our circumstances and by the choices before us.

To descend from the abstract, let us consider an actual case, albeit a hypothetical one. Someone is in prison. They have committed some crime, or they have not committed a crime but have been remanded. Their whole family life has been smashed to pieces over the years, or just recently. They then get the terrible diagnosis of a terminal illness. A doctor says to them, because they are allowed to do so under the Bill, “You know, one of your options is an assisted death.” I think that that would be incredibly influential, to the point of serious concern, for those of us who know how vulnerable people in prison are. The same applies to people living on the streets, the people my right hon. Friend was describing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand what the hon. Member for Broxtowe is trying to achieve, but I believe that her amendments are unnecessary. “Demonstrably” is a word that is commonly used in British law, effectively to emphasise that something is important, but also to ensure that something is proven. She will have seen that I have tabled amendments to the Bill to require two declarations to be produced: one by the patient, to say that they have had the conversation about all their options, understand their options and understand what their prognosis is likely to be; and one by the co-ordinating doctor, to say that they have had the conversation and that the patient is in full possession of all the facts they need and understands what has been communicated to them.

My view is that those declarations, as well as the assessment that the doctor has to go through to confirm that the person has a settled wish to do this, are enough to show that the person demonstrably wants to access the service for themselves. I am concerned that amendment 109, like other amendments that we will debate later, would insert into the Bill a series of individual words that will unnecessarily complicate its contemplation by doctors. We heard in evidence that for the Bill to work, it needs to be simple and understandable by everybody who is dealing with it. The more we can minimise the number of words that may be open to interpretation by lawyers —and we certainly have plenty of lawyers in the room— the better. From that point of view, I will oppose the amendment. I understand what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, but I believe that we have achieved it by different means.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe relate to an individual who seeks to access assisted dying services demonstrating their wish to end their own life and demonstrating their understanding of the process by which that happens. To support the Committee’s deliberations, I will briefly summarise the Government’s analysis of the effect of the amendments.

Amendments 109, 110 and 111 would modify the requirement that the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor must undertake an assessment to ascertain whether, in their opinion, the person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life. That would be amended to require the person to have a clear, settled and demonstrably informed wish. The term “demonstrably” would not provide further practical guidance beyond the words already in the Bill and could create uncertainty as to what constitutes being demonstrably informed.

I turn to amendment 112. Clause 9 currently provides that the co-ordinating and independent doctors must explain and discuss a number of matters with the person being assessed. These matters are set out in clause 9(2)(b), (c) and (d). In the interests of time, I will not go through each of those matters, but they include an explanation and discussion of the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, any treatment available and the likely effect of it, and the further steps that must be taken before assistance can lawfully be provided to the person under the Act.

The amendment would create an additional requirement for the co-ordinating and independent doctors. It would require them both to be satisfied that, in their opinion, the person seeking assistance has demonstrated their understanding of the matters that have been discussed under clause 9(2)(b), (c) and (d). The amendment does not specify in any further detail what the doctors would be required to look for to satisfy themselves that a person has demonstrated their understanding. That would be left to their professional judgment, with training, support and guidance, as with other concepts in the Bill. The amendment would leave it to the co-ordinating and independent doctor’s professional judgment to determine what “demonstrated their understanding” looked like in respect of each individual person.

I hope that those observations are helpful to the Committee.

[Danny Kruger]

I have just a few points to make. I very much applaud the hon. Member for Broxtowe for her amendment, which would genuinely—demonstrably, I might say—strengthen the Bill. It does not seem in any sense hostile to the principle or purpose of the Bill; it supports it.

To make a gentle criticism, I think that there is a concern about the lack, throughout the Bill, of a proper trail of documentary evidence following the applicant through the process. For example, the two conversations with the doctor would take place behind closed doors, and no record of their discussion would be made. I do not think that conducive to trust. There is no way to assess whether the safeguards are actually in operation.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am afraid that that is not actually correct. If my hon. Friend is willing to look at my amendments—I appreciate that he might not have got to them yet—he will see that one of them would require the doctor to produce a report on their assessment of the patient. Obviously a two-way declaration would also be required that the conversation pursuant to clause 4(4) has taken place and that in the doctor’s view the person is in possession of all the facts that they need in order to make the judgment that we are asking them to make. That detail and documentation will be inserted into the Bill if my amendment is agreed to.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I particularly applaud his amendment’s aspiration to ensure that the doctors’ conversations are properly recorded.

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

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

It is important that everybody has got their point on the record, and that they have said and raised their concerns.

