Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Zöe Franklin]

I am honoured to open today’s debate on Report and to have served in Committee, where it was clear that Members on both sides of the House shared a commitment to high-quality mental health care for those in crisis. I thank my colleagues who also served in Committee; it was an informative and moving discussion. It is that commitment to high-quality mental health care that underpins new clause 2. It addresses a critical issue: the inconsistency and inadequacy of care in mental health units across England.

I am sure we have all heard distressing accounts of vulnerable individuals being placed in units that are understaffed, unsafe and ill equipped for recovery. Families entrust the system with their loved ones during moments of crisis, only to find that trust undermined—not by a lack of compassion, but by a lack of national direction. New clause 2 seeks to change that by establishing a national strategy and annual reporting to ensure that every mental health unit is safe, well-staffed and fit for purpose.

In my Guildford constituency, a family recently shared with me their experience of a loved one’s stay in a mental health facility. The unit was understaffed from the outset and wards were mixed in age and illness, with little therapeutic structure. There was no clear advocate or caseworker, and the family did not know whom to contact. They described a system that, in their words,

“dishes out drugs without improving mental health or wellbeing.”

The setting was so short-staffed that their loved one was able to self-harm—an unacceptable failure in any care setting. New clause 2 aims to prevent such failures from recurring.

The Care Quality Commission has repeatedly raised concerns about the safety of mental health wards, citing staff shortages, poor infrastructure and environments that are unfit for therapeutic care. In 2023, the King’s Fund reported that 40% of NHS mental health providers were rated “requires improvement” or “inadequate” on safety—figures that would be intolerable elsewhere in the health system. The Health Services Safety Investigations Body has identified systematic risks in in-patient mental health care, including delayed responses to distress, inappropriate use of restraint and a lack of therapeutic staffing models. Perhaps most starkly, the British Medical Journal reported over 17,000 serious incidents in mental health services between April 2022 and March 2023. Each one was a moment when care went seriously wrong. These are not just statistics; they represent real people who deserve better.

New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to publish a national strategy within 12 months to ensure that all mental health units meet or exceed “good” safety standards under the CQC framework, and to report annually to Parliament. It focuses on three key areas: recruitment, retention and training of staff; safe staffing levels and patient-to-staff ratios, especially during nights and peak times; and ongoing accountability through public reporting. The new clause would make patient safety a national obligation, not a postcode lottery. It is about responsibility and transparency.

Although the Bill modernises detention criteria and patients’ rights, it does not explicitly require the Secretary of State to guarantee basic safety and staffing standards, and new clause 2 would fill that gap. Some may worry that it would be too prescriptive or add bureaucracy, but it would not replace local management; it would support it. It would build on the CQC’s role by ensuring that action is taken when failings persist, and it would turn inspection findings into a driver of national improvement.

On cost, unsafe care is already expensive. It leads to readmissions, litigation, staff burnout and the loss of public trust. A national strategy would allow for smarter investment, preventing failures rather than paying for them later. We have had decades of guidance and reviews, but what we have not had is statutory accountability. My new clause would deliver that.

New clause 2 is focused, deliverable and urgently needed. It complements the Bill by ensuring that the rights it enshrines are backed by safe, well-staffed and properly regulated environments. Without it, we risk legislating for rights in theory while leaving patients unsafe in practice. By supporting it, we affirm that mental health care deserves the same national standards as any other branch of healthcare. I urge Members to support new clause 2 and make safety, dignity and accountability a permanent part of our mental health law, and I look forward to the debate in this House today.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Many Sunderland families, including mine, share stories of Cherry Knowle, the Sunderland borough asylum in my constituency, which opened in 1895. Severe mental illness has always been a feature of society. Thankfully, the legislative framework and services have developed somewhat since 1895, but arguably they have not developed fast enough, particularly over the 42 years since the Mental Health Act 1983 was passed. At the start of my NHS career, I spent time shadowing staff on the wards of the then Cherry Knowle, which in 2014 was replaced by a much better facility in Hopewood Park in Ryhope in my constituency. To this day, 2,825 adults are detained under the Mental Health Act in Sunderland Central as a result of that facility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Similarly, a community service called Mental Health Together has been introduced in my area. Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole mental health system is so complex, with different practices in different parts of the country, and that not having continuity and a standard across the country is a big issue for mental health?

