Oral Answers to Questions
Naz Shah Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Kinnock
I am sorry to hear about the plight of my hon. Friend’s constituent. I will, of course, be more than happy to meet her and look into the specifics of the case. Specialised dental services have a vital role to play in providing dental treatment to vulnerable people in settings such as care homes. In many cases, this is about teamwork and integration, ensuring that primary dental care is working in lockstep with adult social care. There is clearly some room for improvement in some areas. I would be happy to work with her to ensure that this issue gets resolved.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
The 10-year health plan announced ambitious measures to make the healthy choice the easy choice. They include tackling the obesity epidemic through mandatory healthy food sales reporting, business targets to increase the healthiness of products sold and restrictions on junk food advertising.
Naz Shah
In Bradford West, more than one in five children begins primary school overweight or obese. By the time they leave primary school, that figure rises to one in three children. Will the Minister set out how this Government’s world-leading new ban on junk food advertising will help parents to give every child the best and healthiest start in life?
Ashley Dalton
I thank my hon. Friend for outlining the very real crisis of childhood obesity. It is a problem that robs children of the best possible start in life and sets them up for a whole lifetime of health problems. It is why this Government have come down hard and delivered our commitment to restrict advertisements for junk food on TV and online. That action will remove around 7.2 billion calories from children’s diets every single year.
Baby Loss
Naz Shah Excerpts(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for his work to secure this debate and for sharing his personal experience. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh). Hearing people’s personal experiences makes this a better place for us to legislate and do what we have to do, so I thank my hon. Friends very much for sharing, which takes bravery and courage. I am sure that the whole House shares those feelings.
Losing a child is one of the most devastating experiences that any parent can face, as other Members have said. Words cannot describe the immense personal pain of dealing with such grief. To carry a child for nine months—sometimes less—and to dream of their future only to lose them is simply unimaginable.
As a mother of three, my heart goes out to every parent who has endured the heartbreak of losing their child or baby. This debate, during Baby Loss Awareness Week, could not be more timely. Baby loss is not just a personal tragedy but a public health issue, in particular when it occurs as a result of preventable errors or gaps in care that we have the power to fix.
Baby loss has a deep and lasting impact not only on mothers and fathers, but on siblings and entire families. For some, that pain comes immediately after the loss; for others, it may take weeks or months before the full emotional weight is felt. That is why I welcome the amendment to the Employment Rights Bill that will extend bereavement leave to those who experience pregnancy loss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, for her work in driving that change.
It cannot be right that someone who suffers a miscarriage in the morning, losing the future that they dreamed of, is expected to turn up at work at 9 am as if nothing had happened. I am proud that the Labour Government have recognised the real human cost of such a loss, and ensured that families receive the time, care and support that they need to begin to heal.
In Bradford, we have seen the devastating impact when maternity care falls short. Bradford teaching hospitals NHS foundation trust is one of the 14 NHS trusts now under review for historic maternity failures—a clear sign that systemic change is urgently needed. In November 2021, two newborn babies tragically lost their lives at Bradford royal infirmary after lapses in hygiene allowed a drug-resistant superbug to spread through the neonatal unit. A report found that staff were not consistently following hand hygiene guidelines and were unclear about the use of protective equipment. These were preventable deaths, heartbreaking for the families involved.
I welcome the measures that the trust has since put in place, but we must ensure that lessons are truly learned so that no family ever has to endure such pain again. Every mother deserves to give birth knowing that she and her baby will receive the best possible care—care rooted in safety, dignity and compassion.
In Bradford, a mother gave birth to her son on 13 February 2023; sadly, he passed away the next day. She was moved between units with little communication and no explanation of what was happening. She was not offered a transfer to another trust where her baby might have received neonatal care and a chance of survival. Her son was born alive but died in her arms, and her records were later found to wrongly describe the loss as a miscarriage. No mother should have to endure such failings. In describing what she went through, she said:
“My experience at Bradford Hospital’s maternity unit destroyed me. My son died after birth. I nearly died myself, but they didn’t care. They sent me home the same day he died, even though I had clear signs of infection. I left that hospital with not just empty arms, but with a body that has never been the same. Now all I have is a baby I can visit at the graveyard and a lifetime of pain that they caused.”
In my own constituency, I have consistently advocated the concern about the standards of maternity services and the leadership at the Bradford teaching hospital trust. On new year’s eve last year, a couple from Bradford were wrongly told that their unborn baby had died; the day after, she was delivered fit and healthy. Jamal and his wife Fozia were told by doctors that there was no heartbeat when they went for a routine test. They described their experience as going through hell and back. No parent should ever have to experience such pain and uncertainty. I have written to the Secretary of State, and I am glad that he is taking notice.
I welcome the maternity review being led by Baroness Amos, but lessons must be learned. The failures at Bradford really need to stop, so that nobody goes through such experiences again.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Naz Shah ExcerptsFriday 13th June 2025
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 June 2025 - large print - (13 Jun 2025)
Dr Sandher
We do know. Ethnic minorities are less likely to access assisted dying in jurisdictions where it is in place. In Oregon, 10% of those accessing assisted dying are ethnic minorities, but they make up 40% of the population. In California, ethnic minorities make up 15% of people accessing the option, but 30% of the population. However, that is not the point. The point of the Bill is to give people the choice to end their life regardless of the colour of their skin. There is no special quality about the colour of my skin that affects my access or the need for a special representative in this case, which is covered by the ECHR and by the Secretary of State.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I am quite perplexed by my hon. Friend’s speech, but I would like to understand whether he has data related to the demographics of those jurisdictions compared with the UK. If he does, could he present it to the House to support his argument?
Dr Sandher
I have spent a lot of time around data, but I am not sure that I understand the question.
Rebecca Smith
I thank my hon. Friend. The statistics I quoted earlier are pretty clear on the point he makes. Let me make some progress.
The work undertaken by the coroner is not a box-ticking exercise or a bureaucratic hurdle. In the context of assisted dying, it is an extremely powerful deterrent against abuse and malpractice. Again, to quote Judge Thomas Teague KC, in a letter to The Times on 7 May this year, he said that the removal of
“any realistic prospect of an effective inquest...would magnify, rather than diminish, the obvious risks of deception and undue influence”.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the hon. Member and I will come to that point very soon. I will now make some progress; I will not take any further interventions.
I struggle to see how removing automatic oversight of assisted deaths squares with a commitment to enact legislation with the “strongest safeguards in the world”. By doing so, the Bill sets a lower bar for scrutiny and review, and creates an information deficit. Put another way, we simply do not know what we do not know. Implementing a novel piece of legislation such as this without ensuring the most robust possible scrutiny of deaths taking place under the Act is astonishing. Under the Bill, assisted deaths would be the outlier, as any other intentionally procured death would automatically be reviewed by a coroner. Why should deaths under this legislation be any different?
Requiring automatic scrutiny from a coroner for assisted deaths should not be viewed as an add-on at the end of the process or perhaps just a safety net, although it is that.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I rise to support a number of new clauses and amendments to the Bill. The common thread running through all of them is a need to address some of the gaps in the safeguards and oversight. Should the Bill pass, I at least want to ensure that we improve its protections and remove some of the risks that it contains.
New clause 4 requires the chief medical officer to monitor the operation of the legislation, rather than depending solely on the assisted dying commissioner. Alongside the requirement for a High Court judge, oversight by the CMO was removed during the Committee stage. This means that, essentially, the assisted dying commissioner would mark their own homework. New clause 4 returns the safeguard of independent oversight, which is sensible given the significant concerns expressed by many experts and organisations, which were often neutral on the principle, but concerned about the Bill. They include the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Association for Palliative Medicine, the British Geriatrics Society, the Royal College of Physicians and many experts such as Professor James Monckton Smith, a leading criminologist, Baroness Finlay, Parliament’s leading expert on palliative care, Sir David Haslam, former head of the British Medical Association and of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—my previous employer—and many more. All have expressed concerns, even when neutral on the principle of the adequacy of the Bill.
Hence new clause 4 requires an annual report to include
“information about the application of the Act in relation to—
persons who have protected characteristics, and
any other description of persons specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
I fervently hope that that includes domestic violence victims.
Amendment 13 very sensibly adds the requirement that the commissioner appointment is not the sole remit of the Prime Minister at the time, by requiring the consent of the Health and Social Care Committee. This provides a safeguard against ideological and politically motivated appointments, and I would be very critical of anyone who would want to prevent that.
Amendment 15 addresses the significant concerns about the involvement of private—for profit—providers of assisted dying. There are concerns that, when there is a commercial relationship between providers, there will be a gaming of the system. That risks compromising the relationship between the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor. Likewise, the existence of such providers does not allay concerns about doctor shopping, as was raised in the previous debate. Hence amendment 15 will require private providers to be transparent and provide reports on service members, service numbers, costs and revenue.
In previous debates and in the public discourse I have found it very disconcerting that, in response to legitimate concerns, all that we have been offered—as we have seen today—are some promised, unspecified future regulations that will fix the gap—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
Dr Gardner
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
To expect MPs to improve the Bill without clarity as to what the regulations are or what they will be, and how the service will be delivered without rigorous regulatory oversight is fundamentally wrong.
Furthermore, the fact that the implementation of the Bill will be automatic in 2029—a general election year, incidentally—is not realistic when reflecting on the many areas that still lack detail. Hence I support amendment 42, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), which allows the Secretary of State to determine the appropriate date for the Bill to be implemented. This would allow time to make the NHS fit for purpose, to strengthen palliative care, and for Parliament to draft and scrutinise adequate regulations without being rushed.
Similarly, but fundamental to the society in which we live, amendment 12 protects the status of our most dear institution, the NHS. The Bill before us provides Henry VIII powers to amend the National Health Service Act 2006 without limit, which could include a specification of charges. If, as Labour MPs, we are committed to the NHS remaining free at the point of use, then amendment 12 is vital, as it will require any changes to the 2006 Act to be made by an Act of Parliament. The future is uncertain. We must build safeguards in the Bill to protect us from measures that fundamentally alter the fabric of our society.
Briefly, amendment 27 requires the MHRA to license the drugs used for assisted dying. Research has shown that painful and protracted deaths via assisted dying drugs are not uncommon, with deaths ranging from three minutes to 137 hours—nearly a week— with up to eight hours to lose consciousness. Furthermore, serious side effects disproportionately affect younger people. Amendment 27 will help to ensure the safety and efficacy of these substances.
I will close by quoting Sir David Haslam on how we balance some of the individual stories used on both sides of the debate with the good of society. As we know, NICE has to make the difficult decision to approve or not approve medications and treatments based on a cost and clinical effectiveness model. It is experienced in weighing up societal good—[Interruption.] I will be quick, Madam Deputy Speaker—versus the needs and wishes of individuals.
Dr Huq
No, because I will not get any more time.
Given the cost of care, people could convince themselves that elderly relatives would be better off out of the way, in order to get the younger generation on the ladder.
We know from the experience of other places that once assisted dying is allowed, the scope broadens—depressed 12-year-olds in Holland can get it—and the incentive to fix palliative care will lessen. Why now, with the state of the NHS? What of Suicide Prevention Week? Yes, we know that public opinion is in favour of assisted dying, but public opinion also supports bringing back hanging.
Dr Huq
No, I am not giving way.
At my advice surgery, people have pointed out the unfairness of the £10,000 cost of Dignitas. We know that the status quo is imperfect, but let us not remedy it with something that will make things worse. We need to get this 100% right if we are going to do it all.
Although well intentioned, the Bill has too much room for error, manipulation, misapplication and unintended consequences. Six months to live is impossible to predict and, with life and death, it is too late to change your mind after the latter has happened, is it not? This week, 1,000 doctors have argued that it will widen inequalities and it is simply not safe. These amendments strengthen the Bill by taking ethnic minorities into account, when hitherto they have been completely unacknowledged by it. They must be incorporated into any assisted dying legislation, but the best thing of all would be not to rush down this road with indecent haste in the first place, because it is so littered with obstacles.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting)
Naz Shah ExcerptsTuesday 25th March 2025
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 March 2025 - (25 Mar 2025)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.]
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Naz Shah Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Member for all the work she has been doing on this issue. She is right: we need more integration of services, and we need to look at where we can share facilities to achieve better care for patients and better value for taxpayers.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
The former chair of my local trust, Bradford teaching hospitals NHS foundation trust, Dr Max Mclean, has today secured whistleblowing protection for himself in a landmark victory. Last week marked a year since a non-exec director at the trust was suspended, and a third non-exec director has put in an ET1 form to the employment tribunal. There appears to be a clear culture of targeting and witch-hunting whistleblowers at Bradford teaching hospitals trust. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s team supporting me, but given these recent developments, will he meet me?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these serious issues. There are issues of concern here, and she clearly describes a concerning situation for the local community. We need to look carefully at what is happening, and the Minister of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), would be delighted to meet her.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fourth sitting)
Naz Shah ExcerptsTuesday 18th March 2025
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 March 2025 - (18 Mar 2025)
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
As we heard from the hon. Member for Richmond Park, her amendment concerns the second period for reflection under the Bill as drafted. The second period of reflection would take place after the panel had approved a person’s application for assisted death. The Bill states that that period would be 14 days, unless
“the coordinating doctor reasonably believes that the person’s death is likely to occur before the end of the period of one month beginning with the day that declaration was made”;
in that case, the second period is shortened to 48 hours.
Some people who have a strong desire to hasten death might wish to avoid the second period for reflection. If they refused food, there would be a strong possibility that their physical condition would deteriorate, so that a doctor would indeed believe that they were likely to die within one month. That is not a hypothetical possibility. We know that there are people who do refuse food to the point where they become gravely ill with malnutrition.
The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said something that I think is relevant here. He was asking questions of a witness before this Committee, Professor Nicola Ranger of the Royal College of Nursing, on 28 January. To quote Hansard, the right hon. Gentleman said:
“At the moment, within palliative care and palliative nursing generally, you are already dealing with patients who are electing to refuse treatment, food and water, or are supporting patients following an advance directive.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 59, Q70.]
On the same day, the right hon. Gentleman said something similar to another witness, Dr Sarah Cox:
“I want to pursue that point a little with you, Dr Cox. My understanding is that your profession is already taking these decisions, or supporting patients to take these decisions—for example, the withdrawal of ventilation for an MND patient towards the end, or if I decide to decline treatment or food and water to end my life as quickly as I can.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 74, Q91.]
In other words, it is not some remote possibility that patients who are already ill may decide to refuse food. That is one thing I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and I can agree on. We also know from the survey undertaken by a group of specialists in eating disorders that, in countries that have assisted dying laws, at least 60 people have qualified for assisted death because they suffered advanced malnutrition.
Some people who are seriously ill and who wish, in the words of a psychiatric witness, to “hasten death”, may see the 14-day period as intolerable. An alarming possibility is that they might stop eating in order to worsen their physical condition and qualify for the 48-hour period. Amendment 457 would remove that possibility. I strongly recommend that hon. Members support it.
People would qualify for a shortened period for reflection only if they
“have not voluntarily stopped eating and drinking”.
That word “voluntarily” is important. I understand the reason that the Bill’s drafters included a provision for a shorter, second period of reflection, but as with much of the rest of the Bill, I am sorry to say that I do not think that they have provided strong enough safeguards. This is a well drafted amendment that would tighten those safeguards. I urge Members to support it.
Danny Kruger
I recognise that, but that is not germane to the debate that we are having, which is about the actual cancellation. There is a question about why there would have been a cancellation. My right hon. Friend is right that there is no obligation to proceed once a patient passes a particular hurdle. Many will not, but when someone decides actively to renounce their decision, a big question should be asked: what is going on, and what further help is needed?
My right hon. Friend suggests that we do not step in and ensure that care is provided—that, in other circumstances, there is no additional obligation in relation to patients. I am afraid to say that he has, as ever, a coldly rationalistic vision of healthcare and of the sorts of patients we are dealing with. As I have said to him, these patients will be acting much as I imagine he would imagine—I think from a position of health and self-confidence—himself acting in that circumstance. In fact, we are dealing with people who have decided to renounce their decision to proceed, and so are by definition in some turmoil.
I crave the indulgence of the Committee, because I am talking at length about a set of amendments that I do not intend to oppose, and I recognise the value and necessity of the clause. However, I draw to the Committee’s attention that we are dealing not simply with a bit of paperwork, but with a human being who, having made one enormous decision—to die—is now making an enormous decision to live, and we are treating it as if it is only a bureaucratic question.
I finish with a question to the hon. Member for Spen Valley or to the Minister, to help me understand something that confuses me in the clause.
Naz Shah
I have not given this matter as much thought as the hon. Member has. My interest is very much in the issue of domestic violence. Does he agree that this could be somebody who has experienced domestic violence? Or children could be at risk. This person may then decide not to take the option, even though they wanted to, because of obligations elsewhere.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady is right, and her point goes to the question that runs through all of these clauses: why? As a Committee, we rejected the obligation on the doctors to ask, “Why are you doing this?” It was suggested by one hon. Member that it was nobody’s business why somebody was trying to take their own life and that if that person qualified, they should be able to summon the agents of the state to provide them with lethal drugs without any question about their motivation.
I agree with the hon. Lady. There is an equal expectation in my mind that doctors should ask the question, “Why are you changing your mind?” I would expect that. The clause could clarify what further referrals would need to be made, if they had not already been; as we have acknowledged, we would expect appropriate care to be provided by doctors anyway.
I conclude with a factual question. Clause 14(1) lets a patient cancel a first or second declaration, but subsection (4) says only that the duties of the doctor stop when a first declaration is cancelled. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Spen Valley would explain what happens if the patient cancels a second declaration. It strikes me that there would be a need for urgency because if a patient decides to change their mind at that point, that is arguably a more dangerous situation. What would be the obligations on the doctor at that point? Should we read across from subsection (4) that their duties stop in the same way? Perhaps that could be clarified in later drafting, if necessary.
To conclude, my general point is that the issue of a cancelled declaration is about more than the paperwork. Although, of course, we respect the autonomy of a patient to make their own decision to cancel a declaration—obviously, I would insist that that right should be in the Bill—it nevertheless raises a question in my mind: why is that happening, and what should we expect the patient’s medical team, or others, to do in that circumstance?
Stephen Kinnock
I am acutely conscious that every word we say in this Committee is on the record. My hon. Friend makes a valid point in that context.
The purpose of amendment 253 is to clarify that a person acting as a proxy can both sign and revoke a declaration on behalf of a person seeking assistance under the Bill. This amendment would extend the provisions under clause 15 to a person who is acting as proxy to the person seeking assistance under the Bill, enabling the proxy to act on behalf of the person to cancel their first or second declaration if they are unable to sign their own name by reason of physical impairment, being unable to read or for any other reason. I note that the cancellation of a declaration is governed by clause 14, and the cancellation may be given orally, via writing, or
“in a manner of communication known to be used by the person”.
It does not require the signature of the person seeking assistance under the Bill, so a proxy may not be required for some people in relation to revoking a declaration, even if they have been required under clause 15.
Naz Shah
On the point made by the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, should the issue of proxy end up before a court, what will be relied on—the conversation that we are having here and the intentions stated in Committee, or a future statutory instrument and what the Secretary of State puts in the guidance?
Stephen Kinnock
The regulations will have primacy, and will be shaped by a range of inputs, including the conversation we have just had in Committee. The process is that the Bill gets Royal Assent, then the regulations are drawn up based on a range of consultations and inputs—including the Hansard. The regulations then become the basis on which this proxy process is managed, enforced and executed.
Stephen Kinnock
The Bill, once it becomes an Act, places a legal duty on the Secretary of State to produce those regulations. The Secretary of State would be in breach of the law if he were not to enforce the conclusions of the Act.
