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

Naz Shah Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 537, in clause 32, page 19, line 27, after “assistance” insert

“by a registered charity but not”.

This amendment would limit the provision of an assisted death to charitable providers and not permit provision as part of the National Health Service.

Amendment 528, in clause 32, page 19, line 27, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) cannot authorise a body other than a public authority from providing such assistance even if that body is to be contracted by a public authority to do so.”

Amendment 529, in clause 32, page 19, line 28, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment 530, in clause 32, page 19, line 31, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State may not lay a draft statutory instrument before either House of Parliament that makes provision containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under subsection (1) unless they also lay before both Houses an impact assessment on such regulations.

(6) The impact assessment under subsection (5) must include an assessment of the impact of such regulations on the workforce of health professionals and on the National Health Service.”

Clause stand part.

Amendment 545, in clause 39, page 23, line 6, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—

“(3) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under section 5(3A), 8(6A),30(3), (Voluntary assisted dying services: England) or (Voluntary assisted dying services: Wales) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(4) Any other statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State containing regulations under this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(5) The Welsh Ministers may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under section (Voluntary assisted dying services: Wales) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru.”

This amendment brings together the various provisions about the procedure for regulations. It also makes regulations under clauses 5 and 8 about training, qualifications and experience, and regulations under NC36 and NC37, subject to the draft affirmative procedure.

New clause 36—Voluntary assisted dying services: England—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision securing that arrangements are made for the provision of voluntary assisted dying services in England.

(2) In this section “commissioned VAD services” means services provided by virtue of regulations under subsection (1).

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make other provision about voluntary assisted dying services in England (whether or not the services are commissioned VAD services).

(4) Regulations under this section may for example provide that specified references in the National Health Service Act 2006 to the health service continued under section 1(1) of that Act include references to commissioned VAD services.

(5) Regulations under this section must provide that section 1(4) of that Act (services to be provided free of charge except where charging expressly provided for) applies in relation to commissioned VAD services.

(6) Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament; but they may not amend this Act.

(7) In this section “voluntary assisted dying services” means—

(a) services for or in connection with the provision of assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with this Act, and

(b) any other services provided by health professionals for the purposes of any of sections 4 to 22 except section (Determination by panel of eligibility for assistance).”

This new clause imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations securing that arrangements are made for the provision of voluntary assisted dying services in England. It also confers a power to make other provision about voluntary assisted dying services in England.

Amendment (a) to new clause 36, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) cannot authorise the National Health Service in England to provide voluntary assisted dying services.”

Amendment (c) to new clause 36, after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) cannot authorise a body other than a public authority to provide voluntary assisted dying services if that body is to be contracted by a public authority to do so.”

Amendment (b) to new clause 36, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—

“(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may not amend, modify or repeal section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006.”

Amendment (d) to new clause 36, leave out subsection (6).

Amendment (e) to new clause 36, after subsection (6) insert—

“(6A) The Secretary of State may not lay a draft statutory instrument before either House of Parliament that makes provision containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under subsection (1) unless they also lay before both Houses an impact assessment on such regulations.

(6B) The impact assessment under subsection (6A) must include an assessment of the impact of such regulations on the workforce of health professionals and on the National Health Service.”

New clause 37—Voluntary assisted dying services: Wales—

“(1) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make provision about voluntary assisted dying services in Wales, including provision securing that arrangements are made for the provision of such services.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may make any provision that—

(a) could be made by an Act of Senedd Cymru, and

(b) would be within the legislative competence of the Senedd if it were contained in such an Act.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about voluntary assisted dying services in Wales.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may make any provision that—

(a) could be made by an Act of Parliament, and

(b) would not be within the legislative competence of the Senedd if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd.

(5) Regulations under this section may not amend this Act.

(6) In this section “voluntary assisted dying services” has the meaning given by section (Voluntary assisted dying services: England).”

This new clause confers a power on the Welsh Ministers to make provision about voluntary assisted dying services in Wales, including provision securing that arrangements are made for the provision of such services. It also confers a power on the Secretary of State to make provision about such services, where the provision would be outside the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, for what might be the last time on this Bill Committee. When we adjourned this morning, I was speaking to new clauses 36 and 37. To bring us up to speed, I will repeat my last paragraph.

If the interpretation that I suggested this morning is correct, surely we could have tighter wording. For example, the new clause could say that if the Secretary of State decides to allow private firms to provide assisted dying to paying customers, the Secretary of State must make regulations to govern that. I would welcome clarification from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on whether she would be minded to accept such an amendment, given that she accepted a change from “may” to “must” in previous amendments.

Finally, we come to what I think is the most important part of new clause 36: the powers in subsection (1) to commission assisted dying services. How the Secretary of State uses those powers will be crucial to the transparency of the system and to the impact of assisted dying on the NHS.

We do not know whether the Health Secretary will contract private firms to provide services to the NHS or whether all assisted dying will be provided under the NHS. We do know, however, that many parts of the medical profession are strongly alarmed by the idea that the NHS would provide assisted dying. For example, the Royal College of General Practitioners said in its written evidence TIAB 108 that it

“does not believe that, if assisted dying is legalised, the process should be integrated into existing care pathways as part of the standard care and treatment they provide i.e. assisted dying should not be deemed core GP work…As such, we consider that if assisted dying is legalised the Bill should make provision to establish a separate Assisted Dying service. This may help to ensure that assisted dying was not a core part of GP work and that any doctor who did not want to be involved would not be forced to do so.”

There is a problem here. Giving the Health Secretary the power to commission private firms to work as contractors to provide assisted dying would perhaps solve that problem, with skilled healthcare professionals working in the private sector. In an interview with The Guardian on 10 January, the Health Secretary said:

“Where there is spare capacity in the independent sector we will use it. We have agreed that we will work with them, and they will work with us to cut NHS waiting times…At the same time the independent sector has to pull its weight. It’s got to be genuinely additional capacity. I’m entirely pragmatic about this”.

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend that where there is genuine capacity in the private sector to help the NHS to complete its tasks, we should of course use that capacity. However, it is not only private sector healthcare firms that are likely to bid for any future assisted dying contract. There are other firms with a good chance of winning those contracts that we should be very concerned about.

The Minister for Care has made it clear that the Government are considering using private firms for assisted dying. He gave an important interview on assisted dying to PoliticsHome, which was published on 11 March. He said that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley

“has said that she wants this service to be an integral part of the NHS, meaning free at the point of use. Certainly the advice that we as ministers have given her is we’ve clearly understood that that is her wish, and that is a wish that can be delivered and carried out. Now, free at point of use doesn’t preclude the use of independent contractors to deliver the service. So, yeah, we’re comfortable with that.”

Unfortunately, we have seen major failings in the way private firms handle important contracts given to them by the Government. Those failings have happened under all three major parties in England and Wales. I want to quote from an excellent book by Sam Freedman, “Failed State”, which is not about some foreign country but about our own. I should say that Sam Freedman was a special adviser to Michael Gove under the Conservative Government, so he is not someone on the far left.

Chapter 3 of the book, which concerns outsourcing, is entitled “Contract Killing”. It says that outsourcing contracts can work well if three conditions are met. First, there need to be many firms or public organisations competing to offer a service. Secondly, the regulator needs to be able to measure clearly whether the firms have delivered the service to a good standard. Finally,

“government needs to be able to hand over most of the risk of failure—if the taxpayer is still on the hook for picking the costs if things go wrong then the premium paid to private firms is not justified.”

There are fields in which Government contracts do meet those criteria and outsourcing works very well—cleaning services, for example. There are some diagnostic or therapeutic services in the NHS for which private firms can make a genuinely competitive offer. A lot of the time, however, that does not happen:

“For more complex services, though, often none of these criteria apply. Take a specialist activity like running immigration processing. There is no existing market. That means there are few plausible bidders outside of a handful of huge multinational outsourcing firms.”

