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

Naz Shah Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Olney]

I will conclude my remarks by observing that the only reason that we are looking at contracting out assisted dying services to a private provider is that the country is simply not ready for assisted dying. We know how overstretched and under-resourced our NHS is, and we are looking at cutting corners in the Bill, in our policymaking, in our scrutiny of this legislation, and in how this legislation and the service is delivered.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park, because I rise to speak to amendment 537, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. The amendment goes further than the hon. Member for Richmond Park would as far as local authorities are concerned.

The amendment also concerns both the national health service and the provision of healthcare by charities. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley knows both fields extremely well. She was the director of quality and strategy and chief analyst at the Department of Health, and then had a senior role at the Centre for Ageing Better. Her amendment would mean that assisted dying services could be provided only by charitable organisations and not by the national health service.

I strongly support the general principle that if we do have assisted dying, it should be free at the point of use. If this House decides that people do indeed have the right to an assisted death under the conditions that this Bill sets out, then it should not be something limited to those who can afford private healthcare. There are, however, strong objections among general practitioners to providing assisted dying as part of their services, and I do not think we should plan to have private firms work under contract from the NHS to provide assisted dying either.

The Royal College of General Practitioners said in its written evidence that

“any assisted dying service should be seen as a standalone specialised service that healthcare professionals may opt to provide with additional training and should not be deemed core GP work.”

The royal college’s advice, which is founded on the views of its members, means that we should give very strong consideration to putting assisted dying outside the normal workings of the NHS. If we do that, it seems that there are a few options. One is for the Secretary of State to invite private firms to tender for contracts and administer assisted dying services. As I have said, there are very strong reasons why we should not plan to have private firms work under contract to the NHS to provide assisted dying; for me, that it is one of the worst possible options.

Another option is for the NHS to fund a specialised assisted dying service that would be separate from its other functions. That could potentially be feasible, but it could also represent a significant cost for the NHS, because we still have not had the impact assessment from the Government and we have no idea how significant that cost may be.

There is also the worry that if assisted dying becomes available on the NHS, some people will become too frightened to access palliative care, as was outlined to the Committee by Dr Jamilla Hussain. I will read a brief part of her written evidence to the Committee. After talking to the patients in ethnic minority and other disadvantaged groups, she said:

“Overwhelmingly, racialised communities expressed deep concerns that they would be more likely to be pushed towards AD through systemic biases and societal attitudes about whose lives are valued… While safeguards were acknowledged, many remained sceptical that they would be applied fairly and equitably, fearing that vulnerable individuals, particularly those who lack strong advocates or English proficiency, might be at greater risk of being guided towards AD rather than offered appropriate care options.”

I want to share something with the Committee. We often get taxis to and from work and home; I got into a cab yesterday, and the chap who was driving was called Dave. His 84-year-old aunt died on Friday. When we were discussing this option, he told me really clearly that she has opted for a cremation, which would cost less money, just because she internalised that idea of burden and she did not want a cost for those that she left behind. She had not seen a doctor for 40 years. That brought home the idea of internalised coercion, internalised pressure and mistrust, because he also talked about what happened during covid. We had an interesting conversation. I told him that it was interesting that he had said that, and today I am talking about it. That is the reality: it is about how people perceive healthcare provision, the potential inequalities, and what the barriers are to access—all the preconceived ideas that we have about the provision of healthcare.

That brings me to a potential third way, which is what amendment 537 is about: charities. Charities are one way of addressing the concerns I and the hon. Member for Richmond Park have outlined about the risk with private companies and the risk of loss of confidence and access to the NHS, as well as the concerns outlined by the Royal College of General Practitioners. They could well be mitigated by ensuring that the lead responsibility for administering assisted dying is given to charities rather than the NHS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you this this morning, Ms McVey.

I rise in support of new clause 36, which sets out an entirely workable, appropriate and safe set of provisions for the Secretary of State to ensure that these services are provided across England, as well as appropriate powers for Wales, although I am far from being an expert on those matters.

The new clause would convey powers to the Secretary of State to commission services free at the point of use, in a way that is entirely analogous to the commissioning of other health services that are provided, as we know, by a range of providers.

I came to this place having been an NHS manager for nearly 20 years, and I feel that the debate has sometimes slightly confused elements of commissioning, provision and the way in which the NHS commissions and manages services. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said that the state must oversee and regulate the service, and I entirely agree. Commissioning powers sitting with the Secretary of State will ensure that that is the case. The hon. Member for Richmond Park said that the issue is who is commissioning. Again, we are clear that the only person doing any commissioning will be the Secretary of State, potentially delegating this to NHS structures at the time.

The NHS and the Secretary of State are not unused to commissioning highly specialised, sensitive services in this way. Indeed, I would be amazed if the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley do not confirm that the Government were involved in the drafting of this new clause to ensure that it is equivalent to the other powers that the Secretary of State has.

This will clearly be a specialist service. It is a new service. At high levels of NHS England and equivalent bodies, there is significant expertise and practice in commissioning specialised services. The importance of the commencement period, which I hope we will discuss later today, is that engagement around the exact service specification will be drawn up in just the same way that it would be for a new cancer treatment or a treatment for a rare disease. It is right that the time will be taken to engage on that.

Fundamentally, services have to be commissioned. Some suggest that this will be a free-for-all, that anyone can provide this service and that anyone can be paid for it, but that idea is nonsense. There is no obligation for the Secretary of State to reimburse anyone who decides they want to provide this service. The service must be explicitly commissioned.

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend says that this will be explicitly commissioned. I completely agree with everything he has said, but this will be a newly designed service by definition, so will that not leave the door open for new providers, such as Serco or G4S, to come in, design a new service and bring in the expertise to deliver it?

[Lewis Atkinson]

No, it will not, in the same way that G4S does not suddenly appear and provide treatment through a new cancer service that the Secretary of State decides to commission under specialist powers.

I am afraid that some opponents of the Bill are trying to scaremonger about potential provision as a way of altering the way people voted on Second Reading. A number of amendments clearly deal with whether potential providers should be public sector, voluntary or, indeed, private organisations. I emphasise that the overwhelming majority of GP services in this country are private contractors. It is inconsistent for Members to argue that we should maximise continuity of care and have the best safeguards around coercion and capacity by having someone who has known the individual for a long time, while also arguing that the Secretary of State should not be permitted to commission that individual’s GP to play any role. I challenge opponents on that matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I genuinely did not intend to speak today, but the debate, particularly the speech by the hon. Member for Richmond Park and the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire, has brought me to my feet.

It was 13 or 14 years ago that my wife and I embarked on the IVF road. It never worked—our children came naturally in the end—but I know the pain and despair of that process. Although I do not call into question the efficacy of any doctor, some companies, looking to their profit margins, will always prey on people.

We have had discussions today about the regulations to be made under new clause 36, but we need some clarity on Report. I referred to the annual fertility show at the Kensington Olympia; I have checked, and it is still held. I visited it about 13 years ago. Frankly, it is complete marketisation. People who are already on their knees and really depressed are left feeling that companies are simply trying to make a profit out of them. People can already book their tickets for the event in May and navigate a path through it: there are expert-led seminars, real stories, whereby people connect with others who have been through the process, wellbeing workshops and more than 70 exhibitors. Of course, they are all paying a fee to be there, and they all aim to have made a profit by the end.

Our first set of IVF treatment was free on the NHS. We paid £7,000 for our second, which was again through the NHS. We went through several visits to NHS and private providers to assess whether we were willing to pay a top-up for a slightly better service. I really did not intend to speak this morning, but I wonder whether, in the final part of the process that we are considering, there would be the sort of upsetting process that has taken root in the fertility industry in this country. We need more clarity on that by Report.

[Naz Shah]

I stopped myself intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central; I had lots of questions, and he has confused me even more. He referred to the provision in clause 8(6)(d) about the doctors being different. If I am right, healthcare providers such as Aspire or Ramsay Health Care could be commissioned to deliver the services. If so, does that mean, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire suggested, that we will need two separate doctors or providers because the co-ordinating doctor and the second doctor cannot be linked? That confuses me even further. After what we have heard this morning, it strikes me that we do not have any proposed model and the measure has not been thought through. It speaks to the idea that this is not right. We are spending hours and hours going through hypotheticals and possibilities—this could happen, that could happen—but there is nothing actually before us.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I am not sure that anything in the Bill would preclude a private provider—“Virgin Health” or some such organisation—from providing the whole pathway of the assisted death, including employing, albeit in separate clinics or separate practices, the two doctors who would provide the two assessments. The provider would comply with the Bill, but the doctors might be part of the same organisation even if they work in different practices.

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I have observed two things this morning. First, the reality has really hit home. Are we going to look at the amendment regarding local authorities providing the service? Are we excluding private providers? Are we excluding big firms? A new service has to be designed. Will it be two organisations or one? How will the Bill be delivered? We do not even have that before us, and that concerns me deeply.

[Kim Leadbeater]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said, it is common practice in healthcare and in the NHS for services to be commissioned in a range of ways. We would not put such a level of detail in the Bill, but it would be normal practice for the Secretary of State to do that commissioning work. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West has her own experience of that, I imagine.

[Naz Shah]

Absolutely. As a former commissioner, I am very familiar with commissioning; I commissioned millions of pounds’ worth of services across Bradford when I was in the NHS. The difference is that that was under Government Bills that had pre-consultation, impact assessments and a model that was debated. None of that has happened with this Bill. I agree that in an ideal world the process set out in new clauses 36 and 37 would be the right one, but without an impact assessment and a consultation, I am afraid that I have been left really disheartened.

I am disheartened about something else, too. I thank all Committee members, regardless of the points that they have or have not made, for the way in which the debate has been conducted, both before and during our sittings. On a few occasions, hon. Members have questioned other Members’ reasons for tabling amendments—but to suggest, as has been suggested today, that we are scaremongering, when we are actually going through the detail, is something else.

I am afraid. This is not me scaremongering; this is me being afraid for women who are anorexic. This is a gendered Bill. There are amendments that I support because I want to strengthen the Bill. I genuinely do not think that the Bill, as it stands, has that strength. I feel disheartened that we are talking about what is going to happen on Third Reading and potential votes, when we should be concentrating on the amendments on the selection list.

I oppose the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, which would replace clause 32. As my hon. Friend explained, new clause 36 outlines the powers that the Secretary of State for Health would have over voluntary assisted dying services in England. New clause 37 does the same for Wales, but makes changes that are necessary because health is a devolved power. I will concentrate on new clause 36, as I represent a constituency in England.

Put very simply, if new clause 36 is agreed to, it will give the Secretary of State three sorts of power. First, it will give the Health Secretary powers under subsection (4) to, effectively, change the National Health Service Act 2006. Secondly, it will give the Health Secretary powers to set out regulations about how any service, whether public or private, carries out assisted dying services. Thirdly, the Health Secretary will have powers under subsection (1) to commission assisted dying services. As I understand it, the wording means that assisted dying services could be provided directly by the NHS or by private firms working on contract for the NHS. I will discuss those powers in the order in which I mentioned them.

Subsection (4) of new clause 36 says that the Health Secretary may pass regulations that

“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.”

To make it clear how the new clause works, I will quote from the subsection of the National Health Service Act 2006 that it would affect. It states:

“The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—

(a) in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and

(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness.”

That Act is an adaptation of the original National Health Service Act 1946, section 1(1) of which states:

“It shall be the duty of the Minister of Health…to promote the establishment in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness”.

The 1946 and 2006 Acts both give the Health Secretary a very clear set of duties that I think we can all support. Those duties have been the basis of how the NHS has been run for the nearly eight decades for which it has existed.

My hon. Friend’s Bill would give the Secretary of State powers to change the duties set out in section 1(1) of the 2006 Act. I ask my hon. Friend and both Ministers why the Bill needs to give the Secretary of State those powers. The only reason I can think of is that someone who was part of the drafting process has pointed out that the Health Secretary’s current duties might be incompatible with assisted dying.

The Health Secretary has duties to secure improvement in the people’s physical and mental health and in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness. Someone could bring a legal challenge on the basis that assisted dying does not fit with that duty, and that challenge might well succeed. I think that, to prevent that happening, my hon. Friend has proposed subsection (1) of new clause 36. If there is any other reason why she has suggested that we should give those powers to the Secretary of State, it is important that the Committee understands and hears it.

What is proposed underlines just how major a change the Bill would make. Since the NHS started operations in 1948, we have had a clear understanding of what it is there for. The 2006 Act is little different from the 1946 Act in that respect. For nearly 80 years, we have had an NHS that is there to improve health and to improve the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illnesses. The fact that we may have to change that shows us that we are taking a very big step indeed. To make such a fundamental change to the NHS, we should have had the best possible evidence and proper consultation, not three days of witness hearings and then hundreds of pieces of written evidence, often published after we had finished discussing the topics to which they relate. That is nowhere near good enough.

The next set of powers that I want to talk about is mentioned in subsection (3) of new clause 36, which says that the Health Secretary

“may by regulations make other provision about voluntary assisted dying services in England (whether or not the services are commissioned VAD services).”

I absolutely accept that if we have assisted dying services in England, the Health Secretary should ensure that they are properly regulated. That will have to include privately provided services as well as those offered on the NHS. However, I must ask: why does the Bill say that the Secretary of State “may” pass such regulations? The best interpretation I can think of is that a future Health Secretary might decide that private firms should provide assisted dying services directly to paying customers rather than via outsourced NHS contracts. In that case, the Health Secretary would need to provide regulations for those private sector services.

If that interpretation 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 on the point, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley previously accepted an amendment—I think it was amendment 477—

[The Chair]

Order.

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

Naz Shah Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

We cannot risk an innovation in the law of murder with the unintended consequence that some murders go unprosecuted and unpunished. We must pass quality law that solves rather than creates problems. I do not intend to oppose the amendments, except amendment 509, as I do not see why the consent of the DPP should be required in the case of dishonesty, coercion or pressure. It is good that there is clarity on what people are prohibited from doing, but I am anxious that the Government discharge their duty to the statute book and that they do so in an even-handed manner.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, who has raised some concerns for me. I rise to speak in support of the amendments, but also to raise some points. I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but let me begin by speaking about the bits that I feel pleased with and able to support.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has already explained the amendments and may explain them more later. I am pleased that they tidy up errors in the original construction of the Bill. In its original form, subsection (2) rightly states:

“A person who, by dishonesty, coercion or pressure, induces another person to self-administer an approved substance provided in accordance with this Act commits an offence.”

Unfortunately, in the Bill as drafted, the penalty for such an act is only a prison sentence of 14 years. It is quite right for that to be the penalty for the offence detailed in subsection (1), namely when someone,

“by dishonesty, coercion or pressure, induces another person to make a first or second declaration”,

but does not actually succeed in getting them to the end of the assisted dying process. However, it is easy to agree that 14 years is an inadequate penalty for successfully coercing or pressurising somebody into an assisted death. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has recognised that problem and has tabled an amendment that would impose a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for such an offence.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central made a powerful speech in this Committee the other day, in which he said that abusive or coercive people are already likely to be forcing their victims to starve themselves or refuse treatment. That is true, and I thank him for raising that important point. I will welcome all measures to make it harder for abusers to do so and will gladly work with hon. Members to do so. However, I want to sound a strong note of caution.

Creating an offence and giving it a strong maximum penalty is only one of the ways to deter abuse and coercion, and perhaps the easiest. As I have mentioned before, the conviction rate for coercion is only about 4%. There are other things that we need to do to deter and prevent abuse. We need the people who may come into contact with it to be aware of what could happen; we need them to be able to spot the signs that it may be happening; we need ways to investigate those signs carefully. Only when we have done those things can we move on to the CPS potentially prosecuting somebody for an offence and, if they are found guilty by the court, to sentencing that person. Those are matters that this clause deals with, and they come at the end of a process.

I welcome the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), which makes training in domestic abuse and coercion mandatory for professionals working on assisted dying cases, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has accepted. However, new training on its own will not be enough to make it near-impossible for abusers to succeed. Having unfortunately had lots of experience in the area—having seen it in my own life, the lives of people close to me and the lives of constituents—I know that sometimes abusers are not subtle. Even so, they can be hard to catch, because their victims cannot recognise that they are being abused. The classic—I wish I had a pound for every time I heard it—is “He’s changed.” There are hundreds of justifications and some are very subtle indeed. These people can be very hard to catch, or they may never be caught at all.

I have heard hon. Members say—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said it earlier—that the Bill strengthens the safeguards around people who are terminally ill, because those are not there in the first place. I appreciate that idea, but that is just for those people who are terminally ill. I want to strengthen safeguards more generally. In some ways, the Bill offers people a new opportunity to be coercive, controlling and dishonest. That is why I have been banging on about safeguards so much in this Committee; perhaps people find it a bit much, but I do it because abusers are very persistent and clever people and we have to be clever and persistent in how we devise our safeguards against them.

Although I welcome the clause and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, I am disappointed that other safeguards have been rejected. I still say that the panel procedure could and should be much tougher. That would not guarantee that abusers would be caught, but it would make it more likely.

[The Chair]

Order. Members cannot continue to talk about the substance of amendments that have already been rejected, and we are now going into that territory. I am not going to stop the hon. Lady talking, but rehashing debates about amendments that we have already had is not in order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I apologise, Mr Dowd. I will not refer to them.

I come back to the point made by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire about DPP consent. I will be grateful if the Minister picks up some of these queries. In this place, we make laws. My experience of the law on forced marriage—I was a victim of forced marriage—was that we made a law but never got any convictions. Very little moved on it, because we already had laws in place to prosecute that offence. I am not saying that the same is happening here, but I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that we may be making a law that already exists. If it already exists in the Suicide Act, are we just making a law for the sake of putting something on the statute book or on the face of the Bill?

We have talked a lot about how we should not complicate things. The word “complication” has been used quite a lot in this Committee. Are we adding another layer of complication by putting this measure in the Bill, when we are not prepared to do so for other things that people feel strongly about? This is also something that already exists.

My understanding is that if we were prosecuting coercion, for which unfortunately the prosecution rate is only 4%, that would not need DPP consent. It would be needed, potentially, for assisting suicide, but not for coercion. Do we need some clarity about the application of the law in this regard? Suppose we had a scenario in which somebody was murdered: it was premeditated, and somebody had thought through how to use this process as an avenue to kill that person. I do not want us to make a law that would allow somebody to literally get away with murder. More thought needs to be given to that. I am not an expert or an eminent lawyer like the Minister, but I am concerned by the comments of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, having looked more closely at the issue. I would welcome the Minister’s comments.

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

Naz Shah Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Lewis Atkinson]

In considering the offer of any health or care-related activity, the appropriateness and suitability of the place is always in people’s mind, and clearly that varies. As I mentioned yesterday, we already have a licensing regime under which the CQC specifically licenses places for particular activity. I think my hon. Friend is right, but this is a normal part of decision making in the provision of health services and I do not think we should try to constrain it in primary legislation. However, as I started by saying, I recognise that we must enshrine the rights of individual conscientious objectors, which I think the hon. Member for East Wiltshire is trying to do with amendment 480, and I hope that we can do that, through some route, with the Bill.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendments 441 and 484, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and in support of new clause 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate.

Amendment 441 would amend clause 23 so that there would be

“no obligation on any care home or hospice regulated by the Care Quality Commission or the Care Inspectorate Wales to permit the provision of assistance under this Act on their premises.”

I think it is clear that “assistance” in this context means the act of administering lethal drugs. That is the sense in which the word is used in clause 18, for example.

Amendment 484 would tighten that restriction somewhat by providing that there is no obligation on any hospice to permit

“any activity closely related to the provision of assistance under this Act”.

New clause 23 would also apply to all regulated care homes and hospices in England and Wales. It would provide that none of those organisations can

“be subject to any detriment by a public authority as a result of not—

(a) providing assistance in accordance with this Act, or

(b) permitting such assistance to take place on their premises.”

The new clause would also provide that no public authority can make its funding for a regulated care home or hospice dependent on the care home or hospice agreeing to provide assisted dying or to allow assisted dying to take place on its premises.

All the amendments have the same goal: to ensure that the Bill does not harm this country’s hospices. We have heard from many witnesses how much hospices do in providing palliative and end-of-life care. Caring for people who are close to the end of life is difficult and vital work. The people who do that on our behalf include some of the very best in our society. We should all hold ourselves responsible for not making the task of hospices more difficult. The idea that the Bill might do that has been raised with us by people working in this country’s hospices.

Hospice UK takes a neutral position on whether assisted dying should be legal in England and Wales, but it has set out clear positions on how the Bill should and should not affect hospices. On funding, its written evidence TIAB 36 states:

“If assisted dying is legalised and becomes part of the health service, steps should also be taken to ensure there is no financial detriment to any hospice, whatever their positioning on the practice.”

I agree strongly with that argument, for several reasons. The hospice sector in this country receives a mixture of public funds and private or charitable money, including donations and the proceeds of charity shops and fundraising events. Like the rest of the population, the people who work in and run hospices have a mixture of views on assisted dying. Many have strong objections on various grounds. If public funds were made dependent on hospices agreeing to assisted dying taking place, we would see several things happen, all of them bad.

In evidence to the Committee on 28 January, Dr Sarah Cox, a consultant in palliative care and president of the Association for Palliative Medicine, said:

“I am also concerned about our palliative care workforce, which we know is already in crisis. Eighty-three per cent. of our members told the Royal College of Physicians in 2023 that they had staffing gaps, and more than 50% were unable to take leave because of those staffing gaps. Forty-three per cent. said that if assisted dying were implemented within their organisation, they would have to leave. This has a massive impact on palliative care, in terms of its potential to develop both our funding and our workforce, who are really concerned about this.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 70, Q83.]

In evidence to the Committee on 29 January, Toby Porter, chief executive officer of Hospice UK, said:

“If hospices were involved in assisted dying, there is a theoretical risk that that would just reinforce an inaccurate perception about hospice and palliative care: the myth that you are helped along your way by doctors in hospices and hospitals. That is one risk.

More briefly, the second risk relates to the duty of care. What do you need for hospice and palliative care services? You need adequate resourcing, which means staff and finances. In terms of staff, the real fragility in the hospice and palliative care sector is a shortage of clinical staff—that is shared nationally with the NHS and other healthcare providers.”

Mr Porter also mentioned the evidence of Dr Cox. He told us:

“You will know from Sarah Cox’s evidence that the majority of palliative care consultants hold views against assisted dying, many of them very strongly. If the consultants felt, for example, that they could not keep their distance from assisted dying in a 12-bed hospice unit in the way they could in an 800-bed hospital, you could very easily see that if this was not done properly and the consultants deserted the hospice sector, you could no longer offer the specialist care that is so important to the Minister, the NHS and every health and social care provider.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 196, Q256.]

Many people would be entirely willing to enter a care home or hospice if they thought they might receive assisted dying there, but others already fear that they might be pressured into taking assisted dying if they enter palliative care. They may be wrong to fear that, but they do. We heard evidence on that point from Dr Jamilla Hussain, who gave evidence to the Committee on 29 January:

“I work predominantly with an ethnically diverse population. I have gone into those communities and I have spoken to them about this Bill. What they say overwhelmingly to me is, ‘We’re scared. We’re really fearful that this is going to result in a disproportionate impact on our community. We have seen that through covid and we’re so scared. We already don’t access your services. We’re really worried that we won’t want to access them any more, and we won’t want to access the hospitals.’”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 187, Q245.]

That fear will only grow if we use public funds to oblige hospices to permit assisted dying on their premises. Hospices should be able to say clearly to their patients that they do not allow assisted dying to take place on their premises. The dedicated professionals who work in hospices and who deeply object to people being helped to die with lethal drugs must also be protected. They should be free from having to work on premises where something they might disagree with happens.

I anticipate that some hon. Members may argue that amendment 484 draws its restrictions too tightly. They might argue that it would mean that a doctor working on a hospice’s premises or making a visit to a patient in a hospice could not have the preliminary discussion about assisted death with that person. However, I want to be clear that these measures relate to the provision of assistance under this Bill. “Provision of assistance” is the phrase used throughout the Bill to refer not to the preliminary discussion, nor to the interviews with doctors, nor to the panel process, but to that part of the process at which the person takes lethal drugs with a doctor present.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

This is obviously a difficult and sensitive area, but does the hon. Lady think, for example, that a women’s refuge run by a Catholic foundation should be allowed to evict a woman who wants or has an abortion?

[Naz Shah]

I absolutely do not think that, because her abortion rights are set out in law. However, I also think that when that woman is going into a refuge, that refuge will make it clear that she may choose not to. It is about empowering both sides.

I am grateful for the right hon. Member’s intervention, but let us follow that argument. Let us say that somebody wants to pursue assisted death, and they want to go into a place, but they are informed that that organisation does not want to provide or has not signed up to providing an assisted death. It comes back to the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central rightly raised, which is that people do not deliberately go out looking to offend people. If we were in that space—I cannot imagine being there, but I am trying to understand it—would we want to access that service, because its religious belief differs from assisted dying as a principle?

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

Just so I am clear, if a young woman is escaping domestic abuse and goes to a domestic violence space close to her home so that her children can carry on going to school, but finds out once she is there that she is pregnant by the abuser, does my hon. Friend think that that is acceptable?

[Naz Shah]

Sorry, do I think which bit is acceptable?

[Dr Tidball]

That the domestic violence protection centre or home can refuse to let that lady stay there because she has latterly discovered that she is pregnant as a result of the abuse and wants to seek an abortion.

[Naz Shah]

Absolutely not. I would be horrified if that were the case. I know we have had cutbacks and we do not have the access, but I cannot imagine any refuge of any religious belief in this country turning away a woman in the situation that my hon. Friend describes.

[Dr Tidball]

I am glad to hear my hon. Friend’s answer. I ask that question because I can imagine an analogous situation of a woman suffering from breast cancer who is allergic to opioids but does not know that when she enters the care home. If her cancer reaches a stage of terminality but she cannot pursue palliative options because of her allergy to opioids, assisted dying would be the only option for her to die with dignity and not in great discomfort. Under my hon. Friend’s scenario, that woman would not be able to pursue an assisted death in that care home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point, and I absolutely hear what she is saying. If the woman were going into that hospice or care home when she was pursuing an assisted death, I am not sure how that would work.