[Lewis Atkinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I thank him for his intervention. Part of the issue around poorly reported waiting times is that it is less easy to see that differential access than it would perhaps be in physical health services. Indeed, over the years when specialist teams have been set up—for example the early intervention and psychosis teams and assertive outreach teams, which I know my hon. Friend knows well given his professional background—they have been introduced with very good intentions and to target specific needs, but they sometimes make it more difficult for patients to get overall care rather than very specialist care for individual conditions.

I will not take any more time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will just say that the mantra of investment and reform applies to mental health services, as it should apply to all our health services. For us to make further progress in pursuing parity of esteem between mental health and physical health, we not only need to consider these amendments today and pass the Bill to modernise the legislation, but ensure the Government have sufficient political priority on producing and improving mental health services.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

Once again, the House is speaking with one voice, and I hope that the BMA understands the strength of feeling on both sides of the House about the unnecessary and irresponsible nature of the proposed strike action this week. Discussions in recent days have been constructive, and I hope that gives grounds for the postponement of strike action so that we can work together to avert it—not just this week, but altogether.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)]

Under this Government, waiting lists have fallen by more than a quarter of a million in our first year, but strike action puts that hard-won progress at risk. If strikes do go ahead, we will do everything we can to minimise the disruption to patients, who will bear the brunt of cancellations. We continue to work with the BMA resident doctors committee in the hope that its members will do the right thing and call off the strikes. None the less, if they go ahead, we stand ready, responsive and resolute.

[Lewis Atkinson]

There were 5,448 drug-related deaths in 2023—the highest figure ever—and an 84% increase from the number that led the previous Government to publish their drugs strategy, which was supposed to save lives. Does the Secretary of State agree that the existing drugs strategy is not fit for purpose, and will he urgently start work on replacing it with a public health-led drugs strategy to tackle this public health emergency?

[Wes Streeting]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. The number of drug-related deaths remains far too high, and we are committed to saving lives through access to high-quality treatment. For 2025-26, my Department is providing £310 million in addition to the public health grant to deliver the recommendations from Dame Carol Black’s independent review, but there is much more to do. We look forward to working with my hon. Friend to achieve success.

Resident Doctors: Industrial Action

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He is that rare beast: a Tory trade unionist. He raises the serious point of the consequences of strike action. I will, of course, keep the House updated, but I want to reassure the House that we are taking every step possible to mitigate the disruption that these strikes will cause. That will come at a financial cost and a cost to patients because of the disruption that will follow. It will also come at a cost to other staff, many of whom are paid less than resident doctors, who will be left at work with more pressure and in harder conditions, picking up the pieces because of the actions of their colleagues who were given a higher pay rise, but who will be stood outside protesting the 28.9% pay rise that they received.

I assure the House that we will do everything we can to mitigate the impact of the strikes on patients and the disruption that will follow. What I cannot say to the House, however, is that we can offset or cancel the impact or detriment felt by patients. We will look carefully at the data on the experience and impact of the strikes that occurred during the previous round of negotiations. I will ensure that that information is published so that the House can see the impact of the previous strikes, so that we can brace ourselves for what may lie ahead.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Anyone who has ever worked in healthcare knows that it is a team sport and that delivering excellent care requires a range of staff across the allied health professions including nurses, doctors, administrative staff and estate staff. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is therefore essential that all NHS staff groups have confidence that their pay is being set fairly, and that going beyond the independent pay review body’s recommendations for one set of staff would undermine the “one NHS” team ethos that so many have worked to build?

NHS 10-Year Plan

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

Absolutely, and the people of Watford can see the difference a Labour Government can make, thanks to their sending a Labour MP to the House. They saw what happened when they sent a Tory, and they cannot send a Liberal Democrat to this place and trust them to deliver. They need a Labour Government to deliver Labour change. I am delighted that my hon. Friend is here, and we are making a real difference together. Thanks to the engagement events he held with his constituents in Watford, their ideas are reflected in this plan. That is thanks to their hard work and his advocacy.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

It falls on each Labour Government to reform and renew the NHS in the service of patients, and that includes mental health patients; from my consultations, I know that they are a key priority for the people of Sunderland Central. I welcome the plan’s emphasis on empowering patients by providing them with information and choice through the NHS app, including on waiting times, but the Secretary of State will know that information about mental health waiting times is often poor, as are the waiting times themselves. In the 10-year plan, will he commit to making sure that empowerment applies equally to people seeking mental health services and those seeking physical health services?