It means, as Freedman notes, that the UK’s outsourcing market is dominated by the big four: Serco, Capita, Atos and G4S. There must be a very good chance that these companies will end up bidding for assisted dying services. Freedman gives immigration processing as an example of a complex service in which there are not going to be a lot of companies making good, competitive bids. Assisted dying is even more complex than immigration processing, and it is even more important to get it right.

To bid for assisted dying services, companies will need experience in securing complex Government contracts. They will need very good legal advice. They will need to hire doctors and other specialist staff. They will need the facilities to transport and store lethal drugs. We are almost certainly going to see the same old big four outsourcing companies bidding for these contracts. That would be a major problem, because the big four have a terrible record. I apologise for not being able to give a complete list of the scandals in which these four firms have been involved while running Government contracts—after all, time is limited—but it is worth mentioning a few.

In 2013, both Serco and G4S were found to have spent years keeping inaccurate records on how they tagged and monitored dangerous criminals. As a result, they had overcharged the Government by tens of millions of pounds. Serco was eventually fined £23 million for fraud and false accounting; G4S was fined £44 million for the same scandal, but that only happened in 2020, seven years after its fraud was first revealed. These two companies committed fraud against the taxpayer worth tens of millions of pounds.

[The Chair]

Order. Please could I ask the hon. Member to stick to the point?

[Naz Shah]

I will get back to the point, Mrs Harris.

Serco and G4S carried on getting huge public contracts because the Government found it too hard to replace them. Assisted dying would also be a specialised service.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has mentioned a couple of companies. I have to say that I do not know very much about those companies. Are they healthcare providers? Do they deliver healthcare?

[Naz Shah]

Some of them do, or they deliver parts of healthcare. Any company can bid or design a service to recruit doctors, as I said earlier. That is the reason I mention these companies. Big companies already do provide some services to our NHS, albeit that they may be in different areas at the moment.

[The Chair]

Order. Can we stick to the point, please?

[Naz Shah]

I am happy to, Mrs Harris.

We should be determined not to see big outsourcing companies bidding for assisted dying contracts and then potentially misusing them the way in which they have misused other public services. That is not because I am opposed to firms operating in a free market or making money when they do their job well; it is because the way we run outsourced Government contracts in this country often has nothing to do with the free market and nothing to do with companies working well.

Finally, we need to ask hard questions about how the contracts for assisted dying would be structured. Would companies be paid a fee for each stage of the assisted dying process that they have provided: one fee for providing the first assessment by a doctor, another for a second assessment and so on, up until the final fee for helping the patient take the lethal drugs? As I said this morning, we do not know what the proposal for the structure is. That is why it is important that we explore and understand the risks of every structure.

There are Government services that we can safely outsource. Assessing whether people are fit to end their life is not one of them, and neither is helping people to take lethal drugs. These clauses will enable future Governments to open up lucrative contracts for assisted dying that will almost certainly be won by companies that have often been incompetent and have potentially been dishonest. I strongly oppose the new clauses.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I share all the hon. Lady’s concerns. In relation to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, is she aware that G4S has a health services division in the UK that directly employs doctors and other healthcare professionals?

[Danny Kruger]

I take your ruling, Mrs Harris, but the amendment is explicitly about this.

[Naz Shah]

When it comes to NHS providers, or any service providers, and contracting or outsourcing, we have legislation in this place for whistleblowing. I raised the subject with the Health Secretary in relation to my local trust only today. With the best will in the world, mistakes happen. We legislated to protect whistleblowers, and that ties in directly to these risks. We must do everything we can to mitigate such risks in the Bill.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mrs Harris. The Government remain committed to ensuring the legal robustness and workability of all legislation. For that reason, we have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on some amendments to the Bill. Where changes have been mutually agreed by my hon. Friend and the Government, I will offer a technical, factual explanation and a rationale for the amendments.

Amendment 525 would remove the Secretary of State’s explicit power to make regulations enabling the provision of assistance as part of the health service in England and Wales. It might therefore prevent such assistance from being provided by the NHS. The Secretary of State would still have the power to make arrangements for the provision of assistance or to delegate the making of arrangements. However, it is doubtful that those arrangements could be made through the NHS; rather, the Secretary of State could, for example, make arrangements for another body to provide assistance.

The effect of amendment 537, as drafted, is potentially ambiguous. However, the Government’s assessment is that it could be interpreted as allowing regulations to enable the provision of assisted dying by a registered charity, while not allowing provision as part of the health service. That could put into doubt whether assisted dying could be provided as part of the NHS in England and Wales.

Amendment 528 would prevent any body other than a public authority from being authorised by regulations to provide assistance as set out in the Bill, regardless of whether that body is contracted to do so by a public authority. That would limit the scope of the Secretary of State’s powers to ensure that assistance is available in the absence of a definition. The meaning of “public authority” might be unclear.

Amendment 529 would remove the power to amend, revoke or repeal legislation via regulations made under clause 32(1) concerning arrangements for assistance, where passed or made before the end of the Session in which the Bill is passed. That could lead to gaps in the Secretary of State’s regulation-making powers and in other legislation. It could also have an impact on the workability of arrangements for assistance and, ultimately, the Bill.

Amendment 530 would add two requirements when making regulations under clause 32, which sets out the Secretary of State’s powers to ensure that assistance is available. The first is that the Secretary of State may not lay regulations before either House under subsection (1) unless an impact assessment of those regulations is also laid before both Houses. The second is that the impact assessment must include an assessment of the impact of the regulations both on the health professional workforce and on the NHS itself. Impact assessments are routinely prepared to accompany secondary legislation. However, the amendment would impose a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to prepare an impact assessment, which would need to be laid before both Houses. It would therefore create a legal requirement that is not the standard for secondary legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I rise to speak in support of amendments 172 and 173, tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate, and against amendment 539, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

Clause 33 currently provides that the Health Secretary “may” bring forward regulations to require a doctor to report any notifiable event to the chief medical officer. That would be either the CMO for England or the CMO for Wales, according to where the assisted death takes place. The clause lists those notifiable events, such as the first declaration, the two statements by the doctors, including when they refuse to make such a statement, and the final statement that follows the person’s death. The weakness in the clause as originally written is its use of the word “may”. It should not be optional for the Secretary of State to make such regulations. Amendment 539 retains that weakness, while adding what I view as a new problem. The new weakness is that the amendment removes the requirement for doctors to notify the CMO of the events. Instead, it specifies that they should notify the voluntary assisted dying commissioner.

By all means let us have doctors reporting these events to the commissioner, but they should still be required to report the events to the chief medical officers too. There are at least two good reasons for that. First, the chief medical officers are extremely experienced, senior doctors. They and their staff have the ability to look at this kind of data from a medical and especially a public health perspective. The VAD commissioner will come from a legal, not medical background. They will have other abilities but they will not look at this through the lens that a senior doctor would. Secondly, it cannot be good governance that the only person who must see the data is the commissioner—the official who runs the assisted dying system and who appoints all the panel members.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I hope that my hon. Friend can take some reassurance from amendment 455, which says that

“the Commissioner must consult… the Chief Medical Officer for England”

and

“the Chief Medical Officer for Wales”

when making a report.

[Naz Shah]

I will come on to that point.

As I have said previously, this Bill will not just create a VAD commissioner, but give them the power to assess their own work. That means it is much less likely they will critically assess the data for any signs of a major problem. We all suffer from unconscious bias, even the very senior legal officials who will be eligible to become VAD commissioners. If the data were sent to the chief medical officers as well as the commissioner, that would mean two sets of officials with different perspectives and fields of expertise looking for problems. We would have a much better chance of locating problems earlier that way.