[Dr Tidball]

To clarify, in my very clear example—it is a real-life example that reflects the experiences of someone who attended this Committee yesterday—the person has a terminal condition and enters a care home that makes her comfortable and is near her family, but discovers while the hospice or care home is trying to find methods to palliate that she is allergic to opioids and therefore her condition cannot be palliated. In the hon. Lady’s scenario, she would not be able to choose assisted death because that care home has a blanket policy against it. That would discriminate against that young woman, who has an allergy to opioids that means that she cannot be palliated.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which gives me a lot to think about. That is why I said that I genuinely do not have the answers. I want to have this discussion so that I can make the choice whether to support the amendments. I want to explore this issue further, because it is really important.

[Rebecca Paul]

The conversation has moved on a little, but I was just going to make the point that the amendments that I tabled focus very much on the rights of the employer with respect to what they expect from their staff. I wonder whether it would be helpful to explore that a bit more.

[Naz Shah]

If we are talking about employers and employees, not people who are accessing the service as service users, I hope the scenario to which my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge referred would not happen.

[Danny Kruger]

There is much to get into, and I will try to respond a bit more when I speak again. I do not want to revisit the whole question of palliative care but, on the scenario set out by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, the strong advice that I have received from palliative care professionals is that it is not accurate to say that somebody’s pain cannot be palliated. It might well be that there is a difficulty with particular opioids, but there are other palliative care options available to everybody. No palliative care doctor ever says that there is nothing they can do.

[Danny Kruger]

Well, we have been over the whole question of palliative care and alternatives to assisted suicide; nevertheless, I wanted to challenge that scenario.

On the suggestion that there is a comparison with an abortion service no one is suggesting that a woman who goes into a refuge, discovers she is pregnant and wants to have a termination is somehow obliged to have it on the premises of the refuge, which does not believe in abortion. That is not a scenario that could happen, because that is not how abortion operates. What we are suggesting is that somebody who arrives in a care home or hospice that does not want to facilitate assisted suicide would not be able to receive such assistance there. There is no objection to their believing in or desiring an assisted suicide; the point is to protect the institution.

I recognise the difficulty with the specific case the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge raised. Nevertheless, the alternative is to have blanket permission for any resident of any care home or hospice to insist that they can receive an assisted death in that home or hospice, despite what the rest of that community and the management might want. Indeed, the patient might have signed a contract specifying that they will not seek an assisted death in that home or hospice. There is much more to discuss, but I hope that that is helpful for the hon. Lady.

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member. What he said is really helpful.

I want to come back to the issue of opioids. As someone who suffers from chronic pain, my understanding is that I have a choice over whether I take opioids or other medication. So when people are allergic to opioids, they can potentially access other medication for pain relief.

[Jack Abbott]

A lot of the focus in the last few minutes has been about a care home having already made it clear that it does not support the process of assisted dying and the fact that anyone entering it would therefore know that. However, there is a clear scenario where some care homes might change their position over time. Someone may be in a care home for many years, but then the care home might change its position and say, “Actually, now we do not support assisted dying.” In that scenario, people would actually have gone into that setting thinking that it supported assisted dying.

Although I am sympathetic to the issue of place being made clear, it has real ramifications. Again, I do not think it is as black and white as saying, “This care home already had a set position.” Some care homes or other settings might change their position over time, even when residents are in situ for a long time. That is the big problem with this particular clause: the situation is not as straightforward as some Members have perhaps suggested today.

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point: it is not straightforward. That is why people are tabling amendments and having this discussion—to iron this issue out and make sure we nail it, to make the process as safe as possible.

There are laws in our country that protect people’s religious views—for example, we have the Equality Act 2010—and those laws are there for a reason. Speaking to all the amendments, I would not want to see hospices not being funded because they take a certain position. Also, from an employer’s perspective—I appreciate the scenario that has been mentioned, and I will come back to it—they may be recruiting in accordance with their values. We are all in politics, and we all sign up to a particular view of politics. When we recruit our staff, we put on the application form, or other information, that we would like applicants to believe in our value system. That is not discriminating against somebody who has a different value system. That would be my response.

[Lewis Atkinson]

I just want to nail this point about employers and recruitment. We have said that no organisation will be obliged to provide these services, in exactly the same way as with abortion. The example I would give is this: a provider of women’s services says, “We are not providing abortion. But, in addition, we are going to ask staff members we are recruiting if they believe it is ever legal for abortion to take place.” That is exactly the same test of belief, although on a different medical procedure, that my hon. Friend is proposing in this instance.

[Naz Shah]

That is not what I am saying. I am saying very clearly that when we recruit people to any job, we ask them to have the values that we have as an organisation. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention, but what he says is certainly not the point I am trying to make, and I cannot imagine anybody—even for religious reasons, and even if they have changed their position—genuinely treating somebody in that way. We just do not do that.

[Jack Abbott]

I appreciate that, but as my hon. Friend has said a number of times over the last few weeks, some of these things unfortunately do happen. As I am sure we all do, I have had casework involving people with guide dogs saying that they have been refused certain services, including taxis, even though that is a civil offence because they have a guide dog with them. We have said a number of times that there are flaws in every single system. I appreciate that we want to adopt a good-will attitude, and I am sure the vast majority of settings across the country will operate on that basis, but we know that, in certain circumstances, that is not always the case. That is why, if we put anything in the Bill, it needs to have real clarity and not unintended consequences.

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to clarify this.

To sum up, this comes back to some of the questions I have for the Minister, and I wonder whether he can answer some of them. I say that especially because the Committee has had lots of debates on amendments tabled by the Government via my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley giving the Secretary of State statutory duties. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to clarify this issue and make it watertight using regulations.

Have we had an assessment of what the impact would be on the provision of healthcare if assisted death were permitted in either a hospice or care home, and is the Minister happy to share that assessment with the Committee? For example, if palliative care specialists are saying, “X amount of people would no longer want to be involved, so there is a real risk of an exodus of specialists from hospices,” we need to know whether there has been an assessment of that. Perhaps the Government can help us to understand that real concern from palliative care specialists.

Given that the Minister mentioned his visit to a hospice this week, has he had any discussions with Care England care homes about allowing this process to happen in care homes themselves? How have the concerns of clinical staff about allowing an assisted death in their healthcare facility been assessed, and have those concerns been put to him? How many staff have indicated that they would need to leave the NHS, care providers or hospices if an assisted death were mandated on their premises?

Coming back to beliefs, there is also the element of charitable bodies. Have we spoken to the Charity Commission about the impact on those bodies if they were pressured by the Bill into changing their charitable aims? Would they be protected from providing assisted death because of their charitable aims?

For me, this debate has raised more questions than answers, and there is much more discussion to be had. I am happy to listen to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, as I can then intervene and probe further.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Ms McVey, even though it is a little later than originally planned.

Amendment 480 is intended to extend the category of those protected from being obligated to participate in the provision of assisted dying under clause 23 from registered medical practitioners, registered nurses and registered pharmacists or pharmacy technicians to all individuals. The amendment also seeks to clarify what an individual can refuse to do under clause 23(1), by setting out a non-exhaustive list of activities under the Bill that an individual would not be obligated to participate in. The amendment also specifies that the ability not to participate in the provision of assisted dying does not override any duty to signpost someone to information about assisted dying; to perform clerical, secretarial or ancillary acts; or to perform life-saving acts or grave injury-saving acts.

The amendment would introduce significant legal uncertainty and may mean that a person who had opted in to providing services under the Bill could refuse to continue to do so or could use clause 23 as a justification not to perform their duties as described in the Bill. For example, they may use the amendment as justification for not checking eligibility criteria, discussing prognosis or palliative care options, or performing other requirements under the Bill.

Amendment 480 may also conflict with other provisions. It states:

“no individual is under any duty…to be involved, directly or indirectly, in the provision of assistance”,

in accordance with the Bill. That may, for example, mean that although doctors are required under the Bill to notify a cancellation, they would be allowed to refuse to do things under the Bill, even if they have opted in to providing assisted dying services. It is not clear which provision would take precedence, which could allow the doctor to decline to notify a cancellation, by arguing that they are relying on clause 23(1).

Amendment 483 is intended to extend

“the range of activities which medical practitioners and other healthcare providers are not under an obligation to provide to include activities closely related to the provision of assistance”

under clause 23(1).

Amendment 484 is intended to expand the protection from being subject to a detriment by an employer at clause 23(2), to include where a registered medical practitioner or health professional refuses to participate in activity closely related to the provision of assistance. The term,

“activity closely related to the provision of assistance”,

is not defined, and that could create uncertainty as to what types of activity it is intended to cover.

The Bill does not, as currently drafted, specify where the provision of assistance may or may not take place. Amendment 441 would prevent there being any obligation on a care home or hospice regulated by the Care Quality Commission or Care Inspectorate Wales to permit the provision of assistance to be carried out on their premises. The effect of the amendment may be to limit the places where assistance could be provided. It may thereby reduce access to an assisted death for those residing within a care home or hospice, if a care home or hospice did not wish to allow an assisted death to be provided on its premises. The amendment could preclude some people from accessing services under the Bill if they were near the end of life and leaving their usual place of residence was therefore impeded. It may result in inconsistent treatment for patients when seeking to access an assisted death. That could potentially engage a person’s rights under article 8 of the ECHR—the right to respect for private and family life.

Amendment 481 has two parts. The first aims to ensure that employees cannot participate in the assisted dying process in the course of their employment if their employer has chosen not to participate in assisted dying. The effect of the amendment could be to limit the places where assistance would be provided, and it may result in inconsistent treatment for patients when seeking to access an assisted death. That could engage a person’s rights under article 8 of the ECHR—the right to respect for private and family life.

The explanatory notes suggest that the second part of the amendment seeks to ensure that employers require employees to provide or not provide assisted dying under schedule 9 of the Equality Act 2010. That schedule enables an employer to specify that having a protected characteristic is a requirement of a job when having that characteristic is crucial to the post and a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The ability to specify occupational requirements is conferred by schedule 9 of the Equality Act, and reference to it in this amendment would not have any additional effect.

The purpose of new clause 22 is to provide that the owners or occupiers of a premises would not be obligated to permit the self-administration of an approved substance on their premises. This right to refuse would not extend to a person who has an interest in the land but who is not occupying or operating on those premises, such as a landlord. It is unclear if the term “premises” would apply to a residential property, care home or hospice. As a result, the amendment may mean that someone who is terminally ill and is residing in, for example, a care home or a hospice could be required to leave that care home or hospice in order to receive assistance under the Bill if the care home or hospice owner did not wish to allow assisted dying on their premises. That could engage a person’s rights under article 8 of the ECHR—the right to respect for private and family life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to acknowledge the wonderful workforce working in end of life care, but there is a range of views within that workforce and there is the individual opt-out. No one has to be involved in this process if they do not want to be. That is clear in the Bill as it stands. I hope that, working together, we can make that even clearer if needed.

Under the Bill, doctors and health professionals already have the ability to opt out for any reason, wherever they work.

[Naz Shah]

Pharmacies have not been mentioned. Would they have the ability to opt out?

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is a good point. My understanding—the Minister might correct me—is that pharmacists currently are within the definition of health professionals, but if they are not, that is an important point, which would be covered by making the change to ensure that no one is under any duty. However, I will definitely check that.

Mr Porter also said:

“hospices evolved out of the community. They exist because communities wanted better deaths. In the end, it is the job of institutions to evolve to fit the values and laws of society as they evolve, rather than vice versa.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 202, Q264.]

The polling on assisted dying shows significant public support for a change in the law, which is one of the main reasons we are here discussing the issue today. The latest figures from the British social attitudes survey, published just this week by the National Centre for Social Research, show that support at 79%, which is unchanged or slightly up on a decade ago. Although I cannot support these amendments, this is an important debate. I think we have conducted ourselves extremely well over the past 24 hours. I think it is important that we continue the debate respectfully and sensitively.

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

Naz Shah Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

Yes, but he or she will consider a reconsideration only on the basis of an application to reconsider made by the applicant. There is only one opportunity for an appeal and it can happen in only one direction: against a refusal. I will come on to the role of the commissioner in a moment, but in the great majority of cases there will not be a judge involved in the decision. There might be a retired judge on the panel, but that is extremely unlikely; it is more likely to be a lawyer. It is a judicial exercise that is being conducted, so it would be appropriate for it to be a judge sitting properly in a court.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member share my concern that the Bill does not say that the panel can call people and ask them to swear under oath, unlike a mental health tribunal?

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Having said that the panel is not a proper multidisciplinary team, I agree that it is not a proper judicial entity either. It is a panel with judicial power to approve life-or-death decisions, but it is without a judge or the normal judicial processes that would happen in a tribunal or court. There is no oath being taken by members of the panel or by witnesses; there is no independent appointment process, so the members of the panel will be appointed by the commissioner; there is no power to order the disclosure of information to the panel; there is no power to investigate wills, financial records or anything like that; and there is no requirement to meet the doctors or even to discuss the case with the patient themselves, if the panel considers that appropriate.

There is also no appeal against an approval, just a one-way appeal against a refusal. That appeal goes not to an independent judge sitting in a court, but to a commissioner—an appointee of the Government, who has been set up to facilitate the whole system.

Let me turn to the role of the VAD commissioner, or the Vader as I think of it; I will not labour the point. They can be a sitting judge, which is good, but I suggest to the Committee that it is highly unusual for sitting judges to be appointed to other public functions that are unrelated to a judicial role. I would be interested in the Minister’s view on that. Judges can be appointed to a second judicial job, such as chairing the Sentencing Council, but I am not aware of many examples in which a sitting judge sits in a non-judicial function.

Having looked into it, I discovered that there are three exceptions to the rule. First, the Master of the Rolls holds a number of sinecures in relation to the keeping of the public archives and the payment of the national debt, so that is a non-judicial function that a judge carries. Secondly, the chair of the Law Commission is a sitting High Court or Court of Appeal judge. Thirdly, and exceptionally, with permission of the senior judiciary, sitting judges can be asked to conduct public inquiries. A singular public inquiry, which is time-limited and essentially judicial in its purpose of determining what happened, and which will of course operate in an adversarial way, hearing proper evidence from counsel, is the only exception. However, that is not comparable to the model being set out here, in which a sitting judge is being asked to chair a permanent quango—a Government body.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

It would be very helpful if the hon. Lady could—not now; it need not be in the course of these deliberations—publish the evidence of that assertion. Which senior judicial figures have endorsed the new plan? It would be very helpful to hear from them.

We heard many criticisms of the previous regime. In my view, those objections prompted the change of heart that the new clauses derive from. From what I have seen, the weight of evidence indicates that we still have many of the problems that the High Court system had: a lack of effective powers and questions around capacity. We also have a whole new load of problems to do with the essential illegitimacy of a quasi-medical panel of people making an essentially judicial decision without the opportunity to hear in a meaningful way from all the different stakeholders who should be consulted.

[Naz Shah]

I want to understand and clarify something. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the commissioner is sitting as a judge, but my understanding is that the commissioner is not sitting as a judge. What did he mean?

[Danny Kruger]

I think the hon. Member for Spen Valley said yesterday that we had to grapple with this confusion, which is that there is a judge not sitting as a judge. It is slightly like a Minister not sitting as a Minister; the Bill has provided all sorts of interesting hybrid creations of people who inhabit split personalities and dual roles.

The hon. Member for Bradford West is, I think, right. From the evidence we have heard from the hon. Member for Spen Valley, although there will be a judge, which satisfies the cosmetic need to present this as some sort of continuation of the High Court stage that the House of Commons voted for, they will not sit as a judge. It is rather like having a hobby or a second job. I am not sure judges do that, but it is like chairing a football club on the side. Their status derives from their judicial role, but they are sitting as the commissioner in a lay capacity—I think I have that right.

[Danny Kruger]

It will be interesting to hear from the Minister, who is more equipped than the rest of us to opine on this. My understanding is that a judge sitting as chair of a judicial inquiry might not be sitting in court, but they are there because they are a judge; their function, as the chair of the inquiry, is essentially judicial. That is the only comparison and it is essentially different, because the exercise of a public inquiry is time-limited and specific to a particular case, which is to determine the truth or otherwise of what happened in whatever situation it is being asked to inquire into.

Here, we are setting up a quango—an arm’s length body of Government—that will sit in perpetuity and oversee a bureaucracy of state. That is something that no judge does in our system and, in my view, would be completely inappropriate for a sitting judge to do, even if we could find a sitting judge prepared to fulfil that function, which I think might be challenging.

The other key difference is that a judge chairing a public inquiry is appointed by the Lady Chief Justice; they are essentially judicial in their appointment and work. The judiciary appoints one of its own to fulfil a judicial function as the chair of an inquiry. It is being proposed here that the Government—the Executive, not the judiciary—appoint the chair of the commission from the Bench of judges.

[Naz Shah]

What the hon. Gentleman has said creates another concern for me. If we do have a judge, and if the expectation is that they sit in a judicial capacity, does that not raise concerns that an appeal is allowed one way—if an assisted death is refused—but not the other way, if someone wants to appeal against an assisted death? By definition, does that position not become compromised?

[Danny Kruger]

I am afraid that that is absolutely right. There is an essential problem with the role of the commissioner as the backstop—the Court of Appeal, as it were—for what are effectively judicial decisions made by the non-judicial panel. The fact that appeals can be heard only against a refusal and not an approval confuses the whole question of appeal and judicial review. It is plainly unjust, and does indeed compromise the idea that the judicial figure has the independence that a judge should properly have. I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford West.

[Naz Shah]

I want to speak to amendment (c) to new schedule 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. The amendment requires members of the panel to have undertaken training in respect of domestic abuse, including coercive control, and financial abuse. It extends the principle of amendments 20, 21, and 22, also tabled in the name of my hon. Friend, which require the medical practitioners involved in the assisted dying process to have undertaken similar training.

[Kim Leadbeater]

rose—

[Naz Shah]

I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend, the sponsor of the Bill. I am really pleased that she accepted the previous amendments. I do not know whether she will accept this one.

[Kim Leadbeater]

A strong argument has been made to me that the professionals on the panel would have the skills and training to fulfil their role, but it is important, particularly given the time we have spent discussing this issue, that they do have it, so I am happy to support that amendment.

[Naz Shah]

I appreciate that. None the less, I will speak briefly to the amendment as I still have concerns. The amendment provides an absolutely necessary safeguard and I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has accepted it. I am pleased that it extends to panel members, but it does not meet the safeguarding needs when it comes to people of ethnic minority backgrounds, coercion, cultural competence and so on. People and organisations have raised concerns about that.

The truth is that the Bill is very gendered: the analysis by women’s organisation The Other Half has found that if the Bill passes, and trends follow those of Australia, 1.65% of all deaths in this country could take place via assisted dying. If so, as many as 1,400 domestic abuse victims could die each year through that process. It is vital that Members on both sides of the debate are conscious that we are opening up a new avenue for domestic abuse through the Bill. That is what the amendment speaks to. To save the Committee time, I will not go over the detail because it was covered during our discussions of the previous three amendments.

[Kit Malthouse]

I rise briefly to amplify a couple of points from the excellent speeches by the hon. Members for Rother Valley and for Ipswich. First, in clarification, I understand that there are situations where judges can sit in essentially supervisory positions—not least, for example, on the BBC board—and they can of course be Cross Benchers in the House of Lords. They are allowed to undertake other charitable trustee roles, although they are restricted in their activities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson]

I thank the hon. Member for that point, but when someone cannot describe any version of safeguards that would be possible, and in the light of some of the other conversations we have had, one is led to believe, entirely respectfully, that some people are opposed to the Bill in principle in any instance.

The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley made on Second Reading that this was the safest model in the world was not just about the fact that there was a judge, but about the fact that there was a third tier. That is not something that is in place in Oregon, or even in Australia, as we heard in evidence. Now, not only are we going to have a third tier of scrutiny, but we are going to have three professionals who must unanimously accept that the strict conditions for eligibility have been reached. I absolutely refute the suggestion that amending away from a High Court model and towards a panel model means that we have to recant any suggestion that this is the strongest model in the world.

[Naz Shah]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Lewis Atkinson]

I am going to continue this point, if I may.

The hon. Member for East Wiltshire asked what the purpose of the panel is. As is set out very clearly in new clause 21, it is about determining eligibility for assistance, with reference to the stringent rules and conditions that we will lay out in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman went on to ask about the purpose of the judge and suggested that it is a bureaucratic role. As new clause 14(4)(c) makes clear, the commissioner’s role is making arrangements for panels, and new schedule 2 is clear that the commissioner has powers to give guidance about the “practice and procedure” of those panels. Clearly, the commissioner will be a judicial figure with experience of proper process and procedure, and it is absolutely right that that person, who will set out the procedure for each of the panels, is a judge.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about MDTs. I am not sure whether he has worked in or around healthcare, as I and other members of the Committee have, but I say gently that the suggestion that individuals at the end of their lives are not in contact with multiple professionals is highly implausible. We are blessed in this country that we have some of the best cancer nursing in the world, and that we have palliative care social work. He previously asked which bodies had come out in support of this change. Well, the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers says:

“The inclusion of social workers as core members of these panels shows that Kim Leadbeater and her colleagues have taken on board our arguments that social workers are uniquely qualified and equipped to undertake the complex and sensitive tasks of assessing mental capacity and safeguarding individuals who may be subject to any form of undue influence or coercion.”

[Naz Shah]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Lewis Atkinson]

No, I am in a flow, so I am just going to keep going. I am mainly rebutting at this point, and I do not want to open the debate that much wider.

Invariably, we already have individuals at the end of their lives with multidisciplinary input that is appropriate to them, and we have heard already how the independent doctors and the panels will rightly seek input from all those involved in care.

It has been some time since the hon. Member for East Wiltshire and I had an exchange on our difference on the ventilator test, but I know that we have a fundamental, philosophical difference on that. I believe that a dying person saying, “Please, doctor, turn off my ventilator; I want to die,” is not fundamentally different from that person saying, “Please, doctor, let me take that medicine; I want to die.” I assert that the person in the street is closer to my view of that situation than to his, although I respect that people have different philosophical opinions about it. However, let us not forget that we sometimes conduct this debate about the correct oversight of the third tier in a theoretical manner, as if these people were not dying anyway, and as if deaths relating to refusal of treatment, and suicide, were not happening anyway.

--- Later in debate ---

I again gently say that I understand there are in-principle opponents of the Bill, but we are working in good faith through these amendments to respond to the evidence that we have heard and to improve the lives of families and dying people in this country. That is why I am proud to be supporting the amendments in the promoter’s name.

[Naz Shah]

I will speak to amendment (b) to new schedule 2, but before I do, I will address some of what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central just talked about. To clarify something for the record, Glyn Berry, co-chair of the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers, of which there are 200 members—there are 200 social workers for palliative care in the country as it stands—has not given an endorsement, and has categorically said that the association does not support the panel structure, as it fails to support what the Bill is intended to do on assisted dying. I am happy to send my hon. Friend the reference for that.

The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire referred to panels in particular. I tried to intervene and ask him about this directly, but I will mention it now and I will be happy to give way should he wish me to. He told the Hansard Society that he was not supporting palliative care specialists at an earlier stage, simply because the issue of palliative care would be addressed in the structure of the panels, but that has not happened. I just wanted to put those concerns on the record before I moved on to my substantive speech.

Amendment (b) to new schedule 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), would amend the new schedule, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, to ensure that the Official Solicitor will nominate a person to represent the applicant before the panel. As it stands, the new schedule does not require the commissioner to give guidance about the practice and procedure of panels. However, if guidance is given, the panels, under paragraph 8(2),

“must have regard to any such guidance in the exercise of their functions.”

Amendment (b) would remove the relevant sub-paragraphs and replace them with the following:

“(1) The Commissioner must give guidance about the practice and procedure of panels.

(2) Such guidance must prescribe a procedure which in relation to each application appoints a person nominated by the Official Solicitor to act as advocate to the panel.

(3) Panels must have regard to such guidance in the exercise of their functions.”

What effect would this have?

I refer hon. Members to the written evidence submitted by Ruth Hughes, a senior barrister due to be appointed King’s counsel on 24 March. The written evidence number is 161. Ms Hughes notes that she has

“17 years’ experience of specialising in mental incapacity and the law in relation to vulnerable adults”

and that she has

“advised the Ministry of Justice on capacity related issues.”

She describes herself as

“one of the most experienced barristers specialising in the property and affairs of persons who lack mental capacity in the country.”

In this context, it is particularly noteworthy that Ms Hughes has frequently appeared in court instructed by the Office of the Official Solicitor and the Office of the Public Guardian. She says:

“In my professional experience, financial abuse of the vulnerable and those who lack mental capacity, or are approaching the borderline, is depressingly common.”

Ms Hughes is not someone who opposes the Bill at all costs; she seeks to strengthen its safeguards for those at risk of coercion. She states in her evidence that

“whilst I do not oppose the Bill, I am highly concerned that the safeguards proposed are insufficient to protect vulnerable people from exploitation for financial gain. I suggest it would be profoundly disturbing and wrong for Parliament to enact legislation which put vulnerable people at risk of being killed for financial gain without creating adequate safeguards to protect them.”

Those are very strong words from someone who I suspect is not in the habit of crying wolf. If we hear that kind of warning from a senior lawyer with Ms Hughes’s specialised knowledge of protecting at-risk adults, we should certainly listen.

Ms Hughes was a strong supporter of the use in the Bill as drafted of a High Court judge as the authority who would decide on assisted dying applications. She wrote:

“I suggest that the judicial safeguard is fundamentally important.”

She recommended, however, that the Bill should be amended to include five additional safeguards. I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has accepted one of the five proposed protections: the requirement to hear from the person who wishes to die. Ms Hughes’s fifth recommendation bears directly on the amendment we are discussing. She says that the Bill should be amended to include an advocate who would

“ensure that the evidence in support of a claim is appropriately tested.”