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

Further to those points of order, Ms McVey. First of all, it is worth saying that the amendments tabled by the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, are in response to evidence that has been heard by this Committee—oral and written. Certainly the Bill Committees that I have been on have had repeated information coming in as the Bill has evolved. That is an actual process.

It is worth also pointing out to Members that the Bill Committee is not the end of the process, and written evidence that will arrive throughout will be pertinent on Report, when the whole House will have that information available. Then members of the Committee can lead the debate and reflect on information or written evidence that has emerged even after Committee stage, once the completed Bill from that process is seen. It is perfectly possible for this to evolve as we get to Report and Third Reading in the light of evidence that arrives. That is the normal process through which all legislation goes.

[The Chair]

Thank you. I call Kim Leadbeater.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I have to confess that I am a little confused by the evidence to which my hon. Friend refers. Can he confirm that it is perfectly possible for me to be diagnosed with a terminal disease and make an advance directive, which may apply in three months’ time, that in those circumstances I would decline treatment and would wish to die at that point? The Mental Capacity Act is used to assess me in making that advance directive, having had my terminal diagnosis. If it is good for that decision, I struggle to understand why it would not be good for a similar decision to end my life in similar circumstances.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

As always, my right hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Mental Capacity Act allows for advance directives on a whole variety of choices, including withdrawal of treatment, decisions on care or financial elements, and decisions on having treatment as opposed to not having treatment. It creates that ability and it is deemed robust enough for those purposes. It must therefore follow that it is robust enough for the purposes of the Bill.

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

Kit Malthouse Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

I recognise that, and that the Bill makes a distinction in respect of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, which would be the doctor doing it to us. The Bill specifies that the drugs must be self-administered. I do not understand the logic of that distinction, but I recognise that there is an attempt to make the Bill more palatable and that the distinction has been preserved. Nevertheless, the Bill would enable a doctor to prescribe lethal drugs with the purpose of ending a life. That is an act that is performed: a person is prescribed drugs to end their life. Whether they take the pills or press the syringe themselves, the act has been performed, and the prescribed drugs kill the person.

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

My hon. Friend will recall the evidence from Professor Hoyano, who said she could not legally see the distinction between a doctor handing the pills to somebody to take themselves and the doctor pulling the plug out of the wall to turn off the ventilator or whatever machine might be keeping the person alive. Both of them are an act by a doctor at the request of the patient to foreshorten their death and avoid whatever they contemplate at the end.

I realise we are dealing with semantics here. We might have an irreconcilable difference about such an act, but I have to say that from the point of view of a patient—the person approaching their death—those two acts seem to be broadly the same. In both circumstances I am requesting that a doctor do something to hasten my death, because I do not wish to continue living in the circumstances presented to me.

[Danny Kruger]

My right hon. Friend articulates the point well. I do not think it is a semantic decision: there is a real distinction. The fact is that unplugging the ventilator leads to death, but what kills the patient is not the administration of any treatment or drugs that have been provided. The patient dies naturally, whereas the administration of drugs designed to kill them is a qualitatively different event. I agree that of course the ultimate effect is the same, but the act that is performed is qualitatively different, and indeed the intention of the doctor is different.

[Kit Malthouse]

Forgive me, but surely the whole point of what we are trying to do here is to give people the opportunity to avoid the natural death that is presented to them. We hear again and again, and we heard it from the families who gave evidence, that people profoundly wished to avoid their natural end because it was going to be degrading, unpleasant and profoundly painful on every level. That is the whole purpose of the act. To say that we should avoid that issue seems to me to negate our whole reason for being here.

[Danny Kruger]

We are trying to avoid suffering, pain and bad deaths. We all share that view. Indeed, later amendments look explicitly at the purpose of an assisted death and the question of the avoidance of pain. I am simply making the important distinction between the decision to withdraw treatment and the decision to administer fatal drugs, which, as I say, are qualitatively different—different in principle and different in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I know that my hon. Friend comes from a mental health background and has worked as a professional in this area. I absolutely agree that we need to strengthen the Bill, which is why I will support the amendment. I feel that we must strengthen it because the Secretary of State can make some interventions.

[Kit Malthouse]

I want to clarify what the Royal College of Psychiatrists actually said, because I realise that the hon. Member is relying a lot on that evidence. In an exchange with me in their oral evidence, the doctor from the royal college said that if I were to equate the decision to refuse treatment with the decision to request a hastening of my death in extremis as qualitatively the same, and of the same seriousness and outcome, then the Mental Capacity Act may well be appropriate for the decision. The difference was information. We would be relying on the notion of informed consent, and therefore on the information that the person was being given about the consequences of that decision.