Amendment 172 would change the clause so that the Health Secretary must bring forward such regulations. As things stand, regulations brought forward under the clause would be subject to the negative procedure, which, as all hon. Members know, considerably reduces the amount of parliamentary scrutiny they receive.

Amendment 173 would make regulations under the clause subject to the affirmative procedure. I honestly try to see the arguments for and against each amendment, but I have real difficulty in seeing what the arguments against these two might be. Clearly, notifiable events are important information that must be collected nationally for a transparent assisted dying system. Equally, they need to be governed by regulations so that all doctors participating in the scheme have a clear picture of their responsibilities.

Finally, on such an important matter, Parliament should be required to vote to accept such regulations, as that will increase the scrutiny from both this House and the other place. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley drew my attention to her amendment, which says the commissioner must consult the chief medical officer. However, it does not specify whether the consultation should include data or if it is the beginning of the process; those things are not stated on the face of the Bill. That leaves it open to interpretation, which is why I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate. I thank her for tabling those two very sensible amendments and I urge hon. Members to vote for them. From my perspective, amendment 539 weakens the Bill and we should vote against it.

[Stephen Kinnock]

These amendments seek to ensure that the voluntary assisted dying commissioner receives the necessary information to fulfil their functions in monitoring the operation of the Bill. Amendment 539 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring registered medical practitioners to notify the commissioner, instead of the relevant chief medical officer, of any event specified in such regulations. That could include the events currently listed under clause 33(2), such as where a practitioner carries out a first or second assessment and provides or refuses to provide a supporting statement. Setting out these events in regulations would allow for greater flexibility.

Amendment 540 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling the commissioner to require persons or specified descriptions of persons to provide information. For example, this could be access to medical records to inform panel deliberation. The regulations made by the Secretary of State under amendments 539 and 540 may also provide for how such regulations are to be enforced. The enforcement mechanism would help ensure compliance regarding the notification of provision of information to the commissioner under the regulations. Amendments 541 to 544 are consequential amendments.

I turn to amendment 172. As introduced, clause 33(1) provides that

“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, require any registered medical practitioner to notify the relevant Chief Medical Officer of any notifiable event.”

A list of such events is provided in clause 33(2). The effect of amendment 172 would be that the Secretary of State would instead be required to make regulations under clause 33(1), requiring any registered medical practitioner to notify the CMO of any notifiable event. Amendment 173 would require any regulations under clause 33 to be made under the affirmative procedure, rather than the negative procedure, meaning that they would be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.

The purpose of new clause 38 is to allow the sharing of information between the voluntary assisted dying commissioner and certain persons. It would create an information-sharing gateway between the voluntary assisted dying commissioner and the Care Quality Commission, the General Medical Council, the General Pharmaceutical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. The new clause includes a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State to specify any other person that the commissioner may share information with and vice versa. It also creates an information-sharing gateway between the commissioner and the Secretary of State, to enable the sharing of information for the purpose of any function of the commissioner, or any function of the Secretary of State, relating to the operation of the Bill.

New clause 39 provides that where there is a disclosure of information that is required or authorised under the Bill, it will not amount to a breach of confidence or any other restrictions placed on the disclosure of information. The new clause makes clear that data protection legislation still applies and will need to be complied with. It is essential that any provisions under the Bill that require data to be shared do not undermine the public’s trust, security and privacy in terms of their personal data. I hope that those observations will be helpful to the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am keen on actual judges who sit in court with the full authority of a judge, not a retired judge sitting at the head of a quango very far away from the decisions made about assisted dying. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I appreciate the fact that there will be a duty to consult. We want to have as much input from the CMO as possible in the administration of the service.

[Naz Shah]

I rise to speak to amendment 382. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley may argue that some of my criticisms of the amendment relate in particular to two other amendments she has tabled: amendments 455 and 456. Indeed, I took an intervention on the matter earlier. I have read those amendments and they do not answer my concerns about amendment 382. They were grouped with amendment 382 until this morning, when the grouping was changed, so I will address them in my next speech.

This is a good moment to pay tribute to the Committee Clerks for their extremely hard work. I thank them for the way they have coped with the complex groupings and huge numbers of amendments that are unprecedented for a private Member’s Bill in this century.

My hon. Friend’s explanatory statement gives a clear explanation about what amendment 382 does. It provides for the monitoring, investigation and reporting functions under clause 34 to be carried out by the voluntary assisted dying commissioner instead of the chief medical officers for England and Wales. I can think of two possible arguments in support of it. I do not know whether either was behind my hon. Friend’s decision to table the amendment, but they are certainly the best to my mind.

The first argument in favour is that the chief medical officers for England and Wales already have a great many demands on their time. Members might say that we should not risk overloading them and should instead give another official the responsibility of looking at how assisted dying systems work. The second argument in favour is that the amendments to the Bill create a voluntary assisted dying commissioner, and that person and their officials will build up expertise in that field, so it could be argued that the commissioner would be the best person to lead monitoring, investigation and reporting.

Unfortunately I do not think those arguments hold water. On the first, it is true that CMOs have a great deal to do, but if we pass the Bill, it will be one of the biggest changes made to the duties of doctors in this country. For the first time, they will be able to help patients to take lethal drugs solely in order to bring about their death. The chief medical officers for England and Wales are senior doctors who advice Governments on all medical matters; of course they should be centrally involved in seeing whether the system works and whether there are any problems.

The second argument—that the commissioner’s office will become assisted dying subject matter experts—does not stand up either. It is true that the commissioner and the officials they recruit will come to know a great deal about the system they set up, but the very fact that they will set up and run the system means they should not take the lead on monitoring, investigating and reporting. That would mean that the commissioner and their staff would be the first people who decide whether they are doing a good job. Asking people to mark their own homework is a really bad way to check that any system is working properly. It is not how we inspect and report on schools; Ofsted has that job, not headteachers or local councils. It is not how we regulate banks, which are overseen by independent authorities.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

On my hon. Friend’s point about marking one’s own homework, does she agree that many public bodies do a self-assessment that is then looked at by the regulator? It is as important a part of the process of self-regulations as external inspection.

[Naz Shah]

As far as I have seen, no regulatory system has been proposed in regard to the Bill. I am happy to be corrected. Yes, in other instances we have regulators, but in this instance no regulator is specified. That is why I will come back to my argument about the amendment, but I value my hon. Friend’s intervention.

This is not how we regulate banks, which are overseen by independent authorities. We have seen what happens when there is light-touch regulation. Banks told us all that they were doing a great job until it turned out that they were not. There is an Independent Police Complaints Commission—I could go on, as the list is very long, but I hope we can all agree on the principle. When we regulate an important system in this country, we should not allow the people who run it to be the only people to tell us whether it is working as it should. Although we respect the highly skilled people who run our schools and police our streets, we have independent people whose job it is to check whether there are any major issues.

The assisted dying system created by the Bill is both complicated and, potentially, very dangerous. If the system gets things wrong, it will mean that people will be given lethal drugs who should not have had them. That is why I would strongly support keeping the chief medical officers as the people who run monitoring, investigating and reporting. Perhaps there could be a dual system in which both the CMOs and the VAD commissioner have some kind of role. That would at least be an improvement on allowing the assisted dying commissioner to say, “There’s nothing to see here.” In my view, the best choice would be to retain the system that the Bill started out with and keep the chief medical officers as the people with the main responsibility for oversight.