Ms Hughes made that recommendation when my hon. Friend was still advocating for a High Court judge, rather than a panel, as the arbiter, but I do not see that the change from court to panel has in any way weakened the argument she made for an independent advocate. Explaining why she wants to increase safeguards, she says that in the Bill as drafted

“there is likely to be significantly less scrutiny of a decision by the Court in relation to assisted dying than there is for example currently in relation to a decision of the Court of Protection to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from a person, or even a decision as to where a person lacking capacity should live or with whom they should have contact.”

Ms Hughes said that one problem was that

“importantly, there is no person appointed to assist the Court to consider and test the evidence before it. Our Court system is inherently adversarial. Generally, two or more parties to a dispute will present evidence and argument to the Court and the Court will make findings of fact on the evidence and come to decisions on the law in accordance with those arguments. The Court is not hidebound, but equally it is not set up to obtain evidence itself. A scheme which does not provide for an independent party to consider the evidence and present arguments against an application will be unlikely to be robust and will not be well designed to identify, for example, a lack of capacity or the existence of coercion or pressure.”

This part of Ms Hughes’s evidence seems to be particularly important:

“Doctors, for example, may not be well placed to identify coercion, pressure or control. In my experience they are often missed by solicitors taking instructions for the making of gifts or wills. The best solution, perhaps the only good solution, to this problem would be to require the Official Solicitor to act as advocate to the Court in cases brought under the proposed legislation.”

It would be helpful if we explained the term “advocate to the court.” The Ministry of Justice published the following explanation of what an advocate to the court is and what they do, based on a 2001 memorandum agreement between the Attorney General and the Lord Chief Justice. The Ministry said:

“A court may properly seek the assistance of an Advocate to the Court when there is a danger of an important and difficult point of law being decided without the court hearing relevant argument. In those circumstances the Attorney General may decide to appoint an Advocate to the Court…It is important to bear in mind that an Advocate to the Court represents no one. Their function is to give to the court such assistance as they are able on the relevant law and its application to the facts of the case.”

We should all see the advantage of being able, through the Official Solicitor, to give the panel the assistance of specialist lawyers. We should particularly see the advantage of the Official Solicitor being able to appoint barristers who are experienced in cases where capacity was in doubt or where people were possibly being coerced.

The Ministry of Justice explanation goes on to say:

“An Advocate to the Court will not normally be instructed to lead evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or investigate the facts.”

The word “normally” is important in this context. The advocate will perhaps not carry out these functions when acting to advise assisted dying panels, but we should note that the Ministry’s guidance does not state that they will never carry out such functions. As we have remarked more than once, we are in unmarked territory here.

I will end by quoting some more of Ms Hughes’s evidence, because it is clearly written by an expert in their field. She says:

“In my experience it is not uncommon where a vulnerable person is controlled or is lacking capacity for the person to be apparently expressing wishes in a clear and forceful manner. This can easily be mistaken for a person acting freely and with capacity.”

That statement is a powerful counterpoint to some of the confident claims we heard from witnesses about it being relatively easy for doctors to detect coercion. Some of the witnesses from Australia and California were particularly noteworthy in that regard.

Ms Hughes goes on:

“In short, the risks of the Bill are real and substantial. The challenge for Parliament is how to mitigate them. The current drafting is inadequate.”

That is evidence we should not ignore. It comes from a distinguished lawyer who is not an opponent of the Bill but who fears that, as drafted, it will not protect the vulnerable. She has offered us what seems to be a workable solution to the problem that concerns her: create a mechanism to involve the Official Solicitor. Amendment (b) to new schedule 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, would allow us to put that into practice. I hope that all Committee members can support the amendment and increase the protection that the Bill offers to vulnerable people at risk of coercion.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have you here this afternoon, Ms McVey. I did not intend to make a contribution, but given the number of contributions that have been made, I wanted to respond to them. It has been a really interesting and important sitting.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich is right. I see the panel as a genuine attempt to respond to the evidence we heard in the witness sessions and improve the process. I take that absolutely as read, particularly in respect of the evidence from Rachel Clarke, whose view was that coercion is happening and that we should take the NHS as it is, not as we would like it to be. I see the attempt at introducing a panel as a response to that.

The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire is absolutely right to state that if there is a moral imperative to do something, Parliament should look at passing it and then the public services should figure out how they implement it afterwards. He is right in that. There is obviously a question about whether there is that moral imperative, but he is right to point that out.

Although I take the panel as a sincere attempt to strengthen the Bill, I feel that, as put before us, it is not strong enough. That is why I spoke yesterday to amendment (d) to new clause 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, which would ensure that the process was done properly and robustly. Nobody wants to see people dragged in front of a court when they are unwell, but there is the matter of safeguarding, and we do have a concern over coercion. It is integral to ensure we have public trust, so I urge the Bill’s proponents to consider those concerns again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sean Woodcock]

Having thought about it, that would be my preference. I am in a difficult position in that there is a lot to be said for the panel, and it would improve the process in many ways, but I cannot get around the fact that the judicial aspect was put strongly before Parliament, and ensuring that we would have those safeguards provided reassurance to Members. When I have been out on the doorstep talking to people who are in favour of the Bill—people who wanted me to vote in favour of it—they have said to me that they think the proposal is safe because it includes two doctors and judicial oversight. That does come up, which is why I think we need to keep judicial oversight in the Bill. I do, though, I recognise the very genuine attempt by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to introduce the panel to improve on some aspects and address the concerns expressed in the witness testimony.

[Naz Shah]

If I may, Ms McVey, I will speak to the issue of the judicial oversight of the panel and the whole of new clause 21. I would like to understand something, and perhaps the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley could help me. We have been talking a lot about judicial oversight. My concern is that even if we had judicial oversight, there is no liability if something goes wrong. We would have had judicial oversight, but now we have panel oversight—non-judicial oversight—of the decision. Even then, what if somebody went down the assisted dying route and an issue was raised afterwards? What recourse would anybody—family members and so on—have to hold anybody liable if they did something wrong, including, potentially, the commissioner?

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey.

As my hon. Friend the Minister for Care and I have made clear throughout debate, the Government continue to remain neutral on the Bill and do not have a position on assisted dying. Once again, my remarks will focus on the legal and practical impacts of the amendments, with a view to assisting Committee members. I will first speak to amendments 371 to 373, 377, 378, 381, 388, 390 and 391, new clauses 14, 15, 17 and 21, and new schedules 1 and 2, all tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

In executing our duties to ensure that the legislation, if passed, is legally robust and workable, the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley in relation to the amendments, which propose the voluntary assisted dying commission and the panels. They reflect my hon. Friend’s intent to replace the court approval process that is currently set out in the Bill. I confirm that this change was driven not by capacity concerns from within Government, but by the Bill promoter’s policy intent. Let me be clear: the High Court stage could be made to work, but if the Committee and Parliament elect for the commissioner and panel model, the state will work to deliver that.

New clause 14 and consequential amendment 391 would provide for the establishment of a voluntary assisted dying commissioner. In keeping with other appointments of this significance, the commissioner would be appointed by the Prime Minister, and the individual in post must hold or have held office—so it is not sitting judges, but could be a retired judge—as a judge of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal or the High Court.

New clause 14 sets out the central functions of the commissioner, which will be detailed further in new clauses 15 and 17 and new schedule 1. The commissioner would receive documents, including the reports from the co-ordinating doctor and declarations under the legislation, make appointments to the list of persons eligible to sit on assisted dying review panels, and refer cases to those panels, which would replace the role of the High Court in the original draft of the Bill. In addition, the commissioner would have the responsibility for monitoring the Bill’s operation and reporting annually to Parliament, which we will no doubt come to in clause 34. It is important to pause there, because that is one aspect in which the commissioner model is distinct from that of a court or tribunal. It will serve multiple functions, not least the monitoring of the Bill’s operation and reporting on that annually to Parliament.

New schedule 1 contains practical arrangements for the office of the voluntary assisted dying commissioner, as established in new clause 14. In practice, we anticipate that the commissioner’s office will be a non-departmental public body. The establishment of such an office to support the Government-appointed chair or commissioner is common practice for roles of this nature. One such model is the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, which is chaired by a person who is holding or who has held high judicial office. The schedule also introduces the role of a deputy commissioner, who, like the commissioner, must have been appointed by the Prime Minister and hold or have held office as a judge of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal or the High Court.

Both the commissioner and deputy commissioner would be appointed for terms of five years, with their remuneration set by the Secretary of State. The commissioner would have the ability to appoint their own staff, having obtained approval from the Secretary of State in regard to the number of staff, the remuneration and the terms, as well as providing an annual statement of accounts. In the ordinary way, such a public body would be subject to other statutory provisions, not least the Equality Act 2010.

New clause 15 would establish the mechanism for the referral by the voluntary assisted dying commissioner to an assisted dying review panel. When the commissioner receives a first declaration from the person seeking assistance, and reports from the co-ordinating and independent doctors as to their assessments of the person—including a statement by those doctors as to the person’s eligibility for assistance—they would be required to refer the case to a panel as soon as reasonably practical. In practice, the task of organising the work of each panel would fall to the commissioner’s office. The co-ordinating doctor would be required to inform the commissioner where a first or second declaration is cancelled. Where the commissioner is informed of the cancellation of the first declaration, they must not refer the case to a panel, or must inform the panel to disregard the application if already referred.

Amendments 371, 372, 373, 377, 378, 381, 388 and 390 are all consequential amendments on new clause 21, and together establish the mechanism for the consideration of cases by the assisted dying review panels in place of the High Court. Panels would be required to review each case and issue a certificate of eligibility where they are satisfied that all requirements set out in the Bill have been met.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment (a) would require the panel to be satisfied “beyond reasonable doubt”—the criminal standard of proof—that the Bill’s criteria have been met. In law, the balance of probability standard means that a court is satisfied that an event occurred if it considers that, based on the evidence, the occurrence of the event was more likely than not. The civil standard is currently used for end-of-life decisions and in other similar contexts. In addition to being the relevant standard of proof when deciding whether a person has capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, including for serious medical treatment, the civil standard, which would be applied under new clause 21, is also applied in serious cases such as suicide inquests, withdrawal of life support and childcare proceedings. In practice, the panel would establish a case on the balance of probabilities only on the basis of strong evidence, including contemporaneous documentation, records, or hearing from the relevant persons whom they are required to hear from. The panel’s decision must be unanimous.

[Naz Shah]

We have heard before that the panel’s decision must be unanimous. However, I have tried looking in the Bill and it does not state that specifically. My understanding is that two people could nod their head, the other one would not have to, and it would still pass.

[Sarah Sackman]

I believe it is in there. Let me find the relevant provision so that I can refer my hon. Friend to it.

[Naz Shah]

It is a majority vote, not unanimous.

[Sarah Sackman]

It is a majority vote for the other decisions that a panel may make, but in respect of certification, the decision is unanimous. Paragraph 5(2) of new schedule 2 states:

“Decisions of a panel may be taken by a majority vote”.

Such decisions include whether to hear from an additional expert, or whether further investigation is required in respect of an aspect that the panel may be concerned about, such as coercion or capacity. While those decisions can be taken by a majority vote, in respect of certification and granting a certificate of eligibility, I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 5(3), which states:

“The panel is to be treated as having decided to refuse to grant a certificate of eligibility if any member votes against a decision to grant such a certificate.”

That is a slightly mealy-mouthed way of saying that if any member of the panel resists the grant of the certificate, no certificate can be issued.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I appreciate that, under the new clause, the panel can hear from anybody. Can the Minister confirm that the panel is unable, unlike a mental health tribunal, to summon people to appear before them or insist that witnesses appear, and to make them swear under oath when presenting their evidence?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the Bill as drafted, a panel and the commission are not invested with powers of summons, and the evidence that is heard and requested is not conveyed under oath. It is not a court or a tribunal. Those provisions do not apply, so she is absolutely right. They can make the request, but they cannot compel someone to attend.

Amendment (e) to new clause 21 would make it explicit that, when considered appropriate for medical reasons, the panel would be able to use pre-recorded audio or video material when considering evidence for the purposes of determining a person’s eligibility for assistance. Panel procedure would be set out in guidance issued by the commissioner, which would detail the processes governing the panel process in general, but also for the use of that form of evidence.

New schedule 2, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the. Member for Spen Valley, builds on the new clause 21. The new schedule further details the composition and the intended proceedings of the assisted dying review panels. As we have heard, panels would be formed of three members, including a legal member sitting as chair, a psychiatrist and a social worker.

Thanks to the hon. Member for Richmond Park, we have dealt with the provision on decisions to grant the certificate of eligibility and how they will be determined by members of the panel. We heard from the promoter herself, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, that the intention is that such decisions are unanimous.

The commissioner would be responsible for making appointments to a list of persons eligible to sit as members of the multidisciplinary panels, and for establishing those panels. Under the schedule, the legal member as chair of the panel must hold or have held high judicial office, be one of His Majesty’s counsel—that is a KC—or have been authorised as a temporary judge in the High Court. The psychiatrist member must be a registered medical practitioner and a practising registered psychiatrist, and the social worker member must appear on the register maintained by Social Work England or Social Work Wales.

[Naz Shah]

The Minister is being generous with her time. I just want to confirm that the Bill does not require the social worker to be a palliative care specialist. Am I right in thinking that?

[Sarah Sackman]

I think the hon. Lady is right that that is not specified as a requirement. All three panel members would be drawn from the relevant professions and would therefore be subject to the standards pertaining to those professions. In the legal profession, they will be practitioners who are experienced in analysis and reaching decisions based on facts and law. The professional standards for all three regulated professions place a high value not just on integrity, but on impartiality. For the commissioner and for any judges on the panel, the “Guide to Judicial Conduct” makes the principles explicit.

[Naz Shah]

The Minister mentions impartiality. As things stand, the doctors who take part in the process will have made the choice to do so. Would the same yardstick be applied to the panel, or would its members just be appointed? Could they choose not to participate in the process?

[Sarah Sackman]

I anticipate that members of the professions will apply to be members of the panel. There will have to be a recruitment process, which is something that the commissioner, who is appointed by the Prime Minister, will undertake. I emphasise the point that all the professions, in their different ways—I am obviously most familiar with the legal profession, particularly the Bar—are governed by professional standards that specify the need for and place a high value on not just integrity, but impartiality.

[Naz Shah]

I struggle to agree that there would be impartiality, because there are people who are committed, believe in, agree with or are advocates for assisted dying. Does that not raise a concern about potential bias—subconscious bias, even?

[Sarah Sackman]

There is no doubt that, as we will see later, the panel would be subject in all its decisions to public law principles, including procedural propriety. The absence of any suggestion of bias—even of the appearance of bias—is an important public law principle. In any event, given the recruitment process, the interviews that would be undertaken and the professional standards to which all these people would be held, I think that they would apply their independent and impartial skills and judgment to the decision making and the assessment of eligibility in a manner appropriate to the task set out in the Bill.

One would expect professionals on the panel to adhere to their professional standards and act with impartiality in ascertaining whether the eligibility criteria have been met. Speaking as the Minister—indeed, even speaking for myself—I have no reason to doubt the independence, impartiality and professionalism of the panel or see any suggestion of bias.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. I want to understand something. She says that the Official Solicitor is there to help with adults who lack capacity, but in the cases before the Court of Protection of the girls who had anorexia, the judges took a decision that they should not continue to be force-fed. The judges concluded in nine of 10 cases that they lacked capacity, and yet accepted that these girls were inevitably going to die. In that case, would the role of the Official Solicitor not be helpful as a further safeguard?

[Sarah Sackman]

It is important to look at this issue in the context of what my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley is setting out to do through the legislation, and what the panel’s function is, which is the function that was discussed in the debate. This is not a trial or an inquiry. That is not what is being undertaken by the panel. The panel’s purpose is to ensure that the eligibility criteria process has been followed in a correct, lawful and safe way. As others have pointed out, it is not adversarial, and will not be described as such in the Bill.

All that I am saying on behalf of the Government is that the Official Solicitor’s role is most frequently to assist in court with a difficult or novel point of law when the person cannot do it themselves. Well, we do not have that here. We are not determining points of law; we are determining whether this person has met the eligibility criteria. Secondly, the Official Solicitor’s role is for when individuals lack capacity. In the Bill, by definition, the person who is applying has already satisfied two doctors that they have capacity. Of course, the question of capacity may be something that the panel wishes to explore further—it has the three panel members and the ability to draw on its powers to seek further information to test that—but it is not clear, without altering the current role that the Official Solicitor plays within our legal system, what role they would be serving.

[Naz Shah]

I appreciate the Minister’s position and am grateful for her explanation, but it does not address the central point, which is that nine girls were deemed not to have capacity. Despite all the amendments that have been tabled and the letter from all the charities about anorexia, that has not been addressed. In absence of any impact assessment on one of the issues that most frustrates me, how do the Government conclude that the workability of the Bill is sufficient? Will it work, given that we do not have the protection for those girls who may have anorexia? There is precedent for such girls who did not have capacity. How will the Government safeguard those girls in particular?

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

Naz Shah Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing that. It is useful to have these debates and conversations, but I would suggest that the panel needs to be sure off the back of the information that it has been given and the witness testimony, which goes back to why it is so important to ensure that we have that coverage and the right things feeding into the panel so it can get to that high threshold. I would expect the threshold to be at court level, given the huge, significant ramifications of this decision for that person.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful point. I refer back to the point on jury trials. When we have criminal trials and jury trials, they go through not every single thing in somebody’s life, but the actual act of criminality itself and what is relative to that criminal act. That does not mean to say they trudge through a person’s whole life.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. She eloquently explains exactly the point I was trying to make. That is absolutely right. Clearly, we do not expect the panel to pore over everything. It can only be sure based on the evidence put before it, so I reiterate: that is why it is really important that all the right and relevant information can be fed into the panel in order to get a good, robust, solid decision.

Members will all be relieved to know that I am now coming to the last amendment, amendment (b) to new clause 21. It puts in an additional mechanism for the panel not to grant an application when particular circumstances make it inappropriate. I do not think many in the Committee are going to like the amendment. I make the point again that, in an ideal world, there would have been a best interest clause or something similar in the Bill to protect patients from opting for assisted dying due to some other perfectly solvable challenge in their life, such as being homeless, but, given our amendments were not accepted, I am putting this amendment forward again as a responsibility of the panel, given its oversight role. This is likely to be where the social worker on the panel can play an important part.

In Ontario, assisted dying is monitored by a team of nurse and coroner investigators who review every reported death. The state has also established a death review committee. A recent report shows some of the difficulties for a panel in making its decision. A patient referred to as Ms B successfully applied for an assisted death. She suffered from multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome, which made it difficult for her to find appropriate accommodation. The report found that

“As a result of her housing situation and conditions, necessary to address her MCSS, Ms. B experienced social isolation, which greatly contributed to her suffering and request for MAiD.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

It is open to any Member to speak more than once in a debate, as the Committee knows. Naz Shah has indicated to me that, because of the size and complexity of the groupings of amendments, she wishes to speak not once but three times to break her comments into bite-sized chunks. I draw that to the Committee’s attention to put down a marker in case anyone else feels the same way.

[Naz Shah]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Reigate, who takes the record for being on her feet the longest in this Committee.

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

Oh no—that’s yours!

[Naz Shah]

She beats my record for sure. I assure the Committee that my comments on new clause 17(a) will be brief in comparison with my previous speech.

Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich and I disagreed on a point of detail. In fact, he was right and I was wrong. As he said, a provision in paragraph 4 of new schedule 1 allows the Secretary of State to dismiss a bad commissioner if the circumstances merit it. Although I still maintain my position that too much power is being given to a single person, I thank my hon. Friend both for pointing that out and for the courteous way in which he did so.

The hon. Member for Reigate has spoken very eloquently in defence of her amendment. Just to recap, new clause 17, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, would allow a person seeking an assisted death to appeal to the commissioner if a panel refuses their request. However, it would not allow any other person to lodge such an appeal.

By contrast, new clause 17(a) would allow several other parties to lodge such an appeal, including the two doctors who took part in the process, the applicant’s next of kin or relatives, or anyone who took part in the proceedings before the panel or who gave evidence to the panel. I acknowledge that there are genuine arguments against accepting new clause 17(a), and I have listened to them in detail and given them sincere thought. The family members who might appeal against a decision could perhaps have little or no contact with the person on whose behalf they say they are appealing; I note that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made a very honest and personal intervention on that subject yesterday, and I accept that that is a real possibility. As we all know, families are complicated.

There is also a likelihood that allowing more people to appeal against a panel’s decision, both for and against an assisted death, could mean that the commissioner will need considerably more resources. Otherwise. it is very likely that appeals will not be heard within a reasonable period.

Those are genuine arguments, but there are equally strong counterarguments. If the Bill passes, we simply do not know how many coercive or abusive people will seek to drive others towards assisted death. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley spoke about coercion being a criminal offence, but the last figures I have seen show that only 4% of cases result in a conviction. However, it is worth noting that many people with experience in this area are very concerned about the possibility.

We also do not know how many people will opt for an assisted death because their palliative or social care needs are not being met. Again, as I referred to extensively in previous speeches, many people with first-hand experience of this field are extremely concerned about that.

We also do not know how many people will opt for an assisted death partly because they do not want to be a burden on their loved ones. We do not know how many of those loved ones would, in fact, be ready to care for the person who feels like a burden, nor do we know what safeguards, if any, will prove effective against any of those dangers.

One thing we do know is that relatives or carers of someone seeking an assisted death may be able to bring those dangers to light. A family member, a GP or even a paid carer may have seen someone come under coercive control. As new clause 17 stands, they might feel that the panel had made a terrible mistake in ignoring the evidence of that. The hon. Member for Reigate’s amendment (a) to the new clause would give those people the chance to bring their evidence before the commissioner.

I have to say that, as it stands, new clause 17 seems to make some fairly odd assumptions. It would allow an appeal if the applicant’s request for an assisted death were turned down, which means that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley acknowledges that the panels may on occasion get things wrong. But the right of appeal is only one way, which seems extremely odd. It surely cannot be the case that the panels might get things wrong when they turn down a request for assisted dying, but are always right when they accept them.

There surely needs to be an amendment that allows people with knowledge of the situation to appeal if they think the panel has made a mistake in allowing an assisted death. Amendment (a) to new clause 17 would also reduce some of the dangers that we first faced. On that basis, I urge the Committee to support the amendment.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I will be speaking to new clauses 14 to 17 and 21, new schedules 1 and 2, and amendments 371 to 373, 377, 378, 381, 388, 390 and 391—although I assure you I will not speak for as long as the hon. Member for Reigate did.

Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley referred to the Law Society’s neutral position on the new clauses and new schedules. I will not read out all four pages of its most recent submission on the matter, but, although it is neutral, it does continue to have concerns and queries about the new provisions. I will just read out the headlines.

The Law Society remains concerned about the role of the review, whether it would be accessible and workable for people seeking assistance, and the resourcing required. It seeks clarification on the nature of the functions to be exercised by the commissioner and by panels. It still seeks clarity on how panels will deal with cases and asks us to consider where lawyers may need to play a role and the availability of legal aid. We touched on that matter this morning. I accept that the Law Society’s position was used in evidence on the other side of the argument yesterday and that it is neutral, but I could have read all four pages of its response if I had really wanted. That is its position.

I will oppose some of the new clauses and raise concerns about others, including some of the amendments to new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. As we have heard, the new clauses and amendments would replace the High Court judge mechanism in the original draft of the Bill with a three-person panel. As we said yesterday, that fundamentally changes the Bill from what the House voted for on Second Reading last November.

The panel will consist of a consultant psychiatrist, social worker and legal member who would chair it. I concur with those who have said that it would help if those individuals were involved earlier in the process. Several concerns have been raised about the High Court judge mechanism in the evidence that we have received. Although I accept that the new panel mechanism would address some of those, it would also leave some untouched and in some cases it could make the position worse.

During oral evidence, we asked witnesses whether and how the High Court judge system would work. Some said that they did not believe that it would. I credit my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley for listening to those points, but our problem and predicament now is that we were not able to seek oral evidence on the panel arrangement now before us, and that a large amount of the written evidence had already been submitted beforehand. I will come to this again later, but if we had gone through the normal process of a Government Bill—I accept that this is not a Government Bill—we would not be in this position now.

As a group, the 23 of us are now debating these schedules and clauses before Report, but we have not had any oral evidence on what is before us, and I would argue that we have also had a lack of written evidence. The panel system has complications, and it will be of life-and-death importance. We should have been able to ask witnesses whether a system would work, and how, but we have not been able to do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis]

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

[Naz Shah]

My understanding is that, at the mental health tribunal, a person would be entitled to legal representation, which would be an officer of the court or a lawyer, so the bar is very different. Does my hon. Friend agree that actually this is like comparing an apple to a pear?

[Daniel Francis]

Indeed, these are complex matters and these comparisons are made. We have heard a lot about Spain, which I will briefly refer to later, but Spain has a very different legal process from us.

Returning to my comments, currently an individual would not have to give evidence under oath. As I said, the matters discussed by a panel are as important as they can be. In my opinion, people should be giving evidence to the same standards that they do so in a civil or criminal court.

My second concern relates to the procedures for investigating any doubts that the panels may have, and we have heard about that. The panel must hear from at least one doctor and from the applicant under this new set of proposals. They must read the two doctors’ statements and the applicant’s declaration, and then they can decide to ask questions of the applicant and/or one or both of the doctors. The panel can also hear from and ask questions of any other person. How is the panel going to know which people to talk to? Will the panel be asking the right questions of applicants? Applicants will have different circumstances in different cases. Will those professionals also be skilled investigators? I accept the evidence we had on the skills those people have and bring, but it is not clear to me whether they will be acting in a quasi-judicial way. We have heard that it will not be an adversarial system. Although I can see the problems with creating an adversarial system for the panel, there are systems in other countries where that is allowed, and a different appeal system also exists elsewhere.