We will be debating later in Committee the information that is given to a person to form that decision, but I do not think it is quite the case that the psychiatrist said that it could not be or was not fit for purpose. Actually, they said that it may well be sufficient if we equate those two decisions—and many of us do.

[Naz Shah]

I know the right hon. Member speaks with a huge amount of experience. I am very new to the subject, but I know that the evidence from the psychiatrist was very certain—not “may well be”. The language that they used, which I referred to earlier, was very clear that it is not a good standard. They said:

“We are in uncharted territory with respect to mental capacity, which is very much at the hub of the Bill”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 226, Q286.]

and there is an inequity in assessment using the Mental Capacity Act. There were other categorical statements made—there was no “maybe” in there. For me, a “maybe” does not cut it at this level; the test should be much higher in order to take the option of assisted death.

[Kit Malthouse]

If the hon. Lady goes to column 277 of Hansard from that oral evidence session, Dr Price said:

“You are equating a refusal of treatment, in capacity terms, to hastening death by assisted dying. If those two things are equated, in terms of the gravity and the quality of the decision, the Mental Capacity Act may well be sufficient, but there are differences. There are differences in the information that the person would need and what they would need to understand.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 277, Q361.]

It is clear what Dr Price said. To be honest, the question was partly prompted as we had become a little confused, because the whole practice of psychiatry in the UK is founded on the Act at the moment. She seemed to be implying that somehow the entire practice of psychiatry in the UK was on unstable ground—and I do not think anybody is claiming that.

[Danny Kruger]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

That is all right. Nevertheless, I am minded to refer the matter to the Clerk of the House for his consideration. This is no reflection on either of the hon. Gentlemen, or indeed on the Committee, but there are issues here that I think the Clerk of the House perhaps needs to consider in the broader context.

[Kit Malthouse]

rose—

[The Chair]

No, I am not taking any further points of order on the subject. I have made my judgment. If it is on a different matter—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

indicated dissent.

[The Chair]

It is not on a different matter. I didn’t think so.

[Kit Malthouse]

I was just going to say that it is not unprecedented: it has happened before, in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.

[The Chair]

For the moment, we will leave it there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady might well be right. I totally take that point. I dare say it is people who are homeless. I think the question put was, “Should those who are homeless simply be able to ask for assisted dying?” People in this country say no. In Canada, asked the same question, a quarter of people say yes. The effect of the law has been to institute this principle of assisted dying being an acceptable choice under any circumstances, which is indeed, I am afraid, what happens.

I will end with a powerful quote from Fazilet Hadi, who spoke to us representing disabled people. She said:

“This Bill is not an abstract exercise; it will land in a society that is rife with inequality.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 185, Q242.]

She said that the society the Bill will land in is the thing that needs to change, not the Bill. She thinks we need to change our society before we do anything like introducing assisted dying. I agree.

[Kit Malthouse]

I should start by recognising that my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, who is my constituency neighbour, has devoted much of his adult life to public service. He should know that I have always admired him for that, and particularly for his work with the vulnerable and underprivileged in prisons. As he knows, I have spent much of my time in politics working with a similar population, so, like him, I understand their particular vulnerabilities. However, I oppose his amendments, and I hope he will bear with me while I enumerate why.

I believe that there are some definitional problems with the amendments, as well as some quite serious moral and ethical problems, and they compound into a practical difficulty. The first definitional one is who exactly my hon. Friend means by “prisoners”. As he knows, not all prisoners are the same. Would he seek to deny assisted dying to prisoners on remand who have yet to be found guilty of a crime but are being held in advance of the criminal justice process? Would he deny assisted dying—which will be available to everybody else if the Bill passes—to people who are held in prison for not paying their council tax, for example, or for contempt of court? There is a variety of vulnerability in the criminal justice system, and prisoners are inside for different lengths of time and in different institutions. Quite a lot of white-collar criminals go to open prisons, for example. Would he seek to deny them?

To me, if my hon. Friend’s objective is to protect vulnerable prisoners, the definition that he is using is far too wide. There are many people who may well find themselves in extremis while they are in prison and are likely to be released at some point, after a short sentence or because of the nature of their sentence, who would therefore have their ability to access assisted dying foreshortened.

Similarly, when my hon. Friend speaks of homeless people and uses the definition in the Housing Act 1996, I think he actually means rough sleepers. The definition of homelessness that he referred to includes people who are staying with friends, people who are moving between homes and people who are likely to become homeless at some point in the future. It is a very wide definition, which covers a large number of people, some of whom would not necessarily be classified as vulnerable and may well be assessed as perfectly capable and have the capacity to make this decision. So my first point is that there is a definitional problem with the broad terms that my hon. Friend has chosen.