Danny Kruger
Once again, we are in an extraordinary no man’s land between medical treatment and something else that we cannot find a word for. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course, it is appropriate in medical treatment for a nurse or doctor to assist in the administration of a treatment. As he suggests, if the person found it difficult to raise a cup to their lips, the nurse would help them. Indeed, if they found it difficult to perform an injection, it would be expected that that would be done by the nurse or doctor anyway. But here we are setting up a strange new method of administering a so-called treatment in which the patient has to perform the physical act themselves.
It is apparent from the clause that it is very unclear what assistance actually looks like, so yes, I absolutely imagine that if the patient were struggling to raise the cup to their lips, a nurse or doctor who was present at the final act in an assisted suicide would help them to do so. Similarly, if the patient were finding it difficult to put their finger on the syringe, it would be appropriate—normally, one would expect—for the medical professional to lift the patient’s finger and put it in the right place. What happens next? Do they then apply a little pressure if the patient is finding it difficult to depress the plunger on the syringe? If the cup is at the lips, do they tip it up and let gravity take its course? These very complicated questions about where assistance ends and autonomy begins are, I am afraid to say, impossible to specify in the Act; therefore, it is apparent that we have a grey area.
I conclude with some evidence that we received from Iain Brassington, professor of applied and legal philosophy at Manchester University. He says:
“how are we to determine how the ‘final act’ of self-administration is to be differentiated from the penultimate act, in which the doctor may assist? How would helping a patient lift the cup to her lips be distinguished from helping her ingest its contents?”—
the hon. Member for Ashford referred to that. He goes on to say that
“the definition of the ‘final act’ is unclear, especially granted the wording of”
subsection (6)(c), and:
“The proposed law says that a doctor may not administer a substance with the intention of causing death, but also that a doctor may help a person self-administer. But how should we draw the boundary between helping a person self-administer, and playing a role in administration?”
I come to the penultimate point—not the final act—of my speech. There is some odd phrasing in subsection (7), and I wonder whether the hon. Member for Spen Valley or the Minister can help to parse the English. It says that
“the decision to self-administer the approved substance and the final act of doing so must be taken by the person”.
We understand about the decision being taken by the person, but the phrasing is that the final act “must be taken” by the person. I am not familiar with that construction. Does one take an act? Is that English? You perform an act—an act is not taken, it is done, by a person acting autonomously. The question of whether this is an active or a passive concept runs to the heart of my concern about the clause, and we need to think about redrafting, at least in deference to the English language.
Somewhere in this clause there is a magic moment when assistance gives way to autonomy, and the penultimate act by the doctor yields to the final act, which is supposed to be by the patient. We cannot tell when the responsibility for the action passes from one to the other. In proper medicine it does not matter because the medic works with the patient, but here it does matter. We are insisting that there is a difference between a doctor setting up a death, and the patient performing the action of suicide.
I will end by referencing the case of R v. Kennedy in 2007, a case on which Lord Bingham opined, about the culpability of someone who died from a heroin overdose. Was the person who gave him the drugs and tied the tourniquet around his arm responsible? Was it murder, or indeed assisted suicide? The judge decided that it was not, but made this point:
“It is possible to imagine factual scenarios in which two people could properly be regarded as acting together to administer an injection.”
Given that ruling, we are in a world of difficulty with the suggestion that it is legally possible for a doctor to assist a patient to ingest or otherwise self-administer. To assist someone to self-administer is tantamount to administering. I welcome suggestions from other Members, the Minister, or the hon. Member for Spen Valley about whether it is possible to provide guidance that gives greater clarity on what the clause means, or whether subsequent amendments will help to resolve the problems that I have, but I am afraid I do not think it will be possible to make an adequate distinction between assisted suicide on the one hand—in which full responsibility, not just for the decision but for the performance, rests with the patient—and euthanasia on the other. I do not think there is an adequate logical difference, and the practical difference we are attempting to enshrine here will be very quickly obscured.
Naz Shah
I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for his amendment, and for speaking in the powerful, sensitive way that he did. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Spen Valley and for Banbury, who made interventions.
I did not intend to speak to this amendment, but having heard the hon. Member for East Wiltshire speak so powerfully and sensitively, it is important for me to share a few things. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said a couple of times that the difference between people who commit suicide and those who will take this route is that the patients have been given less than six months to live, and that was not a choice. I was a Samaritan for years, because I had two failed suicide attempts in my early years, and since then I have battled with mental health demons all my life because of my experiences. To suggest that there is a difference between someone who gets a terminal illness and wants to take this act and people who want to commit suicide, and to suggest that they are doing it out of choice, is wrong. I felt really emotional when that exchange was happening. The reason why I think it is wrong is that, at the time that I wanted to commit suicide, I did not feel that I had a choice. I could not see a way out.
When I was on those Samaritans phonelines, speaking to people who rang in to unpick their feelings about what was driving them to feel suicidal in that moment, it was not because they want to die, but because they were in circumstances that drove them to feel that they had no option but to commit suicide. In some instances, it takes an amount of courage and bravery to even contemplate that option. To diminish that, which I feel is what has, intentionally or unintentionally, happened on occasion, is really wrong, because I have been there, and it was not easy and it was not because I wanted to die.
Kim Leadbeater
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I certainly have not heard anyone try to diminish the experience of suicidal people. We probably all have our own stories of loved ones who we have either lost to suicide—I know that I do—or who had very severe mental health issues. The point I would make is that the families I have met who have lost loved ones through assisted dying or a harrowing terminal-illness death have said that they desperately wanted to live. That is the distinction I would make, but I appreciate that my hon. Friend is absolutely right that people with suicidal tendencies and ideation also want to live—they just do not feel they have a choice. It is a very delicate debate to have, but please be assured of my sensitivities to it.
Naz Shah
I am genuinely grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, because I do not want the Committee—or our constituents—to feel that there is an equivalence. There is not. People who are in that space, who ring the Samaritans helpline to speak to them, all desperately want to live a brilliant life. That is what brings us here: each and every one of us wants to make this place the best it can be, so that our country is the best it can be and all our communities, people and constituents—all members of society—thrive. It is a sensitive debate, but let us be careful not to draw a parallel where there is not one. It was important for me to put that on the record.
I will support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire because we have already voted down an amendment requiring doctors to simply ask the question why. This speaks to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury raised: I know, through my experience at the Samaritans, as somebody who has attempted suicide and as somebody who has gone on to chair a charity that leads mental health interventions, how difficult it is for a patient has gone through the process of having had that conversation with their family, who might not necessarily agree, and having convinced them that they are going to take this option because they want autonomy, and fear losing it.
I cannot imagine what it must be like for those people, at that moment, saying their final goodbyes, and the level of potential pressure they face right at the last minute, having spoken to everybody and put their family members, and indeed themselves, through the process. Would they not feel internal pressure on themselves to go through with it? Would they really have the option, and not feel, in a sense, obliged to say, “Yes”? Do we really not want to ask that question?
When we debated the amendment requiring doctors to ask the question why, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said that doctors would ask it anyway, but that argument would not work in this instance because doctors would not do this anyway. They would not say, “I am about to give you something—have you changed your mind?”, because by that point they are in a process. The drug, in whatever form it takes, is in the process of being, or will have been, handed over to the person who wants to take that option, so it is not the same. I genuinely hope that the Committee will support the amendment, because it is our last option to make this intervention.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting)
Naz Shah Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Gordon
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I speak in support of this group of amendments, which address the issue of fairness and accessibility in the Bill. The amendments seek to ensure that those who are physically unable to self-administer the approved substance due to their condition are not excluded from the choice of an assisted death.
The principle at stake here is equity: making sure that this opportunity would be available to not only those with the physical ability to self-administer but all eligible individuals, regardless of their condition. The Motor Neurone Disease Association made it clear in its written evidence that conditions like motor neurone disease can be cruel, devastating and progressive, locking people inside their own failing bodies. More than 80% of people with MND lose the ability to speak. Many lose all limb function, leaving them unable to lift even a glass of water, let alone self-administer medication.
There is a common theme here that relates to a point I made in an earlier sitting, when we debated the period of time for eligibility. For these individuals, the Bill in its current form creates a barrier. It states that the final act of ingesting or administering an approved substance must be taken by the person themselves. For someone with advanced MND, that may simply not physically be possible. The MND Association’s evidence highlights that in other jurisdictions, such as Queensland in Australia, allowances have been made for people unable to swallow or self-administer. If we fail to include such provision here, we risk excluding some of the most vulnerable people or, even worse, creating a perverse incentive for them to seek an assisted death earlier, possibly abroad, when they may still have physical function.
These amendments are not about lowering safeguards in any way, shape or form. As we know, the Bill has robust safeguards, which these amendments would maintain. It would only be applicable in instances where doctors deem it necessary, and it would not be open to more than those with conditions restricting their ability to self-administer. If the Bill is about compassion, then we must ensure that that compassion extends to everyone; if it is about choice, then we should not deny that choice to those with severe physical limitations; and if it is about justice, then we should not allow injustice to be written into the law.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I rise to oppose amendments 350 to 352, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne). They would allow the co-ordinating doctor to provide additional assistance to administer the substance in the presence of an independent witness, in some circumstances. Those circumstances would be when, as amendment 350 says, the doctor determines that the person is
“permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer”
the lethal substance because of an inability to swallow or the loss of use of the limbs. The amendments do not spell out what the additional assistance would be, but I think it is reasonable to believe that it refers to the doctor injecting the lethal substance into a person’s circulatory system.
My hon. Friend’s amendments comes from genuine concern about the situation that some people may well find themselves in. Some people who might otherwise qualify for assisted dying under the Bill might be unable to swallow or inject the lethal drugs. We should all respect the feeling that lies behind the amendments, but we should reject them. If we pass them, we will have accepted that doctors can help people who have qualified for assisted dying to prepare to inject themselves with lethal drugs or swallow them. The Bill does not say that doctors can do that. I do not know whether the House would have voted for the Bill on Second Reading if it had, but that is beside the point—it was not part of the Bill. If we were ever to consider taking such a radical step, we should only do so after hearing as much evidence as possible on why and how this might be necessary. I urge the Committee to oppose the amendment.
Danny Kruger
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady; I very much agree with her points. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who spoke with his now customary intellectual clarity and moral constituency. He believes in autonomy, and he is doing what he can to resolve the essential contradiction in the Bill, which is designed to enable people to end their lives at their own discretion. He recognises that some of the safeguards in the Bill, which of course I do support, nevertheless represent barriers to what we are now suggesting is a human right, and that that human right will be restricted to a limited number of people, according to the Bill.
It is my view that the pressure, momentum or inherent direction of travel that the Bill sets us on will necessarily result in these sorts of amendments to the legislation in due course, whether in the form of subsequent amendments passed through legislation, the guidance that is issued, or indeed the practice of doctors. As I tried to explain in my comments on the previous group, my concern is that the Bill allows for quite a wide degree of discretion, naturally and necessarily enough, in the form of doctors interpreting their ability to assist in ways that respect the autonomy of patients, but are, in fact, a step beyond what the Bill—quite rightly, in my view—seeks to allow.
Naz Shah
Following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, I have just looked at some of the evidence, and it does not cite any papers. In effect, the evidence says the effect can be seen in three documentaries. Nor does it explain why Dr Zivot’s concerns are scientifically accurate. Does the hon. Gentleman want to speak to that?
Danny Kruger
There is great anxiety about the validity of much of the evidence in this space. I have great respect for the work of Dr Zivot, because nothing else gets us close to understanding the actual effect of these drugs, once somebody has died.
Danny Kruger
My strong suspicion is that this is because the evidence is not being accurately collected or reported. With Dignitas and in all these jurisdictions, as the hon. Lady has acknowledged, there are significant failures of data and record keeping. Obviously, it is very much in Dignitas’s interest not to collect and certainly not to publicise evidence of things going wrong. However, that clearly happens in jurisdictions where data is properly collected.
Jack Abbott
Absolutely, I know. I am sure the Committee supports him as well.
I would also point the hon. Gentleman to proposed new subsection (13), which my amendment 532 would introduce, saying what “specific actions” can legally be taken, for example, if
“there is a greatly prolonged time to death”,
the person has been “rendered unconscious” or
“the person is otherwise undergoing complications.”
That quite clearly states that we expect the Secretary of State, through this amendment, to take specific co-ordination actions on that. Under proposed new subsection (12) alone, the Secretary of State would have to make provision on that, which could lead to what the hon. Gentleman is alluding to. However, what I propose in proposed new subsection is very clear: that we would expect specific actions from the Secretary of State in that area.
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. He talked about percentages earlier. Is he aware of a study in the Netherlands that concluded that 21 people—18% of the cases in the study—were assisted with lethal injection? In five of those cases, that was because the person could not swallow, but in the rest, they were unable to complete.
Jack Abbott
I have used the statistic of 10%; we might find additional statistics from different jurisdictions that put that figure slightly higher or slightly lower. The point I am trying to make is that this is a relatively uncommon occurrence; none the less, this is an area of the Bill that we can make stronger with additional provisions.
I will make some progress on amendment 532. I have made the basis of my point and want to get on to amendment 533. As I have said, amendment 532 seeks to provide clarity on what doctors can do if the procedure fails or is failing by stipulating that the Secretary of State must specify in regulations what actions the co-ordinating doctor can legally take if there is a prolonged time to death; if the person has been rendered unconscious or unfit to make a second attempt at self-administration, but has not died; or if the person is undergoing complications following the initial attempt.
While there is existing GMC guidance, if no further guidance comes forward in the coming years, we risk placing some doctors in an incredibly difficult position. We always say that we should abide by good practice and the experience of many doctors, but additional cover is no bad thing. We need to say what doctors are legally permitted to do in the event of a patient undergoing severe complications. Leaving aside the doctors, that presents a risk to the patient, who may suffer needlessly and intolerably because the co-ordinating doctor does not know what they are legally allowed to do and is thus seeking to avoid legal ramifications of actions. We do not want them to take steps to respond to those complications or support the patient to die in a painful manner.
I will speak briefly to my amendment 533, which is about where assisted dying can take place. The Committee has already touched on that, and I do not want the Bill to be too prescriptive, which is why I have not stipulated exactly where the locations should be. However, this question was raised a number of times in the submitted written evidence. It is incredibly important that we address this question to ensure that assisted dying takes place at a certain location and does not have a detrimental effect on that location or community, and that the implementation of assisted dying does not exacerbate existing healthcare inequalities or deepen the mistrust of the healthcare system that exists among some ethnic minority communities in particular.
We have a duty to ensure that anyone seeking an assisted death under the Bill feels that it is safe to do so, is able to experience the positives of assisted dying and is not traumatised or retraumatised by the process. That is not possible if assisted dying takes place in settings in which people feel unsafe, which they feel unable to control or in which they have no agency. The amendment seeks to ensure that the question of where assisted dying can take place is properly addressed and that the possible impacts of assisted dying taking place at any particular location are fully considered. Only then can we address and mitigate its possible detrimental impacts.
That is a particularly important point because the criterion in the Bill that the doctor must remain with the patient until they have died realistically precludes assisted dying taking place at home, as there may be a prolonged time to death. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said, 86% of patients in Western Australia died within the hour, but 14% took longer than that. To use another comparison, in Oregon, 87.7% of those who died via an assisted death in 2023 did so at home. If we are essentially precluding assisted dying from taking place at home because of the stipulation that a doctor has to be in attendance, we must answer the question of where it can take place.
In written evidence, Sue Ryder and the National Care Forum cited concerns about the impact on the wellbeing of staff and the other residents of hospices and accommodation-based services, should assisted dying take place within those communities. Dr Jamilla Hussain, in arguing that the question of where assisted dying could take place needed to be addressed, stated that her consultations with
“ethnic minority groups across Bradford highlighted the risk that AD could significantly deepen mistrust in healthcare services, including but not limited to palliative care.”
She argued that that needed to be considered when determining where assisted dying would take place, and because of that it would be preferable to avoid
“healthcare settings that these communities rely on, such as hospitals and hospices.”
Again, amendment 533 does not seek to specify where assisted dying should take place—I think further work is possibly needed over the coming months and years before this policy is potentially implemented—or to prohibit any particular location, I must add. The rationale behind the amendment is to ensure that through extensive consultation with relevant parties, the possible impacts of assisted dying taking place at any particular location are fully and comprehensively considered, and thereby any potential harm is addressed and mitigated against.
Jack Abbott
I appreciate that point. Throughout this process we have spoken about the absolute need to ensure that very good palliative care options are being presented to everybody along this pathway. I do not think you can separate care homes and hospices from the Bill, but I fully appreciate and sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. As I have said, there may be some hospices that are simply not appropriate for this, so although amendment 533 does not seek to put that on the face of the Bill in terms of precluding any particular areas of our healthcare system, it would require the Secretary of State, through consultation, to make sure that the legislation is used properly, and make suitable recommendations.
Naz Shah
I rise to speak to amendment 436, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. The amendment concerns what would happen after a patient has suffered complications while going through the administration of lethal drugs. Let me stress that we know that people suffer complications when they are undergoing assisted deaths. Unfortunately, one thing we do not know is how common those complications are. Another thing we lack is data that would allow researchers to investigate whether certain drugs, perhaps in combination with certain medical conditions, were more likely to cause complications.
The reason that we do not know those things is because of the many gaps in the data collected in places that have assisted dying laws. It has been mentioned before, but very much bears mentioning again, that the Australian states’ reports on assisted dying do not publish data on complications suffered by patients who self-administer drugs, and that is the overwhelming majority of assisted deaths in Australia.
Western Australia’s most recent report does tell us how frequently there were complications in the cases that involved practitioner administration of lethal drugs—4.3% of those deaths were affected. I understand that the Bill does not allow practitioner administration, but that is not the relevant point. What is relevant is that first, the Australian data shows that some people given lethal drugs suffer complications, and secondly, those complications were ones that we would not wish on someone in their last minutes or hours of life. For example, five out of 198 practitioner administration deaths involved “other complications”, which included people coughing and/or reporting a burning throat after they were helped to swallow drugs,
“hiccups with gastric reflux, involuntary muscular contractions, and delayed loss of consciousness.”
Western Australia could be much better than other states on average in avoiding complications, or it could be worse. I am afraid that we really do not have the robust data that would allow us to make those comparisons. I repeat: the Australian state does not publish data on complications affecting the majority of assisted dying cases. They do not because they cannot, since no one is mandated to stay with the patient and observe their condition. We do not know, therefore, how common those complications are.
Record-keeping in other jurisdictions is also concerning. This House’s Health and Social Care Committee examined the records kept by the state health department in Oregon while inquiring into assisted dying. They found that Oregon authorities kept very poor records into how many patients suffered complications and what those were.
Amendment 436, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, would take a very different approach. Under this amendment, the doctor attending the person having an assisted death would have to make “a detailed record” if the person suffered complications. They would then have to declare that the person had suffered complications, on the final statement concerning that case. Finally, they would have to make a report, to both the chief medical officer for either England or Wales and the voluntary assisted dying commissioner.
Dr Opher
I am interested to hear what the Government say about the wording around that amendment and whether it is safe. I would defer to the Minister on that.
Amendment 430 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, about a code of practice that must address complications and failures, is quite a strong amendment and I am willing to support it. If as doctors we have a code of practice about how we handle this type of thing, the amendment would potentially help, and perhaps answer some of the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury.
I do not believe that amendment 255 from my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke is necessary. I believe it should be dealt with under clause 21.
I believe that the very well put amendments 532 and 533 from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich could be covered by amendment 430.