On the third point, which is about the standard of proof, if the panel finds matters that worries it, but does not find actual evidence of coercion, then it is not clear to me what it does. The panel could find that a patient qualifies for assisted dying on the balance of probabilities, and then approve that request. Three members of the panel could decide that a patient is, on the balance of probabilities, free to make the decision. People have heard my concerns about capacity, and whether the process for determining that is correct. We talked yesterday about how decisions are made in new schedule 2, and particularly subsection 5. There are differing views on the Committee about subsection 5(2), which talks about a “majority vote”, and how that may align with subsection 5(3).

My fourth concern is that there is no provision made in the new schedule or amendments for how the panels will deal with people with learning disabilities. There may be a further amendment to come on that matter. I accept that we agreed to an amendment regarding training for individuals, but I have concerns about how learning disabilities could be judged by the panel. I referred yesterday to how people with learning disabilities could go through this process with no support from friends and family, and then be presented before a panel. Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and its code of practice, would the panel have to assist the person in making a decision? That is what, in my mind, the Mental Capacity Act states: that if someone requires help to make that decision, individuals with the power should help them to do so.

There are wide differences in how professionals talk to, listen to and interpret people with learning disabilities. I know that first hand, on a day-to-day basis. The Bill should set out best practice in this field from the start, so that we do not see discrepancies between how panels undertake their work with learning disabilities. I do not think I need to spell out how a bad decision in this field could lead someone choosing assisted death to a place where others may not want to take them.

The fifth area relates to appeals, and that they can only go one way. A person whose application for assisted death is rejected can appeal to the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. The commissioner can then either uphold the decision or allow the person to have an assisted death. We have discussed what happens if a person who knows that that person applying for assisted death has grounds for concern about the case. We have discussed the legal means of people wishing to seek a judicial review, which causes me grave concern. Under the Bill as written, the person known to the person seeking assisted death cannot appeal against a decision. I heard the debate this morning on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate. The Bill says that the panel can choose to hear from any person who has a relevant connection, but there appears to be no mechanism for someone to apply to register any concerns with the panel.

In the oral evidence we received we heard concerns from Sir Nicholas Mostyn and Alex Ruck Keene that both sides should have the right of appeal. We heard that from a legal background, from supporters—I hear that Alex Ruck Keene was referred to as an objector, but I think he would say he is neutral in the process. People who have differing views about the process said to us in their oral evidence that both sides should have the right to appeal.

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend is making very important points. Is he aware that Professor Mark Elliott, one of the UK’s leading professors of public law and a former chair of the Cambridge law faculty, has spoken about the

“asymmetrical nature of appeals under the Bill,”

and said:

“At best, suggestions that judicial review is an adequate substitute for families who wish to challenge decisions indicate a fundamental misapprehension about the nature of JR.”

On the suggestion that injunctions might work, is my hon. Friend aware that between January 2017 and 2021, the administrative court has issued only one injunction?

[Daniel Francis]

I thank my hon. Friend for that statistic, which I was not aware of. It relates back to concerns that I have had through the process, particularly on learning disabilities and how a family member finds out during the process what processes would be open to them. In my opinion, it is unclear how the proposed panel fits into our legal system. Again, there are all kinds of quasi-judicial panels that do fit into our legal system, and they have an appeal process, of course. They would normally see two parties in a case. I hear what has been said this morning about Spain. It was put to us in oral evidence from a supporter of the Bill that we should look at that part of the Spanish model about having both sides of the process, although I accept that Spain has a very different legal system from the United Kingdom.

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

Naz Shah Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Opher]

Yes, I totally accept that. The Mental Capacity Act is set so that we assume capacity and look for evidence of lack of capacity. The great danger with the amendment is that it would change a whole raft of very well used provisions. As Professor Whitty said, the Act is used up and down the country every day; I have used it myself many times, and taught it as well. If we change the emphasis from the presumption of capacity to the presumption of incapacity, which is what my hon. Friend is suggesting, that is a major change in the Act.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Given what my hon. Friend has just said—that he accepts the premise of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford that the doctor would have to assist—can he help me to understand where that leaves the issue of autonomy if a doctor is, as he has agreed, allowed to assist in the decision?

[Dr Opher]

The way the doctor assists, if making a mental capacity assessment, is to try to tease out the four concepts. Does the patient understand what they are being asked to agree to? Sometimes mental capacity assessments are very straightforward and last five minutes; sometimes they last an hour. I have done one that lasted about 90 minutes because it was really important to tease out whether the patient genuinely understood what they were doing. That is the sort of assistance I am talking about. It is not about trying to persuade them to make a decision that I think is the right decision; it is just making sure that they understand it, can remember it and so on.

[Naz Shah]

How does my hon. Friend respond to not one, not two, but multiple witnesses, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, saying, absolutely contrary to what he is saying, that the Mental Capacity Act is not the right bar and that the bar is too low?

[Dr Opher]

Well, that was disputed by other psychiatrists. We are asking questions about whether the Mental Capacity Act is safe and correct for the Bill. This whole Committee is about making the Bill safe. None of us would dispute that. However, I think that if we accept the amendment, the Bill will become less safe because the amendment would change a massive piece of legislation and therefore have a number of repercussions that we do not understand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

I understand what the amendment is trying to do; my argument is that it will not achieve that because it will muddy the waters of a mental capacity assessment, which will make how we do it less safe. I would also like to return to Professor Whitty’s comments and to say that in the majority of cases mental capacity is very clear. It does not actually take very long to assess whether someone has mental capacity.

[Naz Shah]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[The Chair]

Can the hon. Gentleman be allowed to fully answer the questions that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire and the hon. Member for Richmond Park asked, before we have an intervention on another point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

It is really important to understand that for the majority of people mental capacity can be assessed reasonably quickly because it is very clear whether they have it or do not have it. What we are talking about, I think, is a small proportion of patients in which it is unclear whether they have mental capacity. There is scope in the Bill for those circumstances, when the patient should be referred to an enhanced level of mental capacity assessment by a psychiatrist or a psychological nurse. In that way, it makes it much safer. We do not need to redesign the Act for that small number of patients because we already have a very safe route to assess capacity.

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he has been generous with his time. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the evidence from Alex Ruck Keene KC on mental capacity. He sets out very clearly the myths around mental capacity, one of which is that mental capacity is well understood. He argues that it is not. How would the hon. Gentleman respond to that?

[Dr Opher]

I think that in most cases mental capacity is very well understood, and it is very clear, as I have said. I would say that, as practising clinicians, almost every GP has to do it. I would not sign up a doctor in training if they could not do it. I think it is a little bit rich to suggest that we cannot assess capacity. I agree with many of the comments that have been made about assessing capacity in more difficult cases for most doctors, and I think we do need an avenue, in those situations, to get further opinions.

[Naz Shah]

The hon. Gentleman said it would be rich for people to say that capacity cannot be assessed. That is not the case. I am not convinced about that, and I am not sure, from the evidence I have seen, that anybody is saying that anybody is not capable of assessing capacity per se. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the argument is about assessing capacity for this Bill in particular? That has not been tested. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is very clear, as are many other experts, including legal experts, that the Bill has not been tested for that purpose. Therefore, the Mental Capacity Act does not meet the purpose for the Bill.

[The Chair]

Order. I will give people the opportunity to explore this issue but, as I have said, interventions are not mini speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I will pick up on some of the points to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud referred, given his expertise. We heard from three senior psychiatrists during the evidence sessions, who were very clear; I have already mentioned much of their evidence. The Royal College of Psychiatrists’ written evidence states:

“It is the RCPsych’s view that the MCA is not sufficient for the purposes of this Bill. Extensive consideration needs to be given to what an assessment of mental capacity should consist of for AD/AS prior to the passing of legislation and, indeed, whether a determination through such an assessment can be reliably arrived at in this novel context.”

It goes on to say that the capacity to end one’s life is “entirely different” from assessing for the capacity of deciding treatment.

The Bill moves us into new territory. We need a definition that meets the criteria of what we are assessing, which is to end one’s life. That has never been applied in this country. The Mental Capacity Act, as it stands, requires assessors to presume that someone has capacity until incapacity can be proven, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford referred to in moving amendment 322.

Dr Annabel Price, Professor Allan House and Professor Gareth Owen all expressed doubts about the use of the Mental Capacity Act to assess whether a person is in a fit state of mind to undertake assisted dying. Because there is nothing in the current medical assessment that requires careful explanation of these factors, there is a real worry that there will be no opportunity to change them. It is outside the experience of the Mental Capacity Act, the Court of Protection, the associated research and practitioners on the ground.

Professor Owen said:

“I have looked at mental capacity a lot in research, and there is no experience”.

The reference to the Mental Capacity Act in clause 3 puts us into an area where there is no experience of the central capacity issue under consideration. He said:

“It is very important that Parliament be clear-eyed about that.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 226, Q287.]

He further said that we are in “uncharted territory”, because the ideas in the Bill are very novel. That is the hub of the Bill: it requires assessors to assume capacity as a starting point. To make the Bill the safest in the world, that is not the yardstick that we should be applying, according to very senior psychiatrists across the country.

Alex Ruck Keene KC also provided evidence to the Committee. He set out some of the myths in a video. There are a few things in this for me. One is the article in The Telegraph, which senior psychiatrists alluded to, that suggested there was a shortage of specialist psychiatrists. We have already had a conversation about the shortage of judges, but we are now having a conversation about the shortage of psychiatrists. Should the measure remain in the Bill as it stands? I would like to understand from the Minister whether that is something that has been assessed, given that we do not have an impact assessment.

Alex Ruck Keene referred to the National Institute for Health and Care Research, which funded a number of research projects in 2022 under the umbrella topic of implementing the Mental Capacity Act in practice—the rationale being that

“The Mental Capacity Act…is designed to empower and protect people who may lack the mental capacity to make their own decisions about their support and treatment, ranging from everyday issues to more serious, life-changing decisions.”

Evidence has highlighted several aspects of the way that the assessments are being carried out that are not compliant with the Mental Capacity Act. If we already have issues with how the Act is being implemented in the everyday work of the NHS and psychiatrists, how many mistakes will be made if the Bill goes through as it is? How much potential is there for mistakes to be made when assessing the capacity of those who are most vulnerable?

The Care Quality Commission in its most recent “State of Care” report in October last year said:

“The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) directly affects the lives of millions of people. Everyone providing care to people over the age of 16 must be familiar with this vital piece of legislation, which introduced rights and protections for people who may lack mental capacity. A decade after the House of Lords report, we continue to find a lack of understanding of the MCA among providers.”

That is the most recent research, and it is telling us that we have not got this right.

The Mental Capacity Act was passed over 20 years ago in 2005, but is still not understood properly or being applied for the reasons it was supposed to be. If we have not got that right in 20 years, how can we as a Committee be assured that the legislation will be applied properly when it is applied to something that it has never been applied to before and that has not been tested? How can we say that we should be rejecting an amendment that would change that and raise the bar for people? Ultimately, this affects people who are vulnerable; I will come on to that in more detail in the next group of amendments.

That is a real concern, which is why I urge Committee members to support amendment 322 to get the safeguards right. We spent hours talking about capacity, but the amendments to clause 1 were not accepted. This amendment comes from experience, and I really appreciate the personal experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford on this issue, because he speaks about the reality. We are not the experts, and we should be relying on the experts who give us their witness testimony.

[Daniel Francis]

In the evidence from Mencap and in large swathes of the written evidence, we have heard grave concerns from communities representing people with learning disabilities about how this legislation was enacted during covid, particularly with “do not resuscitate” notices. Evidence shows that people with learning disabilities were far more likely to have those placed on them. The written evidence we have suggests that that is due to a misinterpretation of the Mental Capacity Act or bias within the medical community. Can my hon. Friend comment on that?

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. Another issue that we have not got to yet, but that we will be looking at, is the doctors who do not want to take part in this process. We must consider whether there will be a bias; he is right to point that out. Will there be a subconscious bias towards helping people? My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud suggested earlier that doctors assist a person to reach a decision, according to the Mental Capacity Act. This is the crux of it for me: when a doctor is assisting a person in their best interests to come to a decision about treatment, for example, that is a different test from what we are testing here.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about the use of DNRs—what happened during covid to people, particularly those with disabilities, was a disgrace. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West accept that this is an entirely different situation, however, in that people must actively seek it, be tested multiple times, and express a wish for it? The situation with DNRs involved medical professionals making decisions on behalf of a patient without their input.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will be speaking to that in the next group of amendments, so I do not want to go through it in detail now, but I absolutely accept that that was a disgraceful situation—

[The Chair]

Order. Can Members please address the Chair?

[Naz Shah]

Apologies. My hon. Friend is right that those were different situations, but I remind him of the evidence that we heard from Dr Jamilla, for example. I am glad that he reminded me of this point, because although what happened in covid was done under different circumstances—I agree that what happened with DNRs was a “disgrace”, in his words—that is where the trust in NHS providers was lost. That leads me on to my next point: where there is no trust, there is vulnerability, and that vulnerability, in turn, affects capacity.

That brings me to what Alex Ruck Keene said about vulnerability. If people feel—as they did during covid-19—that they have been DNR-ed and that, as some have said, “They’re going to kill us off!”, then the vulnerability directly impacts on their capacity. I accept that, as my hon. Friend says, these are different situations, but the argument is strong and speaks to supporting this amendment.

There is a myth that mental capacity is well understood, but we have gone through that—there are a lot of myths about mental capacity. The reason that mental capacity is always difficult to assess, according to Alex Ruck Keene, is because 85% of capacity determinations by those who actually understand the law are relatively straightforward—that concurs with the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud—with difficulty arising usually because of not having enough time or not listening to the person. Some research was conducted into the experience of liaison psychiatrists through an interview study across three jurisdictions, which concluded that there are four key sources of difficulty in capacity assessment, spanning both clinical and ethical domains.

Those four sources included, first, a difficulty determining whether the decision is the patient’s own or driven by illness. That is important because we are talking about people who are terminally ill, so their decision-making processes may be impacted because of that, or because there is a vulnerability—either could be possible. The 15% of mental capacity determinations that are difficult include for such people. There may also be, secondly, a difficulty in applying ethical principles or, thirdly, a difficulty in avoiding personal bias. Again, that speaks to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford—if doctors are already signed up to this Bill and believe in it, will they have a personal bias? A lot of doctors and psychiatrists—according to the last article I read—are saying that they do not agree with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is an interesting irony of the Bill that it is presented as the free choice of individuals, but actually it imposes all sorts of obligations and repercussions on other people—the very term “assisted” conveys that. Many other people will be affected by the decision to take an assisted death. She is right that it would be very helpful for the doctors to be confident that they have done their job properly because they have a clear list of communications they are expected to make.

My understanding is that doctors are indemnified against legal challenge in consequence of decisions they make around this; that is an interesting point and one that I am uncomfortable with, but we will come to that later in the Bill. Leaving lawsuits out of it, from the point of view of the doctor’s professional conduct and their peace of mind, it would be very helpful for them to have it clearly specified what information they are required to convey.

I am grateful for Members’ interventions, and I appreciate the good faith and good sense that has been spoken, but I have not yet heard any reason for objecting to this amendment, other than the possible question of its being otiose and not necessary. That is not a sufficient reason to object to an amendment. We should not be objecting simply on drafting grounds. There can be tidying-up exercises later if there is repetition. I have not heard objections to the content of the amendment, and I would very much welcome Members’ support.

[Naz Shah]

Does the hon. Member agree that the amendment ultimately aims to provide clarity, and that clarity ultimately leads to safety?

[Danny Kruger]

Exactly. A few more words of clarification should not be regarded as burdening the Bill or creating bureaucratic obstacles for doctors and patients; the amendment actually specifies more explicitly what is going on. It is almost akin to the debate we had on amendment 181 and those dangerous words “for the avoidance of doubt”; that is essentially what this amendment does, but it goes further, because it imposes clearer obligations on doctors to do their job properly.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Much has been covered today, and the issue of capacity was debated at length when the Committee considered clause 1, but I do have some observations.

I am sympathetic to the assertion that there should be changes to presumption and burden. Those are things that I have considered and spoken about with the promoter of the Bill and, outside the Committee, with experts who gave evidence to the Committee. I have spoken about them publicly as well; I am very sympathetic.

At the heart of this, we have two options. We could change the burden and presumption in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for the purposes of assisted dying, rewriting 20 years of case law and medical practice. There is certainly some value to that, but that would be a radical departure from current medical practice, and there are other concerns. The alternative is to put in place rigorous processes and training around the Mental Capacity Act to ensure that it is implemented properly. After some reflection, I err on the side of the latter option, for a number of reasons.

First, I accept that there is debate among psychiatrists about this issue. We heard evidence from some who deem the Act not to be suitable for this new realm—I accept that we are entering new grounds, and I will come back to that point—but many psychiatrists and lawyers working in this area would deem it uncomfortable and unnecessary to depart from the Act.

Secondly, there is an oddity in changing presumption. There is an oddity in someone having to prove that they have capacity to fulfil their own desire. That oddity is one of the reasons that the Act is drafted as it is. It is partly—there are two sides to this coin—to ensure that there is no discrimination, partly to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998 and human rights more generally, and partly to ensure that we do not end up in a medical situation that is patrician, whereby medical doctors take an intrusive view of capacity rather than meeting the individual as they are.

Thirdly, the Bill, when amended—I will come on to the amendments that give me some comfort—will offer more safeguards than the Mental Capacity Act. Amendment 5 to clause 9(3) would ensure a further level of assessment. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has indicated that she will support that important amendment, as have all members of the Committee. If there is any doubt, there will be a further assessment by a psychiatrist. That goes some way to reassuring me that it is not necessary to rip up the burden or change the presumption in this area.

I want to make an observation about burden of proof, presumption and the nature of the assessment. Professor Whitty clarified his evidence. It is right that the burden and the presumption do not change, but of course the nature of the assessment rightly changes according to the circumstances. Every assessment of capacity is somewhat different, which is why amendment 50 is too prescriptive, in my view.

Of course, we can consider incredibly serious cases involving deprivation of liberty or the ability to conduct litigation. I have worked with parents whose children are being removed and looked at whether they have the capacity to make decisions about how they present their case. It is very dangerous to compare the severity and the profound nature of different circumstances, but let us not pretend that the Mental Capacity Act is not used to assess the most complex issues of capacity every day.

I am very sympathetic to amendment 50. I have met the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who tabled it, and the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley to discuss it, but I stress that such a prescriptive provision is not appropriate for primary legislation when we are entering new ground. I accept, as hon. Members with different views have said, that we are entering new territory and that this is difficult. I accept that psychiatrists and medical practitioners will have to think long and hard about the nature of the capacity assessments, especially under clause 9(3), when that is activated. That work will have to be done. It has been set out in primary legislation through some of the training clauses, which have already been referred to.

There is no doubt that there will be a lot of work and consideration, but I do not deem it appropriate to have a clause drafted by one psychiatrist, albeit an undoubtedly esteemed and experienced one: the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who tabled the amendment. Rather, the work needs to be done as the Bill is implemented over a two-year period. It needs to be done as part of a full consultation with psychiatrists, once the Bill has been passed, and that should be set out in guidance. That is what would usually happen with deprivation of liberty. I do not think it appropriate for primary legislation to set out the factors for a capacity assessment.

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend is saying that that will take two years. The MCA, which has been implemented over 20 years, is misunderstood. Does he not see the risk of two years? This is new territory, without change—

[Jake Richards]

We need to be careful when we say that the Mental Capacity Act is misunderstood, full stop. Let us be clear—

[Naz Shah]

Not full stop.

[Jake Richards]

Well, that was the sense—

[Jake Richards]

I am grateful, Mr Dowd.

The evidence that we have received is that this is a test. These are assessments that happen every day across the country. Now, there are more complex assessments, and there will without doubt be areas in which the assessment is not done as rigorously as it should be done, but that is why I am assured by the safeguards in the Bill that if there is any doubt—any doubt—as to capacity at first instance, there will be a full and thorough assessment by a psychiatrist.

Let us think that through for a minute. Any competent psychiatrist trained in this area will no doubt have a sense of what the Mental Capacity Act says and of the normal test for capacity. Someone who is seeking assistance to die from a doctor who has doubts as to their capacity will have been referred. To my mind, it is unfathomable that that assessment, at that stage, would not be rigorous and would not satisfy every Member that it had been done to the correct extent practicable.

[Naz Shah]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about that in most cases, but in nine of the 10 cases that went to court, young girls were found to have capacity, but their treatment was stopped, leading to their inevitable death. That is not excluded here.

[Jake Richards]

We are debating lots of different things now, rather than just clause 3. There is an issue as to whether in those cases the individuals were found to have capacity, but we are talking about the process by which someone is found to have capacity, rather than what happens thereafter. We have had that debate, and I am happy to have it, but we are talking now about the process by which people are found to have capacity.

This is the problem with interventions: I have lost my train of thought. This is why people do not take them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

Yes, there are safeguards and mechanisms in the Bill to ensure that and to protect from a culture that would incentivise this practice.

[Naz Shah]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Jake Richards]

No, I am not going to, actually. I am taking my rights.

My final point concerns section 1(4) of the Mental Capacity Act and the discarding of the principle about whether a decision is deemed to be unwise. This is an issue we have already debated, but it is really important. Introducing a best interests test is, to my mind, impossible without ending up with a law that discriminates against certain groups. Essentially, it is impossible to do fairly.

I remain to be convinced. If there were an amendment that could do what I think the hon. Member for East Wiltshire wants, I would support it. If there were an amendment that could look into someone’s mind and make sure that they are doing this for reasons that society would deem fit, I would support it, but I think that that is impossible. What the Bill aims to do is assess a person’s capacity and ensure that they are making this decision voluntarily. It also aims to protect them from the influence of third parties and outside sources. That is the only way, if this principle is to be adhered to.

Finally, I will be voting against the amendments, but I will finish where I started. I have genuinely thought long and hard, in particular about the presumption. I have spoken to experts who disagree with me, but in my mind it comes down to whether we rip things up and start again or whether we add rigorous safeguards, practices and processes, which may be a bit more boring but will actually be more effective at protecting any patients who go down this road.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of the amendments. Having worked as a mental health nurse for 22 years, I completed mental capacity training many times in my career, and I carried out capacity assessments as part of my day-to-day job. I think that the capacity assessment proposed in the Bill is not safe enough. That was one of the main reasons I voted against the Bill on Second Reading. I have spoken to many people who oppose the Bill, and one of their concerns is about the capacity assessment.

We have talked about capacity assessments every day in this Committee. It is one of the key issues that we will need to resolve to strengthen the Bill if it goes through. One of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ concerns is that capacity decisions are

“opinions with a margin of error and are time specific. A person’s capacity can change”.

I will talk about my experience with those margins of error.

A person’s capacity can be influenced by various factors, including their life circumstances, the medication they are taking or severe pain. Suicidal thoughts due to their mental state or depression can also influence their capacity. I have worked in acute mental health units. Every day, we carried out capacity assessments, including before we let someone out of the ward, whether they were admitted under the Mental Health Act or were receiving treatment as a voluntary patient. If somebody wanted to leave the ward, before the member of staff opened the door, they had to assess that person’s capacity. Sometimes a person might have said, “I am going to kill myself,” and the nurse would have had to decide whether or not they had capacity before opening the door.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West has talked about unconscious bias. The initial capacity assessment when a person comes to a hospital is very important. If a doctor has assessed at the beginning that the person has capacity, the following assessment can be influenced by that initial assessment. I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s argument about unconscious bias in capacity assessments. As Members have mentioned, the Bill proposes many occasions in the process when capacity will be assessed, but I am still not confident that each capacity assessment will not be influenced by the initial assessment. The amendments would strengthen that area of concern.

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend is making a very important speech. Members have alluded to the provision in the Bill that the patient would be present and would potentially have an option to be reassessed. We have heard evidence from various experts on capacity, particularly on the issues of coercion and vulnerability, and doctors have told us that it takes years to build rapport with people. At the second stage, the doctor has to be somebody independent who nobody has met, so how would they be able to tease out whether that person has capacity and whether those other influences are affecting them? Does my hon. Friend share that concern?

[Sojan Joseph]

I agree that when an independent doctor comes to assess a patient’s capacity and sees them for the very first time, they are more likely to be influenced by the assessment made at the beginning by the doctor who has known them for many days, weeks or months. I agree with my hon. Friend’s argument.

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

Naz Shah Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Electronic devices should be turned off or switched to silent. The only cups that I should see are those filled with the water provided in the room—no tea or coffee. Let us continue our line-by-line consideration of the Bill.

Clause 1

Assisted dying

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 281, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert—

“(c) has met with a palliative care specialist for the purposes of being informed about the medical and care support options.”

This amendment would mean that illness, disease or medical condition etc, the progress of which can be managed or controlled by treatment are not characterised as terminal illness.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 299, in clause 7, page 4, line 17, after “(g)” insert

“and the condition in subsection (4) has been met”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 298.

Amendment 298, in clause 7, page 4, line 26, at end insert—

“(4) The coordinating doctor may not take the steps set out in subsection (3) unless they receive confirmation from a palliative care specialist that the person has had a consultation with that specialist about the palliative care options available to them.”

This will require the coordinating doctor to be of the opinion that the person has had a consultation with a specialist in palliative medicine.

Amendment 304, in clause 9, page 5, line 41, leave out “any available” and insert

“the person’s experience of specialist”.

This amendment would require the assessing doctor to discuss the person’s experience of specialist palliative, hospice or other care.

Amendment 311, in clause 12, page 8, line 14, at end insert

“and

(i) the person has had a consultation with a consultant who is a specialist in palliative medicine.”

This amendment would require that a person has had a consultation with a specialist in palliative medicine before the High Court could issue a declaration.

