National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation

Marie Tidball Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, and I am incredibly sorry to hear about her constituents Charlotte and James and their baby Norah. I met some of the families in Nottingham two weeks ago, and the depth of pain was numbing—that is a word that someone in the room said to me—because what was said was so heavy to hear and to understand. What made me feel even more numb was recognition that this deep pain is replicated so many times; there is also the breadth of the pain—the sheer scale of it. The hon. Lady’s constituents Charlotte and James and their baby Norah are just one more example of families being let down by NHS maternity services. The responsibility to do something about it weighs heavily on all of us, and on me as Secretary of State.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and the work of Baroness Amos on this vital report. Disabled women are 44% more likely to suffer a stillbirth than non-disabled women. Drawing on the evidence session I chaired with our MaternAble campaign of disabled mothers, Baroness Amos’s report highlights the devastating discrimination and structural barriers that are causing such inequalities for disabled women, from devastating assumptions that we are not sexually active or capable of parenting to the lack of accessible maternity spaces and medical equipment, as well as insufficient access to British Sign Language interpreters. It sets out the appalling lack of co-ordination and continuity of care across maternity pathways and services for disabled mothers. Will the Secretary of State meet me to ensure that disabled women’s voices are central to the Government’s taskforce and in implementing the report’s recommendations to overcome the inequalities we face in our maternity care?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is an incredibly powerful advocate on the issue of the discrimination that disabled mothers face in the health service, but particularly in maternity services. She has spoken about both the discrimination and the barriers to accessing care; she is right to say that those barriers are wide and systemic, and that needs to be addressed as part of the comprehensive action plan. I would be very happy for myself or a member of my ministerial team to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this issue in more detail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Marie Tidball Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ahmed]

The hon. Member is not the first colleague to raise that issue. Clearly, the safety of patients and children is paramount, but it must be proportionate and led by evidence. I would be very happy to explore this further with him.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

14. What steps his Department has taken to improve maternity care for disabled women.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her work on raising the profile of this underserved area. It is simply unacceptable that disabled women are at higher risk of neonatal and perinatal mortality and stillbirth, and that they continue to experience adverse outcomes relative to the general population. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has launched an independent maternity investigation, which will help us to understand the systemic issues behind why so many families, including disabled women, experience unacceptable care.

[Dr Tidball]

Too often, disabled women’s bodies are deemed not to count. In the last year, I have met two incredible disabled women: Carly, a Paralympian, and Sarah, an occupational therapist. Neither found out that they were pregnant until their second and third trimesters respectively because none of their clinicians considered that they might be pregnant. But we are making babies, we are having babies—against the odds; we have a 44% higher likelihood of stillbirth—and we are being brilliant mothers. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss ensuring that inclusive maternity care for disabled women is at the heart of our women’s health strategy so that our womanhood is no longer invisible?

[Dr Ahmed]

We are so lucky to have my hon. Friend in this place, challenging us to be better—and we can be better. We need to be bolder, and we need to take decisive action to close the gap on inequalities to ensure that all women receive safe, personalised and compassionate care. We know how important inclusive maternity care is for disabled women. I note that my hon. Friend has previously had meetings with the Minister for maternity, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be delighted to meet her.

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

Marie Tidball Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

One of the reasons I stood for Parliament was to work hard to create a society that values disabled people, that treats us with dignity and respect, and that ensures there is nothing about us without us. It is right that this Government will fix the broken system to ensure that we give mental health the same attention as physical health. I am pleased to see the four key principles from the independent review of the Mental Health Act at the heart of the Bill: choice and autonomy, least restriction, the principle of therapeutic benefit and, most importantly, treating people as individuals.

After 14 years of a Conservative Government, over 2,000 autistic people and people with a learning disability are in mental health hospitals in England. Some 92% of those people are detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, and the average length of stay for in-patients is almost five years. This is a human rights scandal, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded in 2019. The current situation is simply wrong. Autism and learning disabilities are not mental health conditions, and yet under the current Mental Health Act, autistic people and people with a learning disability can be detained in mental health hospitals indefinitely. In my 15-year career working with autistic people and those with learning disabilities, along with autism organisations up and down the country, including the National Autistic Society and the Autism Alliance, I have seen the tragedy of autistic people cycling through the mental health system because of those measures and the failure of public services to provide adequate social care on discharge from hospital orders. As an MP, I know from my constituency that too many people are still being detained who could be supported to live well in our communities by organisations such as Greave House Farm Trust and Action for Autism Barnsley which are on my doorstep.

The most significant change in the Bill is the removal of autism and learning disability from the definition of mental disorder under section 3 of the existing Act. This vital change means that autistic people and people with a learning disability cannot be detained for treatment unless they have a co-occurring mental health condition that requires in-patient mental health care. The Government have said that

“the proposed changes to the detention criteria for people with a learning disability and autistic people will only be switched on when systems are able to demonstrate a sufficient level of community support”.

It is crucial for that to happen quickly, through the Government working closely with autistic people and those with a learning disability, as well with as advocacy groups, to publish a plan to build sufficient support in our communities up and down the country.

My book on the treatment of autistic people in the criminal justice system demonstrated that ensuring that there is an appropriate level of services in the community is essential in preventing the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability from becoming too complex, leading to admission to mental health hospitals. It also demonstrated the need to support safe discharge out of hospital. Critical to reducing the numbers of those currently detained in hospital under the current law are care, education and treatment reviews for adults and children who are autistic or have a learning disability, which will help speed up discharges, prevent admission and ensure that the person is being given appropriate care. I am delighted that the Bill will make those reviews statutory in in-patient settings. The responsible commissioner, clinician, integrated care board and local authority must have regard to the recommendations arising from them. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on autism, I am aware that recommendations are often not followed in an expeditious manner. Therefore, there is an opportunity to strengthen the duty on responsible parties to follow recommendations from those reviews.

The Health Secretary has been moving mountains to work on our 10-year plan. I therefore hope that the Bill’s 10-year implementation period for the changes to detention criteria will align with his important work. He is also doing an incredible job to move to a prevention-led health system, and that provides an opportunity for an integrated approach to community support, including working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure there is adequate housing in every integrated care system.

The exclusion and marginalisation of autistic people and those with learning disabilities through their institutionalisation in hospital perpetuates their exclusion from our society. I am proud that our Government are tackling these issues so early on in this Parliament, alongside their commitment to the mental health investment standard, the recruitment of 8,500 mental health workers, and work to deliver a long-term plan for the reform of adult social care. Society is an order of equality and non-discrimination. It is all the richer where autistic people and people with learning disabilities are included within it to fulfil their potential. I commend this Bill to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Marie Tidball Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I thank the hon. Member for her extremely constructive contribution. That is exactly why at the heart of our plans for reform and modernisation, we are placing such an emphasis on digital and technological transformation. We have such rich data about the experiences of our patients, but we are not using it effectively enough. If we use the information more effectively and efficiently, we can spot and identify risk much more proactively, and ensure that people get timely access to urgent care and treatment when they need it.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the work that he and his team have done to reduce NHS waiting times month on month for the last six months. However, the backlog that grew under the last Conservative Government is still impacting on my constituents. I have listened to countless constituents who have told me about the upsetting impact of long waiting times for an ADHD diagnosis for children. That is having a detrimental knock-on impact on access to support, including child and adolescent mental health services and shared care agreements, and there is a lack of support for adopted children. I welcome the news that waiting lists have gone down, but will the Secretary of State set out how his work will be targeted at bringing down waiting lists for ADHD diagnoses in my constituency, to ensure consistency in diagnosis rates across trusts?

[Wes Streeting]

I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, who is leading cross-Government work in that area. We have a taskforce that is specifically looking at the issues that my hon. Friend raises, and together we are looking to ensure that our education and health services are better joined up to meet the needs of young people. I am working with my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) and drawing on his experience to look at how we can improve the health and care of care-experienced young people and young adults. I hope we will have lots of progress to report on those issues.