[Danny Kruger]

I accept those points. Nevertheless, the Bill itself has broad definitions and large exclusions—people who have more than a six-month prognosis, and so on. The Bill, I am afraid, operates in pretty broad brush strokes in order to try to defend large categories of people, so I think it is appropriate to exclude all people who are currently incarcerated—people who are in prison—whatever the reason or the length of their sentence, until they are released, and then they can start the process if they wish to and if they qualify.

On homelessness, yes, we should use the official definition of homelessness, which basically means “in precarious housing”. The purpose of the Bill is to enable people who have full autonomy to make a decision in their own best interest. I think it is legitimate to ask whether people who are living in insecure accommodation, whose lives are in flux, who are experiencing extreme precariousness in their lives, should meet the appropriate criteria for autonomy that we wish to set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I was about to come on to the fact that those questions would indeed be asked through the assessment that takes place. As my hon. Friend knows—we have had a long discussion about it—the Mental Capacity Act relies to a certain extent on context to assess capacity.

Turning to my hon. Friend’s point on prisoners, this may come as a surprise to him, but some people who are held on remand are found innocent and are released from prison. During their period on remand, which could be quite lengthy, they would be denied access to something they would not otherwise be denied access to.

[Danny Kruger]

My objection is not on the basis of criminality, innocence or guilt. I would not deny criminals this right because they are criminals. I would deny them what I regard as a dangerous opportunity because they are vulnerable. Whether guilty or not, whether they are on remand or not, they are in an equally precarious position and equally vulnerable, and that is why they should be excluded.

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but we are talking about people who do not have much time. We have to remember throughout this debate that we are talking about people who have limited time; they have been diagnosed, and their prognosis is six months or less. In fact, the experience from overseas is that quite a lot of people come to assisted dying beyond six months. We are operating on the basis that suddenly everybody at six months decides they are going to apply for it. Quite a lot apply with just days or weeks to go; time is therefore important to them, and so it should be to us. I am concerned that the definitions interfere with that.

Secondly, there is a distinct moral issue about the denial of services, particularly medical services, to groups of individuals based on their circumstances. We do not currently do that. We do not deny medical services to prisoners because they are prisoners. We believe it is a sign of a civilised society that they access the same healthcare as everybody else through our national health service. The same is true of those homeless groups. That includes allowing them to make the kind of decisions that we have talked about in the previous debate: decisions about life-threatening surgery and about the continuation of their life. It is certainly the case, as my hon. Friend will know from his work in prisons, that a number of prisons have developed hospice facilities within the prison to deal with end-of-life issues. Indeed those that do not have hospice care work closely with NHS palliative care outside and very often bring in specialists to deal with end-of-life issues in the prison.

[Rebecca Paul]

Some incredibly important points have been made. I would like to give an example. Let us consider someone who is homeless. Perhaps they are staying with friends, as my right hon. Friend said. If they find themselves to be terminally ill, they may well face difficulties in accessing palliative care and getting the right treatments simply because they are homeless. This is about protecting that vulnerable group from choosing assisted dying simply because they are in a precarious and difficult situation and assisted dying seems like the best option in the light of lack of palliative care and their current circumstances. Would my right hon. Friend concede that that is what my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire is trying to address?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I would certainly concede that; absolutely, I agree. The whole purpose of the safeguards in the Bill is to protect those who would be vulnerable, to ensure they have the capacity to make the decisions they want to make, and to ensure that they are making them for the right reasons. However, I think a lot of people would find it unfair and immoral that they were excluded not because of their own sense of themselves and their ability and capacity but simply because of their circumstances. As I am trying to point out, those who are homeless or prisoners in the widest definition of those words can find their circumstances changing quite significantly within the timeframe of six months. Given that they have only got six months under this Bill, we should not interfere with that and say, “Well, you are in; you are out.”

This may seem like a narrow example, but imagine that somebody diagnosed with a progressive disease were to commit a criminal act and end up going to prison, and during their time in prison, they reach the six-month period. Are they to be denied assisted dying if it is available to everybody else in the population? To me, that would not seem morally right, particularly given that we have a duty to deliver, and we do deliver, end-of-life services to them in the prison to help them cope with those circumstances. As my hon. Friend will know, there are charities which provide end-of-life care in prison as well.

[Danny Kruger]

In the circumstances my right hon. Friend is describing, the prisoner would be eligible for the compassionate release scheme.

[Kit Malthouse]

They would, yes.