Members disagreed with my comparison of assisted dying with the scandal of what happened to the sub-postmasters and mistresses, but we have to think about what we have learned about the causes of that scandal. Under the law, Ministers had responsibility for the Post Office. Even though it was an arm’s length responsibility, they still had it. When complaints about the Horizon IT system, and then complaints about miscarriages of justice, started to come through to MPs, Ministers asked the experts in the field. Who were those experts? The executives who ran the Post Office and the engineers at Fujitsu who had set up and then run the Horizon system. What did those experts say for about 15 years? That there were no serious problems with Horizon, that the sub-postmasters and mistresses who said otherwise were lying and that all their convictions were safe. We know how that turned out.

That surely leads us to a clear lesson: we cannot ask powerful people who have created and are in charge of a system—in this case, the assisted dying system—to be the ones who report on it. I am not saying that we would see a deliberate cover-up, as there seems to have been in the Post Office scandal. What I am saying is that we all have unconscious biases and all of us are biased to think that the work we do is good and that there are no serious problems with it.

Amendment 382 significantly weakens the version of the Bill that was presented to the House on Second Reading. We are being asked to let the commissioner report on their own work. That makes it much less likely that we would be able to spot any problems with the assisted dying system at an early stage. I therefore urge Members to vote against the amendment.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I will speak first to lead amendment 382 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and then to consequential amendments 383 to 387 and 389, on which the Government have worked with the Bill’s promoter.

As the Committee will know, the Bill currently requires the relevant chief medical officers to submit an annual report to the relevant national authority. The amendments would require that the monitoring, investigation and reporting functions under clause 34 are carried out by the voluntary assisted dying commissioner, as opposed to the chief medical officers for England and for Wales, as currently drafted. The functions are to

“monitor the operation of the Act, including compliance with its provisions and any regulations or codes of practice”

that are developed; to investigate and report on

“any matter connected with the operation of the Act”,

including those that have been referred to the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers; and to “submit an annual report”. The Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers would be required to lay the commissioner’s annual report before, respectively, Parliament or the Senedd, and issue a formal response.

--- Later in debate ---

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.

[Naz Shah]

I beg to move amendment 450, in clause 34, page 20, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) The relevant Chief Medical Officer must produce an annual equality impact assessment of access to both palliative care and assisted dying on the basis of—

(a) protected characteristics as set out in the section 4 of the Equality Act 2010,

(b) socioeconomic status,

(c) geographical location.”

This amendment will ensure that a full impact assessment is carried out on the access to both palliative care services and assisted dying services.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 451, in clause 34, page 20, line 43, at end insert—

“(e) there were complications in the procedure.

(2A) The Commissioner’s report must include analysis of the following—

(a) information about the patients’ diagnosis/es;

(b) information about the patients’ prognosis;

(c) any instances where concerns were raised about the patients’ capacity;

(d) any instances where concerns raised about the patient being coerced;

(e) any concerns raised by the multi-disciplinary panel;

(f) any concerns raised by family members;

(g) and demographic data on the patients, including socioeconomic data, information on protected characteristics; and

(h) data obtained from the recording of the consultation.”

This amendment would require reporting under section 34 to include various information on diagnoses, complications, concerns about capacity and other matters.

Amendment 455, in clause 34, page 20, line 43, at end insert—

“(2A) An annual report must include information about the application of the Act in relation to—

(a) persons who have protected characteristics, and

(b) any other description of persons specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(2B) When preparing an annual report, the Commissioner must consult—

(a) the Chief Medical Officer for England,

(b) the Chief Medical Officer for Wales, and

(c) such persons appearing to the Commissioner to represent the interests of persons who have protected characteristics as the Commissioner considers appropriate.”

This amendment requires an annual report to include information about the application of the Bill to persons with protected characteristics and other descriptions of persons specified in regulations. It also requires the Commissioner to consult the chief medical officers and persons representing the interests of those with protected characteristics, when preparing an annual report.

Amendment 456, in clause 34, page 21, line 28, at end insert—

“(8) In this section ‘protected characteristics’ has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Equality Act 2010 (see section 4).”

This is consequential to Amendment 455.

New clause 33—Collection of Statistics (No. 2)—

“(1) The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner must ensure that the statistics specified in Schedule [Statistics to be collected] are collected.

(2) The Commissioner must publish a yearly report setting out those statistics.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulation vary the contents of Schedule [Statistics to be collected].”

New schedule 3—Statistics to be Collected—

“Characteristics

1 The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner must collect the following information about persons requesting assisted dying—

(a) sex,

(b) age,

(c) self-reported ethnicity,

(d) level of education,

(e) Index of Multiple Deprivation based on postcode,

(f) region of residence,

(g) marital status,

(h) living status (alone, with others, in a care home etc),

(i) main condition leading to ‘terminal illness’ fulfilment,

(j) other medical conditions,

(k) other psychiatric/mental health conditions,

(l) presence of physical disability, and

(m) presence of intellectual disability.

Health and Care Support

2 The Commissioner must collect statistics on the following information about health and care support—

(a) whether the person was, before the request—

(i) under a specialist palliative care team, and

(ii) under a psychiatry team;

(b) whether following the request there has been—

(i) referral to specialist palliative care team, and

(ii) referral to psychiatry team following request.

Information about requests

3 The Commissioner must collect statistics on the following information about the requests for assistance—

(a) main reason for requesting assisted dying,

(b) any other subsidiary reason for requesting assisted dying,

(c) any previous requests for assisted dying from that patient,

(d) time between first request and subsequent request(s),

(e) number of times a second opinion was requested under section 10, and

(f) number of times the second opinion disagreed with the first.

Information about refused requests

4 The Commissioner must collect statistics following information about requests that are refused—

(a) at what stage of the process was the request refused, and

(b) reasons for refusal.

Information about the process

5 The Commissioner must collect statistics on the following information about the process—

(a) time from initial discussion to first declaration,

(b) time from first declaration to first doctor’s assessment,

(c) time from first doctor’s assessment to second doctor’s assessment,

(d) time from second doctor’s assessment to panel approval,

(e) time from panel approval to second declaration,

(f) time from second declaration to provision of assistance to self-administer lethal drugs,

(g) time from panel approval to death (whether by lethal drug or natural causes),

(h) duration of relationship between patient and coordinating doctor at first request, and

(i) use of a proxy and reason for using proxy.

Information about clinicians and pharmacies

6 The Commissioner must collect statistics on the following information about clinicians and pharmacies—

(a) number of clinicians participating, their speciality, and number of assisted deaths each carries out per year, and

(b) number of participating pharmacies; number of times AD drugs are dispensed.

Information about Assisted Dying Panel processes

7 The Commissioner must collect statistics on the following information about Assisted Dying Panel process—

(a) number of applications made,

(b) number of applications granted and rejected,

(c) reasons for rejection,

(d) whether family members informed of proceedings,

(e) whether family members took part in proceedings,

(f) number of requests for reconsideration made,

(g) number of reconsideration requests granted and rejected, and

(h) reasons for granting requests.

Information on approved substances

8 The Commissioner must collect statistics on the following information about the approved substances—

(a) name of drug(s) used for the assisted death,

(b) whether IV or oral self-administration is used,

(c) presence and nature of complications following self-administration of drugs (vomiting, regurgitation, seizures, regained consciousness, other),

(d) time from self-administration to loss of consciousness,

(e) time from self-administration to death,

(f) were emergency services called at any time following self-administration of drugs,

(g) location of death,

(h) health care professionals present at self-administration,

(i) non-professionals present at self-administration,

(j) health care professionals present at death,

(k) non-professionals present at death.”

[Naz Shah]

Amendments 450 and 451 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. Let me first set out broadly what the amendments would do. They would mean that the reports of the chief medical officers for England and Wales had to include qualitative as well as quantitative data on assisted deaths.

Subsection (2) of clause 34 says that the chief medical officer’s report “must include information about” when four different events happen: if either of the examining doctors refuses to make a statement saying that the person is qualified for assisted dying, meaning they do not pass the tests set by the Bill; if the panel decides that the person does not pass those tests; or if the co-ordinating doctor decides that the person’s final statement does not pass the tests.