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

Marie Tidball Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

This amendment is consequential on NC14.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 518, in clause 40, page 23, line 24, at end insert—

“‘coercion’ means behaviour of a controlling or threatening character, including but not limited to emotional or financial control, or improper interference with another person’s decision-making autonomy, which is exerted by a person or organisation, with the intention of inducing that other person to make the relevant declarations or to self-administer an approved substance under this Act against that other person’s will (and ‘coerced’ is to be read accordingly);”.

This amendment provides a definition of coercion for the purposes of the Act. The terminology of “person” and “another person” reflects that used in clause 26.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment (b) to amendment 518, after “person or organisation,” insert

“including where the person is in an intimate or family relationship with that other person,”.

This would include the risk of coercion in intimate and family relationships in the definition provided by Amendment 518.

Amendment (a) to amendment 518, leave out

“, with the intention of inducing that other person to make the relevant declarations or to self-administer an approved substance under this Act against that other person’s will”.

Amendment 519, in clause 40, page 23, line 27, at end insert—

“‘dishonesty’ means not being truthful, or not acting in good faith;”.

This amendment provides a definition of dishonesty for the purposes of the Act. The terminology of “person” and “another person” reflects that used in clause 26.

Amendment 520, in clause 40, page 23, line 37, at end insert—

“‘pressure” means an act or acts, or communication, or behaviour, constituting an improper interference with another person’s decision-making autonomy, which is exerted by a person or organisation, with the intention of inducing that other person to make the relevant declarations or to self-administer an approved substance under this Act against that other person’s will.”

This amendment provides a definition of pressure for the purposes of the Act. The terminology of “person” and “another person” reflects that used in clause 26.

Amendment (b) to amendment 520, after “person or organisation,” insert

“including where the person is in an intimate or family relationship with that other person,”.

This would include the risk of pressure in intimate and family relationships in the definition provided by Amendment 520.

Amendment (a) to amendment 520, leave out

“, with the intention of inducing that other person to make the relevant declarations or to self-administer an approved substance under this Act against that other person’s will”.

[Dr Tidball]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak to amendments 518 to 520, which respectively provide definitions of coercion, dishonesty and pressure for the purposes of the Bill.

In my speech on Second Reading, I said I would want to ensure that the final stages of the Bill define dishonesty, coercion and pressure. I have sketched out the definitions based on oral evidence given to the Committee, and am grateful for the extremely helpful input from Laura Hoyano and Max Hill, after the witness sessions, in establishing the content and parameters of the definitions. We have spent a considerable amount of time in Committee discussing the safeguards against coercion, for example, but I felt we had not spent much time discussing the content and parameters of the concepts. Although I will not be press the amendments to a vote, for reasons I will outline, it is important to ensure that our discussions of the concepts are on the public record.

I will not press the amendments to a vote as I am convinced, after discussions with legal colleagues and having considered the issues very carefully, that the risks of setting the parameters on the face of the Bill are too great. It would risk ossifying the courts rather than ensuring that they use the full parameters of the concepts to encompass scenarios for the offences under clause 26 in circumstances that the Committee may not currently conceive of. In other words, I am convinced that to limit the definitions of the concepts in statute would create the risk of excluding criminal behaviour where the threshold of the offence would otherwise be met under common law.

I believe that instead, mirroring the approach to coercion taken in the Serious Crime Act 2015—a point I will return to—the Ministry of Justice must draw up details of the concepts and examples of their application in the context of the offences set out in clause 26. Doing so will be helpful for the medical practitioners, along with other professionals, who use the Bill if it becomes law, and in the training to be provided for them under the Bill to enable medical practitioners to evaluate whether each patient has been subjected to coercion, pressure or dishonesty by another person in applying for assisted dying.

In criminal law, definitions of coercion, dishonesty and pressure are not placed on a statutory footing. First, on dishonesty, Ivey v. Genting Casinos is the lead case because there is no statutory definition of dishonesty. The case provides not a definition but a two-stage test. The courts are familiar with the legal elements of dishonesty from case law: for a long time the part-subjective and part-objective Ghosh test was applied. That was amended in 2020 by the Supreme Court in the Ivey case, which disapproved the former test but retained the question: “Was his or her conduct dishonest by the standards of an ordinary decent person?”

Similarly, “pressure” does not have a statutory definition in criminal law, but essentially means forcing someone to do something against their will. Having looked at this issue carefully, I am satisfied that the wording in clause 26 is enough to signal to anyone involved in a relevant application to bring a criminal prosecution what they should look for in terms of acts and intent. The common law is thus well placed to further develop the concepts in the context of the offences set out in clause 26.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Tidball]

Clause 26 puts in place the elements of the offences under the Bill. It is right that it does that and draws the parameters very tightly and firmly. Under criminal law, those concepts are defined nowhere else on the face of a statute. My severe concern, having listened to the Committee and its worries about concepts such as coercion, is that we risk restricting our understanding of the concepts too tightly, and therefore excluding cases of the kinds that we want to include. By leaving them in the Bill but not defining them, we enable the common law courts to interpret the facts on the basis of the lives of the real people that come before them. I want to make sure that, where it is right and proper that those courts interpret the law on the basis of those facts, they are able to do so and are not restricted by too limited a definition in the Bill. I want to ensure that more, not fewer, cases can be encompassed.

As I said in my speech, we have talked about these concepts in quite an abstract sense. I wanted us to ground that in the reality of what we might want guidance and further advice on those concepts to look like. That would follow the convention, as I have said already, in other areas of the law, such as domestic abuse, where the primary legislation does not define the concepts but secondary legislation provides further details and real-life examples for practitioners and the courts.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for her detailed explanation. She makes sense—I would not want to restrict that either. Perhaps she is entirely correct—no doubt she has researched it well—but clause 26 mentions coercion and pressure. It says all of that on the face of the Bill. My hon. Friend wants to leave it in that context—

“by dishonesty, coercion and pressure, induces another person to self-administer an approved substance”,

which is repeated in clause 26(1) and (2). I would still be minded to put at least something further in the Bill. I am not sure that it would restrict us; it would just be helpful. If my hon. Friend does not press the amendment to a vote, would the Ministers accept that there will be statutory guidance on that? I do not know whether the Ministers can respond now or want to wait until they sum up. I am happy to give way. They are not going to bite; that is fine.

Just for the record, I want to talk through the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft and why she and I feel that they are important. Amendment 518 would put in the Bill a definition of “coercion”. Amendment 520 would do the same for “pressure”. Those amendments give welcome clarity to the Bill on two important issues. Where they talk about a “person or organisation” engaging in coercion or pressure, respectively, my hon. Friend’s amendments would have added,

“including where the person is in an intimate or family relationship with that other person”.

That would make sure that we covered that.

[Dr Tidball]

I thank my hon. Friend for her speech. I think we are united in principle, but perhaps take different views on the best way to ensure that this happens in practice. To give an example, if the word “intimate” is used in those circumstances, were a court to interpret it, it might include a husband, wife or partner, but not a brother, sister or parent. So already, in using that one word, we have potentially created further risks. By defining it, in the circumstances set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, we are excluding a relationship that we would want the court to look at, to weigh and judge whether there was potential dishonesty, coercion or pressure by that person, in that relationship with the person seeking assistance. I give that as just one example of the risk created by adding language, rather than leaving it more broadly for a court to interpret on the basis of the facts of the case.

[Naz Shah]

I will re-read it. It is,

“including where the person is in an intimate or family relationship with that other person”.