Stephen Kinnock
Amendment 435 would require the co-ordinating doctor to escalate the care of an individual to the appropriate emergency medical services if the assisted dying procedure has failed. Requiring the co-ordinating doctor to make a referral may engage article 8 of the European convention on human rights—the right to family and private life—if the person has indicated that they do not wish to be referred to emergency services or do not wish to be resuscitated. In a situation where the procedure has failed, doctors would, as in their normal duties, support a person in line with their professional obligations and their understanding of the person’s wishes. This could include the involvement of the emergency services, but it would be unusual to specify a particular approach in legislation.
As currently drafted, clause 18(9) provides that:
“The coordinating doctor must remain with the person”
once the approved substance has been provided, until either
“the person has self-administered the approved substance and…the person has died, or…it is determined by the coordinating doctor that the procedure has failed”,
or, alternatively, until
“the person has decided not to self-administer the approved substance.”
Amendment 429 would remove the clarification currently provided for in clause 18(10) that the co-ordinating doctor does not have to be
“in the same room as the person”
once the approved substance has been provided. However, clause 18(9) requires the doctor only to
“remain with the person”.
It may still be possible that the co-ordinating doctor could remain with the person but in a different room if they decide that is more appropriate.
Amendment 436 would increase reporting obligations on the co-ordinating doctor in cases where complications have occurred. It is not clear in the amendment what would be considered a complication and therefore trigger the reporting requirement. It is also not clear what details should be set out in the person’s medical records or in the report to the chief medical officer and voluntary assisted dying commissioner.
Naz Shah
I am struggling with this. When amendments were tabled last week, there was a concise direction from the Minister that he understood the intention of the amendments. Could that approach not be applied to these amendments—that there is an understanding of the intention, and they can be tidied up in the wash-up process to make them tight? Could that not happen?
Stephen Kinnock
My job and that of my hon. and learned friend the Justice Minister is to defend the integrity and coherence of the statute. The concern that we have with the word “complication” is that it is a wide-ranging term and concept, and its inclusion could potentially undermine the integrity of the legal coherence of the Bill and how it could be interpreted in terms of its implementation. I am simply flagging the risk that if the Committee chooses to accept the amendment, there could be a muddying of the waters in terms of its meaning in law.
Stephen Kinnock
I think what I am saying is that the word “complication” contains a multitude of potential interpretations and meanings. The work that would need to be done by the Government to unpack it and understand what it means certainly could be done if the amendment passes, but the Government are saying that, as it stands, it is not clear. The drafting of the amendment is so ambiguous that it causes the Government concerns about its inclusion.
Stephen Kinnock
With all due respect, I think it is more the responsibility of those who draft and table amendments to draft and table them in a way that leaves no room or as little room as possible for ambiguity. I think my hon. Friend would be better off addressing her question about the potential complications to somebody with clinical expertise, who could list off a series of potential physical manifestations. I am not qualified to do that. I do not have a clinical background so I am not able to answer her question.
Amendment 464 would impose a duty on the co-ordinating doctor not to do anything with the intention of causing the person’s death and to seek to revive the person if it appears to them that the procedure is failing. It is unclear what “appears to be failing” would mean, and what criteria would need to be met for the co-ordinating doctor to consider the procedure to be failing. It would be unusual for primary legislation to seek to mandate a clinical course of action in the way proposed by the amendment. In addition, the amendment could potentially create conflict for the co-ordinating doctor if the person has a “do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” order or a legally effective advance decision is in place, as the doctor would have to resuscitate them even if they had stated wishes to the contrary. That could give rise to engagement of article 8 of the European convention on human rights on respect for private and family life.
Amendment 532 would introduce a new duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out what the co-ordinating doctor is legally permitted to do if they determine that the procedure under clause 18(2) has failed. Under the amendment, the regulations would also include specific actions that the co-ordinating doctor can legally take if there is a greatly prolonged death; if the person is unconscious and unable to make a second attempt at self-administration; or if the person has other complications. If specific actions that the co-ordinating doctor can legally take are set out, there is a risk that, when complications arise, they would be unable to take actions that are not listed. That may lead to uncertainty and restrict what the doctor can do, using their professional judgment, to respond to particular circumstances. It is unusual to set out a particular clinical approach in primary legislation.
Amendment 533 places a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying where the provision of assistance under the Bill may take place. It sets out a requirement on the Secretary of State to
“consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”
prior to making such regulations, including certain specified groups.
I turn to amendment 430, which would broaden the Secretary of State’s power to issue codes of practice under clause 30 of the Bill. It would explicitly enable the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice in connection with
“responding to unexpected complications that arise in relation to the administration of the approved substance under section 18, including when the procedure fails”.
Naz Shah
I respectfully point out that the Minister says that it is not for him to make interpretations and that he has not got the clinical expertise. I genuinely appreciate that, but I am also trying to understand why he accepts provisions that are not clear in the Bill. Why is he okay with those but not with the amendments?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend will have noted that a number of amendments have been drafted in collaboration with the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. I think that demonstrates that when the Government have seen a lacuna, a lack of clarity or ambiguities in the Bill, officials, along with the Justice Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green, and I, have worked with my hon. Friend to table amendments to tighten up the Bill. We are doing that in areas where we feel that ambiguity exists. However, when we feel that the Bill, as drafted, does not give rise to such concerns, our position on the amendments is according to our position vis-à-vis the current wording of the Bill.
Stephen Kinnock
Of course, if we can find ways to improve the Bill, we should—that is what this Bill Committee is for. But the input from my officials and parliamentary counsel legal advice have raised red flags about the amendments because of how they are drafted and the ambiguity that they give rise to. Clearly, it is up to the Committee to decide whether it wants to include the amendments or whether those issues could be looked at later—either on Report or when the Bill is going through the other place.
Naz Shah
We cannot have things both ways. I have re-read amendment 436 and I am not convinced that the issue is the drafting. It is very clear:
“If complications occur as a result of the provision of assistance the coordinating doctor must…make a detailed record of the complications…make a declaration…and…make a report”.
I am struggling to differentiate between having a conversation about it and it actually happening—it is still a complication, so why the resistance? Can the Minister agree that the Government will look at this and, perhaps in the wash-up, tidy it up—if that is the issue, and they agree in that instance?
Stephen Kinnock
Fundamentally, the role of the promoter of the Bill is to decide whether the Bill, as passed through this Committee, meets the policy intent that she wishes to achieve. Our job as Ministers is to work with her to deliver that objective. If the promoter of the Bill comes to the view that any of the amendments should be considered and added to the Bill, we will of course work with her to enable them to be delivered. My job at the moment is simply to say that there are concerns about these amendments due to the issue of ambiguity.
Naz Shah
I rise to speak to amendment 499, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. Let me outline what the amendment does and why I believe that it provides an inadequate safeguard. Under clause 19, the co-ordinating doctor may authorise another doctor to provide assistance—meaning that they will help the patient to take the lethal drugs. For clarity, I will refer throughout my speech to this other doctor who may step in to provide lethal drugs as the second doctor.
Under clause 18(4), the co-ordinating doctor must be satisfied of three conditions before they proceed to assist the person to take lethal drugs. Those three conditions are that the person has a clear, settled and informed desire to end their life, has capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and is not subject to coercion. Implicitly, the co-ordinating doctor can therefore end the procedure if they are not satisfied that those conditions apply. Under clause 19(3), the second doctor has the same duty as the co-ordinating doctor to be satisfied of those conditions before the assisted dying procedure can go ahead.
Amendment 499 would impose a new duty on the second doctor: if they suspected coercion, lack of capacity or lack of clear, settled and informed desire, they would have to inform the co-ordinating doctor. I suggest that the amendment does not take things far enough. It is a very serious matter if any doctor, be it the co-ordinating doctor or the second doctor, suspects coercion, lack of capacity or lack of desire. That means that a very serious mistake may well have been made, and that mistake could lead to someone having an assisted death who should not have qualified for it.
There should be several more safeguards in this part of the Bill. First, let us consider a situation where there was no previous suspicion that a patient had been coerced but where the doctor now suspects that they may have been. There should be a proper system of notification for such cases. It is true that doctors have a duty of care for patients, but it is also true that, given our overstressed, underfunded social care, health and policing systems, difficult cases sometimes fall through the cracks. The Bill should have a clear system for an authority to check back with the social care authorities and a person’s GP to make sure that steps are being taken to protect them from potential coercion. Secondly, the report that the second doctor makes in those circumstances should go to not only the co-ordinating doctor, but the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. Thirdly, when that happens, the commissioner should investigate the incident.
To repeat: if a doctor originally assessed a patient as qualifying for an assisted death, but a second doctor could not support that assessment, that is a serious incident that could lead to the assisted death of someone who should not have qualified for it. That does not mean that the co-ordinating doctor was necessarily at fault—not at all. The co-ordinating doctor will have been taking very difficult decisions under considerable stress. However, it does mean that the proper authorities should investigate the initial assessment, whether it was wrong and, if so, why it was wrong.
We see something similar with the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, which investigates not only accidents, but near misses that could have caused serious accidents. It does not assume fault when it investigates near misses. Often, it finds that there has been no human error. However, it has a statutory duty to investigate serious near misses. That is because the law passed by this House recognises that we need to understand why they happened in order to prevent fatal accidents from ever happening in the future.
For that reason, I do not think that my hon. Friend’s amendment is sufficient to fix the problems with this part of the Bill. I hope we can think about how better to address those problems, but I cannot support the amendment.
Rebecca Paul
I rise to speak in support of amendment 408, in the name of the hon. Member for Broxtowe. I also support amendments 499 and 210, in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley, and amendment 22, in the name of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato).
Clause 19 states that
“the coordinating doctor may authorise, in writing, a named registered medical practitioner to carry out the coordinating doctor’s functions under section 18…A registered medical practitioner may be authorised under subsection (1) only if…the person to whom the assistance is being provided has consented, in writing, to the authorisation of that practitioner”.
I support amendment 408, which adds that the person must also have been consulted.
I am sure the Committee recognises that, even where someone has basic training and the experience specified, delegating care at the end of life is something that must be done with great care, given the vulnerability of patients. If a co-ordinating doctor has guided someone through this profound and significant process, there are some intrinsic risks that come with delegating the administration of the final approved substance to someone else. I concede that there will be situations where a substitute may be required, but it will not be the doctor that the patient has trusted, confided in and relied on.
A new doctor will of course do the final checks for capacity and consent, but they do not necessarily have any specific detailed knowledge of the patient and may be unable to pick up less obvious cues that someone who knows the patient may be better able to. That gap matters, and history shows that it can lead to problems. The risks of delegation are well documented. If we take the Mid Staffordshire NHS foundation trust scandal in 2005 to 2009, detailed in the Francis report, consultants often delegated tasks to junior staff or nurses without adequate supervision, which contributed to poor care and an estimated 400 to 1,200 excess deaths. Patients suffered from neglect, untreated infections, dehydration and medication errors. That was partly because delegated staff lacked the training or authority to act decisively, and consultants failed to monitor effectively.
In surgical contexts, delegation can also falter. A 2006 Daily Mail report highlighted NHS payouts exceeding £1 million for wrong-site surgeries, where consultants delegated preparatory or operative tasks to trainees or assistants, who then misidentified sites—for example, operating on the wrong leg or tooth. Those errors often stemmed from inadequate briefing or supervision, pointing to a systemic delegation risk. We have to be really aware of this.
Those examples suggest that when consultants delegate, whether to junior doctors or other practitioners, including their peers, things can go wrong if communication breaks down, or if the replacement lacks equivalent expertise or is simply not aware of some of the detailed information. In order to manage some of the risks better, patients must be consulted about who takes over their care, and not just asked to consent after the co-ordinating doctor has decided what will happen.
Rebecca Paul
I would like to think that that would naturally happen, and we have had lots of conversations where we have said, “In reality, of course this conversation would happen.” But I always like to be belt and braces, and I would like to have these things covered in the Bill. If Committee members are confident that these things would happen anyway, I am not sure there would be any detriment to accepting this amendment.
I want to finish with a question for the Ministers. I have been worried—perhaps unnecessarily—about the lack of photographic identification in this process, and I can see a situation where allowing another doctor to provide assistance could create a risk. Although it might be less of a risk in someone’s home, because it would probably be clear who the person is, I am worried about a doctor in a hospital or clinic being substituted in at the final hour with no photographic verification of the person. At the point where they assist the patient to take the approved substance, how can the doctor be sure that it is the appropriate person if they have not had any involvement with the patient before? I accept, given some of the deep sighs I can hear, that that may be a rare occurrence, but it is worth thinking about. The simple inclusion of a photographic ID check would address some of that risk. I will not go over old ground, but I have been worrying about that.
Naz Shah
I rise to support amendment 22, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. Before I carry on, I am happy to give my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley the opportunity to say whether she will accept the amendment, because my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft has had a hat-trick of amendments being accepted around training on coercion.
Kim Leadbeater
I am very happy to accept amendment 22 from my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, as it follows the theme of the previous amendments.
Naz Shah
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, which will make my speech much shorter—I have repeated it at least three times on all the other amendments. While I welcome the amendment, I hope we can work towards something that strengthens the Bill even further.
Under the amendment, regulations would be made governing the doctors who could fill the role in the clause. Those doctors would have to undergo mandatory training in respect of domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse. Giving doctors that training would not remove the danger that they will overlook evidence of abuse and coercion, but it should decrease it. The doctors we are talking about will spend less time talking to the person seeking assisted death than either the co-ordinating or the independent doctors. None the less, they will spend some time with that person, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen—sorry, Spen Valley; I keep going back to Batley and Spen, but we campaigned hard to get her elected there.
Stephen Kinnock
There are some amendments in this grouping—namely, amendments 210 and 49—that we worked on with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and I will come to them later in my remarks.
If amendment 408 is passed, the person to whom assistance is being provided would have to be consulted before they consent in writing to another medical practitioner being authorised to carry out the co-ordinating doctor’s functions. All registered medical practitioners must uphold the standards set out in the General Medical Council’s “Good medical practice”, which requires registered medical practitioners to support patients to make informed decisions prior to consenting. Therefore, the proposed amendment may have relatively minimal impact.
Turning to amendment 210, clause 19(2)(b) sets out that a registered medical practitioner may be authorised to carry out the co-ordinating doctor’s functions only where they have
“completed such training, and gained such qualifications and experience, as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations.”
The purpose of the amendment is to provide that the required training, qualifications or experience are to be determined by a person or organisation specified in the regulations. An example of such a specified organisation might be the General Medical Council. Allowing for that to be specified in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill ensures flexibility.
Amendment 499 provides that where a registered medical practitioner who is authorised to carry out the functions of the co-ordinating doctor is not satisfied that all matters have been met, they must notify the co-ordinating doctor immediately.
If amendment 22 is made, regulations made by the Secretary of State on the necessary training, qualifications and experience of the named registered medical practitioner who is authorised by the co-ordinating doctor to carry out the co-ordinating doctor’s functions under clause 18 would need to include mandatory training relating to domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse. The Committee has already made equivalent changes to requirements on training for the co-ordinating and independent doctors, so this amendment would bring the clause into line, should the co-ordinating doctor change, for the purposes of clause 18. Should this amendment be accepted, it would require setting up training mechanisms to equip registered medical practitioners with the knowledge and skills needed to identify domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse.
On clause 19—sorry, I was going to refer to clause 19 stand part. That is the end of my observations.
Rebecca Paul
My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire eloquently covered most of the things I would have said.
We have probably not spoken enough to date about the impact on pharmacists, but we are getting to the point in the Bill where it is really important that we take on board the written evidence and feedback that we are hearing from them. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society said:
“In dispensing a prescription, a pharmacist assumes a proportion of the responsibility for that prescription and therefore must be assured that all legal requirements are in place and that it is entirely appropriate for the patient. The link to the clinical assessment of eligibility criteria is essential and therefore the prescriber should always be one of the assessors. In addition to the usual practice of checking that the prescription fulfils the necessary legal requirement, pharmacists must have full access to the patient’s diagnosis and assisted dying care plan.”
That raises a few valid and interesting points that we need to take on board to ensure that pharmacists can do their jobs in line with the regulations and laws they are subject to, which are ultimately there to maintain patient safety.
I support amendment 466, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, which would ensure that the Secretary of State must be of the opinion that there is scientific consensus that the drug is effective without causing pain. I am of the view that the Secretary of State is probably the right place for that responsibility to sit. One reason for that, which my hon. Friend spoke about, is that I am not sure that the MHRA is the right regulating body for that. I am no expert on this, and I am open to hearing the debate, but the MHRA’s remit covers medicines and healthcare products, so there is a question about whether legally the responsibility falls to it. If it does not, do we set up another body, or do we adjust its remit so that it is covered? I have reservations about doing anything that would merge assisted dying into normal healthcare, but I have laid that out many times over the weeks, so I will not go over that.
My understanding is that, on top of all the things my hon. Friend set out, the MHRA’s role is to give marketing authorisation for the promotion and advertising of medicine. Once that has been given, reams of regulations and compliance must be done, including in respect of the labelling of medicine. I believe it would have to be put on packaging that a medicine could be used for assisted dying. We need to get clarity on that from experts in the field, so that we fully understand it. If that is the case, how do we feel about making it clear that said medicines, potentially out in the market, could be used for assisted dying? I suggest there could be some significant downsides to such clear labelling. That is something for us all to think about. I wanted to raise those important points.
Naz Shah
I rise to speak in support of amendment 465, tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reigate, who has made some powerful contributions. As we have heard, the amendment states that a drug may be approved under the Bill only if it has been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for that purpose.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady puts her finger on the tension—my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate and I expressed it as well—about whether it is appropriate to give the health regulator responsibility for regulating a product that is about not health, but death. Does the hon. Lady agree that no other agency would be appropriate, given the skills she has set out? The purpose of these lethal drugs is to kill the patient; nevertheless, it is appropriate that we consider them in terms of not only that objective but their potential side effects. The purpose is not one of healthcare, but the product is very close to a healthcare intervention. Therefore, despite all our anxieties, it feels appropriate for the healthcare regulator to oversee this.
Naz Shah
I absolutely agree and share those concerns. This is important. I appreciate that we have had this debate for many days now. Is this a healthcare intervention? Is it a treatment? What words should we apply? In this instance, when it comes to drugs, there are potential side effects. We have seen that they do not work everywhere and that they create complications. We have just debated whether a doctor should be in the room, outside the room or round the corner, as well as whether they should be visible or able to see what is going on. Ultimately, this is about the drugs. Having looked at the issue, I genuinely cannot imagine anything but the MHRA in this role. Are we really going to set up something completely new, outside our health service, that regulates drugs, their side effects and the potential implications?
Dr Opher
The matter of unlicensed drugs sounds very alarming, but we cannot regulate a drug through the MHRA if it unlicensed, and we would be looking for therapeutic effect, which would not apply in this case. More importantly, many other regulatory bodies, like the pharmacy framework and the General Pharmaceutical Council—
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend clearly speaks with expertise. There are other regulators, but the reason why I support amendment 465 is that the MHRA is an institution that we trust and that has the expertise. My understanding—my hon. Friend might be able to tell me differently—is that, of the regulators, the MHRA is the body that does the ultimate rubber-stamping and gives our country confidence in the national health service.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady is right that there is no other agency that is appropriate. The difficulty is that the MHRA is itself highly conflicted—we will come in due course to discuss the role of the profit motive in this mooted procedure—and the big problem is that it is overwhelmingly funded by the pharmaceutical companies. We have to ensure that there is no hint of corruption in the system, but I agree with the hon. Lady that the only way to do this is through that agency, but perhaps after reform.