[Naz Shah]

Amendment 281 would ensure that the patient receives advice on palliative care options from a specialist in the field. Medicine is fast-paced, with innovative and new medicines becoming available in quick succession. Although those in the profession try to keep abreast of developments, it is hard to maintain the depth of knowledge necessary in all specialties. A co-ordinating doctor may or may not have specialist knowledge in palliative medicine. Some courses may provide the opportunity to learn more, but others only touch on palliative medicine—covering it in less than a day of a five-year medical degree. Specialists who are leading in this field of medicine, innovating advances and working to palliate a patient’s symptoms at the end of life will have far greater knowledge of the specialism. Even in this wider debate, many who work in a different field of medicine or in general practice have simply got their facts wrong when speaking about palliative medicine—not through intent but because they have drawn on their own, perhaps out-of-date, experience or simply do not have the competencies to understand all that palliative care can provide.

Pain and symptom control techniques are advancing; in our debates on this Bill, people have articulated instances of poor care rather than what clinical experts are able to achieve. It is therefore essential that a patient has a consultation with an expert in the field of palliative medicine, who can alleviate a patient’s fear, support them with a plan for the end of their life, and discuss how pain and symptoms can be managed. Hearing an alternative approach to the end of life can be life-affirming, help people discuss their fears and concerns about dying, and provide a patient with what they are seeking physically, psychologically, emotionally, socially and perhaps spiritually. Specialists in palliative medicine are trained to home in on the challenges that people naturally have on receiving a diagnosis of terminal illness and are skilled at supporting a patient to explore what end of life could look like for them.

If the Committee does not pass this amendment, it would be placing itself above palliative care specialists when talking about such matters. It would undermine the need for such a specialty in medicine, like a GP who may not know the breadth of palliative medicine options for their patients. The Committee must not assume that it knows those options. Rather, it should enable those with a specialist understanding of palliative medicine to deploy their skills in this process by working through palliative care options with patients before the consideration of a path that will end with an assisted suicide.

Amendment 299 is consequential on amendment 298, which would ensure that a person has a consultation or consultations with a palliative care specialist. Amendment 298 would further embed this into the practice of managing the end-of-life process to provide the patient real choice over their options at the end of life, as what can be achieved through the practice of high-quality palliative care is often significantly different from people’s perceptions—even those of clinicians. Palliative care, like so many fields of medicine, continues to advance in its application and in the steps that can be made available to palliate a person’s pain and symptoms. When pain is difficult to control using oral or intravenous pharmacology, other interventions, such as a nerve block, can result in the absence of pain. A specialist is required to provide such a procedure, but for most people who are in receipt of palliative care, this option is rarely made available. Palliative care is about not just pain and symptom control, but the holistic journey of a patient at the end of life.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

The hon. Member mentions the principle that palliative care is a holistic service. Does she agree that, given that the Bill’s advocates—including the promoter, the hon. Lady for Spen Valley—emphasise the need for a holistic range of opportunities for end-of-life care, palliative care needs to be central to that? Rather than suggesting that there is an either/or between palliative care and assisted dying, the advocates of the Bill have often stressed the importance of having both options. Does the hon. Member for Bradford West agree that it is strange that the Bill does not require palliative care consultation as part of the range of services that are offered to patients when they are having their consultation?

[Naz Shah]

I completely agree, which is why the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) is very important. I urge the Committee to accept it, as it would ensure the provision of a palliative care consultation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has always said, it is about having a holistic approach—we need to get back to that.

In the evidence sessions, we heard that palliative care social workers can play a pivotal role in supporting patients. Those from other professions—psychological services, chaplaincy services, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech therapists—along with specialist nurses and medics can all contribute to the care of a patient at the end of life. In discussions with palliative care specialists who listened to the debate on 29 November, they were perplexed by the symptoms that were graphically described in the case studies, and cited poor care as the reason for them. Many such symptoms can be controlled, and they were shocked that such examples of poor care were presented as a reason for assisted death, rather than for making good quality palliative care available to all patients.

We further heard evidence, especially from Dr Jamilla Hussain, that access to palliative care is inequitable. We know that those from minoritised communities and from low socioeconomic backgrounds have poorer access to good palliative care, and that people can have poor access depending on where they live, and on the day of the week or the hour of the day. Through this amendment, we want to ensure that everyone who is seeking an assisted death, or who has it suggested to them, as this Bill allows, is able to access a consultation or consultations with a palliative care specialist, who can dispel the myths while supporting them with their end-of-life plan.

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend talked about the stories that we heard on Second Reading. Does she acknowledge, as Dr Sarah Cox from the Association for Palliative Medicine said, that there are cases where palliative care cannot meet a patient’s needs? We have a lady in the Public Gallery this morning whose mother had a horrible death, having had ovarian cancer and mouth cancer; she had to have her tongue removed, so she could not eat and drink, and she essentially starved to death. We have to be careful not to dismiss those cases, because they are real stories of real human beings, and we have to acknowledge the limitations of palliative care.

[Naz Shah]

I absolutely agree. Nobody in this Committee, from what I have heard over the weeks of evidence that we have taken, is suggesting in any way that we are dismissive of people who actually need an assisted death and would benefit from the Bill. As I have said previously, and as Dr Jamilla said very clearly, there are some patients who clinically would benefit from an intervention such as an assisted death. I came on to this Bill Committee to ensure we have the best legislation and safeguards in place. The Bill currently does not ensure that people are aware of the options. This amendment would ensure that people have considered all options and can make an informed choice. If there is no requirement to speak to a specialist, I am afraid the Bill would do a disservice to those who might want to use it to seek an assisted death by not presenting them with those options.

In evidence from the representative of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, we heard an example of somebody who was in lots of pain and decided to seek an assisted death, but changed their mind once they understood that their pain could be alleviated. That is what this amendment is about. I urge the Committee to vote for it, because it is fundamental that we enable people to make an informed choice and to understand the services and options available to them.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend think that giving everyone access to palliative care would resolve some of the concerns about coercion and consent?

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend comes from a mental health background, and I appreciate his expertise. We have talked a great deal about coercion—we have debated it for hours and hours—and I agree palliative care specialists, who deal with such issues as their day job, can provide that intervention and support the patient by establishing a much stronger relationship with them. I added my name to this amendment because I feel very strongly that palliative care must be a central part of the Bill if it is to provide patients a real choice at end of life. There should not be an assumption, as there is in the Bill as drafted, that assisted death is the predominant option once a person embarks on this pathway.

Let me return to the matter of minoritised voices. Dr Jamilla submitted written evidence, and spoke passionately, about the options available to people from black and minority ethnic communities. She said that they feel very much ignored. As I have said previously, palliative care is not fit for purpose because there is postcode lottery: provision depends on where a person lives, whether they have a hospice nearby, what the hospital options are and so on. There is a fear among ethnic minority communities of being pushed towards assisted death.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure the Bill delivers for the people for whom it is intended, such as the person the hon. Member for Spen Valley spoke about? It would put in place protections for the people for whom there is a choice, and that where those choices exits, they are laid out in full and properly examined before a final decision is made.

[Naz Shah]

I completely agree. It is imperative that those options—pain options and care options, including with the family—are explored in detail. The last time that I spent time in a hospice was when my brother-in-law was dying of cancer, and I remember that, as a family, we were very much involved in those conversations. Having such expertise empowers not just the patient but the family. Losing somebody who has a life-threatening condition is a difficult time for families and loved ones. When the wraparound model of palliative care, with specialist nurses and doctors, is good, it can be amazing. I have heard plenty of stories about when it is good. Last week, I mentioned a friend of mine who lost her husband last year, and she said that the palliative care nurses and doctors could not do enough. That gives the family confidence to explore the options. In that instance, that person would have benefited from this Bill—she encouraged me to support it.

As Dr Jamilla said, some people would absolutely benefit from the Bill, and they cannot be dismissed, but how do we legislate to cover people who do not have equal access to palliative care or to healthcare? There is discrimination. The covid experience that we went through recently showed the impact of inequalities. Disabled people, people with mental health conditions, elderly people, and people from black and minority ethnic communities, say that they were DNR-ed—subject to “do not resuscitate” orders. There is already a lack of trust in services, so we need to strengthen palliative care.

There is a fear among these communities that they will be pushed towards assisted dying. A consultation with participants from Pakistani, Roma, Nigerian, black Caribbean and Indian backgrounds revealed overwhelming mistrust, which is deeply rooted in the experience of discrimination and the disproportionate impact of covid-19. As one participant put it,

“They are doing this to save money…to kill us off.”

To get confidence among communities back, we need specialists people can rely on. That is what the amendment speaks to, and I hope that the Committee will support it.

[Danny Kruger]

I rise to briefly speak in support of amendment 281, moved by the hon. Lady and tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell).

At the moment that somebody seeks assisted death through a consultation with a doctor, they stand at a fork in the road: they can either proceed towards the assisted death about which they are inquiring, or turn towards other treatment options. On Second Reading, almost every Member on both sides of this debate stated that we need more palliative care, and everybody emphasised the value of providing good palliative care to all who need it. The amendments in this group would simply give force and power to the clear call of the House of Commons for a strong, realistic palliative care option as an alternative to assisted death, and I would be astonished if members of this Committee chose to vote them down. They give clear expression to the will of the House: that palliative care should be offered, and that it should be apparent that a patient has clearly understood their palliative care options.

I implore members of the Committee to consider what they would be communicating if they rejected the amendments. They would be saying that this is not a fork in the road, but a one-way street: there is only one way that someone is likely to go, and that is onwards to an assisted death. If that is the will of the Committee, it should vote the amendment down. If it thinks, as so many people said on Second Reading, that there should be real choice, and that palliative care should be explained and properly available, then I implore the Committee to support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Professor Sleeman’s evidence to me around palliative care says:

“‘Essential’ services are not provided: A good example is that our study of community services that are provided to people with advanced illness found that just 1 in 3 areas consistently provides a 24/7 palliative care telephone advice line—even though this has been a NICE recommendation since 2011…Another example is that the most recent NACEL audit (National audit) found just 60% of hospitals provide a 7 day face to face palliative care service— even though this is also a NICE recommendation, and was a recommendation in the One Chance to Get it Right report (that came out of the Neuberger review—around 2015.)”

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s important point, but does he agree that not every GP is able to keep abreast of all the palliative care advances being made, which palliative care consultants would know about?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention, which leads on to the point I was going to make. We are getting bogged down in nomenclature about what speciality is involved when this is actually about training. It is about whether the individual having the conversation has the requisite skills to have a meaningful conversation. Clauses 5(3)(a) and 8(6)(a) stipulate that the co-ordinating doctor or independent doctor

“has such training, qualifications and experience as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations”.

That is the key part. This is about ensuring that people having incredibly sensitive, challenging and difficult conversations with patients about choices available to them at the end of life have the requisite skills and knowledge to do so. That may not be applicable to each and every general practitioner, but those having those conversations should have that knowledge.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I fear that my hon. Friend may be oversimplifying what I was saying. Perhaps I was not clear enough, so I will elucidate. I was certainly not suggesting that the required skills were merely those of being able to have a consultation and a conversation. I was talking about having the skills to have the information that needs to be imparted and the knowledge that underpins that and being able to articulate that within a consultation. It is a much wider picture than just having the communication skills—it is having the knowledge that underpins that. I am saying that that is not necessarily the domain only of someone who works in palliative care. There are a number of specialists who work within this field—it is a multidisciplinary field—and they all bring their expertise. The issue is about ensuring that anybody having these conversations has the knowledge base to conduct them properly.

[Naz Shah]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I will try to make some progress. I want to move on to the other point I want to address, which is around bogging down the whole process with layer upon layer of bureaucracy. We are talking about a relatively small group of patients who are in the last six months of life and are then battling against the system that is meant to be helping them. If we put in layer upon layer and hurdle upon hurdle, it will become a much more difficult system for people to navigate. That does not mean that it would be a less robust system, but it would be a more difficult system. We are trying to make life easier, not harder, for those patients. This comes back to the central point that Professor Whitty made in his evidence about overcomplicating Bills: we overcomplicate Bills out of good intentions, but rarely make the safeguards more robust—in truth, we make them less safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

rose—

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I will give way because the hon. Lady has been very patient.

[Naz Shah]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being generous with his time. I want to bring in something that is very real for me at the moment. As a result of a hit and run, I have nerve pain for which I receive steroid treatment. I had treatment a couple of weeks ago and suffer from pain at the moment. My doctor is not a specialist in nerve pain; he has to refer me to a musculoskeletal service and I have been waiting for over a year for surgery.

I mention that because we already have care pathways for specialisms such as nerve pain. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley referred earlier to somebody who had cancer and it was a horrible experience. I would like to have thought that in that instance they would have been offered tube feeding. However, to go back to the point, the GP does not necessarily have the skillset. My GP, and there are lots of them in that practice—it is a brilliant practice at Kensington Street—has to refer me on. That is the point of the Bill. The amendment speaks to developing an established care pathway. If we are to pass this legislation into law, we must ensure that there is a care pathway to explore palliative care.

At the moment clause 4(4), which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud referred to earlier, says this has to be explored in the wider term. However, what that looks like is not a specialty. For some people with cancer and palliative care needs and six months to live, their trajectories could be—

[The Chair]

Order. This is supposed to be a short intervention.

[Naz Shah]

Sorry, Mr Efford. How can a GP guarantee that all those options have been covered, even in that initial discussion?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. She makes a number of points. First, may I say that I am sorry about her own health issues? I think she hit the nail on the head when she said that the GP may not be able to offer that service. For instance, take shoulder injections. Some GPs can do a shoulder injection with steroids; some will refer to the hospital for it. My father was a GP who could do them, but others would have referred to me when I was an orthopaedic surgeon and I would have done them in clinic.

This will not be right for every single general practitioner; the issue is about having a cohort of general practitioners who have the skill and ability, and about having a flexible system that works for patients. It all circles back to the training point. The individuals who do this have to have the requisite skills. That, of course, will be set down in regulation.

The other point that the hon. Member for Bradford West made is that clause 4(4)(c) says that any clinician having that discussion must be able to explain

“any available palliative, hospice or other care.”

It therefore follows that if the clinician is unable to do that because of a lack of skill or knowledge, they should refer on to somebody who can do it. That is the fundamental principle of having informed consent and discussion with patients. If a clinician cannot provide that information, they ask for somebody who can. That was not uncommon in my practice: if I had something that was outside of my area of knowledge or specialist interest, I would refer it to a colleague. That is how those conversations take place.

The Bill as it stands allows that flexibility for patients without confining them. But it gives them the very welcome option of a palliative care referral; that is entirely open to them—it is not closed off from them. Of course, they will be fed into the palliative care route anyway, following the trigger of their terminal diagnosis. They will be going on the journey, and having further conversations around their end of life care. Those are the points that I wish to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do worry about the lack of faith in our professionals. We have medical practitioners on the Committee and we have heard stories of the very good practice that happens, so it concerns me that we are so cynical about our system. Ultimately, we have to put faith in our professionals to do their job and to take that patient-centred approach, as I firmly believe they do. Dr Sarah Cox from the Association for Palliative Medicine said in her evidence to the Committee:

“In clinical practice, we make all these decisions in multi-professional teams…shared decisions are much better quality, much more robust and much safer.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 74, Q90.]

I absolutely agree with her, and that would continue to be the case.

[Naz Shah]

The hon. Member mentioned earlier the idea that this is happening in isolation, but it is her Bill that is saying that it will just be two doctors, not a team of medical professionals.

[Kim Leadbeater]

But it does not say that at all. It actually says that they have to refer, and that they have to consult with other people. That is part of the process. That is exactly what happens now. Professor Aneez Esmail, who is the emeritus professor of general practice at the University of Manchester and who has been a practising GP for over 30 years, told us in his evidence to the Committee:

“In terms of holistic care, currently when I look after dying people I never do it on my own; I am with district nurses, Macmillan nurses, or on call to a palliative care consultant. There is already a team of people looking after dying people…palliative care…works very well and it works in a multidisciplinary way. I think that this legislation will allow a much more open discussion and proper monitoring. It will improve training, guidance and everything else. People say that it will enhance palliative care, and that is what I think will happen.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 171, Q219.]

Indeed, as was referred to by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, if we consider the training included in the Bill, which doctors will undergo as part of the introduction of assisted dying, evidence from other jurisdictions shows that these are very detailed conversations where health professionals work together in the same way as they do at the moment in end of life care and decision making. As I have said repeatedly, the training is fundamental. I agree absolutely with Dr Rachel Clarke, who told us:

“If there is one thing that I would say to the Committee regarding making the Bill as robust, strong and safe as possible, it is: please consider seriously the matter of education and training”.––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 71, Q85.]

I agree 100% and I have embedded that in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government remain neutral on the substantive policy questions related to how the law in this area could change. However, I hope those observations on the purpose and effect of the amendments are helpful to Members of the Committee in their consideration.

[Naz Shah]

I have a few concerns about what we have just heard in relation to the amendment. One of them is in relation to Dr Cox’s evidence. What Dr Cox actually said was:

“The second difference, I would say, is that you are absolutely right that we do make those decisions with patients—with their families, if they wish—but in a multi-professional team. I would almost never make those decisions as an individual doctor without the support of my colleagues, for several reasons. First, as I have said already, that makes for much better decisions”. ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 74, Q91.]

[Danny Kruger]

To pick up on that point about Dr Cox, I think it is critical that the hon. Member for Spen Valley cited Dr Cox in support of the hon. Lady’s contention that the Bill is adequate. Dr Cox, in her evidence, was saying that there is a problem with the Bill because it does not require the multidisciplinary consultation that we all think needs to happen. Dr Cox was suggesting that the Bill should be amended in order to ensure that the NHS does its job properly, and that multidisciplinary consultations are held. Her evidence was not in support of the Bill as it stands.

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

[Kim Leadbeater]

On the point made by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, the Bill does not replace what already happens, and what Dr Cox was saying was that those conversations are already happening in a multidisciplinary way. We do not take that away.

[Naz Shah]

One of my concerns is that although the Government position in relation to the Bill, as they have said, is neutrality, the Government, in my opinion, have taken a position without an impact assessment, which might suggest that there is some ambiguity. Would the Minister therefore support redrafting potential amendments to include that? If it did specify a doctor or nurse, would the Government then, in their tidying-up, be prepared to accept that amendment?

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

Referring back to Dr Cox, she said:

“We need to make sure that the 75% to 90% of people who are dying and need palliative care are getting it. We need to make sure that there is not inequity in palliative care, so that you do not have to be white and rich and have cancer to get good palliative care. We need to make sure that hospitals have seven-day services. Seven-day-a-week cover is unavailable at 40% of hospitals.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 78, Q101.]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need an inequality impact assessment to understand the current position and to get that right, in line with the Bill?

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Without the impact assessment, how do we know what we are dealing with? That would be a normal way of progressing a Bill and dealing with amendments such as these. It feels as though we have just talked about something when the Government have already had a position on it, or have supported a particular position on an amendment.

To conclude, I will press the amendment to a vote, simply because it is important that we explore every option. We are already specifying what doctors have to do. I maintain again that there are 100,000 people in this country who do not access palliative care as it is. Palliative care is crucial when we are talking about end of life and people who have had a diagnosis of less than six months to live.

We will talk about illness and diagnosis in the next round of amendments, but on this amendment, I do not think that ensuring that somebody has at least explored that option is, as the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley repeated at least three or four times, “bogged down”. For me, it is not bogging down when we are talking about providing assisted death. The Bill is the biggest legislation on a conscience vote since 1967 in this House, and I do not care how long it takes. I feel very strongly that if we are to deliver a Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said has the tightest safeguards in the world, then this debate has to happen. These conversations must happen and be explored not just for us here as parliamentarians, but in order for us to go away and say that we have done the best we can.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I think that what has been looked at is the number of unassisted suicides. The hon. Lady makes the good point that obviously we need to look at all the different factors that could be part of that, but I am just making the point that when we look at territories that have introduced assisted dying, we find that at the point at which it is introduced, we generally see, in most territories, an increase in unassisted suicide. I do not think that we should rush to disregard that. We need to recognise that in helping a small group of people at the end of their life, which undoubtedly this Bill will do, there will be a price to be paid. That price will be paid by our young people and other vulnerable groups.

I will not vote in favour of clause 1—I do not think that there will be a Division on it anyway—but I will not oppose it either, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire set out. I understand that it is the key clause in order for us to progress and continue the debate, which is what Parliament wishes us to do, but I hope that the Committee will be more receptive to improving the safeguards as we progress through the Bill. The amendments really were tabled in good faith. We did our best to write them in a clear way, but obviously the private Member’s Bill process makes that more difficult. This is not a Government Bill, but we are all doing the best we can to table amendments that would improve the safety of the Bill.

[Naz Shah]

I just have some concluding remarks. None of the amendments was voted for. I feel that in the clause 1 stand part debate, huge opportunities have been missed. I have talked a lot, throughout the debates, about the issues of people from ethnic minority communities. Opportunities were missed to safeguard disabled people and people from ethnic minority backgrounds.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich made a point about amendments being clear, and about ambiguity. The truth is that if the amendments were supported in principle, they could have been tidied up by Government. There are some good amendments that could have been clarified by the Government. In principle, they were good options. I struggle with the whole narrative throughout the debate on clause 1: “Yes, we accept the principle, but we are not going to do it because it is ambiguous or the wording is incorrect.” There is lots of wording that we will debate throughout the rest of the Bill that is not quite clear, and that is the whole point of going through this exercise. Going forward, I encourage us, as the hon. Member for Reigate did before me, to do as we have been doing, with sincerity, in trying to make this Bill the best in the world it can be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley intends.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will make some brief remarks on the legal and practical effect of clause 1, as amended, to assist hon. Members in making their own assessment. Clause 1 sets out the eligibility criteria that a person must meet in order to request to be provided with lawful assistance to end their own life under the provisions of this Bill. A person must be terminally ill; this term is defined in more detail in clause 2.

Clause 1(1) sets out a further four requirements, which require that a person must also have the necessary capacity to make the decision, which is to be read in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005; be aged 18 or over; be ordinarily resident in England and Wales and have been resident for at least 12 months; and be registered as a patient with a GP practice in England or Wales. This clause provides that, in particular, clauses 5 to 22 of the Bill require steps to be taken to establish that the person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life and has made the decision that they wish to end their own life voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by any other person in making that decision.

The clause, as amended by the insertion of new subsection (3), will ensure that the service can be accessed only by an individual ordinarily resident in England and Wales. That amendment, amendment 180, has been drafted to give effect to the policy intent of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley for this legislation: that it is to apply only to those in England or Wales and is not to be accessed via medical tourism.

As I have said, the Government remain neutral on the substantive policy questions relevant to how the law in this area would be changed. The clause is a matter for the Committee and Parliament to consider, but the Government’s assessment is that the clause, as amended, is workable, effective and enforceable.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Terminal illness

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I rise to speak to amendment 11, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. This is one of the areas of the Bill where we all agree on what we are trying to achieve, so it comes down to making sure that the drafting does exactly what we all intend in order to protect people.

The definition of “terminal illness” in the Bill has two components. The first is that the person has an inevitably progressive and irreversible condition; the second is that their prognosis is less than six months. An issue raised in our evidence sessions is that there is a risk that a person with a mental disorder or disability will meet that definition if they are suffering physical symptoms that mean that they satisfy both parts of the test; a possible example could be a young woman suffering with severe malnutrition as a consequence of anorexia. With respect to the point that the hon. Member for Stroud made, I agree that anorexia on its own would not qualify, but the issue arises when there is a physical manifestation from that disorder such as severe malnutrition or even diabetes, which can co-occur, as we heard in the evidence sessions.

It is clear that that is not the intention of the hon. Member for Spen Valley or anyone on the Committee, as evidenced by the inclusion of subsection (3). I thank the hon. Member for making that point; it is much welcomed. However, in oral evidence, Chelsea Roff said that

“we have case law in the UK where people with anorexia are being found to be terminal. We have to take that reality into account.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 153, Q194.]

Before I get into amendment 11, which aims to address the issue, it is important to understand what clause 2(3) is trying to do. It reads as follows:

“For the avoidance of doubt, a person is not to be considered to be terminally ill by reason only of the person having one or both”

of a mental disorder or a disability; it refers to the relevant bits of law. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire has set out, the words “for the avoidance of doubt” make it clear that this is a clarifying subsection that does not make any change to the rest of clause 2. It appears to be clarifying that mental disorders and disabilities alone will never qualify someone for assisted dying—I think we all concur with that—unless they also have a physical condition that meets the terminal illness test, namely that it is inevitably progressive and irreversible and that the person has a prognosis of less than six months.

This is where the problem lies. If someone has a physical condition arising from their mental illness, such as severe malnutrition resulting from anorexia, and if the physical condition meets the definition of a terminal illness, they will qualify. As the Royal College of Psychiatrists said in its position statement:

“The wording of the Bill could also be interpreted to include those whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder. While anorexia nervosa, for example, does not itself meet the criteria for terminal illness as it is not an ‘inevitably progressive illness, disease or medical condition which cannot be reversed by treatment,’ its physical effects (for example, malnutrition) in severe cases could be deemed by some as a terminal physical illness, even though eating disorders are treatable conditions and recovery is possible even after decades of illness.”

To remedy the issue, amendment 11 would remove the words “For the avoidance of doubt”, to make this a legally effective clause, rather than just a clarifying one. That means that it is providing an additional safeguard to those with mental disorders and/or disabilities. It would also remove the word “only”, to ensure that a physical condition resulting from a mental disorder or a disability will not make a person eligible for assisted dying. The amendment is further bolstered by amendment 283, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, which would make it clear that comorbidities arising from a mental disorder do not qualify a patient for an assisted death.

I thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley for tabling amendment 181 to try to address the issue, but I do not believe that would quite solve the problem, which is quite a tricky one. “For the avoidance of doubt” would still be there, as would “only”. The sentence beginning with “Nothing in this subsection” makes it crystal clear that if a condition meets the six-month condition and the rest of the definition, it will be considered a terminal illness. There is therefore no exclusion for physical symptoms manifesting from mental illness or disability, which I think is what we are all trying to get to.