The “family relationship”, I think, means that it is extended to siblings. That was my interpretation. Last week, or the week before, we spoke extensively about suicide, and women in particular. The number of women who have committed suicide, particularly following domestic violence, has increased. Indeed, it was on the front page of The Guardian today. It is defined by our lawmakers as intimate partner violence, but it could be other violence. In those cases, as a Government and as lawmakers, we do define those women who are killed by members of their family or intimate partners. Our Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls reads out that list.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Tidball]

Alex Ruck Keene’s sage words to me were that the problem with putting in more words is that it creates an opportunity for lawyers to find loopholes. In the example that the hon. Lady has just given, when we are talking about family relationships, I think we would all agree that, having thoroughly considered the evidence in this Committee, we do not want any interpretation of the offences set out in section 26 to exclude, for example, carer relationships. That is not a family member, but a carer might give close personal care to someone with a terminal illness. We do not want the courts to think that it was the parliamentary intention of the Committee to delimit it to only intimate or family relationships. There is a risk that the more we narrow it by example, rather than leaving the term broad, as it is currently—“person”—we risk delimiting it too far. We do not want to exclude a situation involving an offence that we hope would be brought before the courts for prosecution.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for her explanation, which was very good. I do not have time to go away and think more about it from a legal perspective, because I have only just heard her arguments, but at the moment I absolutely agree.

As for my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, I thank her for her attempt to explain. She has years of experience of working in the field. She tabled that amendment in response to the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, with the best of intentions and to strengthen the legislation. I will look at it, and I may even return to it during the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak about amendments 518 and 520. As we have said, it is important that we understand what coercion means in a legal sense, and I am really grateful to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge for trying to set that out, because it is not an easy task. Like her, I am concerned that defining it in this way may make it harder to prove coercion and may undermine the safeguards in the Bill.

Under the amendments, the assessing doctors and the panel are meant to look not just for evidence of coercion but for evidence of intent to induce assisted suicide, and they will have to show that the applicant is requesting assisted suicide against their will. That could make the law powerless against many kinds of behaviour that we want to prohibit.

To start with the point about intent, coercion and pressure take many forms, and they do not always involve a clear intent. Amendment (b) to amendment 518 and amendment (b) to amendment 520, in the name of the hon. Member for Lowestoft, very reasonably draw attention to family relationships. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said:

“people do not generally write letters to sick relatives urging them to consider assisted suicide and then put those letters on file. Coercion in the family context can be about not what you say but what you do not say—the long, meaningful pause.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 1030.]

But even in more blatant cases, we cannot necessarily prove intent directed towards assisted suicide. Sue Smith, a clinical psychologist, said in written evidence that coercive control often ramps up when the abused partner receives a cancer diagnosis:

“The seriousness of the cancer diagnosis may be systematically and actively denied or minimised, claims can be made by the male partner that she is attention seeking, or she is accused of making up the effects of treatment, and can be left isolated and alone when in physical need…a woman learns to doubt her reality and experience, and is extremely isolated. This can lead to heightened anxiety, hopelessness and helplessness, and abject despair, which can lead to a person wishing they were dead.”

That could be seen as coercion towards assisted suicide, but in that scenario does the abusive partner demonstrate clear intent? I am not sure the doctor or panel could demonstrate that in that instance, especially as they need to be satisfied only on the balance of probabilities that there is no coercion. If the panel think that there is a 45% chance that there is intent, but no more than that, they have to grant the application.

The harrowing story of Ryan Wellings and Kiena Dawes shows that even when coercion can be proved, proving that an abuser intends someone else’s suicide is a completely different matter. After Kiena Dawes took her own life, Wellings was convicted of coercive control and assault. The judge told him:

“from May 2020 until her death you abused, assaulted, exploited, controlled and demeaned her. When she died it is clear that she had begun to believe your lies to the effect that she was deranged, physically disgusting, friendless, worthless and an unfit mother. You had persuaded her that she had no one to turn to.”

Before her death, Dawes wrote a note saying, “Ryan Wellings killed me.” Although he was convicted on other counts, Wellings was acquitted of manslaughter. That demonstrates that coercive control, even if it is followed by suicide, does not always mean that intent can be demonstrated. It is really tricky.

Similarly, people may pressurise a relative without intending to override their will. The barrister Ruth Hughes KC, who has been quoted before, said:

“It is surprisingly easy for a relative, whilst completing a variation on ‘the classic asset strip’, to persuade themselves that they are actually acting in their aunt Dorothy’s best interests or in accordance with her wishes”.

In other words, someone can pressurise a relative into assisted suicide without intending to. Again, including intent here could actually muddy the waters.

I have a similar concern about the phrase

“against that other person’s will”.

That sounds very straightforward, but in practice it can be much less clear. Part of the effect of coercion is that people lose confidence in their own will and adopt that of others. In written evidence, many frontline workers pointed out that coercion does not always clearly appear as someone acting against their will. Janet Reiss, a specialist doctor in palliative care in Wolverhampton, says patients will not

“even necessarily be aware of being coerced”.

Dr Jennifer Hardes Dvorak, a senior lecturer at Canterbury Christ Church University specialising in medical law, states that the Bill

“does not consider how people internalise feelings of coercion and…act on this.”

If someone has internalised a feeling that they would be better off dead, that may be their will, even if we hope we could change it.

Anni Donaldson, a domestic abuse expert at the University of Strathclyde, said:

“Decades of work examining the impact of coercive and controlling behaviour has shown that ‘coercive control’ is not merely persuasion, but a complete change in the perspective of the victim so that she truly believes that she is worthless, a burden to her partner or wider family, and would not be missed should she die…Women are regularly humiliated, demeaned, and told they would be ‘better off dead’, or, that they are a ‘useless mother’, or that the children would be better off without them. This abuse erodes women’s confidence, autonomy, and self-esteem. Cut off from support, women often come to believe these lies, fearing reprisals from their partner if they report the abuse, many choose to tell no one. This long term, relentless, dehumanising process can result in a woman believing that she is ‘disposable’.”

Similarly, the writer and campaigner Sarah Ditum warns that the Bill may not protect

“the patient who, through lengthy cruelty and coercion from a partner or carer, becomes genuinely convinced that she (or sometimes he) is a burden who would be better off dead. Such a person may even refuse treatment, causing a curable disease to become terminal and placing them within the purview of the bill.”

So we might not believe that assisted suicide is in someone’s best interests, but there is no best interest test in the Bill or the amendments—just a reference to the person’s will. If a victim of coercive control truly believes they ought to die, it is not clear how the doctor or the panel can refuse their application, unless coercion can actually be proved, and proving it is not always easy, as we have just discussed.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire has tabled amendments to remove the phrase

“against that other person’s will”.

Obviously, that is all academic now, as we are not pressing the amendment to a vote, but I would support doing that, because that phrase does more to narrow the definition than anything else.

On another point, amendments 518 and 520 refer to pressure and coercion from organisations. I do not know exactly what the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge has in mind with that. I guess an example might be the cases we have heard about in other jurisdictions where a health insurer or provider tells someone that they cannot fund a treatment but can fund assisted dying options. It could be that the hon. Lady had other things in mind there. That would possibly count as pressure under some circumstances, but it would be very hard to show that there was intent on the part of the organisation. It is not clear that the amendments help us to identify and avoid coercion and pressure in that sense.

Before I finish, I would like to point out something else that might be missing from the amendments: it is my favourite topic, the question of undue influence—my apologies to the Justice Minister, because I know we have gone over it a few times.

[Dr Tidball]

Just to put this one to bed, which is where we all need to go at this stage, I did seek advice from those that have worked in this field, and it is not a concept used commonly in the criminal law. It is instead used in the law of equity and would not be as relevant in this context. There were other, sharper elements that could make up this concept of coercion that were better and more well understood in the context of the criminal law.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification of the information she has been given.