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We in this place are so lucky to have his expertise and his leadership of the Back-Bench health and social care committee of the parliamentary Labour party. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I am concerned that we do not give enough profile to paediatric waits and mental health waits. With more transparency, information and access, we will be able to demonstrate improvements over the course of this Parliament and the next decade.

Department of Health and Social Care

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the estimates and the CSR settlement from the Government —a record settlement for the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS. Given the time constraints, I will focus on three key points: financial management, underlying demand and the prioritisation of spend in the estimates.

We rightly focus on the headline settlements in estimates such as these, but what we do not talk about enough is the importance of good public administration in the Department. In the 19 years that I spent in the NHS before coming to this place, I saw how the previous Government had a sticking-plaster approach not just to politics, but to public administration. Budgets were confirmed at the last minute and planning guidance was outlined at the very last moment of the financial year, meaning that there was no opportunity for NHS leaders and health leaders to plan appropriately for resource spending. I particularly welcome the emphasis the Secretary of State for Health and the new chief executive of NHS England have put on restoring accountability through the foundation trust model and multi-year settlements that mean that, although I am sure NHS colleagues would like more, they at least know and can plan investment and spend-to-save decisions over that period.

Secondly, Members have queried why the NHS seemingly continues to require increases. I draw the House’s attention to the Nuffield Trust’s work showing that this is about not health inflation but underlying health demand. The Nuffield Trust estimates that, as a result of population changes—mainly the ageing of the population—there is a 1.1% increase in demand every year. In addition, advances in technology add a further 1.8% increase in healthcare demand, so there is already a 2.9% increase in underlying demand before inflation, which highlights that the Government’s emphasis on reform accompanying investment is critical.

Finally, to deliver that reform, the investment going in must be very carefully targeted. The evidence base is clear that investment in primary care—and we are fortunate in this country to have a world-leading gatekeeper system of healthcare through general practice—represents the best return on investment in health. Work done by Michael Wood and the NHS Confederation confirms that. Alongside investment in mental health services and wider public health, this creates the best chance for the health system to live within these estimates and to meet our constituents’ expectations.

NHS Pensions

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Karin Smyth]

I understand that point. Obviously, it is a source of much discussion. The change came about during the pandemic to encourage people to return to work, and it is a complex issue. We want to continue to use the skills of doctors at all stages of their careers, and we shall continue to work with them, the British Medical Association and others to make sure that there is no detriment to their returning to service in the NHS.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a member of the NHS pension scheme. Can the Minister confirm that this issue arose only because the previous Government carried out their NHS pension reforms in a way that was found to be age discriminatory? More widely, does she agree that giving NHS staff the terms and conditions and the reward and recognition that they deserve also requires prompt action each year on agreeing the NHS pay award, which the Conservative party routinely failed to do when in Government?

[Karin Smyth]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point on our commitment to staff to be clear on their terms and conditions, and our commitment to honouring that reward. That is why we acted promptly when we came into office. We have issued statements and provided answers to parliamentary questions to make sure that people are clear about the system and that we are transparent.

Prevention of Drug Deaths

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dr Murrison. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate.

As colleagues have said, 5,448 drug-related deaths in England and Wales is truly a public health crisis, and we need a response that meets the urgency of that crisis. When the last Labour Government came into power, we were approaching 2,000 drug-related deaths a year, and that was considered serious enough at the time to implement a new national drug strategy, with funding, and to set up a national treatment agency to provide evidence-based treatment. That was at almost 2,000 deaths a year.

The effect of that intervention was that drug-related deaths, which had been inexorably rising for a decade or more, levelled out and stopped rising. Thousands of lives were saved and improved. I know a little bit about that, because it was the privilege of my NHS career to manage NHS drug treatment services in the north-east of England for three years when that strategy and system were in place. A harm-reduction approach was key to treatment, as other colleagues have said.

Drug deaths are horrific, and so are the wider harms, including the impact on crime. The amount of acquisitive crime in this country that is driven by addiction is really significant. The Government are focused rightly on tackling crime as well as wider health themes. This is an intervention that meets a lot of the Government’s missions. The harms around children are also significant. Many children are taken into care as a result of parental drug use. A prevention approach would reduce costs for the state by ensuring appropriate drug treatment.