In my view, the only amendment that would address the issue is amendment 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. It would remove both “For the avoidance of doubt” and “only”, and would therefore better ensure that a physical condition resulting from mental illness or a disability does not make a person eligible for assisted dying.

[Naz Shah]

I rise to speak to amendments 10, 181 and 283. I will start with amendment 10, which is very significant: it would make a small but crucial change to clause 2.

[The Chair]

Order. I think you are speaking to the wrong amendment.

[Naz Shah]

Sorry, I mean amendment 11. Thank you, Mr Efford.

I think it will be helpful to spell out what the Bill currently says, and what it would say if amendment 11 were adopted. I will also set why the amendment would provide a much stronger safeguard than amendment 181, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

Clause 2(3) states:

“For the avoidance of doubt, a person is not to be considered to be terminally ill by reason only”

—I stress the word “only”—

“of the person having one or both of—

(a) a mental disorder, within the meaning of the Mental Health 1983;

(b) a disability, within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.”

If amendment 11 is agreed to, clause 2(3) will read:

“A person is not to be considered to be terminally ill by reason of the person having one or both of—

(a) a mental disorder, within the meaning of the Mental Health 1983;

(b) a disability, within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.”

That may seem a very small change, but it is an extremely important one.

The Bill, as presented to Parliament on Second Reading, would allow someone to qualify for assisted dying if they had a mental health condition such as anorexia nervosa and a physical condition such as malnutrition. To put it with absolute bluntness, that means that somebody with anorexia nervosa could stop eating until they suffered so badly from malnutrition that two doctors prognose that the patient is likely to die within six months. That person, under the Bill, would then qualify for assisted dying.

[Kim Leadbeater]

This is a really important discussion and I am so glad that we are having it—some brilliant points have been made. As someone who has worked with people with anorexia, I am very aware of the sensitivities of the condition and the issues around it. Would my hon. Friend agree that, as part of this discussion, we have to consider the capacity assessment of people with eating disorders? It is a very serious mental health condition; it would require a lot for somebody with anorexia to pass the capacity threshold for making a decision of this magnitude. It is certainly the sort of instance where I would be very surprised if a doctor did not refer to an eating disorder specialist. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to look at the condition and how the patient should be cared for holistically?

[The Chair]

Order. I remind hon. Members that there are a set of amendments in the next group about anorexia. Let us not go too far down this road.

[Naz Shah]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that there need to be specialists—we will come to that debate later. Let me bring our debate back to the amendment we are discussing. I understand that the Bill is drafted so that people who suffer mental disorders, such as anorexia nervosa, cannot qualify for assisted death—when my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley sets that out, I have absolutely no reason to doubt it—but that is not enough to safeguard people with such disorders. As we know, people with anorexia can and have stopped eating until they suffer advanced malnutrition, which is a physical disorder. In some cases, that malnutrition becomes so advanced that doctors will prognose death within six months.

If we wish to protect people with anorexia and other eating disorders, we must rewrite the Bill. We must ensure that people who have those disorders, and who also have a physical disorder, cannot qualify for assisted dying. I must underline that this is not a hypothetical point or some clever objection that has been dreamed up without reference to the real world. It has actually happened—not once, but dozens of times in countries that have assisted dying.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does she agree that the reporting and data around assisted dying are fundamental? That is why it is important that, if the law is to change in this country, we get that absolutely right. What we propose in the Bill is closest to the laws in Australia, and in my understanding there have been no assisted deaths of people with anorexia in Australia. However, my hon. Friend makes a valid point about the accuracy of reporting; we do not know whether those examples were people with anorexia who happened to have cancer as well. We just do not know, and that is not good enough.

[Naz Shah]

I absolutely agree that if the Bill is to get through Parliament, it has to have those mechanisms and safeguards in place, but I am sure we will come to those later. If we do not know with any reasonable degree of accuracy how many cases there have been worldwide, we cannot say where the majority of such cases have occurred. When we are told that there have been zero assisted deaths of people with anorexia in Australia, I would err on the side of caution—another witness said that there were zero deaths involving coercion.

I understand that my hon. Friend’s amendment 181 also attempts to change clause 2, but the change would still allow people to qualify for an assisted death if they had a mental disorder alongside a physical disorder. I have no doubt that this stems from a compassionate desire not to exclude—for example, someone who has mild depression and a major physical illness—but its effect is to create a major risk for people suffering from both a mental health disorder that affects their eating and a physical disorder caused by not eating. To avoid that risk, the Bill must be much more tightly worded than it was when presented to the House on Second Reading, and it must be much more tightly worded than amendment 181 would make it.

We must make it much harder in the Bill for people to qualify for assisted death by way of having malnutrition caused by an eating disorder. It is a complex problem, and I believe no one amendment will solve it completely. I have submitted two amendments with the aim of making a contribution. Amendment 11 would also make a significant contribution to solving the problem, and I urge all Members to support it.

I turn to amendment 181, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. Although the Acts mentioned in clause 2 define mental illness and disability as being taken from the clear medical model, it is not clear if she is further suggesting that a new definition should be used—for instance, the social model. Someone could have a significant impairment under a social model of disability, and for the purposes of the Bill, not consider themselves to be a disabled person. Therefore, they could qualify for an assisted death, thus rendering the provision of no worth.

It is therefore unclear what my hon. Friend is similarly proposing with regard to mental illness. Amendment 11 is needed to provide assurance that if someone does have a mental illness, then it is tightly defined and would preclude them from being able to access an assisted suicide, in case the reason they are seeking it is the mental illness and not the terminal diagnosis. I will speak further on that later.

If amendment 181 was agreed to, the clause would read that a person is not to be considered terminally ill

“only because they are a person with a disability”.

There are two obvious problems with the amendment. First, the amendment removes references to the Equality Act 2010 and the Mental Health Act, which previously defined who did and did not have a disability or a mental health disorder, but having removed those definitions, it does not then define disability or mental disorder in the Bill. What definition will medical practitioners, and indeed applicants, use to determine who does or does not have a disability or mental disorder?

[Kim Leadbeater]

In terms of the removal of references to the Equality Act, I was not aware when the Bill was initially drafted that cancer is actually classed as a disability. Given the fact that in some countries 70% of assisted deaths are for cancer patients, it would seem ridiculous to exclude cancer patients from having the option of assisted death. I hope that goes some way towards explaining that point.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying that—that is really helpful. But where does the amendment leave us in terms of disabled people? I am just trying to understand.

[Kim Leadbeater]

The concepts of a mental disorder and a disability are well understood, and those terms are well used. In the eyes of the law, we would not need to provide a definition of those in the Bill, but the removal of the reference that would include people with cancer is an important thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I appreciate that cancer does come under disability, and that people with cancer can identify as a disabled person, but my initial thought is that that weakens the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

The fact that cancer is included in the Equality Act definition does expose a concern about the Bill. It suggests that there is a real connection there, which is of concern. I think the solution is to accept the amendment 11 and ensure that disabled people and those with mental health conditions would not be eligible for assisted dying, and then to introduce a further amendment—either now, as a manuscript amendment, or later—to exclude cancer from the definition. That is a tidying-up exercise that could be done in light of the point that the hon. Member for Spen Valley made about the reference in the Equality Act. The most important thing is that we tighten the clause to protect disabled people.

[Naz Shah]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has considered whether she would tighten the clause. Have any options been explored, and what have the Government said about her removal of the Equality Act—

[The Chair]

Order.

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

Naz Shah Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Paul]

Just to clarify, I am not questioning that they were not telling their truth. I completely believe that, from their perspective, they honestly believe they have never seen a case of coercion. Maybe I am more of a glass-half-empty kind of girl than some other people, but I question whether that is really the case. In my 45 years on this planet, I have learned enough about humankind to know that these things do happen, but different people will take different views when it comes to detecting them.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady has made some important points. I repeat something I said yesterday in response to another Member: the word “coercion” and the idea of encouragement were not even in the vocabulary in this place until very recently—only 10 years ago. I do not want to dismiss people’s expertise, but for me it is quite a leap of faith—I wonder whether she shares that idea—to believe that in that jurisdiction, zero people were coerced, when every other jurisdiction records people being coerced and people saying they feel a burden.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about these things and is well qualified on the legal side. I value his contributions on this matter. The reason I want to include “unduly influence” is because it deals with those more subtle forms of coercion. Arguably, it could be included in “coerced or pressured”, but by including “unduly influence” in the Bill it becomes more explicit that a clinician has to be looking for it. In the absence of the language, clinicians will not be required to look for those more subtle forms of influence.

The provision is something that is included in the assisted dying laws of other jurisdictions. We have the opportunity here to learn and benefit from jurisdictions that have already implemented it. We heard various witnesses give us very useful evidence during the sessions. For example, California includes “undue influence” in the law. We should recognise that there is value in including it here. It is a well-established legal term that is used in myriad situations, so it is relevant that we include it.

[Naz Shah]

May I take the hon. Member back to the point of clause 24, and the issue of suicide and the terminology there? Perhaps the Minister could respond as well, although I am not sure how that would work in this Committee. What I think we are doing in clause 24 is to decriminalise encouraging suicide. That is my understanding. So can we have some clarity? Are we trying to decriminalise encouraging suicide? That is what clause 24 says, so in that case it would be absolutely right to talk about the word “encouragement”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

It is helpful to understand the Government’s position. If the amendment is not made, I hope that the Minister is right, but one thing that I have learned in my time is that different judges will have different views on these things. Personally, I would prefer to see this provision in the Bill, as it would absolutely ensure that the protection is in place. We all know that decisions in the courts can sometimes go a different way from what we expect.

[Naz Shah]

I have a concern about what the Minister says. As one psychiatrist put it, the Bill is very novel and untested. The MCA has not been tested. Now the Government say that this will work, without consultation or any impact assessment. I struggle to understand that. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that this does not feel right?

[Rebecca Paul]

It is reassuring to hear that I am not the only one worried about this, so I thank the hon. Lady for that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern? My understanding is that, in normal parliamentary business, if the Government announce any changes to the law in the press first, they are usually rebuked by Mr Speaker in the Chamber. I appreciate that this is a private Member’s Bill, but a Guardian piece yesterday outlined how we will now scrap the involvement of a High Court judge and have a panel instead, with an amendment to be tabled to that effect. I am happy for my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to clarify how the system is going to change.

Once we have debated the amendments on undue influence and coercion, we have debated them. We cannot then come back to them, because of the nature of private Members’ Bills. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that, as we said yesterday, the horse has bolted? We are having to go over things and we might not be able to revisit this issue, which is why it is even more important to have probing conversations on the record so that, if nothing else, we can refer to them on Third Reading, for which we have only five hours.

[Rebecca Paul]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. We should not make the mistake of assuming that certain amendments will be accepted. Until there is a Division, we do not know what the Bill is going to look like. It is incredibly difficult to table amendments early on when we do not know whether other fundamental things are going to change. That is why it is important that we are really thorough and improve the safeguards as much as we can, clause by clause. I do not want to get to the end of this process without our having accepted any of the improved safeguards, only for the Bill to be turned on its head at the end when there is a Division on something fundamental. As the hon. Lady rightly says, we do not get the opportunity to come back and review the decisions we have made on the back of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the right hon. Lady for that really helpful intervention. That is exactly the kind of advice that is extremely useful to us new MPs undertaking this process. I will have to make the decision on that question in a matter of minutes, and it is very difficult, but I will do my best to make the right decision.

New clause 5 seeks to define encouragement for the purposes of the Bill and includes some exclusions. We have already talked about some of the challenges with exactly what encouragement means, and clearly there are certain acts that we do not want to be captured by it. The aim of the clause is just to ensure that it is only intentional, targeted and effective encouragement that is covered. I am very open to working with the Government to ensure that the drafting reflects the intent; it may well be that some other things go in there to address some of the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire around support being given by families. No one wants to see that included in this definition—I think we all agree on that.

In summary, I hope hon. Members will view these amendments, incorporating undue influence and encouragement into clause 1, favourably, in order to bolster the safeguards in this Bill. It is vital that subtler forms of influence are addressed, to protect patients and to ensure that it is not just the obvious signs of coercion that are looked for. I also welcome amendment 113, tabled by the hon. Member for Broxtowe, which is very much in the same spirit as amendments 23 and 82 and would insert the word “manipulated”. I hope we will debate it because, if accepted, it would certainly improve the safeguards in the Bill.

[Naz Shah]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady. Just to put it out there, to begin with on amendment 23, the Court of Appeal, in the case of “Re T (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment)”, held that undue influence was relevant to medical decisions and said that doctors must check for it. Undue influence is about power imbalance, rather than outright coercion.

That brings me nicely on to the points we discussed in some detail yesterday. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire talked about having a conversation with his family, with his wife and children and so on. I will give another example. Say there is a woman who has been the victim of domestic violence—we know this happens; we know two women a week are killed in this country, to this day—and she is subtly encouraged: “Sweetheart, you’ve got a diagnosis and the option is to have this.” There is a fine line, and the fine line conversation has been mentioned quite often as well, but I would rather stay on the side of caution with that fine line conversation when it comes to domestic abuse, coercion and the power imbalance in a relationship.

Let me come back to that woman or elderly person whose loved ones have the conversation—and they indeed have the conversation; it happens every day. Ask any victim of domestic violence. On average, it takes a woman 40 attempts to leave an abusive partner—that is the fact—because we do not even recognise it.

I know somebody who recently left an abusive partner—that took three years of encouragement because she did not recognise that what was happening to her was about power and control. It is when power is juxtaposed with vulnerability that there is the potential for abuse. That happens—it happens every single day. Victims of domestic abuse are not just younger people; according to Age Concern, over 375,000 older people are at risk of domestic abuse.

The abuse of people is a cancer in our society, and that very subtle power imbalance is where the fine line is crossed. Given that the Court of Appeal has ruled and is already saying that medics have to look out for undue influence, I would argue that amendment 23 actually strengthens the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has repeatedly insisted that this Bill needs to be the tightest in the world. How does the amendment not complement her view? How does it not strengthen the Bill, to protect victims?

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned domestic violence and vulnerable people. Do we not also need to think about the many people in hospital beds and nursing homes who may not have any relatives? They might get influenced or encouraged to choose this route by professionals because of the pressure on the NHS and hospices. Amendment 23 would strengthen the Bill in that respect as well.

[Naz Shah]

I would like to hope that that would never happen; I have a huge love of the NHS and of the people I know in it who make decisions every day, particularly given all the cuts—even more so, post covid. But there is that risk; I would like to hope that it is very small.

When it comes to mental health, the debate is similar to the one about capacity: it is the same conversation about whether something is fit for purpose. Just because something already exists does not mean that it will necessarily suit what we are doing here.

On International Women’s Day, the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), eloquently reads out a list of victims of domestic violence who have been murdered. There are two a week—I make no apologies for keeping coming back to this. Only yesterday, there was an article about women’s charities that support victims of domestic abuse citing their concerns. The amendment speaks to those concerns. How could it not be supportive?

I am not convinced by the idea that the amendment would introduce an element of jeopardy. People make decisions with their families every day. We sit and have conversations. I speak from a position of privilege—as we all do in this place, frankly. We speak from positions of privilege about how we could have these conversations with our families. But we know that inequalities exist and that some people do not have those privileges. We know that society is unequal. We know that domestic abuse, elder abuse and mental health issues exist.

In my constituency, it takes 14 months just to get a child and adolescent mental health services referral for a young person; I appreciate that we are not talking about young people. My point is that there is a real backlog in the NHS—in terms of waiting times and pain medication, for example. Palliative care is not equal, as I said yesterday. I am genuinely asking Committee members: which bit of the amendment can we not support?

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. She referred to an article she read yesterday about domestic violence in relation to the Bill; it may have been the article by Sarah Ditum in the New Statesman, which I also read yesterday. It cited two cases in which people had been on trial for murder and had pleaded mercy killing, or said that they had carried out the killing of their spouse or partner on the basis that that person was suffering greatly at the end of their life. In both cases, when the evidence was examined, the men were found guilty of murder, because it was very clear that that was what had actually happened.

The article had a profound impact on me, because it demonstrated the risk that we are running: that people will be able to use the Bill in instances of domestic violence. We have to take that very seriously and consider the implications.

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for her powerful intervention. She is right: that was the article I mentioned. Reading about such stories does have a profound impact.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend is making some powerful and important points about, sadly, a lot of the ills in society, which we all deal with.

Let us take the example of a woman who has a terminal illness and is coerced and pressured by a loved one to end her own life. At the moment, we have no idea whether that has happened, because there is no legal framework around that dreadful situation. The Bill would create a legal framework, so that conversations would be had with that woman prior to that point and, hopefully, that point would never come. She would speak to two doctors, potentially a psychiatrist, and other experts to ensure that that did not happen. At the moment, there is no legal framework around that. The Bill also includes a criminal offence of coercion, for which someone could go to prison for 14 years. At the moment, that just is not there.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend, but I feel that the point is being missed. It is true that there is no framework, but for somebody to get to this point in the first instance they need to have a terminal illness. There is a framework around domestic violence, and domestic violence laws exist for everybody. Frameworks already exist for women fleeing domestic violence, and there is no shortage of attempts to try to get those legal frameworks right across society. That is why we had the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, why we have committed to halving violence against women and girls, and why the Prime Minister made a personal commitment in that regard—and rightly so.

There has already been a test case in which a judge said that medics have an obligation in this context. An hon. Member referred yesterday to assisted dying being a treatment, although I disagree, and we had that conversation later.

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

That was a misunderstanding; I was talking about “treatment” as a legal term.

[Naz Shah]

No, I was talking about another hon. Member, not the Minister. We already have laws to protect people from domestic violence, but that does not mean that they necessarily access them.

[Daniel Francis]

From what I understand from the promoter of the Bill, the argument is that we should put these measures in place to protect from coercion people who have less than six months to live, but we would not put those protections in place for people who have nine or 12 months to live. If we are putting the measures in place for someone with six months to live, why are we not doing so for someone with nine or 12 months to live?

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. There has already been a test case, and the Court of Appeal has ruled that undue influence is relevant to medical decisions and that doctors must look at it. If that is already a ruling, I struggle to understand the resistance to adding the words “undue influence” to a Bill that, in the promoter’s own words, should be the safest in the world. A judge has already ruled on it. We already know that we are not going to get to a judge. I struggle to understand this.

[Kit Malthouse]

As the Minister pointed out, the concepts that the hon. Lady is trying to embed in the Bill are already covered by what is a settled legal interpretation and a framework that, over the last 10 years, has become used to dealing with those issues. Do not forget that families who are going through such situations will be advised and will examine the legislation quite carefully. I am nervous about injecting yet another level of consideration for them that might mean that conversations are interpreted—by them, but not necessarily in a legal sense—in a way that is not beneficial to the patient.

I understand the group that the hon. Lady is seeking to protect—that is what we are all trying to do. But what about the majority of people in such circumstances, who might say, for example, “Darling, I am thinking about taking an assisted death because of my horrible disease. If you were me, what would you do?” If I then say, “Well, painful though it is for me, I would do exactly the same thing,” how would families interpret that?

I also want to respond to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. He made a strong point, but I am not sure he is exactly right. I think that if at nine months I have a disease that is progressing, and somebody in my family says to me, “When it comes to it, Kit, you have absolutely got to take an assisted death. We really want you to,” and then when I get into the six-month period I do, and I tell the doctor, my interpretation is that would be covered under the Bill.

I think what the Minister was eloquently trying to establish was that we have to be careful about the clarity of the legal language, and not make it embroidered in a way that makes interpretation by laypeople as well as by lawyers more difficult and complicated. I will come on to this in the next grouping, but we must not use language in a way that skews behaviour, or that makes what should be healthy and fulsome discussions within families guarded and nervous.

[Naz Shah]

I have to respectfully disagree with the right hon. Member that this is a settled position. I also challenge, on the record, what the Minister said. I struggle to understand how the Minister and the Government can say that this is a settled position without having gone to consultation on the Bill and without having an impact assessment. That does not satisfy me. My role when I agreed to be on the Committee was to come in to scrutinise and help strengthen the legislation. In doing so, these are the things that I am pointing out, because the safeguards are not strong enough for me.

I come back to the Court of Appeal. This would be a medical intervention, albeit to end somebody’s life. It would be administering a lethal drug to end somebody’s life, and it would be done by medics. Medics are involved in every stage. If there is case law that has already established that doctors have to look at undue influence in medical decisions, then I say to every single person on the Committee: what are we resisting? When the Court of Appeal has already said so, why is the Committee debating keeping this language out because it makes things complicated?

Let us go back to the words of Dr Jamilla Hussain, who gave evidence to the Committee. She is a clinician, and she absolutely accepts that there are some people who would really benefit from this law. As a clinician, she wants to get there. Indeed, I spoke to Professor John Wright, and he said, “Naz, absolutely—this is where we need to be.”

[Sean Woodcock]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful argument. She is absolutely right to focus on protecting the vulnerable people who this law might apply to. She has touched on medics. I also want to mention the state and its role in what we are talking about. For example, I am opposed to capital punishment, and I link this discussion to that because we are talking about the state providing an individual with a method by which they can end their own life, such as by handing them a pill. I am concerned that, if we are not taking these safeguards seriously, we are abandoning vulnerable people by allowing the state to aid and abet the misuse of the Bill against them. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns?

[Naz Shah]

I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the Bill not being tightened and fit for purpose. We cannot afford for those people to slip through the net. One woman’s death is one too many. One older person’s death is one too many. That is the bar we have to set.

I come back to the words of Dr Jamilla: she said, “Yes, absolutely.” Every single Committee member, and anyone familiar with this debate, found it heartbreaking to listen to those who came in to give testimony about how members of their families died. Those stories will stay with us forever, and rightly so. That is why, in principle, I am supportive of where we need to get to with the Bill. However, as Dr Jamilla said, we cannot get there by ignoring this big lot of people with vulnerabilities and inequalities, who would absolutely need this legislation. We need to fix the inequalities first.

Let us be honest: as legislators, we know that we will not fix every ill in society, otherwise we would not need a police force. We would not need laws if everybody behaved as they should and supported each other. However, it is incumbent upon us, as legislators in this place, to try our best.

Nobody came to this Bill Committee thinking it was going to be a walk in the park. We certainly did not know that we were going to get evidence throughout it, and plenty of challenges are popping up. We came to this Committee—I came new to the subject—because it is of such importance. I sat in the Chamber for five hours on Second Reading, bobbing, but I did not get the chance to speak—and that happened to another 100 colleagues, who also did not get to speak. However, those who made contributions—whether they were for the Bill, concerned about the Bill or were clearly not going to support the Bill—did so because they feel very strongly about it. That is our responsibility.

I come back to amendment 23, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate: we should really consider adding it to the Bill, because that would strengthen it. The amendment does not dilute the Bill, and it does not add another hurdle given that the Court of Appeal has already said that there is a responsibility to look for undue influence. I do not understand the resistance to the amendment, which I will support.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

This debate has been very interesting and has reminded me of my life before being elected. When I was a barrister in court, I was often junior counsel and, by the time I stood up, all the best points had been taken. I feel a bit like that this morning.

I have some observations, the first of which is on what is in the Bill currently. My central submission is that the Bill does more than enough in this area, and that simplicity is what is required, especially when dealing with very complex and difficult subjects, which coercion is. There are two sides to the coin of coercion: one is about acts by third parties, such as family members or society at large, and the other is the individual making the decision.

Clause 1 is clear that, as part of the assessment made by the doctor, judge or panel, the person must have

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

voluntarily. That precisely echoes words from the Crown Prosecution Service guidance on whether to prosecute that is currently in operation. That guidance has been in use for some time, and it seems perfectly rational and logical to continue that.

The focus of the assessment should be on the individual and whether they make the choice freely. Clause 1 makes that clear, and I presume purposefully echoes the language from the CPS guidance. It then says it must be established that the person has

“made the decision that they wish to end their own life voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it.”

That must of course be read with clause 26, which introduces a new offence:

“A person who, by dishonesty, coercion or pressure, induces another person to make a first or second declaration, or not to cancel such a declaration, commits an offence.”

That carries a sentence of up to 14 years in prison.

[Naz Shah]

I am trying to understand the expertise my hon. Friend is speaking from. Was he a criminal barrister?

[Jake Richards]

I am very happy to share my CV afterwards. I practised as a barrister mainly in family law and Court of Protection law, but back in the day I also practised criminal law as a very junior barrister in the magistrates courts up and down the land.

I do not want to delve into the criminal element too much, because we are on clause 1, but it appears to me that the criminal offence set out in clause 26 is far stronger than the Suicide Act 1961, which talks of an act of encouragement. That is not included in clause 26, which talks about inducement—a much more holistic and wider concept than that of an Act probably drafted back in the late 1950s. In my submission, that brings the law far more up to date with modern concepts of coercion and pressure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jake Richards]

I did not draft the legislation, but my understanding is that the reason why the word “dishonesty” appears in clause 26—I do not know whether the Minister wants to comment on this—is that when there is a criminal offence, there needs to be a mens rea. The person who has committed the offence needs to have been intentional or reckless in doing so. As I say, I was a criminal barrister only very briefly; I am sure my law tutors are shaking their heads.

[Naz Shah]

The principle of statutory interpretation means that by mentioning one thing, we exclude others, so it is my understanding that having the terms coercion and pressure in the Bill excludes undue influence. Will my hon. Friend, who has clearly gone through this in detail, also comment on the fact that section 2A of the Suicide Act says that encouragement includes pressure?

[Jake Richards]

With respect, I think my hon. Friend is wrong: it is certainly not an exhaustive list of factors to be taken into account. The courts—this is why we have a common law system—interpret the language used in legislation.

[Naz Shah]

To build on that, I referred to the Court of the Appeal earlier, but when it comes to someone giving their organs, I think from the age of 12 or 13—I will try to find the reference—the words “undue influence” are used in the legislation. It comes back to the crux of my argument; I would like to understand why my hon. Friend is so concerned, from a legal perspective, about putting in the words “undue influence”, when they already appear in legislation.