We have gone over the question of undue influence a few times. I promise I will not talk about it for much longer, but it is relevant, which is why I keep raising it. In a judgment that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley has previously mentioned, Lord Nicholls said that undue influence includes two things. The first is

“overt acts of improper pressure or coercion”.

The second is a kind of influence that

“arises out of a relationship between two persons where one has acquired over another a measure of influence, or ascendancy, of which the ascendant person then takes unfair advantage...The influence one person has over another provides scope for misuse without any specific overt acts of persuasion. The relationship between two individuals may be such that, without more, one of them is disposed to agree a course of action proposed by the other.”

That definition suggests something broader than what is described in amendments 518 and 520, but I take the point that the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge has just clarified. The amendments suggest that somebody will actively interfere with someone else’s “decision-making autonomy” and have an intention to induce them to do something. But Lord Nicolls’s definition of undue influence is much less dramatic; it just identifies a relationship where one person’s view holds a lot of sway. For the last time—I promise—I would be grateful for the Minister’s view on that. I am sure she will talk through that point and advise on the clarification the hon. Lady has just given.

In conclusion, the amendments are completely well intended. It is helpful that the hon. Lady tabled them and that we have had this debate, and I am grateful to her for that. However, I am inclined to think that they would narrow the definition too much. My preference would be to remain with what we have, subject to the points I have raised many times on undue influence.

[Dr Tidball]

Does the hon. Member agree that it is helpful to have it on record that we have evaluated these concepts from all sides, but determined that putting them in the Bill is not the right thing to do and would be too restrictive at this point?

[Rebecca Paul]

I would not choose to have this specific definition in the Bill. There may well be another definition that I would be more comfortable with, so I cannot rule that out. However, I completely agree with the hon. Lady that this has been a helpful debate, and I really appreciate her tabling the amendments so that we could have it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is fair to say that we have had a very valuable discussion on the matters relating to these amendments. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge for the considerable amount of hard work that she has put into researching these issues. As always, her approach has been extremely thorough and diligent.

I have been on my own journey regarding the need or otherwise to place definitions in the Bill, but having undertaken the valuable discussions we have had through this Committee—I think this genuinely has been the Committee at its best—along with the expert legal input and advice that my hon. Friend and the Committee have had, I think we are in the right place to enable the courts to ensure that the law is as expansive as possible and to ensure that we do not create a scenario in which certain behaviours from those with mal-intent in relation to the Bill are excluded from its scope. I agree that we should allow the courts to do their job with the broadest possible powers to prosecute offences under the Bill. I echo my hon. Friend’s comments to the Minister about the need for the inclusion of details about these issues in guidance and codes of practice, but I thank the Committee for an extremely useful and productive discussion.

[Dr Tidball]

I am grateful for the thorough and thoughtful discussion that we have had from Members on both sides of the Committee Room. I am pleased and reassured that we have that discussion on record, so that those looking at the work that we have done in this Committee will understand the depths and levels at which we have thought about these important concepts in this space and the extent to which we have challenged and checked Ministers in making sure that they understand our concern about these provisions being properly put in place. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft for her important input, which I hope will be reflected in the training.

I am glad that we have come this far and that we have a level of unanimity across both sides of the Committee Room. That is a nice point to reach as the Committee comes towards the end of its journey, and it reflects the essence and the intention that were so evident on Second Reading. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 392, in clause 40, page 23, line 27, at end insert—

“‘first assessment’ has the same meaning as in section 7;

‘first declaration’ has the same meaning as in section 5;”.

This is a drafting change.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Tidball]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is the final new clause of the Committee. As I said in support of new clause 25 and associated amendments last week, I want to strengthen the voice of disabled people in the Bill. New clause 35 would require the voluntary assisted dying commissioner to establish a disability advisory board that would report annually on the implementation and impact of the Act on disabled people. The new clause has been designed to ensure that disabled people have a voice at the heart of the Bill and an ongoing role in monitoring its impact.

The disability advisory board model reflects a structure that was used at the Department of Health to implement the Autism Act 2009 and monitor the implementation of its provisions, statutory guidance and strategy. It was a highly effective body. Including a disability advisory board structure on the face of the Bill would entrench the board in the work of the commission, enabling a long-term and iterative structure in which disabled people could report on the reality of the impact of the Bill on disabled people across this country.

This reflects comments made by Dan Scorer of Mencap in oral evidence. He said that if the Bill was passed,

“We would want to see strong representation from patient groups…as well as from people who have been involved in the process, such as family members, advocates and clinicians, to make sure that if serious issues are being raised, they can be picked up early and addressed.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 280-81, Q367.]

The board must therefore consist of

“(a) people who have a disability under the Equality Act 2010,

(b) representatives from disabled people’s organisations, and

(c) other such persons or organisations as the Commissioner considers relevant to the impact of the Act on disabled people.”

The commissioner would, within six months of being appointed, have to appoint a programme board to advise on the implementation of the Bill, and annually thereafter report on the impact of the Bill’s operation on disabled people.

The clause reflects the learning of Dr Greg Mewett, the specialist palliative care physician from Australia who gave oral evidence to the Committee about the Australian implementation taskforce, which includes a strong disability advocate. My new clause would go further, by including a rigorous reporting process that requires the advisory board to report to the Secretary of State and the commissioner within six months of the commissioner being appointed, and annually thereafter. It also provides:

“The Secretary of State must, within three months of receipt of any report under subsection (3), lay the report before both Houses of Parliament.”

In the oral evidence sessions, I asked witnesses for their views on what structures or mechanisms could work to facilitate the opportunity to hear the voices of disabled people in monitoring the implementation and impact of the Bill were it to pass through Parliament. Dr Miro Griffiths said:

“I think there needs to be further robust action around how to collect data and allow it to be analysed, to see the trends that are occurring in why people are pursuing this option and how that may play into broader political and socioeconomic issues, such as a lack of services elsewhere or frustrations for disabled people and their families in trying to access particular services…I would therefore encourage their representation on any form of advisory council. I would also request that disability studies scholars, who are often left out of the discourse around disability policy, are part of any form of mechanism to advise or scrutinise.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 145, Q183.]

Subsection (2)(b) and (c) would provide for this.

Professor Tom Shakespeare corroborated the benefits of such an advisory board, calling it a “very good idea.” Importantly, Fazilet Hadi, from Disability Rights UK, stated:

“Should the Bill go through, it would be good to see a monitoring mechanism. I cannot say what that should be, but it would be good to see disabled people shape it. Some 45% of older people are disabled people, so disabled people are going to be very affected by the Bill.”

Poignantly, she went on:

“It is often our experience that we are the last people who are spoken to; maybe that is what is behind the question. We should of course be at the table now in respect of whatever mechanisms, and in the shaping of any implementation, should the Bill be passed.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 175, Q227.]

There is, and there should be, nothing about us without us.

As a disabled Member of Parliament, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley for inviting me to sit on this Committee. Through this new clause and my earlier new clause 25, I have worked hard to put together a structure that ensures that disabled people are firmly at the table in the process of monitoring the implementation and impact of the Bill. I urge members of the Committee to support new clause 35.

[Jack Abbott]

At this point, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge and for Bexleyheath and Crayford. They have consistently tabled really important amendments that are very close to my heart, measurably improving the Bill.

I am briefly speaking in favour of new clause 35. We have had a number of good amendments about ensuring proper representation for vulnerable people during the process. We have also had a lot of discussion about the very important need to regularly monitor and report back on the Bill. This new clause brings all this together, ensuring that there is real oversight, with real thrust and a point to it. It is not good enough just to report back some statistics; the question is what we do with them. Having this sort of panel, with expertise and life experience, would be a significant step forward for people with disabilities, learning needs and anything else that might be included.

Once again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends for this work. I am fully supportive of the new clause.