Treatment, particularly for opiate use, must focus on substitution therapies. It was disappointing that in the last decade ideology against opiate-substitution treatment trumped the evidence base for it. There are people who could still be alive today if it were not for that ideology. The scale of the treatment gap is significant. In Sunderland, in my constituency, adult mortality from drug causes is about twice the average in England, but around 60% of opiate and crack users are not in treatment today. That must change, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on that.

Under the last Labour Government, the policy and health landscape was rather different. As well as the policy urgency, there were clear national levers to pull, with a primary one being the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse. Since then, we have moved to a more diffuse system that is not at the centre of Government but commissioned by each council individually through the public health grant. The provider landscape has fragmented. Whereas NHS treatment services used to be the norm, now there is a significant pattern of commissioning—in some cases there is competitive tendering every few years. That has not helped to tackle this issue with the urgency it needs.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I do not think legislation is required to improve treatment. This issue requires clear political will and focus, and I hope we will hear a lot more of that from the Government today and in the coming months.

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

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Opher]

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

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I will cover a few of the amendments, and follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, whose points I broadly agree with.

When it comes to the location and, actually, a lot of the elements, I fear we are trying to over-specify practical matters. As in so many cases, this is not about capacity, coercion, assessment and so on; it is about the practicalities of death, and it is right that we allow the healthcare team for dying people and their families to operate with the professional skill with which they currently operate.

On amendment 429, on the doctor being in the same room, I can think of many instances in healthcare in which a healthcare professional is in an adjoining room, potentially even with a door open so there is a line of sight, and that is entirely appropriate. I think of observations, for example, in various settings. That provision is absolutely necessary and allows an appropriateness of proximity without intrusion. I am sure the doctor will be in the room at the point at which the substance is taken, but if someone then goes into unconsciousness fairly quickly, as would happen in the vast majority of cases, and then takes half an hour or so to die, it is entirely unnecessary for a doctor to be standing there in the same room, towering over the family, when they could be near at hand. I just do not think we need to specify that in the Bill.

I have some sympathy with amendments 532 and 533, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, on the Secretary of State setting out regulations, but I fear the hon. Member for East Wiltshire did an excellent job of persuading me that they should not be accepted, because when a “must” is included in that way, we get into saying, “The Secretary of State must tell a doctor exactly what they must do in every situation.” The legal parameters are clearly set out in the Bill as drafted. There is no administration by a doctor on a person’s behalf; it must all be self-done. Additionally, we have not yet mentioned the existing provisions in clause 9(2)(c), which requires, at the point of assessment, a conversation between the assessing doctor and the patient about their wishes in the event of complications or any sort of delay.

[Jack Abbott]

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

[Lewis Atkinson]

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

[Sarah Olney]

I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and a lot of what he is talking about in terms of giving doctors discretion makes a lot of sense in a routine medical intervention, but this is not a routine medical intervention. This is a very serious point, and the doctor’s judgment in this case could well fall either side of what is permissible by the law. That is why it is so important that it is really clear. Whether we decide in Committee that it must be on the face of the Bill, or whether we want, as per the hon. Member for Ipswich’s amendment 532, to leave it to the Secretary of State, it must be clear and specific.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I think the Bill is very clear on the legal parameters. A doctor may not act, in terms of administering the substance, in a way to hasten death. Within that, we are back into the realms of normal medical practice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud set out. I am sure that there will be legal guidance, whether that be from the GMC or elsewhere, if and when the Bill were to pass. The Secretary of State would have the powers anyway under clause 30, but for the avoidance of doubt, amendment 430 strikes the right balance in giving backstop permissions to the Secretary of State to clarify anything if needed.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On the hon. Member for Richmond Park’s point, which a couple of people have made, I do not think anyone is saying that this is not a new situation—of course it is, as we are all aware. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud’s point was that a doctor being with a patient who is dying is not a new situation. That is the important distinction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and articulated that better than I was managing to.