[Jake Richards]

The issue I have is that if we open the door to all different types of terminology, it will never end. The law is best served when it is clear, simple and straightforward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Juliet Campbell]

rose—

[Naz Shah]

In response to the intervention of my hon. Friend, we are here to make the Bill as safe as possible, but this is a new thing. When the Bill returns to the House, I have to make a decision on whether to support a new Bill that is of such huge magnitude to our communities and the whole country. This Committee is the only process available to us, and words matter.

I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe. The concept of manipulation, as she set out, is very important. I come back to the issue of abuse, particularly in respect of women. I have never heard the phrase “Fifty Shades of Manipulation”—that is an interesting one—but this happens every day, across society. I encourage people to talk about these words. We, as parliamentarians, benefit from that: we are better people for understanding other experiences, because different people bring different experiences to this conversation. I have certainly learned a lot, and it strengthens the House itself when we speak from positions that we have debated. That is the whole purpose of us being here. I am not concerned by talking about adding language—I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe shares my view—because that is point of us being here in the first place.

[Juliet Campbell]

To reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I understand that the writers, promoter and sponsors of the Bill want it to be as simple as possible. The thought is that if we make it as simple as possible, there is less room for confusion and misinterpretation, but there are times when we can make things so simple that we allow far too much interpretation. Words such as those that the hon. Member for Reigate wants to be put into the Bill are really important. Manipulation is really important. Coercion and pressure are not measures of every type of controlling behaviour that happens to individuals.

[Juliet Campbell]

I thank my hon. Friend for looking that up so swiftly. I still think that those additional words need to be included in the Bill. “Coercion” and “pressure” are used as a catch-all for manipulation, but the Bill does not allow people who are using it in their everyday life—doctors, clinicians, nurses and social workers—to understand that.

[Naz Shah]

I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous with her time. To come back to the CPS’s terminology, does she agree that, in an ideal situation, the Bill would be so safe that we would not need to look at that CPS definition? The Bill would be so tightly defined that nobody could be prosecuted for coercing somebody into taking the option of assisted death.

[Juliet Campbell]

I absolutely agree that we do not want people not to understand what the Bill allows them to do or not do. We spoke earlier about making the Bill simple enough for professionals to understand so that they know how to deal with particular instances, but it is not here to make life easy for professionals; it is here to ensure that anyone who is vulnerable—anyone who has six months to live, or for whatever other reason—is protected.

A continuous theme of our debates and all our conversations is that we must make safeguarding as tight as possible so that people are protected. I believe it is not too much to ask to include those additional words to ensure that the wording is as tight as possible and protects the people who need our protection every single day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The risk of gaming—of patients playing the game, and doctors seeking out words to say or not say—is an issue throughout the Bill. That is a general problem with the Bill; thankfully, it is not just a free-for-all. However, in the scenario that my right hon. Friend suggests, that is exactly my concern: if the patient says that their spouse agrees with them or encourages them, that should be a red flag. Under the current Bill, it is not clear that it would be. There is no obligation on the doctor to record that there has been undue influence or to push back, because at the moment, the doctor is looking only for evidence of coercion. As I will come to later, that bar is too low to use, so if the doctor hears those words, I would like him or her to start asking questions, to push back, and to satisfy himself or herself that there has been no overt encouragement or undue influence. That is the point of what we are trying to do.

[Naz Shah]

To come back to an earlier point—I want to make these points, simply because it is really important that we get them on the record—my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley talked about undue influence and encouragement perhaps being archaic terminology. However, just last year, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 cited undue influence, as did the Anatomy Act 1984. Acts passed by Parliament in the last few years have used that terminology, so does the hon. Member for East Wiltshire share my concern about the resistance to having those words added to this Bill?

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Member is absolutely right—undue influence does exist in law, including in laws that have been passed very recently. I recognise that the hon. Member for Rother Valley is not impressed by laws that are more than 10 years old, but I hope he might be satisfied that a law passed last year is sufficiently up to date and modern for him to regard as morally valid. Undue influence is an existing term, and we should apply it in this case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that those investigations will still happen, because not everybody who commits suicide will be subject to the Bill; not everybody who is terminally ill and wants to take their life with the assistance of their loved ones will be caught under it. I am sure she acknowledges that it is therefore still appropriate to have safeguards against assisted suicide outside the law—in fact, the Bill strengthens those safeguards. Those will still continue. I also regard it as appropriate and necessary to have a law against assisted suicide, for all the reasons that we have been discussing.

The hon. Lady is right that it is appropriate for Parliament or the authorities in general to ensure that cases such as those we have discussed, and that have been powerfully testified to us, are handled sensitively. In an overwhelming number of cases, the police do handle them well and sensitively. It might be that we need to improve the guidance around prosecution, and that is an important question. I certainly do not want the families of people who have taken their own lives to be harassed and chased through the courts, and I think we would all agree on that. In that respect, the guidance for the CPS and the police will always evolve.

[Naz Shah]

The hon. Member may recall that we heard from the former head of the CPS in the oral evidence sessions, and I asked him whether the Bill would address concerns about such prosecutions. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley that we want to address that. However, this Bill is not the route to address those issues unless they fall into that six-month bracket.

[Danny Kruger]

I think that is right. I do not accept the claim that this Bill is somehow a response to the problem of abuse, coercion or the pressure to end life in families. Tragically, in jurisdictions that have an assisted dying law, the number of unassisted suicides—suicides that happen outside of the law—go up, because no law can catch all the people who might want to take their own lives. Thankfully, there is no blanket support for any assisted suicide; all the jurisdictions have some restrictions.

More significantly, if the state said that some people’s lives are not worth living and that it is an acceptable choice for them to end their own life—which is not what the current law says; we have legalised suicide, not actually endorsed it—by passing a law that endorsed the choice of some people to take their own life, we would be sending a signal that we agree that some people’s lives are not worth living. The social consequence of that is clear in the evidence from other jurisdictions: suicide in the general population goes up as a result of an assisted dying law.

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

Naz Shah Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

It might be helpful for the Committee to know that I was bequeathed a list by Ms McVey. I understand that those wishing to speak are the hon. Member for Bradford West, the Minister, and the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley. I shall then call the hon. Member for Richmond Park, who tabled the amendment, to wind up the debate.

If anybody else wishes to speak, please indicate in the normal fashion by rising. I will call the hon. Member for Broxtowe if she wishes to speak, but I need to know whether she wants to. If she stands up at the right time, that will be fine. Please be aware that once I have called the mover of the amendment to wind up, there will be no further debate on the subject. That really will be the end of the debate.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park.

The key word here is “capacity”. There has been much debate around the Mental Capacity Act. I will go back to the oral evidence we heard, as well as the written evidence and submissions in relation to the amendments and the clause. The psychiatrists who have advised are against it. I appreciate and recognise the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge and for Bexleyheath and Crayford, who spoke eloquently about the word “ability” from his experience. I recognise that we have not had the opportunity to test the concept of ability.

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

I appreciate my hon. Friend bringing up that point. It is important to note that all Commonwealth jurisdictions that have assisted dying use the concept of mental capacity. We are basing the utility of the Mental Capacity Act not only on 20 years of the courts and medics dealing with it, but on the learning of other jurisdictions that have put assisted dying in place. The concept of ability, however, has no basis in law.

[Naz Shah]

I absolutely concur that we are testing in regard to other jurisdictions. In Oregon, there is not just the assessment of capacity but a referral to a counsellor.

We have had lots of evidence when it comes to capacity, and I will go back to some of the key points. The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated explicitly that the Mental Capacity Act is

“not sufficient for the purposes of this Bill.”

Explaining why, the Royal College of Psychiatrists said that assessing the capacity to end one’s life is “entirely different” from assessing for the capacity to decide treatment.

Three psychiatrists who gave evidence to the Committee —Professor Allan House, Dr Annabel Price and Professor Gareth Owen—all expressed doubts about the use of the Mental Capacity Act to assess whether a person was in a fit state of mind to undertake assisted dying. When Professor Allan House was asked why some people might choose assisted dying, he said they are vulnerable. When asked what he meant by that, he said:

“They are not people asserting autonomy and pleasure in their ability to make a choice; they are people describing to you things that are negative influences on their life.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 161, Q202.]

Professor Gareth Owen said:

“I have looked at mental capacity a lot in research, and there is no experience of the decision to end one’s own life. It is outside the experience of the Mental Capacity Act, the Court of Protection, the associated research and practitioners on the ground. The reference to the Mental Capacity Act in clause 3 puts you into an area where there is no experience of the central capacity question under consideration. It is very important that Parliament be clear-eyed about that.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 226, Q287.]

[Dr Tidball]

On the hon. Lady’s point about being clear-eyed, it is important that we look closely at the drafting of the Bill and the utility of the Mental Capacity Act. There are eight occasions on which a person who might seek assistance can formally consider their decision making, and the Mental Capacity Act would come into play at each of those stages. A person with a terminal illness who wishes to seek assistance does not make a one-off decision; they make the decision eight times during the process, so we have a wide variety of opportunities to ensure that their consent is ongoing.

[Naz Shah]

I recognise that there are eight occasions, but when we debate later clauses I will talk about coercion and manipulation. Those also apply to the issue of capacity, and the Bill refers to them on numerous occasions.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

A very good point has been made about looking at the Mental Capacity Act at different times during the process. However, it does not matter how many times a bad process is applied; if the process is insufficient and does not have a high enough safeguard, it will never give the right answer. We need to ensure that we have the right test. It is absolutely right that we apply it multiple times, but does the hon. Lady agree that we need to consider the quality of what we are applying in the first place?

[Naz Shah]

I completely agree.

Professor Owen also said:

“I have had over 20 years of research interest in mental capacity. When I look at the issues relating to mental capacity with the Bill…the other important point to understand is that they are very novel. We are in uncharted territory with respect to mental capacity, which is very much at the hub of the Bill.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 226, Q286.]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, I am certainly not a doctor, although I have experience in the NHS, but I do know that we do not have psychiatric experts or experts on capacity in this Committee.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Earlier, the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley made a point about public confidence in the Bill. In oral evidence, the representatives from the Royal College of Psychiatrists—we nearly did not hear from them; we had a vote about whether we would, and they were added later—made it clear that they have severe doubts about applying the Mental Capacity Act to the Bill. Does my hon. Friend share those concerns?

[Naz Shah]

I absolutely share those concerns, which is why I pressed the issue to a vote. As I have explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, I am grateful that the Royal College of Psychiatrists gave evidence. It said that the Mental Capacity Act

“is not sufficient for the purposes of this Bill”.

In oral evidence, Professor Jamilla Hussain, an expert in palliative care and health inequalities, highlighted an inequity in assessment using the Mental Capacity Act. She said that she does not think that

“the Mental Capacity Act and safeguarding training are fit for purpose. For something like assisted dying, we need a higher bar—we need to reduce the variability in practice.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 199, Q260.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge mentioned the process in the Bill being repeated eight times, but I want to bring us back to the issue of capacity in relation to coercion. The Royal College of Psychiatrists said:

“In any assessment of capacity, we must also consider whether a person is making the request because they consider that they are a burden or because they do not consider that they have access to effective treatments or good-quality palliative care. At a population level, palliative care, social care and mental health service provision may impact the demand”

for an assisted dying service. Although I appreciate that we will debate this in greater detail later, on clauses relating to coercion, it relates to the issue of capacity. In her evidence to the Committee, Chelsea Roff, a specialist in eating disorders, said:

“One thing I would like to highlight in our study is that all 60 people who died”

by assisted dying after suffering from anorexia, who were mostly young women,

“were found to have mental capacity to make the decision to end their life, so I worry that mental capacity will not be an effective safeguard to prevent people with eating disorders from qualifying under the Bill.

I also note that Oregon and California, where I am from and where we have found cases, have an additional safeguard to mental capacity. That is, if there are any indications that the person might have a mental disorder, that person must be referred for a mental health assessment.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 141, Q177.]

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I completely agree with the point the hon. Lady is making about mental capacity applying to eating disorders, but would that not be better debated in relation to defining an eating disorder as a terminal illness, rather than in regard to mental capacity?

[Naz Shah]

I will be speaking to the issue in relation to terminal illness, because it relates to my amendment in another grouping. The reason I am making this point now is that it also impacts on capacity. When we are assessing capacity—again, this talks to the point—the truth is that nobody in this Bill Committee or otherwise can tell me that the Mental Capacity Act has been applied to the question, “Would you like assisted dying?”

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

First, it is impossible to argue that, because we have never been able to have assisted dying in this country, so it is a spurious argument. However, I do not quite understand the argument here. You are suggesting—

[Dr Opher]

I am sorry. My hon. Friend is suggesting that a system that has been tried and tested in court and by clinicians throughout the country over the last 20 years is not preferrable to a new system that is completely untried. I thought this Committee was about making these things safe for patients, and I cannot see how the amendment makes them more safe.

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend speaks to my point and the idea that the Act has been tried and tested. When we are talking about coercion, and capacity in relation to coercion, I come back to the point that we in this House have only just, in 2015 and 2021, made legislation using the word “coercion”. It was not recognised before. On the idea that this has been tried and tested for the last 20 years, I simply beg to differ.

Coercion does come into the issue of capacity. We are looking at the Mental Capacity Act, which was introduced in 2005 and is 20 years old. These conversations were not being had in Parliament at that time; the vocabulary did not include “coercion” or “undue influence”, even at the time the Mental Capacity Act was passed by this House. Again, that speaks to my point: are we really saying that we want to test the Mental Capacity Act on something that has never been done before?

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I am trying to understand my hon. Friend’s argument. In terms of a person choosing to ask their doctor to turn off their life support machine, as opposed to someone offering a person drugs to self-administer, I understand that there are differences in terms of public policy and that, for some, there are differences morally. However, in terms of capacity—the decision as to whether that person can make that choice themselves—why is it different?

[Naz Shah]

The hon. Member for East Wiltshire answered that question eloquently earlier. Although the outcome is the same, we are asking two different questions. The question is not about turning off and unplugging a machine; it is about whether someone will take drugs to end their life.

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

To follow the basic premise of your argument—

[Jack Abbott]

It is not your argument, Sir Roger; it is my hon. Friend’s argument. I apologise.

To follow the basic premise of my hon. Friend’s argument, she is saying that the Mental Capacity Act is not tried and tested for what we are discussing. However, by definition, neither is this amendment; if anything, it is even worse, because words such as “ability”, which we are discussing here, have absolutely no basis, as was admitted by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. On that basic premise, my hon. Friend will not agree with any amendment that is tabled today, because none of them is tried and tested. Is that correct?

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend is not wrong, in so far as there can be two truths. There is a truth, for me, that the Mental Capacity Act does not deliver what we need it to deliver, and that is the concern we have heard from people who have given us evidence. We have not talked about the word “ability”—as hon. Members have pointed out, it is not set out in law—so there is a conversation to be had.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, the promoter of the Bill, clearly stated, this is about strengthening the Bill and bringing the best Bill to Parliament to give people a choice. That is what this is about.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Member is making such an important speech, and I am very grateful to her. This is a crucial discussion. The hon. Member for Ipswich suggested that the amendment would make things worse because it would apply a new test.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I will conclude my intervention very quickly. I fear that I may have mischaracterised the hon. Member for Bradford West when I said that she is opposed to the Bill in principle; in fact, I do not think that is the case. I am not sure what the difference is between opposition in principle and opposition to the detail, but I recognise that she is certainly not opposed to the Bill in principle, so I apologise to her.

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Bill would take a great leap in the dark by legalising assisted dying? At the moment, that leap lands on the uneven ground of the Mental Capacity Act. Does she agree that, if we want to do this properly, we should prepare a solid, cushioned, safe landing space that is appropriate for the Bill, rather than the inappropriate mess that the Mental Capacity Act would induce?

[Naz Shah]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his correction. To clarify, I do not think anybody in this House disagrees in principle with the idea of not letting people suffer. I am very much about principle, and I came to this Committee very much in that spirit. When I was asked to join this Committee, I had to sleep on it, and I now realise why.

I am grateful for the interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley and for Ipswich. There are a couple of things that are important for us to understand. The Mental Capacity Act has not been tried in any of the other jurisdictions across the world on which we are basing this law, so we cannot make a comparison.

On the issue of whether it is either/or—whether it is the Mental Capacity Act or the word “ability”—the Secretary of State has the power to change that. If we are to be true to the spirit in which we have come to this debate to make the Bill as safe as possible, given that so many psychiatrists and experts have said that they are not convinced that the Mental Capacity Act is fit for purpose in this regard, surely it is incumbent on us to make that case.

[Jack Abbott]

My hon. Friend said that the Mental Capacity Act is not tried and tested, and I was challenging the premise that we should apply a concept that is not tried and tested in this or any other country. She is saying, “I can’t support the Mental Capacity Act in its current form because it is not tried and tested,” but, following that argument, she would presumably not support this amendment or any others because what they propose is also not tried and tested.

[Naz Shah]

This amendment is an attempt to have that conversation and to strengthen the concepts that we are debating. That is the whole point of the Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said, there is no point in having witnesses if we do not listen to what they say. This is what the witnesses said.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich makes a valid point. He asks whether I would, by that definition, support this amendment. I support it because it has led to a debate that we have had all morning, and that we are carrying on into the afternoon. As it is, the Bill does not give me confidence, whether it is due to the use of the Mental Capacity Act or the definition of “ability”. I feel that it needs to go much further, perhaps through the Secretary of State tabling another amendment at a later point.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

We heard many pieces of oral evidence from expert psychiatrists, including from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, saying that the Mental Capacity Act is not fit for the Bill. Even if we use the Act, many conditions such as depression or delirium —or the effects of some medication—can impact on people’s decision making. It is worrying when someone like Dr Rachel Clarke, who has extensive experience in the Mental Capacity Act and has been training medical students and nurses, says of those mental capacity assessments that

“it is often the case that they are…poorly conducted.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 71, Q85.]

Would my hon. Friend agree that rather than use the Mental Capacity Act, the “ability” amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park would be more suitable and make the Bill safer?

[Naz Shah]

I know that my hon. Friend comes from a mental health background and has worked as a professional in this area. I absolutely agree that we need to strengthen the Bill, which is why I will support the amendment. I feel that we must strengthen it because the Secretary of State can make some interventions.

[Kit Malthouse]

I want to clarify what the Royal College of Psychiatrists actually said, because I realise that the hon. Member is relying a lot on that evidence. In an exchange with me in their oral evidence, the doctor from the royal college said that if I were to equate the decision to refuse treatment with the decision to request a hastening of my death in extremis as qualitatively the same, and of the same seriousness and outcome, then the Mental Capacity Act may well be appropriate for the decision. The difference was information. We would be relying on the notion of informed consent, and therefore on the information that the person was being given about the consequences of that decision.

We will be debating later in Committee the information that is given to a person to form that decision, but I do not think it is quite the case that the psychiatrist said that it could not be or was not fit for purpose. Actually, they said that it may well be sufficient if we equate those two decisions—and many of us do.

[Naz Shah]

I know the right hon. Member speaks with a huge amount of experience. I am very new to the subject, but I know that the evidence from the psychiatrist was very certain—not “may well be”. The language that they used, which I referred to earlier, was very clear that it is not a good standard. They said:

“We are in uncharted territory with respect to mental capacity, which is very much at the hub of the Bill”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 226, Q286.]

and there is an inequity in assessment using the Mental Capacity Act. There were other categorical statements made—there was no “maybe” in there. For me, a “maybe” does not cut it at this level; the test should be much higher in order to take the option of assisted death.

[Kit Malthouse]

If the hon. Lady goes to column 277 of Hansard from that oral evidence session, Dr Price said:

“You are equating a refusal of treatment, in capacity terms, to hastening death by assisted dying. If those two things are equated, in terms of the gravity and the quality of the decision, the Mental Capacity Act may well be sufficient, but there are differences. There are differences in the information that the person would need and what they would need to understand.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 277, Q361.]

It is clear what Dr Price said. To be honest, the question was partly prompted as we had become a little confused, because the whole practice of psychiatry in the UK is founded on the Act at the moment. She seemed to be implying that somehow the entire practice of psychiatry in the UK was on unstable ground—and I do not think anybody is claiming that.

[Danny Kruger]

rose—

[Naz Shah]

I will take this intervention and then address both points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I think that the hon. Member’s intervention responds to some of the points of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire.

We have heard a lot about the equivalence of endings versus decisions. The example given earlier, of somebody pulling the plug because they did not want treatment any more, happens in very few cases. From my experience of working in the NHS and with disabled people, when people are at the end of life, their cases sometimes do end up in court in front of a judge. That may be because there is a difference of opinion—be it medical, between the family, to do with capacity, or whatever the issue is. We are removing that. My understanding is that the promoter of the Bill is removing the need for the judge and is proposing a panel, which is what I read in The Guardian earlier.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady can help me with an area of her argument that I am conflicted by. I have heard the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, drawing the distinction between those who refuse treatment for a condition that is then terminal and those actively seeking assistance in ending their life. There is a third group who choose to refuse food and nutrition. That is not a treatment in the conventional sense, to combat a disease process, that is normal sustenance that would keep someone alive. Given that the MCA applies to that decision and someone’s ability to refuse on that basis, how does that interplay with the amendment as proposed?

[Naz Shah]

I have tabled an amendment to a later clause that talks specifically to that. The word “only” needs to be removed. We have seen this in Oregon, which I will come to later. We heard in the oral evidence that 60 women assessed to have capacity died because they had anorexia.

[Kim Leadbeater]

In respect of those numbers, it is important to be really clear that the vast majority of those circumstances were in the Netherlands and in other jurisdictions that have a much broader set of eligibility criteria than the Bill. We are talking about a very small number of cases in jurisdictions with a similar set of criteria to ours. It is important to make that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

My understanding, which comes from Chelsea Roff, was that that happened specifically in places such as Oregon and California, but I am happy to revisit that. Coming back to the point, we must ensure that people with an eating disorder such as anorexia or a mental health condition will be excluded from the Bill. That will be my second amendment. I do not know if that answers the question.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

It may well have been the way that I phrased it, but the point I was seeking to make was that the Mental Capacity Act, as it currently operates, can be used for those patients who choose to refuse food and water. My view would be that that is a distinct group of people who are refusing active treatment. Given the hon. Lady’s distinction between those who refuse treatment in the conventional sense and those who are seeking assisted dying and her view that for the latter group the MCA is not the appropriate mechanism, is she saying that for that group of individuals who refuse food and water—effectively choosing to end their life through starvation—the MCA is not an appropriate mechanism to assess their capacity?

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but we are not here legislating on anorexia; we are here legislating on the option of assisted death. I am trying to understand where he is going with that argument. It genuinely does not make sense to me.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I do not think that the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley is saying that this is about people with eating disorders or anorexia; he is asking about people who are terminally ill who stop eating and drinking. They do that as a course of action to essentially end their own lives. It does happen on a fairly regular basis. We have had testimonies from families who have watched loved ones essentially starve themselves to death. It is different from having an eating disorder or being anorexic.

[Naz Shah]

My understanding, when it concerns eating disorders and anorexia—let me get this right: are hon. Members trying to equate new clause 1 with that condition?

[Rebecca Paul]

I think that one of the points being made is the difference between something that is active and something that is passive—for example, someone who chooses not to take that next level of chemotherapy because they have had enough, they have gone through a lot of it or it was painful, and chooses, in the example the hon. Member for Spen Valley just gave, not to eat and drink. That is one case, but it is very different from someone choosing to end their own life, which requires active participation and involves other people too. That would be the key difference, which I wonder if the Member for Bradford West agrees with.

[Naz Shah]

I do agree. I also want to push back on the idea that it happens fairly regularly. I would welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley giving us the evidence of where it says that, because that is not my recollection of the evidence we have gone through so far. I appreciate that we have not gone through all of it; there might be more that we have not seen.

[Sojan Joseph]

On a point of clarification, under the Mental Capacity Act, if somebody decided to stop eating and drinking, we would let them do it until they became unconscious, and then their best interests would come into effect. We would take them into treatment if there were a risk to their life. Would my hon. Friend agree that that needs to be clarified?

[Naz Shah]

This whole conversation has taught me that we are not on top of the Mental Capacity Act or the conversation about ability, which is why it is so important to have these conversations, even if it is just to try to get to the nub of the issue. Amendments that I will speak to later will clarify my position, but from the evidence I have heard, I will be supporting the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. That is because the test needs to be much higher than the Mental Capacity Act on its own when it concerns the issue of choosing assisted dying. For that reason, I will support the amendment.

[Juliet Campbell]

I thank the Committee for allowing me to reiterate the importance of a stand-alone approach. The use of the Mental Capacity Act must be questioned, as the Act was never intended to legislate for assisted dying. Much of what has been said in favour of using the Mental Capacity Act has been about it being tried and tested, so people understand it and to use anything else would make life complicated for professionals who use it as part of their day-to-day activities in assessing capacity.

On the surface, those reasons do seem reasonable and make the Mental Capacity Act an easy option. If, however, the Act does not pass the threshold of meeting everyone’s needs, convenience should not be the deciding factor. Convenience cannot be considered a sufficient reason to use the Mental Capacity Act, as it is a fundamental element of the Bill. The Bill is in itself enough reason to have an alternative or stand-alone approach to determine an individual’s eligibility to be considered for an assisted death.

Capacity is a complicated issue and cannot be oversimplified for convenience. The MCA may be fit for its current purpose, but it is not fit for the purpose of the assisted dying Bill. I have spent more than 20 years working on the equalities agenda, and one of the things that I have learned—this has been a consistent shortfall—is that we try to address new challenges with old solutions, rather than trying to meet the needs of the people we intend to serve. That is the reason why I will be supporting the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The fundamental position of the Government is that the Mental Capacity Act as it stands is a known quantity. It provides the legal base for a whole range of measures and interventions, and the Government’s view is that it would be an adequate legal base to operationalise the Bill should it receive Royal Assent. Our position on it goes no further than that; it is simply a matter of fact that there is a piece of legislation that is a known quantity.