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

Marie Tidball Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Naz Shah]

I agree: there is not a judicial process, so to speak. There most definitely is not. As I make progress, I will outline my concerns about that very clearly.

Let us take the second point raised by Sir James. He asked who will go about

“testing and, if need be, challenging the evidence”?

New clause 21 finally gives the panel the power to call people to give evidence who are neither the applicant nor the doctor. New clause 21(4) says that the panel

“may hear from and may question any other person”

and

“may ask any person appearing to it to have relevant knowledge or experience to report to it on such matters relating to the person to whom the referral relates as it considers appropriate.”

I welcome that as a start, because it acknowledges that there will be cases in which people other than the applicant and the doctors have vital information. But that really should not be where we finish—not if we want a genuinely robust assisted dying Bill with strong safeguards for vulnerable people.

The ability of the panel to hear evidence from other parties would indeed be one step towards detecting whether people are, for example, being coerced towards an assisted death. That would be one step towards being able to detect whether people were choosing assisted death because of a lack of palliative care or social care. But how will the panels know which witnesses are most likely to have or be aware of the significant evidence they seek?

The panel members will have the statements by the applicant and the doctors, and they will have the answers to any questions they have of the applicant and the doctors. I ask Members to think through how certain it is that those sources alone will be enough to find all the people who might have significant knowledge of a person’s circumstances. I would argue that it will not be certain. Yes, in some cases there will be no hidden circumstances that a panel would hear of from a witness only if they were called, but in other cases there will be, and those circumstances are much more likely to occur in the cases of people who are coerced or who feel like a burden to their families. They will be more likely to occur for those who have poor mental health, who are isolated, or who lack the social care they need. The panels are not likely to find witnesses with relevant information if what they have to go on is the statement of witness evidence of a person who has, for example, been successfully and skilfully coerced.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

New clause 21(4)(e) says that the panel

“may ask any person appearing to it to have relevant knowledge or experience to report to it on such matters relating to the person to whom the referral relates as it considers appropriate.”

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the expertise of the three panel members, as set out in the new clause, will mean they will very much have the ability to identify, on the basis of that subsection, the kind of individuals and the knowledge required?

[Naz Shah]

As I have stated before—I will make reference to that very point later—I would argue the safeguards are just not robust enough.

There should be a mechanism for trained and experienced people to find witnesses who might have relevant information. This could relate to another criticism that Members have made of the panel system: there is no provision for the Official Solicitor to act on behalf of the applicant. Sir James Munby argues that we should strongly consider this, saying that

“there must be a rigorous procedure in every case for testing and if need be challenging the evidence, including an independent evidential investigation, perhaps by the Official Solicitor, of the kind discussed in Conway. There are two reasons why this is essential in every case…Without this, it will not be proper for a judge to be involved in the process as a member of the panel.”

He goes on to make it plain that by “judge” he means the legal member of the panel.

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

Marie Tidball Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

I rise to speak to the amendments in my name—namely, new clause 12 and amendments 336, 337 and 335. Yesterday, we spoke about the evidence we received from the British Medical Association. I accept that there is some crossover between my amendments and the amendments of the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, on training.

The British Medical Association stated, with regard to my amendments:

“We strongly urge MPs to support these amendments which would define the ‘training’ explicitly in the Bill as specialised training to provide assisted dying, undertaken by those who opt in…We have been vocal that the Bill should be based on an opt-in model…during the Committee’s oral evidence sessions. Reinforcing this, we believe NC12 and Amendments 335-337 would make two important aspects of this provision in the Bill clearer:

1. That providing assisted dying is not, and would not in the future, be expected of all doctors—the Bill’s current all-encompassing reference simply to ‘training’ does not preclude this training being prescribed as standard general medical training via the regulations, in which case it would apply to all doctors and make the opt-in redundant. Specifying that it is ‘specialised’ training on the face of the Bill, and making clear that there is no obligation on doctors to undergo the training, would safeguard the opt-in model in the Bill’s first principles.

2. That only those who undergo specialised, tailored training on assisted dying could provide the service – during the oral evidence sessions, there has been much discussion about the importance of specialised training for those who opt in to carry out the service. Specialised training for those providing the service is essential for doctors and provides additional protection and safeguards for patients—it should be explicitly referenced in the Bill.”

We heard in our oral evidence sessions from others, including Dr Ahmedzai, on the need for training. He said:

“I personally believe that it would be advantageous if there was formal training, as Dr Clarke has mentioned, specifically to have the kinds of conversations that we now talk about, such as about psychological issues and suicidal tendencies.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 69, Q82.]

I now turn to two amendments in my name: amendment 340 and amendment (a) to amendment 186. Both amendments relate to training for those with learning disabilities and autism. We had a similar discussion on a previous clause, and I know that further amendments are likely to be tabled on the matter, but as I said yesterday, they are not currently on the amendment paper.

I heard and welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire has said about amendment 20. Putting that training in the Bill is hugely important, and I believe the same is true in relation to training for those with learning disabilities and autism, as set out in to amendments 340 and amendment (a) to amendment 186, particularly given my concerns and those of others about whether we end up with clause 3 relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his amendments, and I agree with their principle. My concern is that, again, people with mental disorders are left out. Does he agree that, if there were a way to amend the Bill later so that they could be incorporated in these proposals, that would be a positive step forward?

[Daniel Francis]

I would welcome that as a positive step forward—I think there is probably still some work to do in that regard. My hon. Friend and I will have conversations on the wording of that future amendment, but at the moment we are discussing the amendments that stand before us. Any future amendments that may be tabled are not for us currently to consider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Tidball]

As my hon. Friend knows, I have a great deal of respect for him, so I gently say that if he brings forward similar amendments later in the Bill, I would be delighted to talk to him and I ask him to include mental disorders.

[Daniel Francis]

I hear that, and I think my hon. Friend and I are on the same page on many of these matters. I think there were some drafting issues when I discussed amendments with Mencap at an earlier stage.

I commend to the Committee the six amendments in my name in this group: new clause 12 and amendments 336, 337, 335, 340 and amendment (a) to amendment 186.

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

Marie Tidball Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Naz Shah]

The hon. Member makes a valid point. That brings us to a very important question: do we wait for something to have happened? In this instance, people will have died.

If we were considering kidneys, for example, and the issue of consent, it would require somebody independent. It needs a specialist. We come back to the point about specialisms: whether they relate to diagnosis, coercion, the care pathway, palliative care or the drugs that bring a person’s life to an end, which we will discuss later, these are specialisms. I know that later my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley will speak to her amendment about the panel, which is intended to require expertise. That is what amendment 285 speaks to, and I hope hon. Members will support it.

Amendment 286 would set out the requirements for the co-ordinating doctor and ensure that the standards are upheld throughout the process of assessment, so that the patient and clinician have the highest levels of advice available. Even though the co-ordinating doctor might already have sought the advice of specialists as part of their assessment, the purpose of having an independent doctor is to assess the patient without preconceptions influenced by the co-ordinating doctor’s decision-making process. It is therefore important for the clinician to have access to the same level of advice to inform their clinical decision making.

In medical practice, should a second opinion be sought, the person providing that second opinion might consult a range of sources to establish an opinion. This measure would therefore be in line with normal medical practice. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendments.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

rose—

[The Chair]

Would you like to speak?

[Dr Tidball]

Yes. I did indicate that I would.

[The Chair]

It is helpful if you stand in your place.

[Dr Tidball]

I did earlier.

[The Chair]

I am sorry. I did not see you.

[Dr Tidball]

With respect, I stood earlier and your colleague acknowledged it.

[The Chair]

You should stand at every occasion. Anyhow, I call Marie Tidball.