[Danny Kruger]

That is what I hope would happen if it was necessary for the prisoner to be released in order to avail himself of opportunities on the outside. If he is terminally ill, that is what should happen.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am very pleased my hon. Friend raised that issue, because I was about to come to the practical difficulties that this presents, for exactly that reason. As he rightly pointed out, for a large number of prisoners, subject to assessment of the safety of the public, if they contract a terminal disease in prison, as they reach the end of their life, they qualify for compassionate early release. Often, that is within weeks of their death—naturally, as one would expect. It is carefully reviewed by prison governors and, I think, has to be signed off by the Secretary of State, as a final control. The problem with denying them the services while they are in prison is that if they are eventually compassionately released, they may have only a matter of weeks or days to go through what will be quite an onerous process to avoid a horrible death.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I support the amendment for a number of reasons. I have a huge amount of experience of dealing with women, domestic violence and prisons. The first time I came to this House was to lobby the then Labour Home Secretary to reduce my mother’s tariff, because she served 14 years in prison. When my mother was in prison, I was left homeless, so I have experience of that as well. I have experience of, while I was homeless, attempting suicide on two occasions, and I ended up having my stomach pumped. I therefore speak with a reasonable amount of experience in dealing with this.

From a domestic violence point of view, which is why my mother killed an abusive partner, and having been a victim of domestic abuse, I also understand the vulnerabilities concerning women in particular—less so men, although I know the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has done a lot of work on that in his adult life. The majority of women who end up in prison—we have seen this from review of the courts, time and again—are victims of abuse, whether sexual, domestic or another kind. The majority of our women prisoners are in that position.

The suicide rate among the population in England and Wales is 11.4 per 100,000, but for prisoners, that goes up to 108 per 100,000, which is nearly 10 times as high. We also know from research that one third of female prisoners in England and Wales self-harm. We know from the Home Affairs Committee report in the last Parliament on health in the English prison system that standards of health deteriorated in recent years due to budget reduction, loss of prison officers, staff shortages and overcrowding. We know that the Government have had to bring forward early releases, because the prison system is not fit for purpose after the cutbacks of the last 14 years.

All this speaks to me of vulnerability. I hear the points that both the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire have made that, in an ideal world, people should absolutely have equal access to healthcare, but the problem is that we are not in an ideal world. From my perspective, we have a prison system that has had to have emergency interventions since the Labour party came into government, because it is not fit for purpose.

From a healthcare perspective, going back to what Dr Jamilla said and the numerous bits of evidence we heard about health inequalities, I know from a place such as Bradford West that people from ethnic minority backgrounds have less trust in healthcare services. I know that we do not have equity in healthcare services. As a former NHS commissioner, I know that those health inequalities impact on quality of life and that it is a postcode lottery. I am thinking about New Hall women’s prison in Wakefield and Armley prison, which is near Bradford. I am not familiar with London prisons, but I imagine the vulnerability of the women at New Hall. This comes back to the conversation about capacity: by some definition, they might have capacity.

However, we also heard from eminent psychiatrists that when someone has a diagnosis, it impacts on their mental health. In this instance, we are talking about six months, which the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire referred to a number of times. In that six months, access to visitors might not come for another few weeks. A person might not even have a member of their family next to them when they get that diagnosis. They could well be innocent; they could well have been a victim of domestic violence and ended up in prison because they killed an abusive partner after years of abuse.

They could be in a number of situations, but the one thing I concur with is the amount of vulnerability here, in particular for women, which speaks to the issues of capacity and coercion. It speaks to all the things that we are debating here, which is why I support this amendment: it would protect those who are vulnerable. If there was a diagnosis, prison systems would kick in. If someone was given less than six months to live, they would invoke compassionate grounds to leave the prison system, but I would be really uncomfortable seeing anybody in prison being given the option without that comfort.

I cannot imagine being in the position of, say, my mum. I cannot imagine—I would not dare imagine; I do not think I could handle it—the idea of being taken away from my family and being incarcerated, rightfully or wrongfully, guilty or not guilty. I would be in a place, a system and an institution where, depending on which category of prison I was in, the institutional wraparound and the interventions are very different. It depends on the stage of the sentence that somebody is in. If they are in at stage 1 at a category A prison, there are much stricter rules and regulations. Imagine a person being faced with all that and finding out that they have six months to live. As the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said, there is no guarantee that it is six months—more than 40% of those diagnoses do not turn out to be correct, and they could live longer. What would the impact be on that person? Could they make that decision? From a capacity point of view, I am not sure that that would exist.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady is feeling towards the point I was trying to make, perhaps slightly incoherently. The point is that in my view, whether or not those people have access to this service, it should be based on an assessment of them as themselves, including their mental capacity, particular characteristics and their settled will, just as it would be for everyone else under the Bill. The fact that they are, at that point, a prisoner impacts on the context in which their capacity is assessed, which must be the critical factor. Having a blanket ban on all prisoners, capable or otherwise, seems cruel, if I am honest.