[Naz Shah]

The Minister makes an important point. I just want to understand something. He speaks on behalf of the Government and says that the Mental Capacity Act is an adequate legal base as it stands. Perhaps the issue is just that I am new to the process—I am happy to be guided, Sir Roger—but we have not had an impact assessment. Normally, Bills do have impact assessments beforehand and the Government go out to consult; they have a consultation process. None of that has happened because the Bill is a private Member’s Bill. I am just trying to understand: is what has been said still true? How do the Government come to that conclusion without all those robust mechanisms that would normally go before a Government Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is a point worth making, and something we will look at through the amendments that my hon. Friend has proposed. I am very happy to look at those, as I have already said, but the idea of creating a whole new concept of ability seems wholly unnecessary in the context of a piece of legislation that has stood the test of time for over 20 years.

I come back to training. Although the full details of the training programme that would accompany the Bill cannot be put on the face of the Bill, I have discussed the issue at length with officials in the Department of Health and I have included amendments to that effect. Amendments 186 and 198 specifically state that training must include assessing capacity and assessing whether a person has been coerced or pressured by any other person. Further comprehensive training will be included in regulations set out by the Secretary of State, and the chief medical officer is confident that that is the correct way to proceed.

Furthermore, as has been referred to, there are multiple opportunities within the process to assess capacity by a range of professionals. I have also tabled new clause 8, which would create a duty for the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations relating to training. Within that, there would be a duty to consult not only the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is important, but persons with expertise in matters relating to whether persons have capacity and whether persons have been coerced.

[Naz Shah]

To go back to the point about multiple opportunities and capacity, my understanding from this morning’s Guardian is that an amendment has been tabled—it was mentioned earlier; I do not know whether others have had sight of it, but I certainly have not—on potentially having a panel instead of a judge. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford has just asked a question, and my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley responded by saying that she would come back to it, but my concern is that we are looking at the clause now, and once we have discussed it there will be no going back to it. I am trying to understand at what stage in the process she will come back and fix it. If we are going to address it under clause 9, clause 8 or wherever, how will that impact on clause 1? How will it address the issues that we are debating right now?

[Kim Leadbeater]

At the moment, we are addressing the fitness for purpose of the Mental Capacity Act, but there are other amendments that will take on board some of my hon. Friend’s points, particularly about people with learning disabilities. I am very happy to look at that. I am working to table an amendment before the recess, to give the Committee an opportunity to look at it in great detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West is right that that would provide another opportunity for assessment of capacity with the involvement of psychiatrists and social workers, who have said that that is their expertise and what they excel in, and who feel that they have a valuable role to play in the process.

[Naz Shah]

At what stage will we know how the amendments that my hon. Friend proposes have an impact on clause 1? If we make amendments later in the Bill, how will that have an impact on the amendments that we have discussed this morning, in particular in relation to capacity?

[Kim Leadbeater]

Clause 1 is very specifically about the Mental Capacity Act, on which we should get a chance to vote this afternoon. Other amendments can be tabled ahead of Report, but the fitness for purpose of the Mental Capacity Act is a concept on which we will get a chance to vote this afternoon. Other things can be added to the Bill that would enhance other aspects, but the point that we have discussed this afternoon is about the fitness for purpose of the Act. There are different views on the Committee, which is understandable. I believe that using the well-established legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act, introducing gold-standard training and consulting experts in assessing capacity will mean that there is no need to develop a whole new framework around the concept of ability, particularly on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge. I therefore do not support the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

There may be people out there who think that prisoners do not deserve it. That would be the flipside of the argument. I understand my hon. Friend is not making it; he wants to protect them because they are vulnerable. To me, however, that seems like a cruel and unusual punishment for people who are already serving time in prison, to whom we should not deny the same health-related services that everybody else receives. I will therefore oppose the amendments.

[Naz Shah]

I support the amendment for a number of reasons. I have a huge amount of experience of dealing with women, domestic violence and prisons. The first time I came to this House was to lobby the then Labour Home Secretary to reduce my mother’s tariff, because she served 14 years in prison. When my mother was in prison, I was left homeless, so I have experience of that as well. I have experience of, while I was homeless, attempting suicide on two occasions, and I ended up having my stomach pumped. I therefore speak with a reasonable amount of experience in dealing with this.

From a domestic violence point of view, which is why my mother killed an abusive partner, and having been a victim of domestic abuse, I also understand the vulnerabilities concerning women in particular—less so men, although I know the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has done a lot of work on that in his adult life. The majority of women who end up in prison—we have seen this from review of the courts, time and again—are victims of abuse, whether sexual, domestic or another kind. The majority of our women prisoners are in that position.

The suicide rate among the population in England and Wales is 11.4 per 100,000, but for prisoners, that goes up to 108 per 100,000, which is nearly 10 times as high. We also know from research that one third of female prisoners in England and Wales self-harm. We know from the Home Affairs Committee report in the last Parliament on health in the English prison system that standards of health deteriorated in recent years due to budget reduction, loss of prison officers, staff shortages and overcrowding. We know that the Government have had to bring forward early releases, because the prison system is not fit for purpose after the cutbacks of the last 14 years.

All this speaks to me of vulnerability. I hear the points that both the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire have made that, in an ideal world, people should absolutely have equal access to healthcare, but the problem is that we are not in an ideal world. From my perspective, we have a prison system that has had to have emergency interventions since the Labour party came into government, because it is not fit for purpose.

From a healthcare perspective, going back to what Dr Jamilla said and the numerous bits of evidence we heard about health inequalities, I know from a place such as Bradford West that people from ethnic minority backgrounds have less trust in healthcare services. I know that we do not have equity in healthcare services. As a former NHS commissioner, I know that those health inequalities impact on quality of life and that it is a postcode lottery. I am thinking about New Hall women’s prison in Wakefield and Armley prison, which is near Bradford. I am not familiar with London prisons, but I imagine the vulnerability of the women at New Hall. This comes back to the conversation about capacity: by some definition, they might have capacity.

However, we also heard from eminent psychiatrists that when someone has a diagnosis, it impacts on their mental health. In this instance, we are talking about six months, which the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire referred to a number of times. In that six months, access to visitors might not come for another few weeks. A person might not even have a member of their family next to them when they get that diagnosis. They could well be innocent; they could well have been a victim of domestic violence and ended up in prison because they killed an abusive partner after years of abuse.

They could be in a number of situations, but the one thing I concur with is the amount of vulnerability here, in particular for women, which speaks to the issues of capacity and coercion. It speaks to all the things that we are debating here, which is why I support this amendment: it would protect those who are vulnerable. If there was a diagnosis, prison systems would kick in. If someone was given less than six months to live, they would invoke compassionate grounds to leave the prison system, but I would be really uncomfortable seeing anybody in prison being given the option without that comfort.

I cannot imagine being in the position of, say, my mum. I cannot imagine—I would not dare imagine; I do not think I could handle it—the idea of being taken away from my family and being incarcerated, rightfully or wrongfully, guilty or not guilty. I would be in a place, a system and an institution where, depending on which category of prison I was in, the institutional wraparound and the interventions are very different. It depends on the stage of the sentence that somebody is in. If they are in at stage 1 at a category A prison, there are much stricter rules and regulations. Imagine a person being faced with all that and finding out that they have six months to live. As the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said, there is no guarantee that it is six months—more than 40% of those diagnoses do not turn out to be correct, and they could live longer. What would the impact be on that person? Could they make that decision? From a capacity point of view, I am not sure that that would exist.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady is feeling towards the point I was trying to make, perhaps slightly incoherently. The point is that in my view, whether or not those people have access to this service, it should be based on an assessment of them as themselves, including their mental capacity, particular characteristics and their settled will, just as it would be for everyone else under the Bill. The fact that they are, at that point, a prisoner impacts on the context in which their capacity is assessed, which must be the critical factor. Having a blanket ban on all prisoners, capable or otherwise, seems cruel, if I am honest.

We know that prisons have to assess capacity in difficult circumstances. There are prisoners who decide to decline food and water and starve themselves to death. They are assessed as having capacity, if that is not the case, and in certain circumstances they are force fed, if it is seen that they do not have the capacity to take that decision themselves. In fact, the reason why prisons have created hospices within prisons is to deal with exactly such end of life decisions.

If we are doing it for non-assisted dying, why would we deny people the choice and autonomy, having been assessed as capable of making the decision, to do it in prison? Worse than that, if we are going to release them on compassionate grounds, why would we give them a shorter period to access the service than anybody else?

[Naz Shah]

I appreciate where the right hon. Member is coming from—I sincerely do. It comes back to the heart of the issue around capacity. We heard from the psychiatrist—her name escapes me, but she was on the right-hand side—that, where there is an increase of vulnerability, if somebody is told they would get pain relief, they would choose an alternative path. Those were similar words, and I will find the reference.

My point is that we do not have equal healthcare access in prison. We provide prisoners with healthcare, but it is in no way equitable. The health inequalities that exist outside prison are bad enough. Palliative care is not fit for purpose in our country—it is a postcode lottery. Depending on which prison someone goes to, that will determine what kind of access they have to palliative care. It is not a level playing field.

[Dr Opher]

I have a simple question: is it not illegal to deprive people in prison and homeless people of the same care that the rest of the population receives?

[Naz Shah]

It would be if we were making treatment equitable, but if we apply the test of legality, and this is about pain—we have already seen the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, which would widen the scope from six months to 12 months—where do we draw the line in terms of equity and legality? The Bill is open to a lot of legal challenges, and if we want to go down that route, there would be plenty of them.

[Tom Gordon]

There is a fundamental difference between trying to ensure that people have equal access to assisted dying and prohibiting a specific group or category. Does the hon. Member understand that?

[Naz Shah]

I understand that perfectly well. On the idea of not giving people assisted dying, as the Bill stands, the category also includes people who decide to stop eating or taking insulin and people who decide not to go on dialysis. It includes a whole host of illnesses. If we are talking about the legal challenges, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud started with, the legal challenges for the Bill are vast as it stands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

rose—

[Naz Shah]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman first.

[Danny Kruger]

On the point of legality, of course a law could be challenged under the European convention on human rights, but Parliament is sovereign. If Parliament decides to exclude a particular category, we in this place have to take this enormous responsibility—we make the law in this country.

[Naz Shah]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend has listed certain categories of people, and we will come on to the definition of terminal illness. I am confident that, given the definition of terminal illness in the Bill, some of the groups of people she has talked about will not be included in its scope.

[Naz Shah]

Where does it specify that? I know we are going to debate that subject later, but right now there is nothing that gives me assurance that those people will be excluded. Unless there is an amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley will support, the Bill, as drafted, would still apply to somebody if they decided not to carry on with treatment, or if they decided they did not want to take their insulin or other medication and that would lead to their death. I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend so that she can explain how she is going to deal with that.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will. Let me read from the Bill. The definition of “terminal illness” under the Bill is that

“the person has an inevitably progressive illness, disease or medical condition which cannot be reversed by treatment”.

The conditions that my hon. Friend is describing can be reversed by treatment and are not inevitably progressive. We will come to that debate in due course, but that definition is crucial.

[Naz Shah]

I beg to differ on the wording that my hon. Friend just used. It actually makes my point. As it stands, if I were an insulin-dependent diabetic—and I have been so on three occasions, with my children— I could say that if I stopped taking that insulin, I would become terminally ill. In the Bill as it stands, and as it is drafted, I would meet the criteria.

[Kim Leadbeater]

My hon. Friend would not meet the criteria. She might be describing a condition that cannot be reversed, but it is the “inevitably progressive” part that we are talking about. Because it can be treated, it is not an

“inevitably progressive illness, disease or medical condition”.

[The Chair]

Order. A debate about the definition of “terminal illness” will come later in the Bill, and it might help us all if we were to swiftly move forward to that point.

[Naz Shah]

Absolutely—we will come back to that conversation.

[Sean Woodcock]

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, in his rebuttal to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, described assisted dying as “medical care”. Personally, I do not regard assisted dying as medical care. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Naz Shah]

I am still having that debate in my head, and I am not convinced. I will not digress—I will come to the point—but there is a conversation about whether it is “treatment”, “assisted suicide” or “assisted death”. Those terms have been bandied about. I genuinely think that, ultimately, we have to use the word “suicide” because we are amending the Suicide Act 1961. I appreciate the context in which the promoter of the Bill puts it forward, but the truth is that it is about taking one’s life, so that is how I respond to that question.

To come back to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, the reason why I will support them is that I have way too much experience of people in vulnerable positions, and I have a lifetime of experience of seeing what happens. I do think there are options when somebody has a diagnosis of terminal illness. The prison systems are set up to be able to give them compassionate leave and to explore other avenues. Once they are outside that system, they can access support and have their vulnerability reduced.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Will the hon. Lady help me to understand her position? Is it a fundamental disagreement with any prisoner having access to assisted dying, or is it a fundamental issue with completing the final act, as set out in clause 18, while being a prisoner? For example, the hon. Lady touched on early release on compassionate grounds. Under those circumstances, there may be a prisoner who has been given a six-month diagnosis, and their early release may not be until the last couple of weeks of their life. Should they be deprived of going through the process and the assessment, albeit not enacting the final act until they have been released?

[Naz Shah]

Yes, I think there should be a deprivation of that final act, because there are vulnerabilities with that prisoner while they are inside a prison. What they need is not an option of assisted death at that point. That speaks to the amendment that I tabled, which is about making sure that we do not have the conversation in the first four weeks in any case, because a diagnosis of terminal illness affects people’s mental capacity and mental health. We know that: we have heard it from the psychiatrists. It is common sense; it does not take a genius to work it out.

We know that people in prison have additional vulnerabilities. We are having a debate about the issue of capacity, which we have clearly not agreed on. A person-centred care package needs to be about supporting the person, removing vulnerabilities, giving autonomy, and offering choices around accessing palliative care and medication, so that they are in a much stronger position to make an informed choice.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene again. Can she not see that by supporting the hon. Gentleman’s amendment she is basically defining all prisoners as de facto vulnerable? It is not the case. Although many are vulnerable, both my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire and I have met a lot of criminals and prisoners in our time, and quite a lot of them are smart, capable people who made a stupid decision. They are not vulnerable; they deeply regret what they did and go on to live perfectly functional lives.

We should be applying to prisoners exactly the same criteria of assessment—around capacity, vulnerability and settled will—at the time they are diagnosed with a terminal disease as we do to everybody else, because if we are not going to differentiate among prisoners, in many ways we are dehumanising the entire population. We are saying, “You are all vulnerable—no question—and we are excluding you completely on that basis.” As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, that is in many ways a fundamental denial of a basic human right.

[Naz Shah]

The idea that it is the fundamental denial of a human right is not quite correct. We are talking about the denial of a provision in a Bill that has not come into law. It is a potential legal position; it is not necessarily a human right yet. If the Bill comes into force, at that point it becomes an option that could be denied. There are many prisoners. Prison serves many purposes, one of which is to reform. There will be many prisoners who go in there and get a degree in criminality because they are surrounded by other prisoners. There are people who make choices.

In the first four weeks we should not have the conversation around assisted death in any case. I have tabled an amendment to that effect and will speak to it when we come to it. In the meantime, a person has an added layer of pressure if they are in prison. It does not mean that everybody is necessarily vulnerable from a starting position. I agree that there may be prisoners who are not vulnerable, but there is an added pressure if somebody is homeless or in prison, not having family or security, that would no doubt compound their mental health. Whether that is a slight or a large impact is for somebody else to assess, but as it is I support the amendment.

[Tom Gordon]

I can understand where the hon. Lady is coming from, but I wonder whether she has any specific examples of groups such as people who are homeless or prisoners having other rights denied to them. That is what I am struggling with, although I can understand her point about people being vulnerable. The only other example that strikes me is that people who are incarcerated are unable to vote. I cannot think of any other instance where people would have any particular right removed from them. Does the hon. Lady have any other examples or comparable situations she can share to help us?

[Naz Shah]

I do not have any comparable situations; this is uncharted territory.

[Danny Kruger]

Prisoners are denied their liberty, not just their vote. They are treated as a single class of people who the state has specific responsibilities for, because it essentially owns them for the time that they are incarcerated. Prisoners have particular protections, but they are also denied a whole range of human rights and opportunities that the rest of society can have. It is not inappropriate to treat prisoners as a distinct class of people to whom the state has a specific responsibility.

[Naz Shah]

The hon. Gentleman clearly has more recent experience of prisons than I have—thankfully. In closing, I will be supporting his amendments to protect people who are vulnerable in prison and people who are homeless.

[Sojan Joseph]

I want to contribute to this discussion based on my experience as a mental health nurse. I worked in mental health services for 22 years, including managing a medium secure forensic unit. I have worked with many homeless people and people who were detained under the Mental Health Act by the criminal justice system in those medium secure units and who had been involved in criminal activities.

With my experience, I can categorically say that that group of people is very vulnerable. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said, self-harming and suicidal tendencies are very high among that group. As part of the risk assessments that we carry out in the mental health system, one of the questions is whether they are homeless. That question is asked to identify that vulnerability.

These amendments bring up the importance of a psychosocial assessment, which was highlighted in many pieces of our oral evidence. If we are looking to bring more safeguards into this Bill, that is something we should consider to safeguard this group of people.

I want to make one more point about what the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said: not all homeless people are homeless in the same way; some people choose to sleep rough. I am not clear whether, if somebody is sleeping rough and is diagnosed with a terminal illness, we are looking to bring them back into an NHS bed to assist them to die. I do not know whether there is a provision to identify how we would manage those sorts of situations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

The amendments relate to the criteria that individuals would need to meet to request assistance to die under the Bill. All the amendments seek to amend the eligibility criteria in some manner. To reiterate, the Government have no view on the policy questions pertaining to the amendments, and my role here is to offer observations on the legal and practical impact of amendments tabled. The legal impact of these amendments will be the main focus of my remarks.

Amendment 353 seeks to make prisoners ineligible for assisted dying services even if they meet the definition of having a terminal illness. Amendments 354 and 355 are consequential amendments that would make it a requirement for the co-ordinating doctor in the first assessment and the court process to ascertain whether a person seeking assistance to end their own life is a prisoner.

Aside from the right to liberty, article 5 of the European convention on human rights requires that prisoners should have the same rights as those who are not prisoners. The rights engaged by the amendment are article 8 on the right to respect for private and family life and article 14 on the protection from discrimination. Making prisoners ineligible for assisted dying would, on the face of it, lead to a difference in treatment between prisoners and non-prisoners that would need to be objectively and reasonably justified. The justification test requires that the treatment in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

[Naz Shah]

I note that the Minister used the word “treatment” twice, but we are not talking about a treatment; we are talking about assisted death. I think someone mentioned earlier that it is a treatment, but it is not a treatment, is it? I would welcome his clarification on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Juliet Campbell]

I still think that it is important to add “demonstrably”. The word should be included; I do not see that it would create any additional confusion. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said that he had tabled some amendments later on in the Bill. However, that is later on. Putting in “demonstrably” here would strengthen his proposal.

[Naz Shah]

Does my hon. Friend share my frustration that when the Minister says, “This is the Government’s position,” he says so in the absence of an equality assessment or impact assessment? I appreciate that the Government have outlined that the process is different, but in the absence of those assessments, where do we find the weight to support those positions?

[Juliet Campbell]

I absolutely agree. The word “demonstrably” could produce that weight. It could add to every other part of the Bill that a person must be able to demonstrate to health and social care professionals that they understand what assisted dying is and understand the process that will be gone through. The person needs to be able to demonstrate to other professionals that they understand. A written report by a health or social care professional is not enough; the person themselves will have to demonstrate that they have a full and clear understanding.

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

Naz Shah Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I thank the Member for making that point of order. It is normal practice for evidence to come in, and for it to be submitted as it comes in. However, due to the large amount of evidence and its substance, and to the importance of the Bill and this line-by-line scrutiny, I will seek the advice of the Clerk and will come back to him.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Ms McVey. My concern is about written evidence that has been submitted but not yet read—I have certainly not been through the last batch of evidence that we have had. How do we proceed when, for example, we might have gone through clauses 1 and 2, or even up to clause 4 or 5, and we receive evidence related to those clauses? We will have already discussed them in Committee. We have been told we will only get five hours on Report, while on Second Reading more than 100 MPs, including me, were unable to speak. The evidence could inform amendments. I am struggling to understand how this will be workable. I would value your advice.

[The Chair]

I am pleased that people feel they are free to make those points. It is for the Committee to decide how fast to move through the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I heard Sir Chris Whitty in particular say that it would be preferable to have a more straightforward Bill that did not have too many bureaucratic hurdles for people to overcome. That was why he was keen for the Mental Capacity Act to be retained. However, I tabled the amendment precisely because, when people are thinking about whether assisted dying is an appropriate decision for them, I do not think that it is safe for them to be judged merely on the basis of their capacity. It is by no means my intention to increase bureaucracy; I am merely proposing that the Act is not sufficient in this case.

[Naz Shah]

Three psychiatrists gave evidence to the Committee in person: Professor Allan House, Dr Annabel Price, of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and Professor Gareth Owen. All expressed doubts about the use of the Mental Capacity Act to assess whether a person was in a fit state of mind to undertake assisted dying. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should place great weight on the opinion of psychiatrists when assessing whether the Act should be used to assess applicants for assisted dying? It is a horse before the cart scenario, because the Act was not made for this context; when it was passed, we were not talking about the ability to choose to die.

[Sarah Olney]

I agree exactly with the hon. Lady’s point. The Act was not designed for this purpose, and it is essential that we carefully scrutinise whether it should be used in this way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Tidball]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s intervention, but I do not agree. Taken together, the parameters around the six-month limit, clause 2(3) and the requirement for a mental capacity test cumulatively create a safeguard in the Bill.

Importantly, the MCA’s two-stage capacity test is already underpinned by robust safeguards, which address exactly the issue the hon. Gentleman raised. Stage one asks whether there is a disturbance or impairment in the person’s brain or mind, and stage two asks whether the disturbance or impairment is severe enough that the person cannot make a specific decision. That two-stage test already deals with the issue he raised. The references to the Mental Capacity Act in the relevant clauses of the Bill ensure, crucially, that we import that test too.

Elements of the language in the new concept of ability proposed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park appear to attempt to echo the second stage of the Mental Capacity Act test, as just described. That has four elements: understanding information about the decision to be made, retaining that information in the mind, using or weighing that information as part of the decision-making process, and communicating the decision by talking, using sign language or any other means. It is important to say that those core elements are built on the scaffolding of the five principles of the MCA, working in a progressive way.

Opposition Members talked about the unwise decision, but the principles in the Mental Capacity Act work collectively and cumulatively together. That is only one step, then, which is followed by the fact that decisions must be taken in the person’s best interest, and there is well-worn and well-trodden understanding of how we ascertain that. It is important that those things all work together. The issue is already addressed under the MCA; if we do away with the MCA, we lose not only the scaffolding of the five principles, but the important safeguards of the two-stage test.

[Naz Shah]

My hon. Friend made reference to that already being done, but where is the evidence that the capacity stage she talked about is actually happening? We had evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and, as she said, Professor Chris Whitty. Where is the evidence that it is being done well, as things stand?

[Dr Tidball]

I do not have a list of the case law in front of me—I am sure it will be possible for that to be found for my hon. Friend—but it is done regularly. The Mental Capacity Act is used regularly in decisions about the withdrawal of life-support treatment. That is the case, and she is welcome to search for the case law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The hon. Member makes a reasonable point. I agree with her on many issues, but on this issue I have some reservations. Clause 18(4) says:

“The coordinating doctor must be satisfied, at the time the approved substance is provided, that the person to whom it is provided…has capacity…has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.

Of course, under the wording of section 26(1) of the Mental Capacity Act, that decision can be made at an earlier time and deemed to have currency, once capacity has been lost, for its enactment at a later date. I think that there could be a minor tightening of the wording or reassurances from Government to address that, but it is an important point to raise and air.

[Naz Shah]

rose—

[The Chair]

Order. Before we proceed any further, I remind hon. Members that we are discussing capacity and ability.

[Naz Shah]

I am just trying to understand what the hon. Member is communicating. Under the Bill, if somebody has anorexia, diabetes or kidney failure and has the capacity to make that decision because they meet the criteria for the capacity to refuse treatment, will that mean that they can decide to sign up to this option?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The Bill is very clear in determining that it is for those who have a progressive illness, disease or medical condition that cannot be reversed by treatment. On my reading of the Bill, it excludes that category of individuals who choose not to engage with treatment that in ordinary circumstances would prevent the progression or deterioration of their condition. I therefore do not see it as analogous with the hon. Member’s scenario of someone who could have a long life expectancy if they had taken their treatment, but who chooses not to. That is not captured within the Bill, in my interpretation.

[Naz Shah]

I am struggling with this, because it is clear from the evidence from our witnesses that that is the case where somebody has anorexia, for example, and they make that choice. As has been referred to plenty of times in the context of the Bill, the Mental Capacity Act has been used, and is sufficiently used, for people to withdraw treatment. Personally, I think that that is a pretty false equivalence, because when a person’s life support machine is turned off, the decision is made not by the person receiving lifesaving treatment, but by their loved ones.

According to what we have heard this morning, if someone has the mental capacity to use the MCA to withdraw treatment for a condition, that will lead to a diagnosis of terminal illness. It could kill someone. If I refused to take insulin, and I was diabetic, I would have the mental capacity to say, “Actually, I’m not going to take this treatment, so can I make a decision?” I am just trying to check the hon. Gentleman’s understanding.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Member, I think that she is conflating two issues. Someone can stop treatment under the MCA; over time, that will lead progressively to death, with some conditions—she gave the example of being a diabetic without insulin—but that would not be a terminal illness in reference to this Bill. The Bill is very clear that it is about an inevitable and progressive illness, disease, or medical condition that cannot be reversed by treatment. Diabetes, treated with insulin, is not a progressive condition that becomes a terminal diagnosis; it is terminal only by virtue of somebody refusing treatment, which therefore would not be captured within the Bill.