[Dr Tidball]

I rise to speak in support of the hon. Member for Spen Valley. I thank her for driving amendment 183 forward and for taking on board my input and that of others on strengthening the language in the clause to include the amendment. I will set out why I support clause 4 overall, as augmented by the language in the hon. Lady’s amendment 183, along with amendment 275 from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central, and amendment 108.

To ensure that there is a compassionate choice at the end of life, it is right that the Bill is tightly drawn around the final stage of terminal illness for adults and includes the strongest safeguards. In my speech on Second Reading, I said:

“The choice of assisted dying as one option for adults when facing six months’ terminal illness must be set alongside the choice of receiving the best possible palliative and end of life care, or it is no choice at all.

Having analysed the Bill closely, therefore, there are changes I would want to see in Committee to strengthen those options and ensure the way that choice is presented by medical practitioners is always in the round.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 1052.]

I am satisfied that the amendments from my hon. Friends the Members for Spen Valley and for Sunderland Central will strengthen the Bill in that way, ensuring that choice for those seeking assistance is more efficient and effectively presented in the round by medical practitioners.

Amendment 183, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, emphasises that the initial discussion under clause 4(3) may not be conducted without also explaining and discussing the matters mentioned in subsection (4). It would ensure that the registered medical practitioner must explain to and discuss with the person their diagnosis and prognosis, any treatment available and its likely effect. Amendment 275, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central, would ensure that they also discussed “all available” palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support. I support amendments 183 and 275 because, having looked closely at barriers to access to healthcare for disabled people and others over the past 15 years, I believe in the need for transparency, accessibility and equality of choice of healthcare as a fundamental key principle.

The BMA’s written evidence, at paragraph 5.6, sets out its support for clause 4. In particular, it expounds on the principle that there should be no prohibition on a doctor initiating discussion with a patient about assisted dying. Doctors should be trusted to use their professional judgment to decide when and if discussion about assisted dying would be appropriate, taking their cue from the patient as they do on other issues. The BMA goes further, stating:

“Some patients find it difficult to bring up sensitive subjects in their consultations,”

Being able to have these discussions is necessary and helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Tidball]

I will make progress.

Clause 4 creates no duty to raise assisted dying, a point supported by the BMA. Keeping things secret is not helpful for the patient making such difficult decisions about how best to live their death with dignity and respect.

[Naz Shah]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Tidball]

I will make progress.

In reply to a question from me about those who are seeking assistance, Dr Jane Neerkin, a consultant physician in palliative medicine, said:

“For them, it is about trying to regain some of that control and autonomy and being able to voice for themselves what they want. That is what I tend to see that people want back at the end of life.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 201, Q263.]

Importantly, amendments 183 and 275 would strengthen clause 4 to ensure that we avoid a situation that gives those with the most social capital more choice, while leaving those who might otherwise be unaware of all other options available to them without that choice. If the Bill is passed by Parliament without them, it will exacerbate health inequalities rather than abating them.

Together, the amendments expound and elaborate on the need for discussion of all appropriate palliative and other end-of-life options available to someone with a six-month terminal illness. I commend them to the Committee.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The amendments would make changes to the discussion between the medical practitioner and the patient. They are largely focused on clause 4, on the initial discussions, but several are thematically linked or related to later clauses.

Amendment 342 would impose a requirement on the registered medical practitioner to conduct a preliminary discussion with a person where that person has indicated that they wish to seek assistance to end their own life. As it stands, the Bill allows registered medical practitioners to opt out should they not wish to hold that conversation with someone, although they have an obligation under clause 4(5) to refer an individual to another medical practitioner for that discussion.

The amendment would remove that discretion and thus remove the opportunity for a medical professional to opt out of having the preliminary discussion. That may conflict with the principle set out in clause 23 that no registered medical practitioner or other healthcare professional is under any duty to participate in the provision of assistance. Our analysis suggests that in removing discretion as to participation, the amendment could interfere with an individual’s rights under article 9 of the European convention on human rights, on the freedom of thought, belief and religion, and article 14, on the prohibition of discrimination.

Amendment 285 would require the registered medical practitioner who conducts a preliminary discussion with a person on the subject of an assisted death to discuss with them, in consultation with a specialist, the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, any treatments available and their likely effects, and any available palliative, hospice or other care. The amendment would therefore require additional registered medical practitioners or other specialists to be consulted as part of the preliminary discussion under clause 4(4). The additional time required for consultation with specialists would be likely to lengthen the period over which a preliminary discussion can take place.

I also note that clause 9, “Doctors’ assessments: further provision”, will already require the assessing doctor to make such other inquiries as they consider appropriate in relation to the first and second assessments.

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

Marie Tidball Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

It is the Government’s view that, even though the Bill is introducing something new, introducing new and potentially parallel legal frameworks would not improve its clarity or workability. In essence, the Government’s view is that we bring forward legislation; if that legislation passes, we bring forward regulations; and we then bring forward training and capacity-building to ensure that we ultimately have a system that is operational.

The Government do not accept the argument that bringing forward a new parallel framework of legislation at the first step would improve the workability and operationalisation of the Bill. My role as Minister on this Committee is to talk about the fact that the Bill needs to be workable, operational and legally watertight. The Government’s general view is that if we have a legislative base that, in our view, works—namely, the Mental Capacity Act 2005—we should not add more complexity into it.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

To build on the points the hon. Members for Reigate and for East Wiltshire were trying to make, does the Minister agree that a reasonable person on the street would believe that the act of disconnecting a respirator was a positive act? Currently, the Mental Capacity Act is applied to that act in relation to decision making; that is therefore analogous to the process for which it will be used in relation to this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Marie Tidball.

[Dr Tidball]

I am sorry, Mrs Harris, but I may have risen too soon. I want to speak to amendment 339, but I would first like to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, who tabled it.

[Danny Kruger]

I rise to speak to new clause 6, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley; to amendment 368, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire; to amendment 270, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison); and to amendment 278, in the name of the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. I will canter through them as quickly as I can.

My concern about new clause 6, which specifies that an advance directive would be inapplicable in the case of assisted dying, is that, as we discussed briefly at a previous sitting, advance directives are currently about the refusal of treatment. That is what they exist to do. Under the new clause, as in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the effect of an advance decision would be that

“the specified treatment is not to be carried out or continued”.

However, under clause 18, the doctor must be satisfied at the time that the lethal substance is provided that the patient has capacity. I do not think that the new clause is necessary; it is otiose or even nonsensical, because the Bill already assumes that the patient has capacity at the very end. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Spen Valley agrees with that point. I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley to consider whether he wants to press new clause 6 at all.

On amendment 368, which relates to people with Down’s syndrome, I hear what my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire says. I strongly agree with him; I will make a couple of points and then respond to his suggestion.

I look forward to the points from the hon. Member for Spen Valley. I do not say this in a carping spirit, but it is relevant that the National Down Syndrome Policy Group opened its submission with a series of complaints about the process. The group feels that the consultation process has been rushed: we have not had the usual 12 to 16-week public consultation. It talks about limited professional and affected population engagement in the course of the drafting of the Bill, and a lack of accessible consultation materials; I mention that not to revisit the debate that we had about the process, but because it is a bad start. In the group’s mind, it is a harbinger of how the Bill might operate, and I understand why it thinks that.

The fact is that in our society we have persistent and entrenched discrimination against people with learning disabilities, particularly people with Down’s syndrome. There is a fundamental assumption that is too widely shared that the lives of people with Down’s are worth less than others’. One sees that, I am afraid to say, in the prevalence of prenatal screening and termination of Down’s babies. Yet we know from research that the lives of people with Down’s are as fulfilling, joyful, positive and constructive as everybody else’s. The most marvellous fact is that 99% of people with Down’s syndrome say that they are happy with their life, which I am sure is more than on this Committee and probably more than in the general population.