Amendment 451 would add a requirement that the chief medical officers for England or for Wales would have to report on patients’ diagnosis and prognosis, any concerns expressed about capacity or the patient being coerced, and any concerns expressed by the panel or family members. The CMO’s report would also have to include data on the patients, including socioeconomic information and their protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. It would also have to include information that the doctors had gathered during their consultations with people seeking an assisted death.

I anticipate Members objecting to “socioeconomic data” as the term is vague. It is important to note that the chief medical officers’ reports on other matters already make considerable use of socioeconomic data. For example, the CMO for England’s 2024 report on health in cities gave detailed information on urban populations’ socioeconomic categories. The report looked at urban populations by indices of multiple deprivation and ethnicity, and how those factors interacted with their health. The CMOs for England and for Wales are used to working with such data. Indeed, they state in reports that using that type of information is vital to understanding the health needs of different parts of the population.

We should take this approach to understanding the people who access assisted dying—who they are, where they live and which groups they belong to. [Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. We think there will be six votes in the House, so we will aim to reconvene at 17.15.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Naz Shah]

I was talking about amendments 450 and 451 and explaining why we should take an approach that involves understanding who the people who access assisted dying are, where they live and to which groups they belong.

We have heard frequently from some hon. Members that assisted dying in other countries is disproportionately accessed by people with above-average incomes. They have cited data from those countries as a reason why we should be reassured that the Bill will not have harmful effects on people from ethnic minorities, say, or from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. I am sure that hon. Members would want us to gather the same information in England and Wales to ensure that people with protected characteristics or from disadvantaged communities are not harmed or discriminated against.

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

Having covered what the amendments would do, I want to explain why they would improve the Bill. They would increase the qualitative and quantitative data in the CMO’s reports. Such data has all kinds of benefits. It can improve the training for healthcare professionals; it can also make it easier for researchers to dig into trends in the data. We can all agree that if we are to have assisted dying in this country, it must be a much more transparent process than the one that we see in Australia, for example.

Amendment 455, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, would require the reports to include some of the information that amendments 450 and 451 would add. I will speak to amendment 455 in more detail later, but let me say that I am glad that my hon. Friend recognises the importance of reporting on protected characteristics.

Amendment 451 would oblige the chief medical officers to report on complications that people may suffer during their assisted death. I am sure all colleagues will agree that that is a vital topic for CMOs to gather data on. If we are to have assisted dying, we need to understand how often complications occur and what factors they are associated with. That information can be used to inform the decision whether to choose an assisted death. Perhaps most importantly, it can be used to reduce the number of assisted deaths in which people suffer painful complications. It will also inform our decisions in this House if we have to amend legislation or vote on regulations.

The amendment would require the commissioner to report on the diagnoses of people who apply for assisted death, which is an extremely important provision. The duty will mean that they look for patterns of diagnoses, making it very likely that the CMOs or other researchers using the same data could spot any particular conditions presented or special problems for palliative care. Identifying such problems will give us the impetus needed to look at how the NHS can improve palliative care for those conditions.

Similarly, it is important that the CMOs look at cases in which people have raised concerns about a person’s capacity or about coercion. I understand that the voluntary assisted dying commissioner has a duty to report on those and other matters, but surely hon. Members agree that this issue is so serious that we cannot allow just one official to report on possible concerns. That is particularly true because the commissioner is the person who appoints panel members and rules on appeals against decisions.

I have said it before and I say it again: it is never a good idea to allow anyone powerful to mark their own homework. This is a clear case in which we need other senior officials looking at the data for signs of things going wrong. I anticipate that the Minister is very likely to say that the Government can see problems with that part of the amendment, because he has given the same response to other amendments that include the word “complications”. He has said that the Government’s view is that it is not clear what the word means, so we cannot use it to impose duties on doctors or others. That troubles me, and I would like to explore it in depth with him.

Actually, the Bill uses the word “complications” in the same sense as the amendment. I refer the Minister to clause 9(2)(c), which states that the assessing doctor must

“discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance under section 18”.

I am sure the Minister will agree that if we can accept the word “complications” in clause 9 to describe unwanted or unpleasant circumstances during and after the self-administration of lethal drugs, we can accept its use in the same sense in amendment 451. If he objects to the word outside clause 9, I would be happy to hear a detailed explanation, because it is important that we understand why.

Amendment 450, the other amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, reads:

“The relevant Chief Medical Officer must produce an annual equality impact assessment of access to both palliative care and assisted dying on the basis of—

(a) protected characteristics as set out in the section 4 of the Equality Act 2010,

(b) socioeconomic status,

(c) geographical location.”

I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has tabled an amendment that would require the commissioner to report on people with protected characteristics, but it would only look at how those people were affected by assisted dying. That does not go far enough.

Several doctors and experts who gave evidence to this Committee feared that people might be more likely to choose assisted dying if they had no access to good palliative care. Several experts told us that access to good palliative care varies according to where someone lives. We should not just shrug our shoulders and say that it is a terrible shame that palliative care is in bad shape in some parts of the country while it is good in others.

Amendment 451 would mean that the chief medical officers and their teams use their ability and knowledge to scrutinise the assisted dying system. Their reports would help us to identify serious problems early and then deal with them. Amendment 450 would give Parliament the regular information that it needs about whether people in this country can access palliative care. If we are serious about improving people’s opportunity to have good-quality care at the end of their life, we should support it. I urge hon. Members to support both amendments.

[The Chair]

I will now suspend the sitting for about three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak in support of new clause 33 and new schedule 3.

I am concerned that amendment 455 will be inadequate to maintain trust in the system. Collecting comprehensive data, such as the detailed statistics outlined, in an assisted dying regime serves several critical purposes that revolve around ensuring transparency, accountability, safety, equity and continuous improvement of the system. It is about ensuring from the very start that there is good data and learning from the paucity or the blanks in other regimes and from where they have been criticised.

The Secretary of State would have the power to amend the new schedule, but Parliament’s intent and our expectation that the system will be scrutinised would be crystal clear. We need to collect data for monitoring and oversight and gather detailed information about individuals who request assisted dying, and about the process itself. That would allow regulators to monitor how the system is functioning, which would help to ensure that the law is being applied consistently and fairly, preventing misuse or abuse.

We need to safeguard our vulnerable population. Data on characteristics such as age, ethnicity, disability and mental health conditions and on deprivation indices can reveal whether certain groups are disproportionately seeking or being denied assisted dying. That helps to identify potential coercion, discrimination or gaps in care that might drive requests, ensuring that the system protects vulnerable individuals.

For the purpose of improving healthcare and support services, information about the prior involvement of palliative care or psychiatry teams, and about referrals made after requests, highlights whether patients are receiving adequate support before opting for assisted dying. If data shows low referral rates or unmet needs, it could prompt improvements in healthcare, access or quality, potentially reducing the number of requests driven by untreated suffering.

For the purpose of evaluating the process, tracking timelines—that is to say, from initial discussion to death—and procedural steps such as second opinions and panel decisions ensures that the process is efficient yet thorough. It can reveal bottlenecks, delays or inconsistencies, allowing policymakers to refine the system for both patients and clinicians.

For the purpose of understanding motivations and outcomes, collecting the reasons for requests, refusals and complications such as drug efficacy or adverse reactions provides insight into why people seek assisted dying and how the process unfolds. That can inform public policy, clinician training and patient counselling, ensuring that decisions are well informed and voluntary.

For the purpose of ensuring accountability, data on clinicians, pharmacies and panel decisions creates a transparent record of who is involved and how often. That helps to prevent overreliance on a small group of professionals, ensures that ethical standards are upheld and allows for audits if concerns arise.