Stephen Kinnock
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.
The Government’s assessment of amendment 465 is that it would significantly impact the legal and operational delivery of the Bill. The Government anticipate that all substances used for assisted dying will have existing licences from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for other indications, but the amendment would require the approved substances to be licensed by the MHRA specifically for the purpose of assisted dying. That would require additional powers or provisions to ensure consistency with the current legal framework. The Bill does not currently provide for that, so the amendment would create significant issues for the Bill’s operability.
Amendment 466 would require there to be scientific consensus regarding the efficacy of the substances to be used in assisted dying under the Bill. The availability of scientific evidence related to the substances used for assisted dying is limited and varied across international jurisdictions. Although expert advice from clinicians and scientists will be fundamental to agreeing a list of approved substances for this purpose, in any area of medicine it would be challenging to achieve consensus on the medicines or substances to be used. The amendment may therefore open up the regulation-making process to legal challenge on the basis that there is not unanimity, and that might extend the implementation process. In addition, there may be variations in product availability and in clinical practice among countries, and that may require different substances or combinations of substances to be used.
Secondly, the amendment would narrow the scope of the duty, focusing on the drug’s efficacy in eliminating pain as a priority impact over other factors that may be considered. Our assessment is that the experience of pain is subjective. The amendment may limit the ability of a doctor to make an appropriate clinical decision on which approved substances to prescribe for their patient. The decision on an appropriate approved substance would be a clinical decision between the doctor and the person seeking assisted dying, having regard to the needs of the relevant person, including that person’s experience of pain.
Danny Kruger
I am sorry; I mis-spoke. I should have said that we have ruled out clarifying the expectations of what doctors should do in the event of an assisted death, and whether or not that is specified by the patient.
Earlier today, the Committee again ruled out specifying what the obligations on doctors are if complications arise, whatever the patient has discussed earlier. With this amendment, we now seem to be ruling out gathering any information about what happened, which is surely vital not just for safeguarding but to develop good practice in the operation of the Bill, a point that the hon. Member for Ashford made earlier. There is too much silence in the Bill, between the taking of the substance and death, on what happens if there are complications, what is permitted and, now, what is recorded. Amendment 439, in the name of the hon. Member for York Central, attempts to address that point. I hope that the Committee will accept it.
Naz Shah
I rise to speak to amendment 439, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, which would amend clause 21 such that the relevant body would provide the chief medical officer and the commissioner with the full set of documents relating to a person who had undergone assisted dying. The relevant body would be the co-ordinating doctor if that person were a practitioner with the person’s GP practice. If the co-ordinating doctor did not meet that condition, the person’s GP practice would have the responsibility of sending those documents.
Those documents would be the person’s full medical records, court records and all documentation relating to assessments and procedures relating to the person’s assisted death. I note that “court record” refers to the Bill before we agreed to the amendments and new clauses that replace the High Court procedure with a panel system. We should be able to slightly tweak the wording to reflect that when we tidy up the Bill. That is what the amendment does. Let me say a little about why it does so and how it would make the Bill stronger.
The key aim is to ensure proper public oversight of any assisted dying scheme. The Bill creates the role of the voluntary assisted dying commissioner, who will look at and report on the workings of the system, appoint panel members and be the final court of appeal, so to speak. Those are far too many powers to give to one person, but if we are giving the commissioner a duty to report on how the system works, they should have the best possible information. It is only right that the information also be sent to the chief medical officer for England or for Wales, as appropriate; they are both very senior public officials and experienced doctors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has tabled amendment 382, which, to quote the explanatory statement,
“provides for 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 for Wales).”
I will have more to say on that amendment when we come to it, but removing the chief medical officer from the monitoring, investigation and reporting functions is not a good idea.
What use could the commissioner and the chief medical officers make of the data provided under amendment 439? Let me give some practical examples. If there were reported instances of a person experiencing discomfort or pain as a result of taking the medication, that would be of interest to the CMO and the assisted dying commissioner. It could trigger a further exploration of the titration of medication used in the procedure. As another example, let us think about what could happen if a family raised concerns about a person receiving assisted dying despite lacking capacity or being coerced. The CMO and assisted dying commissioner could use the information provided to investigate those allegations.
The amendment will ensure that the assisted dying commissioner and the chief medical officer receive detailed qualitative as well as quantitative data on people who have received assisted deaths. It is an important step towards making sure that the assisted dying scheme receives proper, well-informed scrutiny. In turn, that scrutiny will make it less likely that the scheme will allow abuses or ignore serious problems. I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.
Rebecca Paul
I will be very brief. I rise to ask a few questions about clause 21 as a whole. Following our debates on various amendments, I am aware that family and those close to the patient could not be involved in the process, although potentially for understandable reasons. I appreciate that we are not here to deal with the whole operational piece, but we should think about it. For example, what happens with notifying next of kin after death, bearing in mind that “next of kin” has a different meaning after death? That is when we start to get into legal considerations, such as who the executor is—and this could be the first time that they are hearing about it. What would be the process for that, given that the person has potentially died on their own at home with the doctor?
What is the process for handling the next stage? Is there anything that we need to include in the Bill to make it a clearer, simpler and easier process? Who will the medical certificate of cause of death be given to for registration of the death? While all that is going on, what will happen to the body? At that point, we may not have family members to take care of that. Those are some questions arising from clause 21 that are worth reflecting on.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)
Naz Shah ExcerptsTuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 March 2025 - (11 Mar 2025)
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of amendment 362, tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, which requires the registered medical practitioner to explain and discuss the nature and the risk of the lethal drugs. There is a bit of a theme to the amendments I have tabled so far: they have almost all been about giving the patient more information. The promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, is quite right in focusing on the importance of the patient’s autonomy. I absolutely believe in and value that autonomy—I am sure everybody across the Committee does so too—but true autonomy is linked to having access to good quality and accurate information. It can severely impact someone’s autonomy if they do not. This Bill states that the person must have an informed wish to end their own life. I believe that this must explicitly include an understanding of the nature of, and the risks of, the lethal drugs involved in assisted dying.
This Bill’s passage through this place has led to lots of conversations and a greater awareness of the issue of death across the country. Morbid as that is, it is a really good, healthy thing that people are talking about end of life—something which we will all encounter—and that is welcome. The debate on assisted dying has made many people concerned about the nature of death and the choice that they might face at the end of their life. Inevitably, for some, the impression has been given that an assisted death uniformly provides a pain-free alternative. I accept that that is absolutely what the promoter of the Bill, and those in support of it, are aiming for—that is not in question—but we have heard from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire about issues with that, and that there have been exceptions in places where such laws have been put in place. I also point to the evidence of James Haslam, a consultant in anaesthesia and intensive care medicine, who put in his written evidence to the Committee that assisted dying
“does not guarantee a painless, peaceful and dignified death.”
The key word there is “guarantee” because, unfortunately, some people who ingest the prescribed lethal drugs do experience distress and complications. In the Netherlands, a high dose of barbiturates is used for all administrations of lethal drugs, and in two thirds of cases—the majority—the person dies within 90 minutes, but a third of cases do take longer and can take up to 30 hours. Complications include difficulty swallowing the whole prescribed dose, vomiting, and in some cases re-emergence from coma. I do not accept that this is an incidental concern. Vomiting affects up to 10% of assisted deaths by oral administration in the Netherlands. There is no easy way to research the efficacy of these drugs on humans given their lethal effects, and as a result there is no regulatory authority in the world that has approved these drugs to be used for this purpose. The data that we have shows that these complications take place in all jurisdictions that have assisted dying. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has already mentioned with respect to Oregon, between 2012 and 2022, 11% of the time there were complications.
These complications raise important ethical and medical questions for the doctor and for the terminally ill person. Of course, by the time complications occur, it is too late to discuss or reconsider the person’s options. That is why it is essential that the registered medical practitioner has already explained and discussed with the person the risk and nature of the lethal drugs. Choice is about not simply having options available, but understanding them. That goes to the point I made at the beginning: autonomy is absolutely linked to the quality of the information that someone has been given in order to make that autonomous choice. That requires the registered medical practitioner to explain the full risk and the nature of the possible complications from the lethal drugs.
The General Medical Council sets out five points of guidance for doctors on how they should hold a dialogue with their patients about reaching a decision. Three of the five GMC points are already covered by the Bill, but two are excluded: uncertainties about the diagnosis or prognosis, including options for further investigation; and the potential benefits, risks of harm, uncertainties about and likelihood of success of each option, including the option to take no action.
I can see no good reason why we would not want doctors to be entirely honest with patients who are considering assisted dying, even to the point of saying that the vast majority of people will not have any complications, but there is a chance. Personally, I see no issue with that, or why there should be. Doctors should give their patients that information; not only is that good practice—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley—but, as the GMC guidance makes it clear, they should do so because we should not give people with serious illnesses a false picture of what assisted death means. I link back to the emphasis on the word “guarantee”, as per the written evidence I quoted.
Amendment 362 would affirm the commitment of the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, to upholding medical standards. It would clarify the full responsibilities of the registered medical practitioner under the General Medical Council guidelines. Perhaps more importantly, it would put the terminally ill person in a better position to understand fully the options available and the associated risks.
In Committee, we have heard frequently that the Bill is about expanding choice and autonomy at the end of life. To act autonomously, terminally ill people need— I emphasise this again—to understand what they are facing as best they can, with the best and most accurate information available to them as early as possible. That is why I support amendment 362, and I urge the Committee to do so, too.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of amendments 305 and 306, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central.
Under amendment 305, a doctor would have to explain what effects the medicines would have as well as death. I appreciate the points made by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, and what other Members have said about effects and side effects. I would first say: we do not know the side effects. There is no research into any of the drugs being used for the purpose that we are looking at—for assisted suicide, euthanasia or whatever whichever jurisdiction calls it. We therefore cannot give a clear view of what the side effects are; they are largely unknown, as I understand it.
In addition, there are different drugs. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned one drug, pentobarbital, which has caused huge concern. I did not know about the issue in Australia, but I know the evidence from death row in America, after Texas started using pento-barbital; there have been huge concerns and lawsuits there. I am happy to be referred to other evidence. In some cases, the effect of the drug has been described as akin to suffocating or even as being waterboarded or drowning.
Concerns have been expressed about the use of such drugs in other jurisdictions. I agree with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that we should be looking at all such jurisdictions, because this is something new for us. If we are to learn from other jurisdictions where assisted dying has happened and it has been okay for people, whether that is Australia or others, it is equally right that we hear from those jurisdictions where things have not gone right or to plan. That is important.
Clause 9(2)(b) states:
“The assessing doctor must…explain to and discuss with the person being assessed”,
among other things,
“the nature of the substance that might be provided to assist the person to end their own life (including how it will bring about death)”.
Amendment 305 would instead require that the assessing doctor explain to and discuss with the person being assessed the nature of the substance that might be provided to assist the person to end their life, including how it will bring about death and any other effects it would have in addition to death. That is really important.
There are several relevant things that patients should know if they are to be able to make an informed choice. First, they should have as clear an idea as possible what the experience of taking the lethal drug is like. In some countries where people undergo assisted dying, they swallow a cocktail of drugs. Patients whose assisted dying process did not succeed have said that the drugs are bitter tasting. If this is to be the method used in assisted death in this country, applicants should be aware of that, because some people do not take tablets—they just will not do it. If other methods are to be used, doctors should inform patients of what the experience will be like to the best of their knowledge.
The second thing assisted death applicants should know is that they may suffer complications. We know from countries and states that have assisted dying that some patients undergo complications during the process. It has been said before, but I will repeat the point, because it is really important: there can be complications. People may vomit or undergo seizures. One assisted dying recipient took 137 hours to die. That is five days and 17 hours.
We do not know the full number of patients who have died very lengthy deaths in Oregon, because the lethal drugs are self-administered, usually with no doctor present, but just because there is no report saying that things have gone wrong, it does not mean that everything has gone right. Oregon also found that at least nine patients failed to die from lethal drugs. We do not know whether that is the total number—again, because the assisted dying applicants in Oregon self-administer drugs. We can say with certainty that complications exist, although, unfortunately, gaps in the data mean that we do not know how common they are.
Amendment 306 would change the duties of a doctor present during the assisted dying process. Currently, clause 9(2)(c) states that the co-ordinating doctor must discuss with the person
“their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance”.
If the amendment were accepted, the clause would state that the co-ordinating doctor must discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance
“including the escalation of medication intervention”.
This is a point of great importance, both for the person seeking assisted dying and the doctor, who would have to be present for the process. It would mean that the applicant and the doctor would have to think through what they wanted to happen if the applicant did develop complications. Should the doctor at a certain point act to revive an applicant—for example, if the person seemed to be suffering extreme pain as a result of a lethal drug? Alternatively, should the doctor remain as an observer and, if it were clinically possible, someone to administer further pain-relieving drugs? Not doing anything is clearly not an option. Both courses of action might seem harrowing to the person seeking assisted dying, but it is something that they should clearly discuss with the doctor, because these situations could really happen.
There are clearly no easy answers to these questions, but if applicants are to take an informed choice over assisted dying and if we want to provide autonomy, they must know that these questions exist and they must discuss them with their doctors. We have talked a lot about autonomy for people with serious illness. Those people will not have autonomy unless they are informed in accurate detail about the possible outcomes of assisted dying, and these amendments would ensure that.
Ultimately, if someone takes a drug to end their life, they will either die or not die and be left in a compromised state. Are they then escalated to A&E, because leaving them in that state is not an option for any doctor—or does the doctor proceed to administer more drugs? What does the doctor do?
Kim Leadbeater
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. As clause 9 says, the doctor has an obligation to discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications, so that conversation would have happened with the patient. To be clear, the doctor cannot intervene to expediate the patient’s death. That is very clear in the Bill.
Kim Leadbeater
To be clear, it does say
“discuss with the person their wishes”.
That includes whether they would want the doctor to call an ambulance if things got complicated, or whether they would want to be left—so the doctor would discuss with the patient their wishes in that situation. Fortunately, it does not happen very often.
Naz Shah
Yes, fortunately not. I am not convinced that the clause covers it. I will go back to that, but I have just read it because the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley raised it and I support his amendment, and somebody else raised it earlier.
I am not convinced that the complications are covered, because the clause does not set it out. In the usual sense, complications are side effects from medications. We have research and literature given to us and we understand the potential side effects. In this instance, we do not have a yardstick. I do not know whether the Minister can speak about the Government’s intentions—it would be helpful to have an impact assessment—and whether any research has been done in this area.
I am not convinced that clause 9(2)(c) actually covers this point, and I think the amendment would make the Bill much stronger. Ultimately, these drugs have not been tested—and for a very good reason, because they lead to death. We are in unchartered territory. When we are doing things that we have not done before, we cannot just pick and choose what we apply an analogy to. We need to be careful. We really need to consider the options to make this clause in particular much stronger.
Jack Abbott
I completely understand what my hon. Friend is saying about what may need to happen in respect of medical intervention, but I gently point out that the amendment would not cover that. It does not spell out in any way, shape or form what a medical intervention would look like. It says that there needs to be a random discussion, but it does not lay out any sense of the medical intervention. I do not see how the amendment will do what my hon. Friend is looking for.
Danny Kruger
We might appear to be dancing on a pinhead, but this goes to the heart of the question about what on earth we do in the event of complications. As the hon. Member for Spen Valley says, the Bill as drafted says that discussions should be had about wishes in the event of complications. That might simply be, “Do you want us to call somebody? Do you want us to try to make you more comfortable?” The amendment would require a discussion of escalation—what further medical interventions might be appropriate in the event of complications arising. There is a huge question for us, which we have not yet had answered, about what on earth should be the range of options for a doctor. The importance of the amendment is to specify that there may be further medical interventions in the event of complications. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is the value of it?
Dr Opher
I will be brief, because I think we have discussed this enough. I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. Patients need to be informed about the procedure—there is no argument about that—and I approve of the first three amendments in this group.
Let me say a bit about data. I met the pharmacist from Australia who is in charge of assisted dying and he had data on 2,500 assisted dying patients. The data is clear: all the patients died—no one survived. Almost everyone immediately goes to sleep, which can be a problem, because if they do not take all the medicine, it causes a slight difficulty that I will explain in a minute. Fifty per cent died within 30 minutes, 70% within an hour and 95% within two hours. One patient survived for 21 hours because she had not taken the full dose because she fell asleep; that is a potential problem. All these things should be described, and are routinely described to patients in Australia.
The first thing, then, is that we have plenty of data. The second thing I want to say is that we are dealing with the end of life. I have sat with patients as they have died; I have sometimes seen people being a little bit sick. We know how to cope with that. We do not need to specify how we cope with someone who is dying, because we have done it many, many times. I do not think amendment 306 will add anything to the Bill because it is part of what doctors do normally.
Naz Shah
I am genuinely trying to understand and would like my hon. Friend to clarify. He says that doctors generally do this anyway, but the difference is that, in this instance, somebody has chosen to die. Generally, when doctors do anything they are trying to save patients, are they not? The general rule of thumb is that a doctor saves lives. In this instance, they are not doing that because the patient wants death.
Dr Opher
We are not doing that in situations of terminal care—we are allowing someone to die. We are very experienced in allowing people to die. I have done it for 25 years. It is not a new skill just because we have the assisted dying element. We deal with the situation as it arises.
Stephen Kinnock
Amendment 93 relates to the discussion during the assessment that the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor are required to have with the person. The amendment would require that each of those doctors, during their assessment, must discuss the nature of the substance that “is to be provided” to the patient to end their life, rather than the substance that “might be provided”.
On amendment 305, clinicians in all areas are expected to work with patients to make decisions about their care and treatment as part of a shared decision-making process, including by discussing the risks, benefits and possible consequences of different options. The Committee may wish to note that the GMC’s “Good medical practice” states that when discussing a patient’s condition doctors must discuss with patients
“the potential benefits, risks of harm, uncertainties about, and likelihood of success for each option.”
Naz Shah
That is the very point I am struggling with. Generally speaking, the GMC guidelines are absolutely right, and doctors are saving lives and making the person better. In this instance, somebody might have complications and they might vomit, for example—that happens a lot because people are unconscious. What does the clinician then do? Do they proceed with an assisted death, or do they get the person into A&E? I am trying to understand the answer to that question, and I hope the Minister can respond.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend will know that the Bill states that the assessing doctor must discuss with the individual
“their wishes in the event of complications”,
which could include medical interventions. What is also absolutely clear is that the Bill precludes the doctor from making any intervention, vis-à-vis the patient, that may lead to the patient’s death. The Bill is based on self-administration, not on administration by the doctor. By definition, the actions that can be taken by the doctor are things like calling an ambulance; they would not be things like escalating the substance that has been used in order to bring about the death of the patient. I hope that is clear to my hon. Friend.
Danny Kruger
Those might be appropriate reasons; I hope that can be specified. The crucial thing is that if there is an unwillingness—not an incapacity but an unwillingness—to proceed, that is of some concern. It is not that they are no longer able to do it—possibly for the reasons that the hon. Lady suggested—but if there is an actual unwillingness to proceed, what is the reason?
On amendment 309, if the first doctor is replaced for whatever reason, surely it is imperative that the new doctor conduct their own assessment, rather than taking the previous doctor’s word for it. A doctor is legally responsible, obliged under all medical regulation and law for their actions, and they cannot rely on a previous assessment. If the first doctor gave up the case because of some kind of incapacity—an illness, or, indeed, their demise—it might be that their own judgment was impaired at the time. I would have thought it was obvious that the new doctor should take responsibility for conducting an assessment and proceeding with full responsibility for the case.