As a society, we serially misunderstand and degrade the value of people with Down’s syndrome. They are victims of the system, particularly in healthcare. People with intellectual disabilities died at rates three to four times higher than the general population during the covid crisis, often with inappropriately applied “do not resuscitate” orders put on them. The representation from the National Down Syndrome Policy Group was signed by 50 organisations, all representing people with Down’s syndrome, so it is pretty widespread.

Expert advice is that it is very difficult to spot coercion when dealing with people with Down’s syndrome. It is very difficult to ensure that one is getting informed consent. A point that has been made, in particular by the Down’s Syndrome Research Foundation, is that a discussion with someone with Down’s can often feel to them as if a suggestion is being made. That is particularly relevant to the whole question of a doctor’s suggestion, which we will come on to—well, we are on it now. Certainly the whole matter of how a person with Down’s syndrome receives information needs to be taken into account in any work that is done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I think my hon. Friend is suggesting that a doctor should suggest assisted dying as an option in every case, because if he is suggesting that a reasonable patient would want to know this towards the end of their life, he is saying that every dying patient should be told, “What about assisted dying?” That is a very concerning suggestion. The question is: how would a doctor decide when or when not to make this suggestion?

I will go back to Montgomery and make this point as clearly as I can. The Bill accepts that assisted dying is not an ordinary medical treatment, which is why I pressed the Minister on this question. Clause 4(1) disapplies the Montgomery case law, which requires, as part of informed consent, that the patient be informed of all appropriate options. Having conceded that assisted dying is not an ordinary medical treatment, the objection to a prohibition on doctors raising it makes little sense.

It is true that having such a prohibition would be unlike any other medical treatment, but the Bill has already crossed the Rubicon of saying that assisted dying is different from all other medical treatments, because in clause 4(1) it says that doctors are not obliged to offer it. It is either the case that they must offer it or they must not. There is no grey area. If they do not have to suggest it in any case, that implies that assisted dying is unnecessary in all cases and there no cases where it should be used. I would like to hear from any Member who has an answer to this: in what circumstances might it be appropriate for a doctor to suggest assisted dying?

[Dr Tidball]

Does the hon. Member therefore disagree with the British Medical Association, whose evidence to the Committee has said specifically:

“We support the Bill’s balanced position such that there is no prohibition on raising assisted dying with eligible patients where, in their professional judgement, the doctor considers this to be appropriate—but there is also no duty to raise it”.

The implication is that the Bill gets that balance correct.

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for highlighting that. I disagree with the BMA—I think that its idea of balance is actually an incoherence in the Bill. I note that the BMA elsewhere has suggested that assisted dying should not be regarded as a normal healthcare option or treatment. It is itself a victim of the confusion that is reflected in the Bill about whether or not this is healthcare. As I said, the disapplication of Montgomery in clause 4(1) suggests that it is not actually healthcare treatment and should not be managed in the same way as everything else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend no doubt speaks from his experience of being a mental health nurse. I think there is space for that, and there are amendments that we will come on to when we talk about later parts of the Bill that deal with those initial conversations. I will be happy to address that issue then. I also welcome any more support that he can offer on those conversations based on his expertise.

As I was saying, in practical terms, we have evidence that in many cases, although not all, that desire will fall once a patient has had time to think through their diagnosis and once they have had good medical care for their illness or condition, and, in some cases, psychiatric support—a holistic package, perhaps even with social work intervention. Surely all Members would agree that we should give seriously ill people, who have just had such a shocking diagnosis and prognosis, time to think and to receive good medical care before they start the process of applying for assisted death. That surely applies to those of us who voted for the Bill on Second Reading every bit as much as those of us who voted against.

I will put it as plainly as I can: there is a significant risk from the Bill that people will be shocked by their initial diagnosis and prognosis, and, in that shocked state, will be more likely to apply for assisted dying. There is also evidence, however, that if they were to pause between the diagnosis and applying for assisted dying, they would be much less likely to have an increased desire to hasten death. This amendment would not be a perfect protection for people suffering from the shock of their initial diagnosis and prognosis, but it would be a clear safeguard that would protect many of them.

I want to make it clear that I was probably 60% against and 40% in favour of the Bill on Second Reading; I want to see a stronger Bill, with protections for the vulnerable. There is a significant group of vulnerable people who this Bill would put at increased risk—those who might take a decision to apply for assisted dying that, if they had had time to consider it and to receive medical and social care, many would not have taken. I ask hon. Members to support my amendment.

[Dr Tidball]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I will be supporting amendments 319 and 320 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. I am a great admirer of my hon. Friend’s work in championing people with learning disabilities, and his mission to give them a strong voice in this Bill. It is an area very close to my heart, having spent over a decade and a half working with people with learning disabilities and the advocacy organisations that support them.

I will, however, not be supporting my hon. Friend’s amendment 339, merely because I am drafting something to strengthen those measures even further. My amendments will go beyond amendment 339 and amend the code of practice so that seeking advocacy and access to an appropriate adult applies across the pathway to those seeking assistance, not merely in relation to the content of clause 4, as in that amendment.

I want to ensure that access to an independent advocate or appropriate adult is expanded to cover those with autism, a learning disability or a mental disorder, which is not currently covered by amendment 339. That will enable those people to engage with any of the provisions under this Bill through the support that they would receive from an independent advocate or appropriate adult.

As I say, I am also seeking to strengthen access to such advocacy across the pathway, through seeking assistance at each stage. I have huge respect for my hon. Friend, but I want to make sure that we specifically include the language of “mental disorder”, to make sure that that particular group of people with mental health problems is able to access independent advocates, as well as those with learning disabilities and autism.

I am also looking at whether we need a consequential amendment or new clause that would make the Secretary of State put in place provisions for regulations as to the appointment of persons as independent advocates in order to ensure that those seeking assistance under the legislation who have a learning disability, autism or a mental disorder can have proper access to such advocates. That would strengthen the resource provision and access for that group.

I have worked closely with Mencap on the amendments that I am drawing up and will continue to do so, and I would welcome input from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. Although I support his intent in principle, I will be tabling amendments to cover a broader group of individuals to access such appropriate adults and independent advocates, so that they can seek and access advocacy across the pathway and period of seeking assistance. My amendments would put access to appropriate adults and independent mental health advocates on a much firmer footing in the Bill.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I wish to speak briefly to amendment 270, in the name of the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire, to which I have put my name. It is about the really important issue of assessing suicidal intent as part of the assessment as to whether somebody has capacity to seek an assisted death. It is a really important point. The Bill expressly sets out that the person seeking an assisted death should have

“a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life,”.

Amendment 270 seeks to establish that the wish cannot be clear or settled if there is any doubt about whether the person has a suicidal intention instead of seeking an assisted death on the basis that they have a terminal illness. In its current form, the Bill does not require a structured assessment of whether a patient is experiencing remediable suicidal risk factors, such as treatable depression, external pressures or suicidal ideation, before assisted dying is discussed.

In the oral evidence, Dr Mulholland said that most people with depression, anxiety and other mental health problems “would have capacity” under the Mental Capacity Act because it would be presumed. It is not necessarily an obstruction to people being referred for anything. It is an important point that someone can have depression and that it can lead them to have suicidal thoughts, but under the Mental Capacity Act they would still be assessed as having capacity to decide that they wanted an assisted death.

What is really important is that we have, over some years in this country, developed a suicide prevention strategy. I am sure that every Member in this room has had constituents approach them, as I certainly have, about family members who have committed suicide, where they were able to identify factors that made that suicide preventable. That is why it is so important that the suicide prevention strategy has been developed and continues to be developed, and why leading figures associated with that strategy—and with suicide prevention more widely—are concerned that a Bill for assisted dying may undermine suicide prevention strategies. We should take every care to prevent that in this Bill.