For the purpose of public trust and ethical debate, detailed statistics foster transparency, which is essential for maintaining public confidence in a sensitive and controversial practice. They also provide evidence for ongoing ethical and legal debates, enabling society to assess whether assisted dying aligns with its values and goals, and for the purpose of learning and adaptation. By analysing complications, drug effectiveness and reconsideration requests, authorities can refine protocols, such as by adjusting approved substances or dosages, to make the process safer and more humane. Long-term data collection supports evidence-based adjustments to the regime.

Almost all jurisdictions around the world have systems for reporting on people requesting and having assisted deaths. However, there is a high degree of variability in the data reported around the world; very few data items are published consistently in all jurisdictions. We have an opportunity to learn from monitoring and reporting systems elsewhere, and to put the most robust possible system in place.

Research published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care in 2022 examined in depth the data reported in jurisdictions around the world. It identified official data reports from 16 jurisdictions in which assisted suicide or euthanasia is legal. It found that although most jurisdictions report the number of patients who die by assisted dying, only three—New Zealand, Canada and the state of Victoria in Australia—document the number of patients who make a request to die by assisted dying. The research is from 2022, so it is possible that there are now a few more jurisdictions.

Unless we know about the applications that are assessed as ineligible, we will not have adequate insight into the functioning of patient safeguards and eligibility criteria. That is a point that Dr Annabel Price made in oral evidence and in an editorial in The BMJ in 2015. We need to understand not just who has an assisted death, but who is ineligible and why, to understand how the safeguards are functioning.

The 2022 paper identified Colorado, Hawaii and Maine as reporting the number of patients who received assisted suicide prescriptions, but not the number of persons who actually die by their ingestion. In these jurisdictions, there is no record of how many of the patients ingested the prescribed drugs. This is stipulated in the 2021 data summary for the Colorado End-of-life Options Act, which states that the Act

“does not authorize or require the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to follow up with physicians who prescribe aid-in-dying medication, patients, or their families to obtain information about the use of aid-in-dying medication.”

The official statistics reported therefore

“reflect all deaths identified among individuals by prescribed aid-in-dying medication…irrespective of whether their death was caused by ingestion of medication, the underlying terminal illness or condition, or some other cause.”

These states do not appear to have a mechanism to ascertain the amount of unused assisted suicide drugs circulating within the community. The fate of many therapeutic drugs with the potential for abuse or use for fatal overdose, such as diazepam or morphine, is not monitored, but the doses and combinations of lethal drugs used in assisted suicide and euthanasia may present a heightened risk, so monitoring the fate of those drugs should be considered.

Concern about pressure on vulnerable groups warrants the detailed reporting of patient demographics. It is needed to ensure patient safety because it allows researchers and monitoring organisations to monitor trends to determine whether there is disproportionate participation among vulnerable or minority groups and, if so, why.

Even basic patient characteristics, including gender, age and ethnicity, are not universally reported in other jurisdictions. Although marital status could be an indicator of at-home support, fewer than half of reports include it. The level of education can be an indicator of socioeconomic position, but is not routinely reported by many jurisdictions.

Although we have been told that studies that have analysed routine statistics did not indicate a disproportionate use by lower socioeconomic groups, socioeconomic trends have changed over time and new evidence has emerged. For example, in Oregon, the proportion of assisted dying patients on state health aid has doubled in the past decade; it reached 79% in 2021. That indicates an increase in use over time by those in a lower socioeconomic position.

Similarly, an in-depth review by Ontario’s coroner last year showed that those dying by their assisted death legislation, both track 1 and track 2, were more likely to be those with longer prognoses. Given the impossibility of prognostication and the pressure being brought to bear by some campaign groups for the Bill to be wider, socioeconomic data will be very important to ascertain whether there is equity of access to assisted dying and whether financial pressures, including access to benefits, are involved in areas of higher or lower uptake.

Knowing whether patients have received care from hospice or palliative care services provides an understanding of whether patients have been provided with alternative end of life care options. That information is included in fewer than one half of the reports from jurisdictions around the world, with none providing information on the duration or scope of hospice or palliative care involvement. For example, while official reports indicate that 80% to 90% of Canadian patients who have assisted deaths receive palliative care, other studies have shown that fewer than half of such patients had seen a specialist palliative care team.

It is also essential to have information about the clinicians who participate in assisted dying, because the clinical demand of assisted suicide and euthanasia is highly time-consuming, with evidence from other jurisdictions, such as an Australian study of those participating clinicians, showing that it takes 60-plus hours of work per assisted death. Understanding the number of clinicians participating in assisted dying and their speciality is important in understanding the willingness of clinicians to participate, and how the clinical demand for assisted dying is distributed across specialities and practitioners.

Information on the drugs used in assisted deaths is critical to understanding the safety and efficacy of different drugs and drug combinations. The 2022 paper found that just six jurisdictions report the drugs used to bring about patient death. There is no one drug or drug combination that has been shown to be most effective and safe for ending patients’ lives. If that research existed, we would not see such variation in the drugs used. Data on complications following drug ingestion or administration is needed to understand the safety of different drug combinations, but it is rarely reported.

Even in jurisdictions where information on safety is included, missing data can be high. For example, in Oregon, data on complications is unknown in up to 70% of cases annually. Reporting the drugs used to bring about patient death, as well as information about the assisted dying process, including the time from drug ingestion or administration to patient unconsciousness and death, and the presence of complications, would enable the safety and efficacy of these drugs to be assessed.

As in many jurisdictions around the world, what I am proposing relies on retrospective reporting of data, after the patient has died. I suggest that this is the minimum standard that must be achieved. Ideally, we would also build in processes for prospective scrutiny, before the person has died, as well as formal review processes that scrutinise individual cases in more detail. Analyses from Belgium and the Netherlands, where review processes are established, have shown that 48% of assisted deaths in Belgium, and one in five of such deaths in the Netherlands, are not reported via the official reporting system. In some cases, legal requirements are not followed.

Setting up a post-event review panel, such as happens in the Netherlands and Ontario, would improve understanding and safety. In the Netherlands, every case is reviewed by a panel, and many cases, especially the controversial ones, are published to promote education and debate. Controversial or worrying cases will occur in England and Wales if this Bill passes, and it is essential for ongoing patient safety that these are not swept under the carpet, but that there are transparent processes to understand and learn from them.

We have heard frequently in Committee that there is no evidence of harm from other jurisdictions, but we have also heard it powerfully argued that other jurisdictions do not collect the data we would need to determine that. In Oregon, information on complications following ingestion of lethal substances is missing in around 70% of cases. Robert Clark, the former Attorney-General for Victoria, has written:

“The Victorian oversight and accountability structure can best be described as one of ‘hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil’. In other words, it appears designed for the regulator to find out nothing, investigate nothing and report nothing that could suggest that assisted dying has been anything other than an unblemished success.”

Let us not repeat those mistakes. We can lead the way in rigorous, comprehensive data collection and transparent monitoring.

Amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley change responsibility for oversight from the Secretary of State and chief medical officers to the commissioner. This brings a danger of bias in reporting, as there could be an element of marking one’s own homework. This means that there is even more reason for complete data reporting and transparency. Ensuring that data collected is comprehensive and reporting is transparent may go some way to assuage that concern. Importantly, strengthening data collection reporting and monitoring will not make the process harder or more lengthy for the person requesting an assisted death. It just makes the system safer and stronger.

In this amendment, I am not proposing doing anything new or radical. We are simply taking the strongest aspects of what is done in other jurisdictions and bringing them together to enable the best and most comprehensive reporting in the world. All new laws have risks as well as benefit. We must identify and be open about those risks in order to learn from harms and improve onward safety. New schedule 3 will help us to achieve that.