We know that prisons have to assess capacity in difficult circumstances. There are prisoners who decide to decline food and water and starve themselves to death. They are assessed as having capacity, if that is not the case, and in certain circumstances they are force fed, if it is seen that they do not have the capacity to take that decision themselves. In fact, the reason why prisons have created hospices within prisons is to deal with exactly such end of life decisions.

If we are doing it for non-assisted dying, why would we deny people the choice and autonomy, having been assessed as capable of making the decision, to do it in prison? Worse than that, if we are going to release them on compassionate grounds, why would we give them a shorter period to access the service than anybody else?

[Naz Shah]

I appreciate where the right hon. Member is coming from—I sincerely do. It comes back to the heart of the issue around capacity. We heard from the psychiatrist—her name escapes me, but she was on the right-hand side—that, where there is an increase of vulnerability, if somebody is told they would get pain relief, they would choose an alternative path. Those were similar words, and I will find the reference.

My point is that we do not have equal healthcare access in prison. We provide prisoners with healthcare, but it is in no way equitable. The health inequalities that exist outside prison are bad enough. Palliative care is not fit for purpose in our country—it is a postcode lottery. Depending on which prison someone goes to, that will determine what kind of access they have to palliative care. It is not a level playing field.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Yes, I think there should be a deprivation of that final act, because there are vulnerabilities with that prisoner while they are inside a prison. What they need is not an option of assisted death at that point. That speaks to the amendment that I tabled, which is about making sure that we do not have the conversation in the first four weeks in any case, because a diagnosis of terminal illness affects people’s mental capacity and mental health. We know that: we have heard it from the psychiatrists. It is common sense; it does not take a genius to work it out.

We know that people in prison have additional vulnerabilities. We are having a debate about the issue of capacity, which we have clearly not agreed on. A person-centred care package needs to be about supporting the person, removing vulnerabilities, giving autonomy, and offering choices around accessing palliative care and medication, so that they are in a much stronger position to make an informed choice.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene again. Can she not see that by supporting the hon. Gentleman’s amendment she is basically defining all prisoners as de facto vulnerable? It is not the case. Although many are vulnerable, both my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire and I have met a lot of criminals and prisoners in our time, and quite a lot of them are smart, capable people who made a stupid decision. They are not vulnerable; they deeply regret what they did and go on to live perfectly functional lives.

We should be applying to prisoners exactly the same criteria of assessment—around capacity, vulnerability and settled will—at the time they are diagnosed with a terminal disease as we do to everybody else, because if we are not going to differentiate among prisoners, in many ways we are dehumanising the entire population. We are saying, “You are all vulnerable—no question—and we are excluding you completely on that basis.” As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, that is in many ways a fundamental denial of a basic human right.

[Naz Shah]

The idea that it is the fundamental denial of a human right is not quite correct. We are talking about the denial of a provision in a Bill that has not come into law. It is a potential legal position; it is not necessarily a human right yet. If the Bill comes into force, at that point it becomes an option that could be denied. There are many prisoners. Prison serves many purposes, one of which is to reform. There will be many prisoners who go in there and get a degree in criminality because they are surrounded by other prisoners. There are people who make choices.

In the first four weeks we should not have the conversation around assisted death in any case. I have tabled an amendment to that effect and will speak to it when we come to it. In the meantime, a person has an added layer of pressure if they are in prison. It does not mean that everybody is necessarily vulnerable from a starting position. I agree that there may be prisoners who are not vulnerable, but there is an added pressure if somebody is homeless or in prison, not having family or security, that would no doubt compound their mental health. Whether that is a slight or a large impact is for somebody else to assess, but as it is I support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph]

I want to contribute to this discussion based on my experience as a mental health nurse. I worked in mental health services for 22 years, including managing a medium secure forensic unit. I have worked with many homeless people and people who were detained under the Mental Health Act by the criminal justice system in those medium secure units and who had been involved in criminal activities.

With my experience, I can categorically say that that group of people is very vulnerable. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said, self-harming and suicidal tendencies are very high among that group. As part of the risk assessments that we carry out in the mental health system, one of the questions is whether they are homeless. That question is asked to identify that vulnerability.

These amendments bring up the importance of a psychosocial assessment, which was highlighted in many pieces of our oral evidence. If we are looking to bring more safeguards into this Bill, that is something we should consider to safeguard this group of people.