[Danny Kruger]

We are not necessarily talking about someone who is dying right here and now in consequence of the drugs they have taken—we could be talking about someone who is many months away from their death. The scenario we are envisaging is that fatal drugs —poisonous drugs—have been administered to the patient’s body and we are asking doctors to be normal doctors in that scenario. In a genuinely normal scenario of doctors being doctors, they would attempt to revive the patient and to save their life in that circumstance. If the parallel is with the last moments of someone’s natural death, the doctor’s job is simply to make them comfortable, but that it is not the scenario. The scenario is some months away from their natural death, when they have months to live. They may not even be exhibiting extreme illness—they may just have a terminal disease. If they have been given fatal drugs, what on earth is the doctor to do in the scenario where the drugs are not working? Surely that is a question for all of us, rather than just leaving it up to the doctors.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I disagree. As clause 9 makes clear, the doctor will have had a conversation with the patient about their wishes in advance, in exactly the same way as a surgeon would have a conversation with a patient in advance of high-risk surgery—

[Sarah Olney]

rose—

[Lewis Atkinson]

I am not going to take any further interventions; I am going to answer this point and make some progress.

The surgeon would say, “If this procedure fails, would you wish me to attempt resuscitation? Would you wish to be put on a support system?” The hon. Gentleman misunderstands current practice on consultation with patients, in advance of procedures, about their wishes, which is where there is significant established evidence.

[Danny Kruger]

rose—

[Lewis Atkinson]

I am going to finish on this point.

On amendment 533, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, I suspect that, in dealing with a later clause, we will have a conversation about issues around hospices and care homes, but again I find the requirements under the amendment unduly onerous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and others have said, often people’s preferred place of death is at home. Are we really saying that the Secretary of State would specify addresses or the nature of places where these procedures should take place?

[Jack Abbott]

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

[Lewis Atkinson]

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

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

[Jack Abbott]

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

[Lewis Atkinson]

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

[Kim Leadbeater]

I can help my hon. Friend out on this point. There is an expectation in the jurisdictions where assisted dying happens that it happens in different locations, very much centred around the patient’s wishes, which is the approach we should take.

[Lewis Atkinson]

That is exactly right. That will quite possibly include people’s individual homes as well as not in their homes, in places of appropriate care and peace and tranquillity.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Member might be interested to know that many hospices and, in fact, the hospice movement have developed what they call hospice at home, which is for people in the advanced stage of illness who want to die in their own home. Services are provided to them to palliate them as they reach death at home.

[Lewis Atkinson]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Another point we have not yet mentioned is that the Care Quality Commission regulates healthcare on the basis of location of delivery. Hospice services cannot just be provided from a random place: the place has to be registered with the CQC as suitable for the provision. I am sure that regime would continue in this instance.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Amendment 435 would require the co-ordinating doctor to escalate the care of an individual to the appropriate emergency medical services if the assisted dying procedure has failed. Requiring the co-ordinating doctor to make a referral may engage article 8 of the European convention on human rights—the right to family and private life—if the person has indicated that they do not wish to be referred to emergency services or do not wish to be resuscitated. In a situation where the procedure has failed, doctors would, as in their normal duties, support a person in line with their professional obligations and their understanding of the person’s wishes. This could include the involvement of the emergency services, but it would be unusual to specify a particular approach in legislation.

As currently drafted, clause 18(9) provides that:

“The coordinating doctor must remain with the person”

once the approved substance has been provided, until either

“the person has self-administered the approved substance and…the person has died, or…it is determined by the coordinating doctor that the procedure has failed”,

or, alternatively, until

“the person has decided not to self-administer the approved substance.”

Amendment 429 would remove the clarification currently provided for in clause 18(10) that the co-ordinating doctor does not have to be

“in the same room as the person”

once the approved substance has been provided. However, clause 18(9) requires the doctor only to

“remain with the person”.

It may still be possible that the co-ordinating doctor could remain with the person but in a different room if they decide that is more appropriate.

Amendment 436 would increase reporting obligations on the co-ordinating doctor in cases where complications have occurred. It is not clear in the amendment what would be considered a complication and therefore trigger the reporting requirement. It is also not clear what details should be set out in the person’s medical records or in the report to the chief medical officer and voluntary assisted dying commissioner.

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

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Opher]

Has it? Okay. I thank my hon. Friend.

The amendments in this group all come from a good place, and I understand where hon. Members are coming from, but I do not feel that anything in them would make the Bill any safer or fairer for patients.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.