[Naz Shah]

I rise to speak to amendments 455 and 456, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. Under the Bill as drafted, an annual report would be issued by the chief medical officers for England and Wales. If the other amendments pass, that report will be issued by the voluntary assisted dying commissioner.

Amendment 455 will do two things, broadly speaking. Proposed new subsection (2A) states that the commissioner’s report

“must include information about the application of the Act in relation to…persons who have protected characteristics”.

Amendment 456 clarifies that the definition of “protected characteristics” is the same as that used in the Equality Act 2010. Proposed new subsection (2A) also provides that the commissioner must report on any other description of persons specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I will turn first to the lead amendment, amendment 450, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central.

As clause 34 stands, the chief medical officer must submit an annual report on the operation of the Bill. Under amendments tabled by the promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, that would be the responsibility of the commissioner. Amendment 450 would require the chief medical officer to produce an annual equality impact assessment that assesses access to both assisted dying and palliative care for those with protected characteristics, and by socioeconomic status and geographical location.

The amendment seems intended to ensure that monitoring and reporting considers the impact of the Bill on vulnerable groups. Protected characteristics are defined by reference to section 4 of the Equality Act 2010, which means that the report would need to consider the characteristics of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

The term “equality impact assessment” is not defined in the amendment or elsewhere in the Bill. While equality impact assessments are produced routinely by Government and other public bodies in order to discharge the public sector equality duty, it is not clear what type of assessment amendment 450 would require, so, in practice, there may be difficulties for the chief medical officer in understanding whether the duty has been discharged. Impact assessments are not within the purview of a chief medical officer and should be undertaken by those who are appropriately qualified to carry them out.

In addition, “socioeconomic status” and “geographical location” are also undefined in the amendment and are not defined elsewhere in the Bill. Socioeconomic status and geographical location are not of themselves protected characteristics under the Equality Act, so are not required to be considered as part of the public sector equality duty. It is not clear, therefore, what the assessment of those factors is intended to involve.

[Naz Shah]

While I appreciate that it is not necessarily a duty as defined in law, does the Minister not agree that, given the way our Government operates, we need that data to inform us, in order to improve services elsewhere? We could apply that to this Bill as well.

[Sarah Sackman]

It is right that the commissioner, in their role of scrutinising the operation and workability of the assisted dying regime, could, under the powers conferred by the Bill, look at a range of factors, and indeed at whatever they deemed relevant to discharging that exercise. The question is: what is appropriate to be defined within primary legislation? The Government’s position is that, given that all public bodies are governed by the Equality Act, due regard to all those protected characteristics would be included. However, what is not defined within amendment 450 is socioeconomic status or geographic location. If, down the line, the commissioner wanted to look at those things, they could look at them.

[Naz Shah]

From a public health perspective, we have been having a huge debate for weeks and weeks about whether or not this is a health intervention and whether it should be provided in the NHS or elsewhere. When I was a public health commissioner, we collected socioeconomic data to learn about not just protected characteristics but socioeconomic background. There are concerns that disadvantaged groups are more vulnerable. Would it not be appropriate for the Bill to address those safeguarding issues?

[Sarah Sackman]

I suggest that those are ultimately policy choices, first for the promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and then—if the regime is voted on and passed—for the commissioner. In reality, a lot of the data that one will collect when one has due regard to the differential impact on these protected groups will in practice have a large degree of overlap with other aspects of socioeconomic disadvantage, as is so often the case in equality impact assessments.

--- Later in debate ---

Review of this Act

[Naz Shah]

I beg to move amendment 452, in clause 35, page 21, line 30, leave out from “must” to end of line 31 and insert

“every 12 months after the passing of this Act—”

This amendment will replace the review conducting after five years of the passing of the Act with an annual review starting 12 months after the passing of the Act.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 493, in clause 35, page 21, line 31, leave out “5-year” and insert “3-year”.

Amendment 453, in clause 35, page 21, line 36, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 452.

Amendment 494, in clause 35, page 21, line 36, leave out “5-year” and insert “3-year”.

Amendment 495, in clause 35, page 21, line 36, leave out “5 years” and insert “3 years”.

Amendment 526, in clause 35, page 22, line 10, at end insert—

“(4) A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for—

(a) a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the report, to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of 14 Commons sitting days beginning with the day after the report is laid before Parliament, and

(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of 14 Lords sitting days beginning with the day after the review is laid before Parliament.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Under the Bill as presented on Second Reading, the Secretary of State would have to report to Parliament on how the assisted dying system was functioning, but they would do so only after the system had been in operation for five years. Under amendment 452, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, the Secretary of State would be required to report annually on how the system was working.

The Bill’s original provision for a five-yearly report was extremely surprising. The requirement on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament is a major safeguard that will prompt them and their officials to probe all the available data on the system. It will also allow Members of this House and the other place to go over that information and look for problems, should they arise, and ways to resolve them. It could be one way to identify failings in the system early. Given that we are discussing a system to allow people to take lethal drugs, that is surely what we should aim for. We cannot afford to wait through years of media reports and complaints before then having to investigate alleged problems.

If the amendment is accepted, it will not be certain that the Secretary of State’s report and the scrutiny of Parliament will identify problems in a timely way, but that possibility will be increased. If we have to wait five years for a report, it is much less likely that we will spot any problems before they have had terrible consequences. I urge Members to vote for the amendment to replace the five-yearly report.

[Danny Kruger]

I concur with the points made by the hon. Member for Bradford West. I very much appreciate the presence of clause 35 in the Bill—it is helpful that we ensure a proper review—but, as the hon. Lady said, five years feels too long to wait, so I support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for York Central, as well as amendments 493 to 495, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, who has suggested a three-year review period.

My simple further point is that we are potentially creating threshold legislation: once we take the step down this road, there is no going back. The Bill leaves so much open for further expansion, I suggest, but certainly for the modification and clarification of the operation of the legislation. There is a lot left for ministerial discretion, guidance and codes of practice, as we have debated, and indeed new powers have been added, including a widening of the Henry VIII power. I think, then, that it is important to bring forward the review period.

As my amendment 526 suggests, I also think it is not sufficient simply to undertake a review, even one that is annual or every three years. There must be a guaranteed right to a debate and to hold Ministers to account at the Dispatch Box, which my amendment would insist on.

Lastly, on the inherent potential for expansion due to the wide discretion that the Bill still gives future Ministers, my concern is that the review itself might become a Trojan horse for further expansion, because that is what we see in other countries. It is held out as a safeguard, and that is exactly how we should regard it—I hope it will be that. Having a proper debate and proper ministerial accountability will allow us to check the operation of the Bill thoroughly and enable Parliament to keep it under very close scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I am surprised by what the Minister says on the cost of the Bill. My understanding from our debates on cost is that, if the Bill is passed, its cost will be footed. Why is there a cost implication to this amendment and not to other provisions?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I make these comments without a value judgment; it is simply a statement of fact that an increase in the amount of reporting, and the time and resource that that would take, would inevitably lead to a cost. I make no value judgment on that; I am merely here to point out to the Committee the Government’s view on all aspects of the Bill’s technical implementation, and the consequences of any changes that the Committee may wish to make to it.

Amendments 493 to 495 would change the period after which a review of the Bill is required from five years to three years. As I mentioned, clause 35 provides that the Secretary of State must undertake a review of the operation of the Act and lay a report before Parliament within 12 months of the end of the five-year period after the Bill is passed. The amendments would instead require the review of the operation of the Act and the preparation and laying of the report to take place within 12 months of the end of the three-year period that immediately follows the day on which the Bill is passed. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

I urge the Secretary of State and the chief medical officers, along with the Ministers and policymakers implementing the Bill, to perceive a very clear intent when producing the codes of practice and guidance by the chief medical officer to spell out in more detail the application of the concepts of dishonesty, coercion and pressure in the specific context of the Bill.