Naz Shah
I rise to speak to amendment 309 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. The amendment proposes that if a doctor changes, there should be a reassessment of the patient. My understanding is that that is in line with current practice: if a doctor is changed, the new doctor has to assess a patient to their own satisfaction because they cannot rely on just looking at notes. It is a sensitive issue where a doctor is required to make objective and subjective assessments, as has been agreed by the Committee to date, in clinical decision making. A clinician does not inherit the risk of another clinician without being satisfied themselves that the conclusion of another clinician aligns with their own.
For instance, the clinician has a responsibility to fulfil their own professional standards and their own duty of care. In the light of the significant impact of the decision, it is important that the doctor can be satisfied as they will need to consent to a patient having capacity and not being coerced. They cannot just take the word of another clinician who has managed the case before them. They themselves need to be satisfied. If a doctor does not do that and something goes wrong, and it comes to light that the patient did not have capacity, the clinician who is the new co-ordinating doctor would carry liability. It does not stand up if they say, “But someone else assessed that the patient had capacity” or, “Someone else said that the patient had not been coerced” if it comes to light later that they have.
This measure would therefore protect the clinician and ensure that the patient understood that a further assessment would need to take place. Having this measure in law would hopefully dissuade doctors from transferring their patients unless absolutely necessary for the continuity of care. It would also dissuade the clinician from taking on a new case if they were aware that continuity of care would be disrupted, due to, for example, a move.
Stephen Kinnock
This set of amendments relates to the Secretary of State’s ability to make provision, by regulations, for the replacement of the co-ordinating doctor if they are unable to continue to carry out the functions of the co-ordinating doctor.
I will turn first to amendment 461. Clause 11, as currently drafted, provides the Secretary of State with a discretionary power to make regulations that provide for cases
“where, after a first declaration has been witnessed by the coordinating doctor, that doctor dies or through illness or otherwise is unable or unwilling to continue”.
Amendment 461 removes the “or otherwise”. The effect could be to limit scenarios in which the Secretary of State could make provision via regulations for the replacement of the co-ordinating doctor. The Secretary of State could not provide for replacing the co-ordinating doctor in circumstances other than a doctor’s death or illness, which could include family issues or retirement. That would mean that the person seeking an assisted death may need to begin the process again.
Amendment 310 expands the list of matters that regulations made under subsection (1) may cover. That includes notifying the High Court of substitutions of the co-ordinating doctor, where the co-ordinating doctor is unable to continue to carry out their functions. It should be noted that clause 11 confers only a power, not a duty, on the Secretary of State to make regulations about replacing the co-ordinating doctor. It is not certain that the matter of a substitution of the doctor would be covered in those regulations.
The explanatory statement for amendment 309 suggests that the amendment aims to ensure that a replacement co-ordinating doctor is required to carry out a new assessment of the patient—in other words, to repeat the first assessment made under clause 7. The amendment requires that the regulations that may be made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) make provision for such cases. Although the Secretary of State has a power to make regulations to provide that the co-ordinating doctor be replaced by another doctor, that is not a requirement. The amendment assumes that there will be a replacement co-ordinating doctor, which is not a specific requirement of the legislation.
Naz Shah
I rise to speak to new clause 21, new clause 14, new clause 16, new schedule 2 and amendment (b) to new schedule 2. I will start with new clause 21—and have a break in between.
I oppose new clause 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. I also wish to oppose new clauses 14, 15, 16 and 17, which between them set out the panel procedure to replace the use of a High Court judge, but I will focus my remarks on new clause 21. That is because, first, it is the most recently tabled of my hon. Friend’s new clauses on the panel. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it seems to be an attempt to solve some of the problems of the earlier new clauses.
I welcome what I think my hon. Friend’s intentions are with the new clauses. The Bill as drafted did not provide anything like adequate safeguards. The new clause states that the panel must hear from, and may then question, the doctors who made the certification, the applicant for assisted death, and any other person who may have relevant information. These moves are very welcome steps towards a tighter set of safeguards, but they are inadequate because of what they leave out.
Sir James Munby, the former president of the family division of the High Court of England and Wales, has written several times about the problems with the Bill. It is a matter of great regret to me that we did not hear from Sir James; I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley set out that he was invited to give evidence to the Committee. Sir James has expressed profound concern about the series of new clauses— new clauses 14, 15, 16 and 17—that my hon. Friend has tabled. He wrote that the new clauses did address some of the problems of the original Bill, but he went on:
“These changes are to be welcomed, so far as they go. It is important to recognise, however, that they do not, in my opinion, go anything like far enough.”
As I have said, some elements of new clause 21 do indeed address some of the problems that Sir James identified but, again, the new clause unfortunately still leaves many of the biggest problems untouched.
The Bill does not set out that evidence must be heard under oath. That is an extraordinary omission. Sir James Munby asks, in his most recent essay:
“is the panel to hear evidence on oath? Indeed, will the panel have power to administer an oath?”
We rightly expect our courts to hear evidence under oath if they deal with cases concerning property or contract. The matters the panels will be dealing with are far more important than that. It is baffling to me why we should hear evidence on these matters without making witnesses swear oaths to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Anyone speaking to one of these panels should do so with the same commitment to telling the truth as they would in a court of law.
Danny Kruger
Danny Kruger; we are easily confused. [Laughter.]
The hon. Lady talks about the question of oaths, and it is extraordinary. Does she agree that it speaks to the confusion about whether the panels are a judicial construct at all? They have a judicial function—they exercise a judicial responsibility—but they are composed of non-lawyers. Maybe that explains why there is no oath, but I agree with the hon. Lady that there should be one. Does it not speak to the confusion in the new clause?
Naz Shah
As I make progress, I will speak to that point, but I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I will return to my speech and expand on the point when I arrive at that juncture.
Sir James goes on to say that there are even graver problems with the panel procedure. I appreciate that his paper was published before new clause 21 was tabled, but it does not address all the concerns he raised. He referred particularly to new clause 16, but it is relevant to note that the problem he identified is left untouched by new clause 21. Sir James says of new clause 16:
“It says very little about the procedures to be adopted for testing and, if need be, challenging the evidence”.
He goes on to say that
“it says nothing about who should exercise that function; nor about the nature of any independent evidential investigation and nothing about who is to undertake this and who is to pay for it.”
Finally on this point, he says that new clause 16
“says nothing about what, if any, public funding arrangements there will be for the applicant, the two doctors, and any other parties or expert or lay witnesses.”
The first point raised by Sir James is an extraordinary one. The panels will bring together three people: a lawyer, a consultant psychiatrist and a social worker. They will sit on what is a quasi-judicial body. The latter two will not necessarily have any experience of questioning witnesses and assessing evidence as part of a quasi-judicial process. The first person—the lawyer—will have such experience. What is going to happen? Are we just hoping that they will successfully make it up as they go along? Is there not a danger that in some cases the non-legal members of the panel end up deferring to the wishes of the lawyer, who has more experience in these matters?
Kim Leadbeater
I appreciate the point my hon. Friend is making, and it is a shame that we did not hear from James Munby in evidence. I understand why he says that: he is looking at it through a judicial lens, because he is a judge. But this is not a judicial entity. It is a panel—it is not a court—and the range of expertise on it is actually a strength, not a weakness.
Danny Kruger
This is a very important point, and I am grateful for the hon. Member for Spen Valley’s admission that this is not a judicial process. We have constantly been told that the Bill has been gold-plated with the judicial stage of the application process, but we have now heard that there is not a judicial stage. We have also heard that this is “judge-plus” and somehow an improvement—it is a judge and others—but we should be clear that there is not necessarily a judge in the process, and it is very unlikely that there would be. We have just heard conclusively that the judicial stage of the process in the Bill has been dropped.
Naz Shah
I agree: there is not a judicial process, so to speak. There most definitely is not. As I make progress, I will outline my concerns about that very clearly.
Let us take the second point raised by Sir James. He asked who will go about
“testing and, if need be, challenging the evidence”?
New clause 21 finally gives the panel the power to call people to give evidence who are neither the applicant nor the doctor. New clause 21(4) says that the panel
“may hear from and may question any other person”
and
“may ask any person appearing to it to have relevant knowledge or experience to report to it on such matters relating to the person to whom the referral relates as it considers appropriate.”
I welcome that as a start, because it acknowledges that there will be cases in which people other than the applicant and the doctors have vital information. But that really should not be where we finish—not if we want a genuinely robust assisted dying Bill with strong safeguards for vulnerable people.
The ability of the panel to hear evidence from other parties would indeed be one step towards detecting whether people are, for example, being coerced towards an assisted death. That would be one step towards being able to detect whether people were choosing assisted death because of a lack of palliative care or social care. But how will the panels know which witnesses are most likely to have or be aware of the significant evidence they seek?
The panel members will have the statements by the applicant and the doctors, and they will have the answers to any questions they have of the applicant and the doctors. I ask Members to think through how certain it is that those sources alone will be enough to find all the people who might have significant knowledge of a person’s circumstances. I would argue that it will not be certain. Yes, in some cases there will be no hidden circumstances that a panel would hear of from a witness only if they were called, but in other cases there will be, and those circumstances are much more likely to occur in the cases of people who are coerced or who feel like a burden to their families. They will be more likely to occur for those who have poor mental health, who are isolated, or who lack the social care they need. The panels are not likely to find witnesses with relevant information if what they have to go on is the statement of witness evidence of a person who has, for example, been successfully and skilfully coerced.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
New clause 21(4)(e) says that the panel
“may ask any person appearing to it to have relevant knowledge or experience to report to it on such matters relating to the person to whom the referral relates as it considers appropriate.”
Does my hon. Friend not agree that the expertise of the three panel members, as set out in the new clause, will mean they will very much have the ability to identify, on the basis of that subsection, the kind of individuals and the knowledge required?
Naz Shah
As I have stated before—I will make reference to that very point later—I would argue the safeguards are just not robust enough.
There should be a mechanism for trained and experienced people to find witnesses who might have relevant information. This could relate to another criticism that Members have made of the panel system: there is no provision for the Official Solicitor to act on behalf of the applicant. Sir James Munby argues that we should strongly consider this, saying that
“there must be a rigorous procedure in every case for testing and if need be challenging the evidence, including an independent evidential investigation, perhaps by the Official Solicitor, of the kind discussed in Conway. There are two reasons why this is essential in every case…Without this, it will not be proper for a judge to be involved in the process as a member of the panel.”
He goes on to make it plain that by “judge” he means the legal member of the panel.
Kim Leadbeater
I appreciate that this is slightly difficult to get our heads around, but we have legal expertise—we potentially have a judge, a sitting judge, a retired judge or an eminent KC—but they are not there in their capacity as a judge. I understand that that is tricky for people to understand, but they are there because of their skillset. That is the important distinction.
Naz Shah
That is the very distinction I am trying to highlight further, because the panel takes away the judicial oversight. Yes, they have expertise—there is no question about people’s expertise—but Sir James Munby says clearly that these people will not be sitting in their capacity as judges, as my hon. Friend just outlined, but just as experts. That does not provide judicial oversight. That is not what the panel does.
Kim Leadbeater
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is the whole point: Sir James Munby said he did not think that was the job for the judge.
Naz Shah
I will go into this in even greater detail in later speeches, but I will say now that although the process was not fit for purpose, Sir James Munby also says that this one is not fit for purpose. Neither process gives us the legal aspect—if anything, the Bill has been watered down. As I make progress, I will outline how I think Sir James Munby’s evidence is clear that the safeguard has been watered down. I appreciate the mood in the room while I insist on talking about this, but it is very, very important, because when we voted in the House to send the Bill to Committee, one of the biggest reasons why we did so was judicial oversight. Many Members have said that they let the Bill get to this stage because of that.
Lewis Atkinson
I think my hon. Friend just said that the amendments would allow the Official Solicitor to act on behalf of the applicant. Why would that strengthen the process?
Naz Shah
I think that by making some progress I will answer that question.
Turning to Sir James Munby’s question about what, if any, public funding arrangements there will be for the applicant, the two doctors and any other parties, experts or lay witnesses, each time a panel meets we will be asking three senior professionals to give up many hours of their time to scrutinise applications, listen to and perhaps question witnesses, and then decide whether to call further witnesses. I could ask many questions about funding, but I will ask just one at the moment. Both Ministers will be well aware that courts and tribunals in England and Wales face lengthy delays—in some cases, delays of years. Will the Government commit to adequately funding the panel so that applicants do not face lengthy delays?
Another question about the resourcing of the panels is just as important: can we make good on the commitment in the Bill to provide a consultant psychiatrist for every panel? I think the answer may well be no. We spoke to the Royal College of Psychiatrists during our evidence sessions, but at that stage my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley had not tabled the amendments that would create a panel including a consultant psychiatrist, so we did not ask the professional body whether it would be able to do so.
I have had private conversations with my team of senior psychiatrists. We asked whether England and Wales had enough consultant psychiatrists to serve on each panel. They said it was extremely unlikely. I would like to understand whether my hon. Friend consulted the Royal College of Psychiatrists before she tabled those amendments. If she did not, that seems an extraordinary omission.
Ministers keep saying that the Government will release an impact assessment only when the Committee has finished amending the Bill. I say again: that seems to me a most unsatisfactory approach to a Bill that would lead to such a huge change. Surely the Minister could ask civil servants to prepare a preliminary estimate of how many applicants there might be in England and Wales. It should probably be phrased as a likely minimum and likely maximum number. That would be extremely helpful. Surely the Government could do the preliminary work on whether the psychiatric profession in England and Wales is capable of meeting that demand. I say this in the light of my understanding that the present state of the country’s judiciary contributed to the removal of the judge in the first instance.
Kim Leadbeater
Just to be clear, that was not the reason for the change. We need to be very clear about that. The reason for the change was that it strengthens the Bill.
Naz Shah
That was not my understanding; I will come back to that point, because I am sure I have references to where that has been talked about. There is also the question of whether panels should be heard in public. Under new clause 16, the legal member of a panel would decide whether it should sit in public.
Finally, I return to Sir James Munby’s paper on this question. As I have gone through in some detail, he raised significant concerns about panel procedures set out in new clauses 14 to 17. Unfortunately, it seems to me that most of those concerns have not been addressed by new clause 21. Sir James was a very senior judge, who headed the family division of the High Court, and is someone we should listen to with the utmost attention on these matters. He said:
“I appreciate that some may point to the multidisciplinary membership of the panel and to an assumption that the function and process of the panel may (it is said) be inquisitorial rather than adversarial. Plainly, it might be thought, it is an advantage that the panel has a multidisciplinary membership, and it is often said that three heads are better than one. Yet it would be a mistake to think that either of these features of what is now proposed are sufficient to overcome the very real problems I have identified. They are not. What remains crucial is the substance, not mere appearances. If the panel is to perform its function effectively and do more than just ‘check the paperwork’—if it is to be the real safeguard intended by its proponents—then its processes must be much more thorough than is currently proposed.”
Lewis Atkinson
Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to consider the functioning of mental health tribunals, which operate as panels in a very similar way to this proposal: chaired by a legal member with a specialist member and a medical member? They perform a similar quasi-judicial function, receive evidence and make important decisions on people’s healthcare choices. Does she not agree that that model provides a good example of how this system could work?
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend’s intervention takes us back to the concerns I already have. I understand that mental health tribunals relate to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which would inform people on that panel in making their judgments. I have spoken extensively against the use of the Mental Capacity Act in this particular field.
Lewis Atkinson
I thank my hon. Friend for engaging on this issue, but this is not about the Mental Capacity Act; it is about the Mental Health Act 1983 and whether someone would be sectioned and denied liberty—a significant decision against the person’s own wishes. That determination is made by mental health tribunals sitting in that judicial function, day in, day out, with exactly the sort of panel membership outlined here.
Naz Shah
I either misheard my hon. Friend or did not understand his earlier point, so let me speak to the point he makes now. My understanding is that sectioning someone under the Mental Health Act is a very extreme measure. Someone is sectioned in circumstances in which lots and lots of evidence has been taken from people who know the person, and there is a history. That was certainly the case when I chaired a mental health charity. Whether it is carers or other people who contribute to that, there is a long-standing relationship; from my understanding, it is very rare for something to happen otherwise. That is my understanding and experience of it, but I am happy to have a chat with my hon. Friend to talk more about it and understand it more.
Danny Kruger
Does the hon. Lady agree that the intervention of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central is very helpful because it highlights the difference between a genuine judicial tribunal, as he suggests, and what is being proposed here? This is not a tribunal. It would not sit in a judicial capacity. Its members would not take oaths in the way that members of a tribunal do. They are not appointed through the independent appointments process that tribunals have. This is a multidisciplinary team masquerading as some sort of final judicial stage, without the proper accountability of a judicial stage. On that basis, we cannot regard it as any sort of improvement to the Bill.
Naz Shah
I thank the hon. Member for reminding me of that; I talked about that earlier. I agree with him that this is about the legalities. Ultimately, it comes back to judicial oversight, which is what was promised originally. That is why judges were part of the original proposals for the Bill. The words we must listen to are Sir James Munby’s. If we want an assisted dying Bill with real safeguards for the vulnerable, then we should reject new clauses 14 to 17 and new clause 21. They are not thorough enough to do the job.
The Chair
I should let the hon. Member know that I am happy for her to make five speeches, as she has indicated, but each one needs to be specific to the clause and not replicating the previous speech.
Jake Richards
In my mind, any decision to give a certificate of eligibility could be subject to judicial review.
Third parties can put evidence before the panel to be considered, but it is not right that third parties might challenge the application. As I have set out before, this is not a dispute but a rigorous safeguarding process. If they have information about the person’s capacity, their diagnosis or any other relevant factors, they can and must ensure that the panel—if not the doctors or indeed the police—be seized of the information. Third parties can appeal the decision by way of judicial review. That would provide for a decision that was
“wrong, or…unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings”,
per amendment (a) to new clause 17. An injunction would be applied and the matter would have to be dealt with expeditiously. It is worth saying that all the evidence suggests that that would happen incredibly rarely. In Spain—
Naz Shah
Part 2 of five, I might add, Mrs Harris.
I rise to oppose new clause 14 from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. The clause would create the post of a voluntary assisted dying commissioner. It is quite an extraordinary clause, and I am not sure we have seen anything like it in recent legislation. What I am sure of is that we have not seen a law as far-reaching as this introduced without any of the detailed work that should have been done on it by the civil service.
The voluntary assisted dying commissioner—I will call them the VAD commissioner—created by the new clause would have unusual powers. The commissioner would select the members of the panel, who would in turn decide on people’s assisted dying applications. The commissioner would be the authority to whom people could appeal if their application was refused. The commissioner would also decide if particular panel members had made any mistakes or shown any misconduct in their work.
In this country, we do not give one person the job of selecting judges, overseeing their work and then functioning as a court of appeal, even if that one person is extremely well qualified. That is for good reason. But the new clause suggests giving all those powers to one person. Hon. Members might object and say that the comparison is not exact, and that there will be fewer assisted dying cases heard by the proposed new panels than there are cases heard before the courts, but that misses the point. We do not put all the powers over the judiciary into the hands of one man or woman because it would be a lot of work for them. No, we do not do that, because we do not wish to put too much power into the hands of any one person. However, under the new clause, we would do exactly that.
Danny Kruger
This conversation is very helpful, and the point the hon. Lady makes is absolutely right. If we are going to rely on JR as a sort of appeal process, we need to make it clear how that would work. Would there be legal aid? How quickly could these things be done? I think that that needs to be built in. Does she agree?