I rise to speak to a couple of the amendments. Amendment 348 is likely unnecessary. I would have been minded to support it had it referred to a registered GP, but the language of “usual or treating doctor” is unconvincing. I am not sure what those terms refer to. The registered GP absolutely should be informed, and both normal practice and the provisions in the Bill about entering information into medical records would mean that that is the case. For me, “usual doctor” is not the right terminology; it does not achieve what I think some of its proponents want. With reluctance, I will vote against that amendment because it does not refer to a registered general practitioner.

On amendments 303 and 458, I believe there must be provision for a second opinion. However, I am persuaded by the points made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park about amendment 459. I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud: although the independence of the second opinion is important on matters such as the terminal prognosis, when it comes to the detection of coercion, the more information, the better. It is one thing to be independent in a medical assessment, but the amendment speaks to a psychosocial assessment. We are trying to detect coercion, so it is important that every decision maker gets further information as the process progresses.

The provision for five different touchpoints of assessment is one of the strengths of the Bill. Each assessment should be done in a way that can be progressed with more information. It is not just five different independent points of information; because of the Bill’s record-keeping provisions, the assessment should become increasingly informed throughout the process. I certainly think that the panel, or whatever we get to, should have sight of any negative assessment from an independent doctor, as well as any positive one. The panel will then be able to do its job of scrutinising the two decisions, potentially weighing them up, and calling the different doctors who have given different decisions. I am, then, persuaded by amendment 459.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

It came up in the debates last week that we heard some evidence from medical practitioners on how decisions and assessments were better made when done collaboratively. That means that we need to keep them independent but that, where possible, doctors should be working together in this process. Does my hon. Friend agree that amendment 459, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, may assist in that?

[Lewis Atkinson]

Yes, I do. I recognise the importance of independent assessment for prognosis and capacity. However, particularly with the issue of coercion, healthcare is a team sport, as anyone who has worked in healthcare knows. The more information and the more viewpoints we can get in those instances, the better. One of the strengths of the Bill is the team sense around it, which we will further in the amendments to clause 12 that we will come on to in due course.

I will finish briefly on amendment 460. I do not see the loophole that has been described. I think we would all want someone to be able to cancel their first declaration, and they are more likely to do so if they feel they have the option of going back and making a future first declaration. My worry with amendment 460 is that, by removing the word “particular”, it suggests that people are only able to make one first declaration in the course of their life. With the periods of reflection built into the Bill, which Members spoke about earlier, if someone changes their mind, they should cancel their first declaration. They are absolutely free to do so and the Bill, as currently drafted, makes good provision for that. To me, amendment 460 would remove the ability for that person to come back to that decision at a later point and go through the assessment process again. While I understand the motivations behind amendment 460, I am cautious about it for those reasons.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Amendment 348 seeks to add an additional requirement to clause 8(5). This would mean that, where the independent doctor is satisfied that the requirements under clause 8(2) have been met, they must

“inform the person’s usual or treating doctor and, where relevant, the doctor who referred the person to the independent doctor, of the outcome of the assessment.”

Some elements of amendment 348 duplicate requirements that already appear in the Bill, such as the requirement in clause 8(5)(b) for the doctor to inform the co-ordinating doctor of the outcome, including providing a copy of the statement.

The amendment would also overlap with the requirements in clause 16 for the co-ordinating doctor to make entries in the person’s medical record that must include the original statement or declaration. Where the co-ordinating doctor is not with the person’s GP practice, they must also give notice to a registered medical practitioner with the person’s GP practice of the outcome of the assessments.

Amendment 303 seeks to prevent a person from seeking multiple second assessments from different independent doctors. It places a requirement on the independent doctor to confirm

“that no other practitioner has undertaken a second assessment for the same person.”

This amendment creates the risk of a medical practitioner inadvertently committing an offence if there is no centralised record-keeping. It may also have the impact of preventing the person seeking assistance from obtaining a second opinion, as provided for in clause 10. Under the amendment, as drafted, it is unclear how this is intended to interact with the possibility of an independent doctor’s becoming unable or unwilling to continue to act as the independent doctor following the second assessment, when an alternative independent doctor may therefore be required.