[Naz Shah]

I rise to speak to amendment (b) to amendment 518, and amendment (b) to amendment 520. Although I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge is not pressing her amendments to a vote, it is important to get a few things on the record. I am speaking to these amendments to her amendments because they were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft.

Before I speak further, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, the Bill’s promoter, has accepted several amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft before—I do not know what her response is, given that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge is not pressing her amendments to a vote. That has thrown me off track, to be fair, because I was not expecting that. Either way, let us move on.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge for her detailed, interesting presentation to the Committee, though I am not sure I entirely agree with it. Although there might a point, from a legal perspective, where these offences actually do exist in the law, the truth remains, and the facts remain, that when it comes to domestic violence—coercion and so on, which we have debated extensively—we have put the training in, but not putting the offences on the face of the Bill slightly contradicts the conversation we had last week, when my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, the promoter, specified that the sentence for somebody who is found guilty of coercion would be put on the face of the Bill; for example, if a person were found to be guilty of coercing somebody who then died, that would carry a life sentence. My understanding is that there would have been no need for the amendments on that, because we already have those laws in existence for murder, and that would be murder.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

[Danny Kruger]

That was an interesting exchange. I think I agree with the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge more than I do with the hon. Member for Bradford West, which is an uncomfortable situation for me, but I want to show that I am actually listening. I also agree with the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon. and learned Member for Finchley and Golders Green, who said last week that, without a statutory meaning, the terms “coercion” and “pressure” have their natural, ordinary meaning, which is well understood by the public and the courts alike.

I have encouraged more clarification and clarity throughout the Committee’s deliberations, and I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge and the Minister that we are in a good place in outline in terms of understanding these concepts. However, I agree with the hon. Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge and for Bradford West that it would be helpful to have further clarity from the Ministers. If there is guidance to come, it is important that we proceed with due respect to the points that have been made, including the proposals from the hon. Member for Lowestoft, which I agree with in principle.

However, I want to make the point behind my amendment (a) to amendment 518, tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, even though I understand she will not push it to a vote, so I cannot push mine. She challenged me about the purpose of my amendment, so I want to explain it. There are two places in the Bill where the concepts of coercion and pressure occur: one is in the context of the assessment process for eligibility for assisted death, and the other is in terms of the criminal offence of coercion into an assisted death. Those are two separate areas of the Bill, but they use the same terminology, and the same principle of coercion is behind them both.

The point of my amendment is to make clear the distinction between eligibility and the criminality involved in coercion. Although I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge that it is appropriate to retain the principle of intention—to be clear, my amendment would remove the requirement for evidence of intention to coerce, leaving just the fact of coercion in the definition—her point was that it is important to retain evidence of intention in order for the criminal offence to be meaningful. I accept that that is a point in criminal law.

However, it is important that we do not include intention in the context of the assessment of eligibility criteria, for the simple reason that somebody may well be coerced into an assisted death in a way that we would all understand, but the perpetrator may not have had the explicit intention of that outcome. An example would be where an abusive husband, through abuse, victimisation, relentless unkindness and perhaps the direct communication of, “You’d be better off dead,” has the effect of coercing his victim—his wife—into seeking an assisted death, which might well be subject to criminal prosecution on these terms. He would nevertheless be able potentially to claim that that was not his intention, and, indeed, perhaps it was not. He might not have had the explicit thought in his head, “I want to make her apply for an assisted death.” Nevertheless, that is the consequence of his coercive behaviour.

I would hope that when the doctors assessed that particular case and came across evidence of that pattern of abuse, they would conclude that this person was being coerced, and would therefore not award the applicant the green light to proceed. That is an example of where it is important to remove the intention of coercion from the definition. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge about the value and necessity of including intention where we are talking about the criminal offence of inducing somebody to have an assisted death.

Lastly, let us think about this from the point of view of the doctor or panel who are being asked to approve the application. If the definition of coercion includes the intention to coerce, we are inviting—in fact, requiring— the doctor or panel to seek evidence of the intention of the person doing the coercion, rather than just the fact of the patient having been coerced. We would require them somehow to interview the abuser, so I think we would get into difficult territory if we insisted on evidence of coercion in order to deny the application on that basis.

I hope that that helps to explain the purpose behind my amendment. I know it is slightly academic, because we are not proceeding with amendment 518, but I hope the Minister and the hon. Member for Spen Valley reflect on the points made by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge and take them on board in subsequent amendments or guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I intend, in a later debate when we come to the new clause, to try to explain how I think we should have done this. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that an organisation should be resourced—I think through philanthropy, rather than taxpayers’ money or people paying out of their own pocket, but the point stands however we do it—to deliver the assisted dying service, but crucially it should not be paid more per service, treatment or customer. We should not have the concept of customers in this arrangement; there should be a provider who is resourced to deliver this service. The crucial point is that they should not be paid more per client or for progressing people through the system.

[Naz Shah]

That is the exact point I was about to raise. Is another amendment needed to ensure that providers of this service are not given more money if a patient goes through the process than if the process is stopped?

[Danny Kruger]

That is the purpose of my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

I will be very brief. This is the most difficult speech I have had to make in the Committee. I think all of us who support the Bill are disappointed; I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley is incredibly disappointed. I believe that the Bill is deliverable within two years, but I have wanted this legislation for about 25 years, and my main aim is that the Bill passes. I understand, from certain dialogues I have had, that that is more likely if we accept amendment 548. In short, therefore, I will support the amendment. I will do so reluctantly, but it has my full support and I will vote for it.

[Naz Shah]

May I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for sharing something so deeply personal? I am sure I speak on behalf of the whole Committee in wishing his mum well and hoping that she never has that diagnosis.

I rise to speak to amendments 489 and 488. Amendment 489, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, would prevent the Bill’s provisions from coming into effect automatically after a certain period had elapsed. The Bill in its original form includes a measure to that effect, in clause 42(3):

“But if any provision of this Act has not been fully brought into force before the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, that provision (so far as not already in force) comes into force at the end of that period.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I think we would be talking about an advert via electronic form, marketing a particular service. We would have to go back to the meaning of “advert” to answer that. Obviously, there are broader ways of advertising on social media and so on, which I also seek to prevent with the amendment.

That is why banning the advertising of such services is so important, so that a pro-suicide message is not inadvertently delivered to millions of people who assisted dying is not appropriate for. We have to recognise that there are vulnerable people out there who could be influenced by it. It is my view that conversations about assisted dying should happen in person, between the relevant doctor and the patient; they should not be prompted by a TV ad or something seen on a bus. Ads should not be coming up on someone’s Facebook feed every time they log on.

I hope Committee members will support this common-sense amendment. I think that for it to be properly effective, it needs to be expanded to also cover clinics or other organisations advertising assisted dying services more broadly. I very much welcome the opportunity to work with Ministers and the Bill’s sponsor to get this right, if the Committee is disposed to supporting such an amendment.

[Naz Shah]

Does the hon. Lady agree that banning advertising also mitigates the issue of advertising to young people? She mentioned young people and suicide from a social media perspective. Young people, or anybody else who has an eating disorder, may see that as an option to enable them to qualify for assisted dying. That is because, under the Bill as it stands, they would qualify for it if they were termed terminally ill due to their eating disorder.

[Rebecca Paul]

I completely agree. That is exactly what the amendment is intended to do. We are trying to prevent advertising of an inappropriate service to inappropriate groups. It makes sense, therefore, to effectively ban advertising. I think most people would agree that it would be distasteful and inappropriate to have adverts for assisted dying everywhere people look. I hope that hon. Members will consider supporting the amendment, even if that is in an amended form.