Naz Shah
I absolutely agree that we have not thought this through enough, because that process has not been laid out. We really need to think about these potential eventualities.
When such cases happen, the public, including family members of the person who has died, will rightly demand answers, and so will the media. They will want to know who the panel members were and why they made the judgment they did. In such cases, who would investigate whether panel members had got it wrong? The commissioner who had appointed them? The commissioner, or any person, no matter how honest and how learned, would come back to that question with a very strong bias. The commissioner will mark their own homework. That is not a system that anyone can argue will provide proper safeguards.
Hon. Members might object that the voluntary assisted dying commissioner will be a very senior judge. According to the new clause, the commissioner
“must hold or have held office as a judge of—
the Supreme Court
the Court of Appeal, or
the High Court.”
I agree that only people of high intelligence and good standing become judges in those courts, but that does not mean that the very highest judges in the land do not sometimes make mistakes—sometimes very bad ones.
Jack Abbott
If we follow that argument, does that mean that we would support the new clauses? If we are moving from that single point of reference—a High Court judge and judicial review—it is surely much safer to move to what is proposed.
Naz Shah
The truth is—I said this in my previous speech, which I will not repeat, as instructed by you, Mrs Harris—that neither of the safeguards is strong enough. As it was, the Bill was not strong enough—that has been recognised and changes have been proposed—but neither is the idea of a commissioner.
There is another great problem raised by this set of changes to the Bill: they seem likely to increase the prospect of group-think when it comes to members of the panel. I would argue that that danger has been greatly increased by the move away from the High Court judge model that was originally in the Bill.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley introduced the Bill on Second Reading, she reassured the House that all assisted dying applications would have to be examined by a High Court judge. There were problems with that proposal, which is why she abandoned it. But there was one strength in making a High Court judge the arbiter: the Crown does not appoint High Court judges on the basis of whether they agree with assisted dying. We could all reasonably expect High Court judges to have a range of views on assisted dying; there is no reason I can think of that would mean that High Court judges, as a body, were biased in favour of assisted dying.
Something different will happen if a commissioner selects people to serve on these panels. Anyone serving on a panel will know that they will have to approve some applications for assisted death. We do not know how many applications for assisted death the Government expect to have. We also do not know how many social workers, psychiatrists and lawyers would be unwilling to approve any assisted death applications at all—I do not want to repeat myself, but I will be referring back to psychiatrists in another amendment. However, the number of psychiatrists who are strongly opposed to assisted death is very high, according the Royal College of Psychiatrists. We have also heard strong reservations expressed by the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers. Therefore, many professionals will choose not to sit on these panels, because they will not want to approve any cases. That means that some panel members are likely to end up dealing with dozens of cases per year. That poses the danger that some of the people who sit most on these panels will be advocates of assisted dying and will approve applications that other members may not have.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for discussing her view of the approach of the proposed panel members. Does she recognise that all three of those professions have professional requirements to act with integrity and in accordance with the law? It is highly unlikely that they will push forward, as she seems to suggest, and risk their professional accreditation.
Naz Shah
I am not questioning people’s integrity; I am putting it to the Committee that people have biases. We all have subconscious biases. We have things that we like; we know that that exists, whether it is a subconscious bias or a conscious bias. As human beings, we all have that. In this instance, I am suggesting that if we have members of a panel who choose to be there because they have a fundamental belief, which is different from that of those who oppose assisted dying, there is a risk of subconscious bias and group-think.
The Chair
Order. I call Rachel Hopkins for an intervention, but we need to keep to the point and not labour one particular thing.
Rachel Hopkins
The point I was making was that no professional would want to risk their professional accreditation and career by allowing a complete bias to take over any decision making. In fact, I would suggest that some may want to prove their integrity by being involved in these decisions and making them in line with their professional practice.
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is making a fine speech. She said that High Court judges make mistakes, which is undoubtedly true. She also said that the panel may be guilty of unconscious bias. Is there any layer of scrutiny that would satisfy her? What does she think about jury trials?
Naz Shah
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I reject the facetiousness of his point.
Let me speak to the issue of unconscious bias in relation to the proposal before us. In 1992, there was a jury trial, which found my mother guilty of murdering an abusive partner. In 1998, I went to the High Court and put it to three white middle-class judges that my mother could not tell the truth because of the abuse, the dishonour and the concept of izzat, which defined her existence as a woman. They were not capable of believing that, because they did not have that cultural understanding —so, yes, unconscious bias does exist, even in criminal cases in courts of law.
Returning to my argument, I remind hon. Members of the testimony of Dr Ryan Spielvogel from California, who said:
“when I am going through the options with patients who are newly diagnosed with a serious life-threatening illness, I say, ‘Okay, here’s what disease-directed treatment would look like. We can continue with your chemo. Here are some side effects and complications that you might have, and here are the benefits of that. Here’s what palliative care or hospice care would look like.’ Then I say, ‘I don’t know if you know this, but in our state we have this other option for people nearing the end of their lives when they have intolerable suffering. You can ask me to fill a lethal prescription for you to help end your suffering sooner.’…The number of times that people look at me and say, ‘You can do that? That’s an option here?’ is astounding. I would say that nine out of 10 of patients I have conversations with have no idea that that is even legal. If they do not know it is an option, they are never going to ask for it.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 105, Q143.]
I wonder whether I would be comfortable—this is just a personal thing, but I want to put it out there for people to think about—about a doctor such as that, who really supports assisted dying, being on the panel. I am not casting aspersions on him, but I genuinely am unsure.
Of course, the panel will be chaired by lawyers. I would like to remind hon. Members of the evidence of Professor Meredith Blake, who is a senior legal adviser to the Western Australian government on their assisted dying law. Professor Blake’s evidence was quite extraordinary. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury asked her:
“Does it concern you that a large proportion of people who opted for assisted dying cited being a burden as their reason?”
She replied:
“That is not the evidence that we have got.”
My hon. Friend responded:
“Let me just clarify. The state’s own report in 2023-24 had 35%.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 220, Q284.]
I do not recall having a satisfactory answer from Professor Blake to that question, but please feel free to check Hansard.
If we see a series of questionable decisions by one or more panel member, the only official scrutiny will come from the person who appointed them to do their jobs, and that is not a robust safeguard. Furthermore, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said earlier that decisions would be unanimous, but that is not entirely correct, and I am happy to point to the relevant bit in the Bill. If two people decide they agree, and the other decides to stay quiet, that would be seen as a unanimous decision, and the panel would proceed. I am happy to point that bit of the Bill out to my hon. Friend, as I would love to see an amendment if one were needed.
Danny Kruger
I think the point the hon. Lady is making is that each member of the panel has a veto over the decision so, in a sense, there has to be unanimity about the approval. However, she is absolutely right that if two members disagree with one another about any other aspect of their proceedings, including who to invite to give evidence, they could be overruled, so there is not unanimity there.
Naz Shah
I completely agree. That is the case in the Bill, which raises concerns.
Finally, Parliament needs to get back into the habit of holding powerful commissioners accountable. There is no mechanism in the Bill for removing a commissioner even if they somehow failed significantly in their duties. We might say to ourselves, “If that happened, they would do the right thing and resign,” or, “They would resign if the Prime Minister said something in public.” I am sorry, but we cannot leave that to chance.
There has been a very telling example recently of just how badly quasi-judicial institutions can fail, and just how hard it is to get their senior leadership to accept responsibility. The Criminal Cases Review Commission mishandled the Andrew Malkinson case. Mr Malkinson was falsely convicted of raping a woman in 2003. She had been raped by another man.
Naz Shah
This relates to my point, Mrs Harris, I promise you. DNA evidence subsequently proved that Andrew Malkinson was indeed innocent, yet he was allowed to remain in jail.
Members of this House expressed serious disquiet about the conduct of the chairwoman of the CCRC, Helen Pitcher, over the Malkinson case. In July last year, my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary called for Ms Pitcher to step down, but she refused to do so and remained in office until January. I note that Ms Pitcher remains chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission—and that is where the link is.
Jack Abbott
My hon. Friend is saying that there is no mechanism to remove the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. Actually, paragraph 4(5) of new schedule 1 says:
“The Secretary of State may by notice in writing remove a person from the office of Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner if satisfied that the person—
(a) has behaved in a way that is not compatible with their continuing in office”—
I think that addresses a lot of the concerns that she has been expressing—
“or
(b) is unfit, unable or unwilling to properly discharge their functions.”
There is a mechanism in the new schedule that would give the Secretary of State the power to remove the commissioner.
Naz Shah
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out, and I will look at it, but that was not my understanding.
There are multiple reasons to oppose new clause 21. With it, the Bill will reduce the impartiality that would have been provided by having a High Court judge rule on applications. It will increase the risk that a large number of decisions are taken by people who are enthusiastic proponents of assisted dying, which will reduce patient safety. It will also create a powerful new commissioner, who will appoint panel members and will then rule on whether they have made the right decision. That same commissioner will also be able to decide whether to overturn a panel’s decision to reject an assisted death application. That is a huge amount of power to put in one person’s hands and we should not do so. I urge hon. Members to reject the new clause.
Sean Woodcock
May I say what a privilege it is to have you in the Chair, Mrs Harris? [Laughter.] Clearly, I know how to win and lose an audience.
I rise to speak to amendment (d) to new clause 21, which has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North. I will start by saying how glad I am that the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, has recognised some of the concerns regarding the multidisciplinary panel, and I welcome the improvements that she has made in the new clause.
I am pleased that the panel “must” now hear from the person to whom the referral relates, whereas previously it was the case that the panel “may” hear from them. That is a partial concession, but an important one. It will allow the commissioner to have greater scrutiny over the application and better assess the person’s eligibility for assisted dying.
Amendment (d) is a technical amendment. We have discussed a number of such amendments before in this Committee, many of which have fallen for reasons that I understand, even if I do not agree with them, including on the basis that doctors are already having these conversations and we do not want to police them. The panel stage is brand new; given that and given the level of public scrutiny of the Bill, I make no apology for supporting putting something into primary legislation to say what is expected of this process. It is very important that we make sure from the off that we get things right.
I am deeply concerned about some of the potential oversights in the panel model. The purpose of the panel is to provide meaningful scrutiny of a person’s application. The panel draws on a wider range of experts to assess the complex aspects of the application, such as assessing for coercion and capacity. However, the panel’s ability to fulfil this scrutinising role is in many ways quite limited.
Amendment (d), which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, would address the significant oversights in new clause 21. It would introduce a far more comprehensive set of requirements for the panel in its review. Those changes are not barriers to access; rather, the amendment would ensure that the panel has a far wider range of information—a theme to which I referred earlier—on which to review the application for an assisted death. Fundamentally, the amendment would give the panel more tools to conduct meaningful scrutiny.
However, let me list what the panel is not required to do under new clause 21. It does not have to hear from one of the two registered medical practitioners. It will hear from the other registered medical practitioner, perhaps via audio link, but it does not have to question them. Likewise, it will hear from the person, perhaps via audio link, but it does not have to question them. The person may have a proxy to sign their declarations, but the panel does not have to hear from or question the proxy. The panel does not have to hear from or question any other person. Let us be clear who that includes: the panel could assess the person’s application without any information from the person’s relatives, family members, friends, social workers or care workers.
New clause 21 states only that the panel
“may ask any person appearing to it to have relevant knowledge or experience to report to it on such matters relating to the person to whom the referral relates as it considers appropriate.”
Subsection (4) makes it clear that, whereas paragraphs (a) to (c) require the panel to hear by live audio from the person seeking assisted dying, the evidence that the panel chooses to take from anybody else could be in written form.
Let me draw out with an example what that might mean in practice. A person is diagnosed with a terminal illness—in this case, heart failure arising from coronary heart disease. Both doctors approve the person’s application for assisted dying, on the balance of probability. The person has a physical disability and asks a proxy—a neighbour, say—to sign off the application. The first doctor speaks to the panel via video link restating the schedule forms and providing no new information. The panel then hears from the person, also via video link. It cannot see the person, but after hearing their statement it decides that it is satisfied that the conditions are met and approves the person’s assisted death.
The panel has not spoken to the second doctor and has not put any questions to the second doctor or to the person applying for an assisted death. Incredibly, the panel has not spoken to the proxy, who may just be someone of good standing in the community. Nor has it spoken to the person’s relatives, to anyone standing to benefit from the person’s death or to anyone in the person’s care. Any one of those people could have concerns that the person is being coerced into an assisted death. They may even have evidence of coercive behaviour. However, at no point is the panel required to consider speaking to any of those people.
Time and again, the Committee has heard from experts that coercion and controlling behaviour can be extremely difficult to detect. Often, the person will not reveal that they are suffering from that form of coercion, yet it is often those who are closest to the sufferer—a close relative, a member of the family or a social worker—who pick up the signals. Any of them could be looking out for the person’s welfare and noticing them becoming more isolated and emotionally manipulated by another. At no point, however, does the panel have to consider hearing from that person. If this Bill is going to do everything to safeguard against the risk of coercion, as everybody on this Committee believes it should, that should change.
The panel must consider listening to the people closest to the person. Amendment (d) to new clause 21, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, would address those flaws by giving the panel a higher standard of scrutiny. The panel would have to hear from and question both doctors. It would have to question the person, not simply hear from them. If the person has a proxy, as under clause 15, the panel would have to hear from and question that proxy. Crucially, the panel would have to consider hearing from and questioning persons properly interested, and any other person who has provided treatment or care for the person being assessed in relation to that person’s terminal illness. It would also be able to hear from and question any other person whom new clause 21 states can be asked to report to the panel.
The changes in the amendment would significantly improve the scrutiny provided by the multidisciplinary panel. It would provider a broader range and greater detail of evidence for the panel to base its review on. Ultimately, it would make the multidisciplinary review far more meaningful. Why is this greater scrutiny necessary? This is about protecting the vulnerable people who are easily forgotten. The amendment seeks to provide the strongest possible protection for them. This robust and comprehensive scrutiny is necessary to have a better chance of preventing the worst abuses.
I foresee one possible criticism from some hon. Members, which is that the amendment would slow down the decision-making process for people who are at no risk of coercion. That may well be true, but if the amendment is accepted, the panel would have to question both doctors, not just hear from one, and it would have to determine whether to hear from and question other people. In straightforward cases, in which the panel discovers no initial evidence that disquiets it, a small amount of time might be added to the hearing; in cases in which the panel finds evidence that means it may need to dig deeper, there could be a greater delay to the decision.
Personally, I do not see how we can avoid that. If we are serious about having safeguards to protect the most vulnerable, we should and must accept it. The process of vetting applications will take more time on average, and a lot more time in some cases, but the alternative is a simpler and faster system in which it will be much harder for the panel to detect coercion and other disqualifying factors. In that case, the chances will be higher that some coercive or abusive people will find it possible to push people towards an assisted death. Such a system is what we see in new clause 21, as drafted. We face an inescapable trade-off. We cannot lift protection for those who are most vulnerable to coercion because it would make the process easier for people who do not face that risk. I urge hon. Members seriously to consider supporting the amendment.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting)
Naz Shah ExcerptsTuesday 11th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 March 2025 - (11 Mar 2025)
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
I have nothing to add on this group of amendments. I am confident that the Bill as drafted already includes significant periods of reflection. Bearing in mind that we are putting dying people through a very lengthy process already, I remain confident that the periods of reflection are adequate as set out in the Bill.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I have a couple of additional comments. We talked last week about the reflection periods. I referred to the fact that when even someone buys something from a shop, they have 28 days to return it; when they are deciding on whether to have an assisted death, there is a great deal more at stake. During that debate, someone asked, “What if someone had a prognosis of just one month?”, but clause 13 has an option for a fast-track process in that situation—the person would be able to access the service in 48 hours.
I beg to differ with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, the Bill’s promoter, who said that we have enough reflection periods in the Bill. Yes, there are reflection periods, but they come after the panel’s decision. The reality is that the NHS is under so much duress, with patients waiting weeks to see their GP for anything other than urgent treatment, that getting an appointment with another GP in seven days is unlikely; it is unlikely to happen given how uncommon that is at the moment. It is right that doctors are able to triage their patients to prioritise those who require medical intervention to keep them well, to prevent hospital admission, or to stop them deteriorating or even dying.
The Government are trying to protect the NHS, and the best way of achieving that is to ensure that medical interventions are provided at the earliest opportunity before a patient deteriorates. In some cases, a medical appointment may need to take priority over an appointment for an assisted death. If someone who is dying has longer—even just a further week—in which to reflect, it removes the pressure from GPs and consultants, and enables them to prioritise properly their patients. It does not build up false expectation in patients that they have a right to a rapid consultation process. Likewise, we know that it can currently take a few weeks for patients to see another consultant, if not months or even over a year. It is therefore more helpful for the patient to have a more realistic period of reflection before moving to the next stage of their assessment.
Issues of such intensity as someone planning to take their own life should not be rushed. We know from all the work that has been undertaken on suicide that other interventions and conversations can help with reflection and reconsideration. It is important that people are given this opportunity. In their first raising the matter with a doctor, the doctor would have provided a lot of information about alternatives to the patient, such as what treatment options would be available. Perhaps they would have had a discussion with a palliative medicine consultant to review their options. There needs to be time for a patient to really reflect on all this new information. If the patient does want to explore assisted dying, there will also be all the conversations about drugs and their impact, which we will come to when we discuss later clauses.
Amendment 317 to clause 13 seeks to increase the reflection period from 14 days to 28 days. I gently suggest that we should have the reflection period before the decision, whether it be by the judge or a panel, to give people the right amount of time to consider; currently, the reflection period is afterwards. This is such a monumental decision that people should be able to contemplate all other options available. As it is, the process is rushed, and a patient could be caught up in the moment of concentrating on getting through the stages. I appreciate that others have suggested that once we have got past that stage, with the paperwork and all those things out of the way, then there is time to reflect. During the process, however, the patient has not had time to consider the options in making their decision. I am not convinced that there is enough reflection during, as opposed to after, the process.
Amendment 314 seeks to increase the reflection period from 48 hours to seven days for patients who have been given a month to live. In that case, seven days is quite adequate time to reflect on the information they have received to make informed choices. If this is about autonomy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has talked about many a time, it is important for people to have choices. To have that autonomy is surely to have the options in front of us and be able to consider them in detail.
In considering whether to sit on this Bill Committee, I slept on the decision. I can usually make instantaneous decisions, but knowing the amount of work, knowing that I was new to the subject, and knowing the things that I knew then—not the things that I know now—it was a big decision for me. I was even thinking about how I would manage the workload. We are talking about something that is not at all comparable. We are talking about somebody who will be taking a decision to potentially exercise the right—if the Bill becomes law—to an assisted death. That is really important for me.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 195, in clause 8, page 4, line 40, leave out “statement” and insert “report”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 420.
Amendment 421, in clause 8, page 5, line 4, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) After carrying out the second assessment, the independent doctor must—
(a) make a report about the assessment (which must meet the requirements of regulations under subsection (5A)), and
(b) give a copy of the report to—
(i) the person who was assessed,
(ii) the coordinating doctor,
(iii) if neither the independent doctor nor the coordinating doctor is a practitioner with the person’s GP practice, a registered medical practitioner with that practice, and
(iv) any other person specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(5A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the content and form of the report.
(5B) The regulations must provide that the report must—
(a) contain a statement indicating whether the independent doctor is satisfied as to all of the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (e);
subsection (2)(a)
(b) contain an explanation of why the independent doctor is, or (as the case may be) is not, so satisfied;
(c) contain a statement indicating whether the independent doctor is satisfied as to the following—
(i) that a record of the preliminary discussion has been included in the person’s medical records;
(ii) that the person signed the first declaration;
(iii) that the making of the first declaration has been recorded in the person’s medical records;
(iv) that the first declaration has not been cancelled;
(d) be signed and dated by the independent doctor.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)
This amendment provides that the independent doctor must make a report about the second assessment, and makes provision about the report.
