Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Polly Billington Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will just make some progress, if I may.

It is about not just patient choice but choice for professional people, too. We know there are a range of views on assisted dying across a range of professions. I have always been clear that no one who is uncomfortable taking part should have to, and nor should there be any detriment to anyone, whatever choice they make in whatever role they have.

[Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)]

It is welcome that new clause 10 seeks to protect more individuals, but can my hon. Friend say why she has still not chosen to make provision for hospices and care homes to opt out without having their funding threatened?

[Kim Leadbeater]

There is absolutely nothing in the Bill that has any suggestion that any funding would be impacted by whatever decisions organisations make around assisted dying.

I will make some progress. New clause 10(1) states clearly:

“No person is under any duty to participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act.”

That is something I feel strongly on a personal level. If people do not want to be involved, they should not have to be involved, and those who do, should. Subsection (5) covers pharmacists and pharmacy technicians and new schedule 1 provides comprehensive employment protections, so I hope that whatever colleagues’ views are on assisted dying, they will see the value of these changes and support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

This is not about eligibility; it is about the doctor’s change of circumstances, rather than the patient’s. If the doctor decides that the person is not eligible, they will reject the application. They would record that in the patient’s records, so it would be transparent.

[Ms Billington]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will make some progress, if I may.

This is essentially about providing flexibility for doctors while ensuring continuity of care for patients, and I hope colleagues can support new clause 11.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will make a little more progress, if I may, because a lot of people want to speak.

New clause 12 ensures that there is thorough reporting of instances where the co-ordinating doctor concludes that the patient does not meet the strict eligibility criteria set out in the Bill. It is very important that this data is recorded, but at present there is no requirement for the co-ordinating doctor to produce a report when they are not satisfied about all matters set out in clause 23(5) and will not provide the person with the approved substance. That lack of a reporting obligation does not align with the rest of the Bill—hence new clause 12, which I am sure colleagues will feel it is important to support.

[Ms Billington]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for giving way. Although it is important that a doctor’s reasons for refusing to provide assistance are noted down, there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that, if the person makes another request in the future, the next co-ordinating doctor will be made aware of the first doctor’s report. Will she say something to reassure those of us with concerns that people suffering mental ill health, including depression, may seek assistance repeatedly until they find a doctor who will assess them as eligible?

[Kim Leadbeater]

That would not be an issue, because copies of the report would be given to the patent, the co-ordinating doctor if they are not in the patient’s GP’s practice, and the commissioner, so that information would be recorded, and it is very important that it is. The report must set out the reasons—