I want to make one more point about what the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said: not all homeless people are homeless in the same way; some people choose to sleep rough. I am not clear whether, if somebody is sleeping rough and is diagnosed with a terminal illness, we are looking to bring them back into an NHS bed to assist them to die. I do not know whether there is a provision to identify how we would manage those sorts of situations.

[Kit Malthouse]

I was not necessarily saying what the hon. Member said that I said—that all homeless people are the same. However, it is the case that, for rough sleepers in particular, a number of charities, such as St Mungo’s, have had to develop on-street palliative care services for the rough sleepers who sadly do contract terminal diseases or are reaching the end of their lives. Very often, part of that service is to try to encourage them to come into some kind of institutional environment, such as a hospital, where their healthcare can be better served. It is a particular difficulty with that group, and there is a high incidence of mental health problems among the street homeless—not homeless people generally, but the street homeless—but that, in my view, would be caught by the general assessment that takes place.

In fact, the hon. Member may be interested to know that there is quite a lot of on-street mental health assessment taking place for people. People who are living on the street develop all sorts of disorders—indeed, there are often people with quite significant mental health problems on the street—and they are dealt with as closely as possible to the front end.

Therefore, it would not be beyond the capability of the state to make assessments about individuals that are appropriate to the context. I am trying to stress the point that we need to see the person as an individual, as well as within their context. With a blanket ban on particular groups, the human right that I was referring to is denied—it denies them the right to be seen as an individual and assessed as an individual, which is what we do in every other service that we provide to them.

[Sojan Joseph]

I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. To clarify, not all patients who are diagnosed as terminally ill are necessarily bedridden. They may be capable of carrying out their day-to-day activities as normal, even though they have been diagnosed with a terminal illness and have been given a prognosis of six months. They may still be walking around. Not everybody needs palliative care, in fact.

My question was: if somebody who is a rough sleeper is diagnosed with a terminal illness and they want help with assisted dying, will we make provision to bring them back into an NHS bed to facilitate their dying? It would be great to have that clarification. I support the amendment, as I have seen many highly vulnerable people who would be more likely to choose the path to end their life if they were given the option.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

What an interesting debate—I am grateful to all hon. Members who participated.

I am interested in what the Minister was saying about the ECHR. Notwithstanding my general point about the sovereignty of Parliament, when Lord Sumption gave evidence to the Committee two weeks ago, he stressed the wide margin of appreciation given to member states on the ECHR. Does the Minister think that that will apply in this case to ensure that the British Parliament could vote to exclude these categories of people? If his view is that the Bill could be subject to challenges on discrimination grounds, however, particularly under article 14, I think we will have a lot of problems in applying the Bill. I wonder whether, in due course, we will be able to tease out how the ECHR will intersect with the Bill.

As the Minister says, the crucial point is that any discrimination must be justified on the basis of achieving a legitimate and proportionate aim. My suggestion is that there is an absolutely legitimate aim, and that this is a proportionate means of achieving it.

The debate got quite philosophical, which I found very interesting. I observe that my constituency neighbour, esteemed colleague and great Conservative, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, has a vision of our particular political creed that is entirely individualistic. He stresses the absolute importance of individual autonomy, treating everybody as an individual without reference to the context in which they live. I suggest to him, and to the Committee, that our freedom and autonomy depend on our relationships. Our autonomy proceeds from our socialisation. We do not emerge fully formed into the world with all our values and attributes; we acquire them by virtue of the people around us.

The crucial thing about the prison experience is that it disrupts the relationships that can make an individual genuinely free. Homelessness does likewise, and it sets up all sorts of new relationships and new socialisations that can often be very negative.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind words, but he will know that the foundation of our beliefs stretches from Magna Carta through to Mill and is based on a legal notion that I am to a certain extent my own island—that I have autonomy over myself. From habeas corpus to making decisions about my own medical treatment, I should have rights. That is not to say that my decision-making capacity should not be assessed within the context in which I live.

What I was trying to communicate to my hon. Friend and his supporters in respect of this amendment is that I think it profoundly wrong to paint all prisoners with the same brush and see them as a homogeneous whole, rather than seeing them for the individuals they are, specifically when they are taking a very individual, personal and private decision about their own life and death.

[Danny Kruger]

I trace our liberties to an evolution of British law, and of English law, that recognises the essential nature of our individuality as being socialised. We belong to one another and we derive our freedom from other people. Our autonomy, Magna Carta and all the liberties of the individual proceed from that. None of us, no man, is an island. That is what I suggest to my right hon. Friend. His point was about treating everybody as solitary individuals, making independent private decisions. That is not the way any of us operate; it is certainly not the way people in the most vulnerable circumstances operate. What actually happens is that we are heavily influenced by the people around us, by our circumstances and by the choices before us.