On amendment 458, as the Bill stands, clause 10 provides that if, following the second assessment, the independent doctor refuses to make the statement confirming that they are satisfied that matters in clause 8(2)(a) to (e) are met, the co-ordinating doctor may refer the person to a different registered medical practitioner who meets the requirements of clause 8(6), and is able and willing to carry out an assessment mentioning clause 8(2). The effect of the amendment is to restrict the circumstances in which the co-ordinating doctor can make a referral under clause 10(1) to a different registered medical practitioner to only when there has been a material change of circumstances. It is not clear from the amendment who is required to establish that there has been a material change in circumstances and/or how that will be proved. That may cause some uncertainty for the co-ordinating doctor.

I now turn to amendment 459. Clause 10 provides that if, following the second assessment, the independent doctor refuses to make the statement that they are satisfied that the person meets the criteria in clause 8(2)(a) to 8(2)(e) when conducting the second assessment, the co-ordinating doctor may, if requested to do so by the person who made the first declaration, refer that person to a different registered medical practitioner who meets the requirements of clause 8(6) and is able and willing to carry out an assessment of the kind mentioned in clause 8(2).

The effect of the amendment is that, where such a referral is made to the registered medical practitioner under clause 10(1), the co-ordinating doctor is required to provide them with the report by the independent doctor setting out their reasons for refusal. If the new registered medical practitioner reaches a different conclusion from the original independent doctor, they must produce a report setting out why they disagree. The two reports must be made available to any subsequent decision maker under the Bill, and to the commissioner. This additional requirement for reports on the reasons for refusal or differences in opinion may make the process of seeking assistance longer and add to capacity demands on co-ordinating and independent doctors.

Turning to amendment 460, clause 10(3) provides that if, following the second assessment, the independent doctor refuses to make the statement mentioned in clause 8(5), the co-ordinating doctor may make one referral for a second opinion. The effect of the amendment is to remove the word “particular” from clause 10(3), which says that only one second opinion may be sought

“In consequence of a particular first declaration made by a person.”

The amendment is unclear and could have several possible effects in practice. For example, it could have the effect of limiting the circumstances in which a referral can be made under clause 10(1) to the first time a person makes a first declaration.

I hope that these observations were helpful to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

Does the hon. Member share my concern that the wording in medical records has no duration over a person’s lifetime? For example, consulting all the medical records of someone in their 70s or 80s at the end of their life would surely include the records from when they were a child—childhood vaccinations, the removal of tonsils and so on—and that would clearly be impractical. Does he not agree that amendment 201 would clarify that element?

[Danny Kruger]

What the amendment clarifies is that the doctor does not have to look at any records at all unless he or she considers them relevant. It gives total discretion to the doctor to disregard huge swathes of the patient’s history. Yes, I do expect the doctor to review the entirety of a patient’s record—obviously, the record of a childhood broken leg can be skipped over quickly. What I do not want to do, as the Bill currently does, is allow the doctor to say, “Oh, I missed this evidence of a mental health condition” or “this indication of coercion from five or 10 years ago, because I didn’t consider that aspect of their records to be relevant.” It places a significant obligation on the doctor, but that is, I am afraid, what we are doing in the Bill. We are placing huge obligations on doctors and we should do it properly.

[Danny Kruger]

As I have said in my many exchanges with the hon. Gentleman, I want to see the good practice that he claims—absolutely accurately, I am sure—to perform is applied across the system. He says that if doctors see in the summary some indication of concerns, they will look more closely into it. Well, I jolly well hope they would. The problem is that the summary might not be complete. I suppose the distillation of my point is that we should say, “Don’t rely on the summary. Proceed with a proper analysis. Take responsibility for making sure that you have reviewed the entirety of the patient’s record.”

We have to address throughout our consideration of the Bill the workload that we are placing on busy professionals. Nevertheless, if we consider that this matters—and it is a question about knock-on effects on the NHS, which we could discuss in due course—it is appropriate to expect proper time to be taken. A specialist with two hours and a full record in front of them might spot the misdiagnoses, question the prognosis, flag the depression and catch the abuse. If given half the time and a licence to skim the record, as the amendment would give them, they could very easily miss something, so I think the word “relevant” is a great gamble.

[Lewis Atkinson]

The hon. Member is discussing amendment 201, but there is also amendment 422, which indicates that the professional should make inquiries of other healthcare professionals who have been involved in treatment recently. Does he not agree that that would mitigate against the sort of scenario he describes?