Danny Kruger
I beg to move amendment 348, in clause 8, page 5, line 10, at end insert—
“(c) inform the person’s usual or treating doctor and, where relevant, the doctor who referred the person to the independent doctor, of the outcome of the assessment.”
This amendment would ensure that the independent doctor communicates the outcome of their assessment to the referring doctor as well as the usual or treating doctor.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We will address in later debates the point that insufficient attention will be given to the reasons why an application has been refused. If an application has been refused on the grounds of coercion, a future doctor will not necessarily know that that was the reason. As the hon. Lady says, in cases of coercive control there is a very real danger that if a person has been unduly influenced to seek an assisted death and the doctor declines their application, possibly because they detected coercive control, the patient can then be coerced, or influenced, into starting again with a new doctor. There is nothing to stop that in the Bill. We have a real problem, and I hope the Committee will consider the amendments.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I support amendments 422, 468 and 423, which I think would strengthen and safeguard the Bill. However, as someone who worked in mental health for many years, I have grave concerns about amendment 201, which would restrict access to medical records. Health professionals work in environments with great confidentiality of records; I have no concern about health professionals or doctors having access to health records. Some Committee members have talked about doctors not needing to know whether a person had tonsillitis, but most medical records or GP summaries will note whether someone has had tonsillitis, along with details about vaccinations and infections. I do not think that those records will necessarily be relevant or that a doctor would look in detail at what medication they have had in that respect.
What is relevant, however, are records for people who have a mental health disorder or are vulnerable. For example, people with serious mental illnesses such as chronic treatment-resistant schizophrenia may be on treatments such as clozapine that, if stopped, will have an impact on their mental health. The treatment that they may undergo during terminal illness may have an interaction, and medication that they have been using for many years to treat their mental health condition may have to be stopped. Doctors need to know why the person wanted to choose that route, and whether it will have an impact on their mental health.
Restricting access to important medical records by the doctor who makes the decision will have an impact on very vulnerable people. As we have discussed before, people may be homeless or may not have any family members, and it will all have an impact on why they decide to seek the assisted dying route. People may feel that they are a burden to society and the system. If there is any documentation from six months or a year ago, it will be relevant for the doctor. Removing access to medical records for doctors will have an impact on people with mental disorders, intellectual disabilities and neurodevelopmental conditions, so I oppose amendment 201, although I support the other amendments.
Naz Shah
I will try to keep my remarks brief. I first speak to amendment 468, tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate, on the asking of the question why someone wants to have an assisted death. When I originally came to this debate, Dermot, a humanist who was also my election agent—a lovely guy—came to me and said, “Now that this Bill is going through Parliament, will you support it”? I said, “Explain it to me.” He never once mentioned the word “autonomy”. If I remember correctly, what he talked about was suffering, pain and horrible deaths, which many hon. Members have referred to. We have heard lots of examples during this Bill Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire said that the decision was none of a doctor’s business and that the issue was about autonomy. However, if a woman was being coerced into an assisted death, the idea that it was none of the doctor’s business would not quite wash with me. We talk about autonomy, but if someone does not have autonomy in their lives—if they are in an abusive relationship, are a victim of coercion or have a vulnerability—they might not have the choice.
When we ask a question, it is often about something else. I have experienced this myself. I am very passionate; when I am talking about things, somebody might just stop me and say, “Naz—what’s this actually about?” That is all it takes to make me stop, take a step back and a breather, and think for a deeper minute about whether the issue could actually be about something else. We do not always stop to think.
Dr Opher
The amendment is good practice; I do not in any way deny that. The hon. Member for Reigate is obviously coming from a really good place. However, the amendment is almost like specifying that when someone goes to see a doctor, the doctor has to say, “How can I help? What is wrong?” It is just unnecessary; that is my only feeling about it. If someone came in and said, “I would like to request an assisted death”, the doctor would not just say, “Okay”—they would ask how the patient was feeling. It is normal medical practice to ask what is going on in someone’s mind, so that does not need to be specified in the Bill.
Naz Shah
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There is a medical model and a social model of intervention. If I walk into a GP surgery with a really bad headache, I am prescribed paracetamol. If the headache gets worse, I am prescribed something stronger—maybe co-codamol or codeine. Doctors are really busy. We have had to add another 40,000 appointments just for people to get through systems, so we know how hard it is to get a GP appointment.
If the person who turns up at the GP’s with a headache is usually quite healthy, the doctor might not take a minute to ask about what has actually happened. If I say, “I have a headache because I am banging my head against the wall—I have that much stress”, that is a whole different conversation. Having that conversation with the patient—probing a little more—is, for me, very important from a holistic point of view.
Rachel Hopkins
I want to check that my hon. Friend was not implying that I had not thought deeply—for more than a minute–in the course of making my comments earlier.
Rachel Hopkins
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reiterating those points. Does she accept that it is a patient’s right to say, “It’s none of your business” in the course of the conversation?
Naz Shah
I absolutely accept that it is the patient’s right to say, “It’s none of your business”, with the really clear caveat that they could well be a vulnerable patient. They might say that it was none of the doctor’s business, and that doctor might then not be able to explore the other things going on with that patient. That is why, for me, this does not wash.
The point that I am trying to make is that, in the course of a normal consultation, it is presumed that every doctor will know their patient and be able to have these conversations. In most cases, they probably will because we have amazing doctors; I have amazing relationships with my doctors. But does that mean that the doctors will ask that one question: “Why?” That is the crux of the whole Bill.
Rebecca Paul
The right to say, “It’s none of your business” might be fine when no one else is involved, but if someone seeks an assisted death, that involves multiple members of NHS staff. There is an impact on all those people, who need to be comfortable with what they are doing. Maybe the person needs to accept that they do need to provide some information so that the medical staff feel comfortable about the question of eligibility.
Naz Shah
That opens up a whole different debate for me. Some clinicians will not sign up to this process and some will. That is a whole different debate, but I take the point that there has to be a reason.
We talk about the option for referral to palliative care. I have previously moved amendments that would have meant a referral, without the option; however, when considering that option, a doctor needs to understand that if a patient says, “I do not have to explain myself—full stop”, or, “I do not want to talk about palliative care”, that should raise alarm bells. If a doctor says, “You’ve got this terminal illness. These are the options—let me spell them out for you. You have the option of referral to palliative care and the option of these drugs, so why do you want to kill yourself?”, and the patient turns around and says, “It’s none of your business”—
Rachel Hopkins
The Bill already sets out a number of things that a doctor has to assure themselves of, with regard to coercion and capacity. They would do that having had a significant amount of training to establish, in the round, after consulting others, that one way or another the legal requirements have been met. The “Why?” question appears to me to bring in a judgmental element—
Rachel Hopkins
Indeed: subjective, as the right hon. Gentleman said. That is the point that I am trying to get at. There is an objective assessment, which is wholly appropriate, but a subjective assessment would lead down a different route and muddy the objective assessment.
Naz Shah
I absolutely see where my hon. Friend is coming from and appreciate her concern, but we will have to agree to disagree as we have a difference of opinion. A subjective assessment might reveal that something else is going on for that patient.
I hate to put myself in this position, but imagine I have just received a diagnosis and I am going to die within six months. I could have a whole load of anger about that happening to me and I could say, “I don’t want this. I don’t want to talk about it. It’s none of your business. I’m angry—this is what I want.” At that point, does the doctor stop? In most cases, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire is absolutely right, but in some cases she might not be. I might want to shut the conversation down because I am angry or because other things are going on in my head and I do not want to explain. Amendment 468 would allow the doctor, from a compassionate point of view, to have another conversation with the patient.
Jake Richards
Does my hon. Friend agree that she is making a powerful case against amendment 468? A multitude of conversations and different circumstances will need to be taken into account; it is wholly inappropriate to have a mandated question in primary legislation. We should go back to clause 1, which I think the Bill is actually about. It states that the person must have
“a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.
Does my hon. Friend agree that that is what is at the heart of the Bill, rather than decisions about what is in the person’s best interests?
Naz Shah
I respectfully disagree. I am making the case that there is a conversation to be had. Yes, there is informed choice but is my hon. Friend suggesting that the question should not be asked at all? I take the point that with an informed choice there would have been an exploratory conversation, but sometimes just calling something out, or stating the obvious, makes a huge difference.
Rebecca Paul
I wish to clarify that the amendment is about not an additional assessment but merely a simple question. Like many who have spoken, I hope that most good doctors would ask the question anyway and take the answer. It may inform them or it may not but sometimes, as the hon. Member for Bradford West has just discussed so powerfully, it is helpful to remind medical staff, who are under lots of time pressure, that sometimes it is worth stepping back and asking why.
Jack Abbott
I appreciate that my hon. Friend has given way a number of times, but I gently suggest that we already know the crux of the Bill and what we are debating. The “why” is that people with a terminal diagnosis, with six months to live, would like a course of action to end their lives in a pain-free way and to have the autonomy to do so.
We are in danger of over-legislating for a range of different permutations that could potentially happen in conversations. I agree that these kinds of questions are absolutely crucial, but it may satisfy my hon. Friend that amendment 21, to which we agreed a few moments ago, requires medical practitioners to take training on
“domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse”.
That sort of protection and safeguard has already been agreed to.
We will rely on highly specialised individuals to pick up on these issues. They may want to explore, through further questioning, why people are making these decisions but we cannot legislate for all the different sorts of conversations, and all the emotions that may be going through people’s minds. If someone comes back and says, as my hon. Friend put it, “Well, it’s none of your business,” or whatever the answer may be, we will rely on the specialised professionals to pick up on danger signs. However, that would not necessarily lead them in every single conversation to have a suspicion of the patient’s motives. Life and conversation do not work like that and we cannot legislate in that way.
Naz Shah
I absolutely agree that life does not work like that. Life is very complicated and that is why I want the conversation to happen. My hon. Friend referred to amendment 21, which we have just agreed to. I spoke extensively about why that is a brilliant amendment that moves us towards much more safeguarding, but I also think that it does not go far enough for women, marginalised communities and people from ethnic minority backgrounds. I genuinely do not feel that amendment 468 is about over-legislating. It is just stating an obvious fact: sometimes, even in normal life, we go around the houses to get to a conversation and get to the right point. That is what I want to get to.
Jack Abbott
To follow up on the example my hon. Friend gave earlier, if—to be glib—someone said, “None of your business”, she would want the doctor to keep probing. At what point does that end? If someone genuinely does not want to have that conversation and says, “I want to end my life because I have a terminal diagnosis. I live in fear of the pain that could await me and I don’t really want to go into much detail,” where does that end? Where does that conversation continue to?
Danny Kruger
I completely agree with the hon. Lady’s point. The conversation goes on in the way the doctor would want it to, but they have at least asked the question. Is it not very simple? The Bill already requires doctors to look for signs of external coercion. As we have acknowledged, there is no way to determine internal coercion—the influence people have on themselves. There is no way in the Bill at the moment to identify whether somebody feels that they want an assisted death because they fear that they are a burden to others. This question is the only opportunity we have to tease out that answer: does she agree?
Naz Shah
The hon. Member for East Wiltshire makes an important point. Where are the opportunities? When doctors are doing the assessment.
The other issue that speaks to me is the question of internalised bias. We will have professionals with subconscious bias or affirmed bias. They will be clinicians who have chosen or agreed to take part in the process; fundamentally, the majority of clinicians will not take part in this process because of their beliefs. It changes the relationship between doctor and patient from a societal perspective.
I know that a number of times I have been stopped during a process and asked a different question, and at times that opportunity for reflection—even without the pressure of knowing I have only six months to live—is of benefit to me. I am sure that others would benefit from it, too, particularly because the decision is so momentous. For that reason, I will certainly support amendment 468.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley for tabling amendment 201. I have mixed views on it. I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire said about medical records, especially when it comes to women and their past, but I also appreciated what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said about his experience from a mental health perspective.
I am still thinking about the amendment and I am not sure whether I will support it or not, but further thought needs to be given to the subject. There are the issues of mental health and women’s rights, but another issue applies, too. If someone has experienced trauma in childhood but that trauma has come out much more recently, even though it does not necessarily affect the decision at hand—whether to choose an assisted death—is there some kind of historical post-traumatic stress disorder that would then need to be explored? I do not have the answer, but I look forward to hearing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on that point. I would value hearing whether she has thought about that and what her understanding of it is.
Stephen Kinnock
As I have mentioned before, the Government have worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on some mutually agreed amendments, including amendments 201, 422 and 433. The amendments that the Government support aim to ensure the legal robustness and operability of the legislation, should it pass, and I will offer a technical explanation for them.
Amendment 201 will clarify the wording in clause 9 on the doctor’s assessment. It provides that the duty on an assessing doctor to examine a person’s medical records applies only to records that appear relevant to the doctor. The effect of the amendment is to make clear as part of the assessment process that the assessing doctor is required only to review medical records that are considered by the doctor to be relevant to the person’s request to seek an assisted death.
Amendment 422 would add an additional requirement on an assessing doctor to make inquiries of professionals who are providing or who have recently provided health or social care to the person and make such other inquiries as the assessing doctor considers appropriate. This applies to—
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Nineteeth sitting)
Naz Shah ExcerptsWednesday 5th March 2025
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 March 2025 - (5 Mar 2025)
Kim Leadbeater
Amendment 419 provides that the co-ordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if satisfied that a preliminary discussion of the kind mentioned in clause 4 has taken place and that a written record of it has been made. The co-ordinating doctor must have made or seen a written record of the preliminary discussion. Amendment 189 adjusts the wording so as not to suggest that a first declaration has been made before it is witnessed to clarify that proof of identity must be provided before the declaration is signed and witnessed.
Amendment 190 provides that the required two forms of proof of identity must be provided before the person signs the first declaration. Amendment 191 provides that the co-ordinating doctor may witness the first declaration only if satisfied that the requirements of clause 6(2) are met; that is to say, that the patient has provided two forms of identity to the co-ordinating doctor. This is a relatively straightforward set of amendments to tidy up the requirements around proof of identity.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendments 291, 292 and 293, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I do not intend to press them to a vote; they are probing amendments. They all relate to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley about the identification required of applicants for assisted dying. They do not change those requirements; they take a more logical and businesslike approach to proving that those requirements are met.
Amendment 291 would change the current requirements on identification and require applicants for assisted dying to produce a piece of photo ID and proof of residence in the UK for the previous year. As currently written, clause 6(2) states:
“The person must, at the same time as that declaration is made, provide two forms of proof of identity to the coordinating doctor and the witness mentioned in section 5(2)(c)(ii).”
Subsection (3) states:
“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the forms of proof of identity that are acceptable for the purposes of subsection (2).”
Surely that is not tight enough.
In particular, the Bill as written does not specify that either form of proof of identity should be photo ID. That may be a major omission. For much less significant decisions, the law of England and Wales requires at least one form of photographic ID. For example, there is currently a requirement to have photo identity to work on the parliamentary estate, vote, or have a bus pass or railcard. None of those is as important as applying for an assisted death.
I remind hon. Members that assisted death is a process that would end in a person being issued with and then taking a mixture of lethal drugs. In a hospital setting where drugs are dispensed, rigorous processes are undertaken to verify the patient. Drug errors are not uncommon. The previous Health and Social Care Committee’s report into pharmacy witnessed how clinical practice was being improved to reduce drug errors. Given that a lethal dose is dispensed as part of this process, the identification mechanisms are weak and should be addressed in this preliminary stage through the provisions set out in this amendment. It is possible that the wrong person could be prescribed the medication. That would be an extreme case, but we are talking about creating a wholly new power that would relate to life and death. We are talking about making assisted dying available to people who are, in many cases, extremely distressed. People in extreme circumstances will sometimes do extreme things. We should expect some extreme cases and seek to guard against them.
Amendment 291 would provide such a safeguard. The Bill says that to qualify for assisted dying, applicants must have been resident in the UK for at least a year, but it does not ask them to provide any proof of that residence. In such a serious matter, we surely cannot simply accept someone’s word that they live in the UK. Making that a requirement without a test to establish it de-values the importance of the criteria for qualifying.
Amendment 292 would change clause 6(3), which currently reads,
“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the forms of proof of identity that are acceptable for the purposes of subsection (2).”
The amendment would change that “may” to a “must”, as the former treats the identification process with reduced seriousness. If the word “may” stays in legislation, there is no obligation to have rigour in the identification process. As drafted, the Bill is more open for abuse.
Amendment 293 seeks to place the regulations concerning identification under the affirmative procedure, which the hon. Member for East Wiltshire mentioned earlier. Assisted dying is so important that no regulations made under it should be drawn using the negative procedure. As Members will know, if a statutory instrument is made under the affirmative procedure, it must be approved by Parliament within a certain timeframe, which is usually 28 or 40 days. If that does not happen, the change to the law made by the statutory instrument will not take place. In the Bill as drafted, these regulations are covered by the negative procedure, which means that if and when the Secretary of State decides to change them, they could go through on the nod unless Members raised an objection. A statutory instrument laid through the negative procedure becomes law on the day the Minister signs it and automatically remains law unless a motion rejecting it is passed by either House within 40 sitting days.
Placing all changes to regulations under the affirmative procedure would ensure that we have scrutiny by Parliament. We should all approve this. Our responsibility for this legislation will not end when and if it becomes an Act of Parliament. These amendments speak to tighter safeguards and parliamentary scrutiny for all new regulations made by the Secretary of State in relation to identity and residence. All hon. Members should support them.
Danny Kruger
I will quickly echo the points well made by the hon. Member for Bradford West in support of the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for York Central. It is important to specify the form of identity that will be presented. The person presenting themselves for an assisted death needs to be who they say they are. At the moment, the power to specify the forms of proof of identity has no minimum requirements. As written, it does not require the Secretary of State to specify what is acceptable.
Two specific aspects we have to pay particular care to are age and residency. The process must be accessible only to over-18s. I am concerned that we rejected amendments yesterday that would have prevented people under 18 having the conversation. In light of that, it is even more important that we make it clear that people who access assisted death must be adults. We need to ensure that the forms of identity are specified and that Parliament can satisfy itself that they are robust.
Danny Kruger
We cannot have it both ways. We cannot give doctors and clinicians autonomy, which the Committee has repeatedly seen as a ground to reject all sorts of obligations that I and others have proposed to ensure that doctors do the job in a specific way, and then suggest the opposite in this instance. I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, and he may be right that that is inappropriate.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We should not forget that doctors are indemnified against any civil claims under the Bill. Nevertheless, they will want to protect themselves against the accusation that they inappropriately prioritised one case over another. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I urge the Committee to support it.
I will finish with this point. I am ashamed to say it, because my party was responsible for the NHS for the 14 years until last year, but the fact is, as Labour Members said frequently when they were in opposition, that there are enormous resource constraints on the frontline in the NHS. I do not think that is inappropriate to consider, when we create a new service, how it might have an impact on existing treatments in the NHS. Leaving aside all the ethical questions, including on coercion and capacity and our concerns in that respect, what will this mean for hard-pressed GPs and clinicians of all sorts on the frontline? What protections can we offer them when they make difficult decisions about whether to support an assisted death application?
Kim Leadbeater
That has been a very useful discussion. I have nothing to add.
Daniel Francis
I beg to move amendment 347, in clause 7, page 4, line 4, leave out from “to” to the second “the” in line 5 and insert—
“ensure that steps have been taken to confirm that”.