To descend from the abstract, let us consider an actual case, albeit a hypothetical one. Someone is in prison. They have committed some crime, or they have not committed a crime but have been remanded. Their whole family life has been smashed to pieces over the years, or just recently. They then get the terrible diagnosis of a terminal illness. A doctor says to them, because they are allowed to do so under the Bill, “You know, one of your options is an assisted death.” I think that that would be incredibly influential, to the point of serious concern, for those of us who know how vulnerable people in prison are. The same applies to people living on the streets, the people my right hon. Friend was describing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

I understand what the hon. Member for Broxtowe is trying to achieve, but I believe that her amendments are unnecessary. “Demonstrably” is a word that is commonly used in British law, effectively to emphasise that something is important, but also to ensure that something is proven. She will have seen that I have tabled amendments to the Bill to require two declarations to be produced: one by the patient, to say that they have had the conversation about all their options, understand their options and understand what their prognosis is likely to be; and one by the co-ordinating doctor, to say that they have had the conversation and that the patient is in full possession of all the facts they need and understands what has been communicated to them.

My view is that those declarations, as well as the assessment that the doctor has to go through to confirm that the person has a settled wish to do this, are enough to show that the person demonstrably wants to access the service for themselves. I am concerned that amendment 109, like other amendments that we will debate later, would insert into the Bill a series of individual words that will unnecessarily complicate its contemplation by doctors. We heard in evidence that for the Bill to work, it needs to be simple and understandable by everybody who is dealing with it. The more we can minimise the number of words that may be open to interpretation by lawyers —and we certainly have plenty of lawyers in the room— the better. From that point of view, I will oppose the amendment. I understand what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, but I believe that we have achieved it by different means.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe relate to an individual who seeks to access assisted dying services demonstrating their wish to end their own life and demonstrating their understanding of the process by which that happens. To support the Committee’s deliberations, I will briefly summarise the Government’s analysis of the effect of the amendments.

Amendments 109, 110 and 111 would modify the requirement that the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor must undertake an assessment to ascertain whether, in their opinion, the person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life. That would be amended to require the person to have a clear, settled and demonstrably informed wish. The term “demonstrably” would not provide further practical guidance beyond the words already in the Bill and could create uncertainty as to what constitutes being demonstrably informed.

I turn to amendment 112. Clause 9 currently provides that the co-ordinating and independent doctors must explain and discuss a number of matters with the person being assessed. These matters are set out in clause 9(2)(b), (c) and (d). In the interests of time, I will not go through each of those matters, but they include an explanation and discussion of the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, any treatment available and the likely effect of it, and the further steps that must be taken before assistance can lawfully be provided to the person under the Act.

The amendment would create an additional requirement for the co-ordinating and independent doctors. It would require them both to be satisfied that, in their opinion, the person seeking assistance has demonstrated their understanding of the matters that have been discussed under clause 9(2)(b), (c) and (d). The amendment does not specify in any further detail what the doctors would be required to look for to satisfy themselves that a person has demonstrated their understanding. That would be left to their professional judgment, with training, support and guidance, as with other concepts in the Bill. The amendment would leave it to the co-ordinating and independent doctor’s professional judgment to determine what “demonstrated their understanding” looked like in respect of each individual person.

I hope that those observations are helpful to the Committee.

[Danny Kruger]

I have just a few points to make. I very much applaud the hon. Member for Broxtowe for her amendment, which would genuinely—demonstrably, I might say—strengthen the Bill. It does not seem in any sense hostile to the principle or purpose of the Bill; it supports it.

To make a gentle criticism, I think that there is a concern about the lack, throughout the Bill, of a proper trail of documentary evidence following the applicant through the process. For example, the two conversations with the doctor would take place behind closed doors, and no record of their discussion would be made. I do not think that conducive to trust. There is no way to assess whether the safeguards are actually in operation.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am afraid that that is not actually correct. If my hon. Friend is willing to look at my amendments—I appreciate that he might not have got to them yet—he will see that one of them would require the doctor to produce a report on their assessment of the patient. Obviously a two-way declaration would also be required that the conversation pursuant to clause 4(4) has taken place and that in the doctor’s view the person is in possession of all the facts that they need in order to make the judgment that we are asking them to make. That detail and documentation will be inserted into the Bill if my amendment is agreed to.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I particularly applaud his amendment’s aspiration to ensure that the doctors’ conversations are properly recorded.