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

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Paul]

My hon. Friend makes a good point; I completely agree with him on that front. This goes back to being clear on the face of the Bill about what the panel does and the powers it has in order to avoid ambiguity. It is important that we set that out now, during this process, rather than finding ourselves in a position in two years where it is all starting to happen, if the Bill is approved, and the questions starting at that point. Let us try to answer them now and be really clear about it.

Where a panel does not hear directly from a patient, it may be forced to rely on second-hand accounts. In law, second-hand evidence is known as hearsay and is always handled with a lot of provisions and warnings across our criminal and civil legal systems, because it can be inaccurate or of lower quality than evidence directly from a source. However, the panel is open to depending on such evidence. We must be clear-eyed about the risks that come with that.

In summary, I do not believe that new clause 21 gives sufficient clarity on how the panel will perform its role and what evidential standard it would apply. We do not know if it is an administrative task or a judicial one. We do now know that the panel is inquisitorial—I thank the Bill’s promoter for that—but we do not know how much it will rely on hearsay evidence in practice. I will say this again, because it is really important: the panel is required to hear from only one doctor and does not need to question them. Under the Bill, would it be legally acceptable for the doctor to turn up, say, “No concerns”—and that’s the end of that? I am here to tell Committee members who think that that will not happen if the Bill allows it: somewhere, with some panel, it absolutely will—particularly as our society gets desensitised and more comfortable with the concept of assisted dying.

I urge the Committee to be precise with the legislation it is passing for the sake of the statute book and, more importantly, for the sake of all the people who may find themselves being assessed by such a panel.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady sketches out a very short exchange. Does she think that we should specify in primary legislation the exact nature of interactions in these sorts of matters elsewhere—in the High Court, employment tribunals and so on? In my understanding, we do not: we trust regulated professionals to have appropriate interactions. It is not for Parliament to say that a lawyer or doctor should ask x or y question. Does she agree?

[Rebecca Paul]

I am afraid I do not agree. I do not think that we should not put in place precise legislation because we trust that everyone will do the right thing. Our job as lawmakers is to always think about the worst possible situation that could arise and legislate accordingly to protect against that as best as possible. In 99 cases out of 100, it will work perfectly fine and people will do their job as they are meant to. The point I am trying to draw out is about exactly what the Bill says, and what it says is required is actually very little. The panel is required to “hear” from only one of the doctors. I still do not know what “hear” means. Exactly what content are they meant to provide? That is the point I am making. It is important that we make legislation for the worst-case scenario. That is our job.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I am not going to pursue that exact line of argument. The point of discussion, and the point of the vote, is whether we think this proposal, which, to me, is robust—the panel “must hear” from doctors and “must…hear” from the patient unless there are exceptional circumstances, and three professionals are involved—is stronger than the previous draft that involved the High Court and had no such requirements. Even if the hon. Lady does not think the new clause is perfect, does she think it is a stronger set of safeguards—surely it is—and will she support it?

[Rebecca Paul]

Again, I am not sure I agree that that is what I am here to do today. I think my job is to set out the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed amendment, and I do think that the High Court judge safeguard, on the face of it, was probably safer. I appreciate, value and truly welcome what the new clause attempts to do by bringing in psychiatrists and social workers, but it has come in at the wrong phase of the process. I am not sure we are really getting the value of that expertise at the judicial point; we would have got that value at the clinical stage.

I ask Members to take what I am saying in the good faith that it is meant. My intention is to make sure that the Bill is as safe as possible. I do not profess to have all the answers, but I do have questions, and sometimes it is useful to ask questions, because there are others here who can answer them. I hope that, by asking questions when we are uncertain whether something is the right way forward, we will get a stronger piece of legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis]

Yes, I am aware of some of those submissions from those individuals. I will come to this, but clearly even some people who were in support of making changes did not recommend the ones that we have now incorporated.

First, I would argue that people giving evidence to the panels should be doing so under oath. In my 20 long years as a local councillor, I gave evidence under oath to an investigation by a health and safety executive into the demolition of a building. I would say that the demolition of a building and this matter are very different, and therefore I query why this evidence is not being given under oath.

[Lewis Atkinson]

My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful speech. Has he had the chance to consider the situation with mental health tribunals that I mentioned yesterday, which usually do not take evidence under oath? Clearly, they make very serious decisions regarding sectionings and deprivations of liberty without invoking oath-taking powers.

[Daniel Francis]

I accept what my hon. Friend says, but there are differences of opinion. I accept that that is a very serious matter, but I would argue that a matter of life and death is more serious, and there are processes that we know. As I said, I gave evidence under oath about the demolition of a building and whether someone had followed the correct health and safety regulations, yet we would not be doing so in this case.