This amendment would remove the emphasis on the role of the coordinating doctor in making these assessments.
Daniel Francis
I agree with my hon. Friend about the number of amendments in this vein, but clearly the amendments suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch bring us into line with existing regulations. In her evidence, Dr Cox said:
“If we look at the evidence of suicide, we know that it is increased in people with serious illnesses, but it is actually increased in the first six months after diagnosis, not in the last six months of their lives, so it is about the trauma of the diagnosis.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 82, Q105.]
It is likely, therefore, that those diagnosed with a terminal illness will experience mental distress that could affect their capacity to make a decision about an assisted death. In her written evidence, Dr Virginia Goncalves, a retired clinical psychiatrist with over 30 years of experience in the NHS, writes:
“In my consultant psychiatrist role, I have encountered many desperate and suicidal patients wanting to end their lives after struggling with longstanding mental distress, who could have easily sought the option of assisted suicide if it had been available to them! But however depressed and hopeless they felt, with a compassionate and hope filled approach from their care givers and the correct medical and psychological treatment, the vast majority recovered enough to be able to have a ‘life worth living’. In so many cases, these patients have thanked me later for not giving up on them! Not once have I heard anyone say ‘you should have let me die when I wanted to do it’.”
A meeting with a psychiatrist or other psychological specialist will protect people who may otherwise not have chosen assisted dying. I emphasise again that we already ensure that patients who will donate an organ have this assessment, so why not those seeking an assisted death? We must protect vulnerable terminally ill people from being coerced into assisted death, and psychiatrists and other specialists are best placed to spot that. That is why the assessment is included for living organ donation.
Daniel Francis
Absolutely. This amendment, of course, is widely supported by Committee members for that very reason. As I was saying, we already use that assessment for organ donation, and Members supporting this amendment believe that should be the case for those that are seeking an assisted death.
I now move on to amendment 284, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. This amendment would change clause 9(3). Currently, that subsection lays out, and I will quote the language of the Bill, that the assessing doctor,
“(b) may, if they have doubt as to the capacity of the person being assessed, refer the person for assessment by a registered medical practitioner who is registered in the specialism of psychiatry in the Specialist Register kept by the General Medical Council or who otherwise holds qualifications in or has experience of the assessment of capability;”
This amendment would change the word “may” to “must”. In other words, the assessing doctor would have a duty to refer the person being assessed to a consultant psychiatrist if they had any doubt about that person’s capacity. I argue that this is a change that we both should make, and can easily make. If a doctor has doubts about the capacity of an applicant, it is good practice for them to refer that person to a doctor or a specialist in that field.
Dr Opher
I agree with all of this. I think psychological assessment is incredibly important in all patients, and I personally specialise in it from a primary care basis. But we are suggesting here that the two other doctors have no ability to do any sort of psychological assessment, and that is simply not true.
Dr Opher
I apologise to my hon. Friend; I will continue for a little bit. We use secondary care and psychiatrists when we have a doubt about our decisions. If we have a doubt, then it is entirely appropriate to use psychiatrists in that instance, and we must do so. That is why I approve of amendment 6.
Dr Opher
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. By amending clause 12 to include social workers, who specialise in spotting coercion, there would be a psychological component in that panel. I emphasise that the first two doctors are trained in psychological assessment—they have to be to become a doctor, and we must respect their knowledge and decision making. Psychiatrists will be incredibly useful in difficult cases of capacity, but using them in every case would not be using them in the best capacity.
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. I do not question the capability of those doctors, but how does that square with the concerns of the Royal College of Psychiatrists that if a doctor has never met the person before, they cannot make an assessment on coercion? That might impact on capacity.
Sarah Olney
The hon. Member is absolutely right. The Court of Protection has described eating disorders using language typically reserved for terminal illnesses. It has described an eating disorder as being in “the terminal stage”, talked of “all treatment options” having “been exhausted” and used words such as “incurable”. It is immensely regrettable, but nevertheless the case—even though eating disorders are always treatable—that if a person suffering from an eating disorder is deemed to have capacity and is refusing treatment, there may well be nothing that can be done to stop them choosing that path, which may ultimately lead to their death.
Naz Shah
Is the hon. Member aware that in nine of the 10 cases that went before the Court of Protection, the young ladies were deemed not to have capacity, but the judge still decided that it would not be in their best interests to feed them, and they were put on palliative care pathways?
Lewis Atkinson
Indeed, and that is why I support amendment 6, which we have just debated, to mandate referral for psychiatric assessment in cases where there is any doubt whatever. I think we have incorporated those safeguards and more but, fundamentally, as Chris Whitty said in evidence, for this legislation to be as secure as possible, we have to base it on the Mental Capacity Act, which has been tried and tested through the courts for more than 20 years.
The insertion of language talking about impairments of judgment clearly deviates from that Act, where an impairment test is already set out. I do not feel that is appropriate. I absolutely applaud the sentiments behind the amendment, but I feel we have sufficiently strengthened the Bill elsewhere and that the MCA and other provisions give the safeguards and the reassurance that we need on these issues.
Naz Shah
Apologies, Mrs Harris: I was late returning to my seat earlier and missed the opening remarks from the hon. Member for Richmond Park on this amendment. I am happy to be corrected, but my understanding is that, as it is, if somebody has anorexia—we are not talking about capacity, which I referred to in the cases of the nine girls I spoke about—that is an accepted mental health condition and the amendment is trying to exclude those people from having an assisted death. In the nine cases I spoke of, the court found that those girls with anorexia had capacity and ruled that they had a terminal illness.
Kim Leadbeater
I apologise, but I thought my hon. Friend said that they did not have capacity.
Naz Shah
Sorry—they did not have capacity, but the Court of Protection still ruled that they would be taken down the route of palliative care. This is not just a matter of capacity; in this instance, when we talk about mental health—before we even get to the capacity question—the issue is that anorexia is a recognised mental health condition. I beg to differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central on whether we have enough provision. We keep coming back to this issue time and again.
Kit Malthouse
I want to be clear, because the hon. Lady and I have exchanged views on this issue: my recollection from reading the briefing—I am happy to go back to it—is that, in those nine cases, the girls were found not to have capacity, but the judge then took the decision not to force-feed them because force-feeding them was likely to be threatening to their health and might precipitate their deaths. I do not think it is quite right to say that the judges put them on a palliative pathway. They declined to force-feed them on the basis that they thought it was in their best interests and that force-feeding them might actually precipitate their deaths.
Naz Shah
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. When I came to this place, somebody said to me, “There’s the letter of the law and there’s the essence of the law.” As lawmakers, we make indications, and so do judges. By not opposing something, does that mean that by default we are supporting it? That is the question here for me. In those cases, those judges accepted—as he says—that those girls would inevitably die. Although the judges did not state that they put the girls on a palliative care pathway, by default, in my understanding, that was a palliative care pathway because it was accepted that those young girls were going to die by not being fed. It is just a matter of semantics for me.
I come back to the debate that we have just had. For me, the crux of the issue is that if someone has a mental health condition that then, by definition, becomes a terminal illness—regardless of the capacity conversation—this amendment surely strengthens the safeguard for them. By and large, this involves women who experience anorexia so this conversation is very gendered. I am happy to be corrected. That is all I have to say on the matter.
Jake Richards
I want to speak to amendment 57. I do not intend to press it to a vote, but I will explore whether and how the Bill could be improved in terms of the relationship between the two doctors. There is a tension here. On one hand, we want to keep the two doctors separate, because the second one can then assess the person with a fresh perspective. We have had a debate about where there is a relationship between the doctors, which could cause problems as well. On the other hand, the evidence that we heard from some witnesses who gave evidence to the Committee was that decisions or assessments taken together can be more efficient and safer.
We may come back to this issue when we consider clause 9—next week, I presume, looking at the clock—but I wanted to raise it now. I have had conversations with the promoter of the Bill about it, but we also need to have conversations with Ministers about the best way to regulate the relationship between the two doctors to ensure that it is safe in the way that it keeps them separate but allows them to confer.
Naz Shah
I rise to speak to amendment 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, which is about the second, independent doctor. We debated amendment 20 earlier, and I am genuinely very pleased that the promoter of the Bill accepted that amendment. Some of what I would like to say now will be repetition, because it is a similar amendment, but I will try to keep my remarks contained and shorter.
I am not sure whether the promoter of the Bill is planning to accept amendment 21 as well as amendment 20 —for both doctors. I will be happy to give way if she wants to clarify that now.
Naz Shah
Oh, perfect. I am really pleased that my hon. Friend will accept both amendments 20 and 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. Amendment 21 is about training. Although I welcome the amendments being accepted, my concern is that the amendment for training does not go far enough. We are talking about repeated coercion here, and my hon. Friend’s intention with the amendment was for people to be trained in picking up repeated coercive control. That is very different from domestic abuse, in terms of its manifestation and how it is picked up. From lots of evidence we have received, both written and oral, we know that coercive control is hard to detect. When it is repeated coercive control, it is even harder.
I want the Bill to be strengthened, especially when it comes to minoritised communities and older people. From a safeguarding perspective, the Bill’s impact is very gendered. It is International Women’s Day this week, and this is a very heightened issue. We celebrate women in this place because we do not have equality for women in our systems, across the globe and in this country. From the research and evidence we have had, we know that this Bill would impact more upon women, so it is important that we extend the training. As I suggested earlier, I would be happy to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to look at tabling another amendment and strengthening this safeguard, because I really want to get this one right.
Although I talked about this earlier, there are some statistics on suicide that I did not mention, which is why I want this training. Only this afternoon, I came across some research from the Kent and Medway NHS trust. In addition to research from last year, it has been found that women will kill themselves when they experience domestic abuse. For the first time, the number of women killing themselves as a result of domestic abuse has overtaken the number of women who are killed from domestic violence in intimate partner relationships. Bear with me—I will return to the research from the Kent and Medway trust in a moment, because I cannot seem to locate the statistics I wanted to point out. Either way, I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to get this Bill right.
Sojan Joseph
We are talking about a very important issue in relation to training. Most training provided in the NHS, whether on the capacity assessment or domestic violence, is mandatory training that people are expected to retake yearly. Unfortunately, reports—especially the CQC reports—show that NHS trusts across the country are not fully compliant with this training, especially doctors, who are conducting this kind of training very poorly. Does my hon. Friend agree that just introducing training is not enough, and that we have to monitor compliance as well?
Naz Shah
I thank my hon. Friend. I agree with his previous point, as well as the point made by the promoter of the Bill that the training that will be provided under this Bill should welcome that conversation with women, especially those who are victims of domestic abuse.
I have now found the research I wanted to share. Tim Woodhouse is a suicide prevention expert from Kent and Medway council, and he carried out research over five years until 2024. He estimated that about 30% of all suicides in that sample of people, largely women, experienced domestic abuse. Woodhouse estimates, in the UK as a whole, that
“over 1,800 lives are being lost in domestic abuse related suicides every year.”
He described that as
“a scandal, and national tragedy,”
and I completely agree with Tim’s assertion. When it comes to women from ethnic minorities who have cultural differences, potentially including language barriers and different understandings of coercion, it is even harder to tease out their experience in any assessment from the first doctor or second doctor. I would therefore welcome any strengthening of the amendments.
The Chair
I call Steve Kinnock—sorry, I meant Minister Kinnock; he is Steve to his friends.
Kim Leadbeater
I will not test the patience of the Committee by repeating the Minister’s comments on amendments 197 and 198, but he is absolutely right that they relate to the duty imposed on the Secretary of State to make regulations about the training, qualifications and experience required to act as the independent doctor. I hope that Committee members can support them.
Amendment 21 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, and further to my comments this morning on the very similar amendment 20, I am very pleased to support amendment 21. We have spoken a lot about the training requirements for the provisions of the Bill, and I firmly believe that we have to set ourselves the very high standard of having the best training that we possibly can for medical practitioners involved in the processes set out in the legislation. It is vital because only those medical practitioners who have chosen to undergo such training would be allowed to play the role of assessing doctors.
We have already discussed many of the components that will be required in that training, but it must include assessing capacity and detecting coercion or pressure, which is in line with this amendment, so I am very pleased to support it in that regard. Doctors must have appropriate qualifications and experience to ensure that those seeking assistance under the legislation are in the best possible hands throughout.
I also welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury about the wider benefits of such training, which is a really important point to make. It feeds into the wider benefits that there would be for not just the health service but society as a whole. It also feeds into the work that is being done by the Home Office and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls—I just had to google the fancy title that she goes by nowadays. There is a broader conversation to be had about society and the role of training for coercive control, financial abuse and domestic abuse. I support amendment 21, along with my amendments 197 and 198.
Amendment 56 negatived.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 317, in clause 13, page 9, line 12, leave out “14” and insert “28”.
This amendment would provide 28 days for the second period of reflection instead of 14.
Amendment 314, in clause 13, page 9, line 17, leave out
“48 hours beginning with that day”
and insert
“7 days beginning with that day and the person must be referred immediately for urgent specialist palliative care.”.
This amendment would increase the second period of reflection in cases where the coordinating doctor reasonably believes the person will die within a month from 48 hours to seven days.
Amendment 315, in clause 13, page 9, line 17, leave out “48 hours” and insert “7 days”.
This amendment would increase the second period of reflection in cases where the coordinating doctor reasonably believes the person will die within a month from 48 hours to seven days.
Naz Shah
These amendments were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. Amendment 301 seeks to provide a time of reflection of 14 days, not seven. As somebody pointed out, the industry standard for returning something bought in a shop far exceeds the cool-off period set out in the Bill. The reality is that the NHS is under such duress, with patients waiting weeks to see their GP for anything other than urgent treatment, that being able to get an appointment with a GP in seven days is something that we are unlikely to see.
It is right that doctors are able to triage their patients to ensure that those who require medical interventions to keep them well, prevent hospital admissions, or stop them deteriorating or even dying, are seen as a priority. This Government are trying to protect the NHS, and the best way of achieving that is to ensure that medical interventions are sought and provided at the earliest opportunity before a patient deteriorates. Giving someone who is dying within the terms of this legislation longer to reflect—just a further week—removes such pressure from GPs or consultants and enables them to properly prioritise their patients. It does not build a false expectation in patients that they have a right to rapidly have a consultation. Likewise, we know that it can currently take weeks, if not months or over a year, for patients to see another consultant, but the clause does not suggest that. It would therefore be helpful and better for the patient to have a more realistic period before moving to the next stage of their assessment.
Issues of intensity, such as someone planning to take their own life, should not be rushed. We know from all the work that has been undertaken on suicide that other interventions, conversations and reflections can help with reflection and reconsideration. It is important that people are given that opportunity. The first time a patient raises the matter with their doctor, the doctor would have provided them with lot of alternative information—for instance, on what treatment options are available. They might also have had a palliative medicine consultation to review their options. There needs to be time for the patient to really reflect on all that new information.
We know that when people are presented with information, it takes time for them to absorb and analyse it. Therefore, extending the period to two weeks—although that is arguably still too short a timescale—would be good practice. It would be in the interest of the person and of the carers, as we know from other jurisdictions that family often say that the process was too quick for them to be able to absorb. It could also enable a patient to make alternative choices. In medicine, practitioners want patients to make informed decisions and to have time to assure themselves of the choices they make. In the light of the Committee’s vote to block the amendment that would have ensured that a palliative care specialist was involved in the counsel to support someone with decision making as they are dying, it is right that more time is given for patients’ considerations.
Amendment 317 would provide 28 days, not 14, for second period of reflection. In line with good practice, extending the reflection period is important. I spoke about that at length when we debated my amendment 277. It is important for the patient to be able to fully explore their options and seek wider counsel before determining to take the route of assisted death. This part of the process is perhaps the most important. The period after a patient has completed their assessment and received court approval or that of the commission and panel—should the Committee choose to change this—will be the main period where they determine whether they want to go through with ending their life. It is right to ensure that the legislation provides time. This is such a monumental decision, so that a patient has to be assured that they are making the right decision and have had time to really reflect on it and contemplate all other options available to them.
The process appears to be very rushed, and a patient could be caught up in the moment of getting through the stages. It will be intense. There will be lots of information. There may be new things for the patient to consider. Having a proper break clause would enable a patient proper time to reflect and consider in detail everything that has happened in the process to date, and then to contemplate their further options. We know that patients often need to hear information several times before they fully absorb what is being said and what is happening.
Kit Malthouse
I completely agree. We have to strike a balance here. The point I am making is that, within an envelope of six months, 42 days is far too long, so I am afraid that I flatly oppose the amendments. They are based on a fundamental misunderstanding: the idea that people will just show up at six months, that their disease progression will be linear, and that they will then take the decision immediately, the moment they finish the reflection period. I can tell hon. Members that the entire six months, from the moment someone gets a six-month diagnosis, will be a reflection period.
Naz Shah
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. He referred to the same thing twice, yesterday and today, and I just want to clarify it. He said that most people are ill for a while. I have a genuine question. I do not have the research, but my understanding, as a member of the public and a Member of Parliament, is that for many people who get a terminal diagnosis of six months, it will have been very sudden. Does he have any research to suggest that most of these patients will have been on the kind of trajectory he describes?
Kit Malthouse
I depends on the disease, but many people will struggle with, for example, breast cancer for five years, go through repeated rounds of chemotherapy and undergo terrible operations to try to survive; then, there will come a point when the clinicians and oncologists say, “There isn’t much more we can do for you; we think you have a few months left to live, because there is no further treatment we can offer, so aggressive is your cancer.” Other people have cancer and are free of it within two or three months, because of the nature of the cancer. Some people will reach a six-month point suddenly—it will not be dead-on six months; it might be either side—and some people will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer with two weeks to go. We have to strike a balance and be humane in what we impose on these people, who will have a lot more to think about than the regulations.
Naz Shah
I want to explore that point a bit further. When I talk about a period of reflection, I am referring to the evidence that we have had from psychiatrists, who said that people’s abilities would be impacted in this situation. That is where the amendments are coming from. To come back to the previous point, is there any research or evidence that would back up the claim that many cases are longer-term illnesses, rather than people who have just got the diagnosis?
Kit Malthouse
Maybe I was not clear: it depends on the disease. For example, the median survival range for pancreatic cancer is six to 12 months, because it does not exhibit symptoms; people only learn very late that they have it, and that is why the normal survival curve is quite a short one. We need to bear that in mind.
We also need to remember that the more we extend the periods of reflection, the longer people will have to live with the fear of what their death will be like, and with the nervousness about whether they will be allowed to control their own death—we are granting permission here. If I have to wait 42 days, that is 42 days out of whatever I might have left—perhaps 120 days, if I am lucky—that I am spending concerned about whether I am going to die in a particular way. To me, that seems crazy.
Two of the amendments propose extending the 48-hour period to seven days. These are people who have been told they are going to die within a month. They have less than 30 days to deal with their affairs, deal with their children, talk to their family and decide what they are going to do, and the amendments propose that for seven days of that, they will have to contemplate their fear of death, rather than rush it through. It is rushing it through in 48 hours—reflecting the fact that they are going to die.
The misunderstanding is most illustrated by the fact that amendment 314 proposes that, with the extension to seven days, there should be a mandatory referral to palliative care. With a month to go, these people are by definition already being palliated. The idea that somehow they are just waltzing up, unattended to, with a month to go, and that the NHS is going to say, “Actually, we’re not going to do anything to help you” fundamentally misunderstands what disease is like at the end of life. I am afraid that I vehemently oppose these amendments. The balance in the Bill is exactly right, and I hope that the Committee will agree.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Bambos Charalambous.)