[Danny Kruger]

I will come on to that. I agree with him: amendment 422 is a very helpful amendment, and I support that. It is a very good suggestion that wider consultation should be made, and it is a point that we have been trying to make with amendments throughout. I recognise that that would enhance the safeguards in the Bill—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Amendment 422 seeks to introduce an additional requirement that the assessing doctor must consider whether to consult health or social care practitioners who are providing, or have recently provided, care to the patient. The amendment is presented as addressing previously expressed concerns, but I regret to say that I feel it is excessively weak. It is a positive step in recognising the issue, but it does not ensure a broader and more informed assessment of a patient’s condition and external influences.

Patients with terminal illnesses often receive care from palliative care teams, social workers or community nurses who might have crucial insights into their wellbeing and the potential external pressures on them. The British Psychological Society has highlighted that mental health and social pressures are often overlooked in assisted dying requests in other countries. Social workers and allied health professionals play a key role in assessing whether a patient feels pressurised due to financial, social or familial burdens. As I have repeatedly said and we will debate further in due course, in my view it is very important that that assessment comes earlier in the process.

We have evidence from doctors—I will not cite it at length—pointing out that independent doctors who refuse assisted dying requests are often ignored, and patients are simply referred to another doctor willing to approve the request, as we have discussed. Consultation with health and social care professionals could act as an additional safeguard against that practice. Although the amendment introduces an obligation to consult other professionals, it leaves it to the discretion of the assessing doctor. It relies on the doctor’s subjective judgment

“if they consider that there is a need”.

I think that is too weak for assisted dying, where consistency is so critical. One doctor might consult a palliative care specialist to explore pain relief options, while another might not, assuming that they understand the patient’s suffering sufficiently. The variability in the Bill—this discretion—undermines fairness and safeguarding.

There is also a lack of accountability in what is a very sensitive process. There is no requirement to document the consideration process, which weakens oversight in a context where errors could be fatal. I respect the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire that we must not police conversations and that being prescriptive may encourage a tick-box approach. I am afraid that we risk that tick-box approach if this amendment is all that we do on this subject. We can imagine a scenario in which a doctor simply makes a note in the record with little underpinning substance.

There is also no obligation to act on the specialist input, so the duty ends at the consultation. There is no requirement to integrate the findings of the additional input that the doctor has received, which is a glaring flaw in what is an irreversible procedure that is being authorised. Finally, there is insufficient rigour for the ethical stakes. This discretionary duty is too weak to catch the difficult cases.

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

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

rose—

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Chair]

I call Lewis Atkinson.

[Lewis Atkinson]

Thank you, Mrs Harris—you really are giving the Minister some exercise during these long sittings.

Amendment 14 likens assisted dying to organ donation. I understand that an organ donor, before the point of independent assessment, has had no other independent assessment, which is in stark contrast to this Bill. The idea that, by failing to support this amendment, we are somehow adopting a weaker framework than for organ donation is patently false.

As the Bill sets out, there are already at least two assessments by independent doctors. As per the amendments we have already agreed, those doctors must have training, as specified by the Secretary of State, on the assessment of capacity and coercion. The rationale behind this amendment is already met, and it is significantly more strenuous than the framework for independent assessment in the event of organ donation.

[Danny Kruger]

I am not sure that is right. The amendment insists that this referral and assessment should happen at the earliest stage possible, in the same way as for organ donation. One of the confusions of the Bill is that multiple different conversations could happen. The purpose is to ensure that this conversation with a psychologist or social worker, as per organ donation, happens at the very earliest opportunity.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s reading. The amendment talks about the co-ordinating doctor, as in the first independent assessor, and that is the case in the provisions we have already adopted. Clearly, the co-ordinating doctor may consult—and must consult, as per the amendment we are about to get to—psychiatric or other expertise, if there is any doubt in their mind. Amendment 14 would not bring forward that assessment earlier than elsewhere. I urge hon. Members to bear in mind that the idea that this proposal is somehow weaker than the current human tissue regulations is absolutely false.

On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, the amendment does nothing to address coercion by a medical professional who knew the person beforehand. Under the amendment, it is by definition an independent person who has no prior relationship with the person.

[The Chair]

I call the Minister.