The current UK suicide prevention strategy cites early intervention as a priority to implement tangible actions aiming to reduce the risk factors of suicide. In line with that strategy, amendment 270 provides early intervention that aims to identify the symptoms of suicidality in a patient before the initial discussion about assisted dying can take place. At the bare minimum, someone who is severely suicidal will not be allowed to enter into conversations about receiving an assisted death.

It is important to reflect that suicidal ideation is not the same as a settled wish to die. Evidence shows that when mental health issues are treated, many patients no longer seek to end their life by suicide. Dr Price, in the oral evidence, said that 20% of terminally ill patients experienced depression, which is strongly associated with the wish to hasten death. When depression is identified and treated, the wish to die often diminishes. It is so important to distinguish and make provision for those people who are experiencing a wish to die as suicidal ideation, as opposed to the

“clear, settled and informed wish”

specified in the Bill.

Research from the Office for National Statistics, King’s College London and the University of Manchester suggests that people diagnosed with a physical terminal illness are at an elevated risk of death by suicide, because of an increase in the psychological distress that can lead to severe depression in many patients, but data from the study shows that it is a more pronounced risk of suicide in the first six months after diagnosis or first treatment and, on average, suicide rates in the first year after a terminal diagnosis were 21.6%. Of course, it is important to reflect on the fact that a diagnosis of a terminal illness can take place some years in advance of the actual prognosis that the person’s death may occur. We are looking at a group of people who are within six months of their death as far as can be established by what is, as we know, uncertain prognosis—yet the incidence of suicide among those with a terminal illness is much more weighted towards those who have just received a diagnosis. These, of course, are not the same group of people; there may well be overlap, but they are definitively not the same.

Evidence on the gov.uk website suggests that

“over half of men aged 40 to 54 who died by suicide had a physical health condition.”

We know that having a physical health condition or any kind of terminal illness has an impact, and that evidence demonstrates the impact that poor physical health has on mental wellbeing. We know that thereDr Louis Appleby, a psychiatrist who leads the national suicide prevention strategy for England and directs the national confidential inquiry into suicide, has expressed concerns that the Bill fundamentally undermines the basis of the suicide prevention strategy. Identifying and diagnosing capacity and mental disorders are easy to put down in writing, but in practice it is much harder for professionals to make a correct judgment straightaway. Where we do not want someone to die, we intervene by offering mental health support, crisis services and what we hope is a comprehensive suicide prevention strategy, but for those who qualify under this Bill, instead of that suite of support, we allow them to progress straight into discussion to end their life.

It is really important that we have had a debate today about how the discussion should be initiated and the appropriate way to do that, but what is important about amendment 270 is that it takes into account the specific factor of suicidal ideation. It would mean that whatever the outcome of the decision about how the conversation should be initiated, the possibility that the person wishes to commit suicide is nevertheless taken into account.

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

Marie Tidball Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

The right hon. Member makes an excellent point. I think it goes back to our basic view that there are some amazing health professionals in our healthcare system who do fantastic work. Eating disorders are a truly tragic condition and, of course, there is all sorts of support in place. It is not always perfect or exactly how we would want it to be, but I think it would be a false move for the Committee to think that this is an either/or situation. This is a both/and situation. Of course it is not always perfect, but I think we should pay tribute to our amazing health professionals, who look after all sorts of people with all sorts of conditions, including eating disorders.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the language of clause 2(1)(a)—

“cannot be reversed by treatment”—

is reassuring? Indeed, the written evidence from Professor Emily Jackson notes:

“Someone with a condition that is not inevitably progressive, or which could be reversed by treatment, would be ineligible under the Act.”

That covers the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich.

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She brings us back to the fundamental point made in the Bill, which is that it has to be “an inevitably progressive illness”. Eating disorders do not fall under that definition: that is very clear. I hope that that explanation and the observation that I have made on the other amendments are helpful to members of the Committee in their consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am delighted to hear it. I am grateful to the hon. Lady and to other hon. Members who have indicated their sympathy for the amendment. I look forward to the Division and to the Minister’s decision.

May I follow up on a point made by the hon. Member for Bradford West? I do not know whether the hon. Member for Spen Valley would like to intervene to help me understand the point. Amendment 181 would redraft clause 3(2) to make it clear that a person does not qualify as terminally ill

“only because they are a person with a disability or mental disorder”.

It would add to clause 3(2) the following additional sentence:

“Nothing in this subsection results in a person not being regarded as terminally ill for the purposes of this Act if…the person meets the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b)”.

Does the hon. Member for Spen Valley agree that that will essentially mean that the clause does nothing? It confirms the terms of eligibility set out earlier in the Bill, and confirms that a person would still be eligible to receive an assisted death if they had conditions that were a consequence of a mental disorder or a disability. If she feels like intervening on me, I would like her to help me understand what that additional sentence adds. To my mind, it negates the purpose of the clause.

[Dr Tidball]

I stand here as a disabled woman. Under the Bill, as a disabled woman, I would not —by reason only of being a disabled woman—be eligible to have access to assisted dying. The amendment clarifies that I would not be eligible only through being a woman who has a disability. However, if I develop a condition that means that I have a terminal illness, leaving me with only six months left to live, I would be permitted to have that choice. It is right, I think, that I should have that choice. As I said in my Second Reading speech, this is about giving people access to a good death and living a good death. This is about giving that choice, where they choose to make it, to disabled people, while building in sufficient safeguards so that this is not something pressed upon them—

[The Chair]

Order. I do not like to intervene when a debate is going on, but as I indicated earlier, Members’ interventions have to be just that: interventions, not mini-speeches or disquisitions. Can we please keep interventions short and precise?

--- Later in debate ---

“The choice of assisted dying as one option for adults when facing six months’ terminal illness must be set alongside the choice of receiving the best possible palliative and end of life care, or it is no choice at all.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 1052.]

[Dr Tidball]

Just to clarify, I will not be supporting that amendment.

[Naz Shah]

I agree very strongly with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Spen Valley and for Penistone and Stocksbridge, and I hope that the Committee can later return to the state of palliative care in this country.

I underline that the matter of the six-month prognosis was not some minor detail on Second Reading; rather, it was a central plank of the arguments made by those who said that we should pass the Bill because its safeguards were the toughest of any assisted dying law in the world. It is less than three months since my hon. Friends spoke those words, and yet we are already discussing an amendment that would remove the six-month prognosis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

That is not my understanding, and I have sought some clarification, including from Professor Hoyano, who provided oral evidence to us, and I believe that that was not her understanding either.

Given the “must” in clause 9 regarding psychiatric referral to a third tier panel—which, let us remind ourselves, is not in place in any of these jurisdictions from which figures are cited around potential deaths of people with anorexia—I feel there are significant safeguards. Furthermore, we have just agreed to amendment 399 tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, clarifying the “medical condition” piece, which provides a further safeguard.

I respect the need for us to consider these matters carefully, but I urge a degree of holistic thinking when we talk about individual clauses. Some of the statements being made—that there are no protections in place—just do not fly, to me, given the Bill as a whole.

[Dr Tidball]

My hon. Friend is correct in his interpretation of the judgments in those cases, but does he agree that the evidence given by Chris Whitty to clarify his statement was helpful in clarifying that the application of the test for capacity is heavily orientated towards the gravity and complexity of the decisions to be made? That is also underpinned, as my hon. Friend underlined, by the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I do, and I thank my hon. Friend for bringing my attention to that; I was struggling to put my hands on it.

In my view, clause 2 does a difficult job very well in tightly drawing eligibility criteria so that the Bill does what it says on the face of it—that it allows access for terminally ill adults, at the end of their life. By having a six-month prognosis, rather than anything else, it allows individuals to put their lives in order and have the best last months of their lives possible. I therefore speak against the amendments and in favour of the clause as drafted.