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

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

One of the fundamental principles of the Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has prioritised, is self-administration. It is not for me as a Minister to opine on that; it is simply there in the Bill. Once that fundamental principle is established, it is about defining what “assistance” means, compared with what “self-administration” means. As I was setting out, I think “assistance” can mean things like helping the patient to sit up; it does not mean actually administering the substance to the patient. It is about the dividing line between assistance and self-administration—hence the term “assisted dying”, I suppose, which is very different from the doctor actually administering the substance.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I am going to read subsection (6)(c) again. It says:

“assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.”

I would interpret that slightly differently from the Minister. It talks about ingesting, which suggests the substance entering the body, so I would not suggest that sitting someone up would qualify. That in itself shows that perhaps there is some ambiguity here. The Minister has set out something that I had not read into the Bill. Will he comment further on that?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will pretty much repeat what I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. There is a dividing line, as the Government see it, between assistance and administration. There is a dividing line between making the patient comfortable, enabling the procedure to take place, and the doctor actually putting the substance into the body of the patient. From the Government’s point of view, simply from the position of having a picture of the process in our mind, that dividing line is clear enough in the drafting of the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

In order to ingest, there has to be self-administration. The self-administration is the precondition for ingesting the substance. That is my reading. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend.

[Rebecca Paul]

The Minister is being incredibly patient with our questions. The question from the hon. Member for Ashford raises exactly the point with which I am uncomfortable. To me, the phrase

“assist that person to ingest”

means something else. I am really concerned that it could be interpreted differently from how the Minister has laid it out. I want to place that on the record and raise that issue, which I believe the hon. Member was also raising.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Member’s concerns are absolutely noted. I completely understand that hon. Members are not comfortable with this, but what I am trying to do is set out the Government’s view on the workability of what my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley is seeking to achieve and the basic principles on which that is built.

Amendment 497, on which the Government have worked jointly with my hon. Friend, would amend clause 18(11), which states:

“Where the person decides not to self-administer the approved substance, or there is any other reason that the substance is not used, the coordinating doctor must remove it immediately from that person.”

Under the clause as it is currently drafted, there could be difficulties in relation to the duties of the co-ordinating doctor where the co-ordinating doctor does not know what the person has decided. Amendment 497 seeks to resolve that ambiguity by clarifying that the duty on the co-ordinating doctor to remove the approved substance applies where the person

“informs the coordinating doctor that they have decided”

not to self-administer the approved substance.

I turn to amendment 498. At present, clause 18(11) provides that the co-ordinating doctor has the duty to immediately remove the approved substance where the person decides not to self-administer the approved substance, or there is any other reason that the substance is not used. The amendment clarifies that the duty to remove the substance arises when the co-ordinating doctor believes that the substance will not be used. I hope that those observations have been helpful to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I hope the hon. Gentleman is right. Nevertheless, one of my concerns about the Bill is that we are leaving enormous areas of clinical practice, and regulated conduct for the professionals involved in assisted suicide, to be performed under guidance that is still to be set out and that it is the job of future Ministers to determine.

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, because he has correctly identified a group of patients for whom the drafted Bill may present obstacles to the fulfilment of their wish for an assisted death. My belief is that the ability to assist will probably cover almost anybody who wants it and has found a doctor who wants to help them, but the hon. Gentleman is right that there are some groups for whom that might be more of a challenge than others. I think the answer we are going to get—it is one made by hon. Members in the debate already—is that technology will fix it, and I fear it will, because I think we are going to find ourselves in a world in which it is perfectly possible for the administration of death to be enabled through some kind of technological device, which somebody with the most limited physical mobility will nevertheless be able to activate.

I fear the insistence that we have on self-administration. Although we can all acknowledge, as referenced in the previous debate, the conceptual difference between administration and self-administration, we do have this idea that we are individuals cut off from each other and that there is an essential gap between us and other people. At the very end of life, though—in the moments that we are considering and legislating for—that distinction is void, because we are intimately connected with other people, as per the clauses that we are debating. I fear that we are going to find ourselves in a world in which a laptop will be set up and even a movement as small as the blink of an eyelid by the patient will be enough to trigger what will be called “self-administration” of the fatal dose.

I oppose this group of amendments, moved by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, because I do not believe in assisted suicide. I do not understand why other supporters of the Bill are not following the hon. Gentleman’s lead, and acknowledging that if we believe in autonomy and assisted suicide, of course we should enable patients to have the final act performed upon them, rather than insisting on this arbitrary distinction that it is possible to insist on self-administration in all cases.

[Rebecca Paul]

It is clear that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is trying to create equity, which we all understand. We need to think about the patient on the one hand, but also the doctors, nurses and medical practitioners involved. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to think about the obligation and impact of such amendments on them?

[Danny Kruger]

Yes. We discussed this briefly this morning. There is an important consideration about the effect on medical staff involved in the administration of assisted suicide, and we have to make sure that those who do not want to participate are properly insulated from any sort of obligation, which I know is the intention of the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Spen Valley. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the knock-on effect of participation in assisted suicide spreading across a practice. I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to be mindful of the impact on doctors. The more we widen the scope—as logic compels us to do, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough suggests—the more it is about not just discretion, but an obligation on doctors to approve.

We need to think about the conversation that doctors will be required to have with patients who are expressing that wish. If the Bill is widely drawn, as it would be if we were to accept these amendments, there is more opportunity for a doctor to feel compelled to assent to a request.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Opher]

I thank my hon. Friend for his experience in a clinical setting. I would remind everybody that in the Bill we are trying to help people die in a comfortable way, and I do not feel it is the Bill’s job to define exactly how we treat nausea or abdominal obstruction and so on. What we would like to do here is ensure that a patient has a pain-free death, and a death that they are in control of.

[Rebecca Paul]

rose—

[Dr Opher]

I will make a little progress and will then take my hon. Friend’s intervention.

On amendment 436, all medical practitioners are required under their code of practice to record any event they come across. I feel there should be better data and I agree with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that we need to collect data. We are actually very good at doing that in the NHS. Under clauses 21 and 22 there are provisions for the Secretary of State to collect data on complications. I am therefore not sure that particular amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central is necessary. I think I have covered amendment 464, from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire.

On amendment 429, about the doctor being in the same room, I totally understand the anxieties presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, but I feel that whether the doctor is there should be the choice of the family and the patient. There may be some confusion about this, but to me, what the Bill implies—I am interested to hear the Government’s opinion—is that the doctor should deliver the medicine to the patient, check that the patient is willing to take the medicine as per amendment 462 from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, give the medicine to the patient, and then ask the family whether they want them to be there or in the next room. They need to be available, but do they need to be in the same room? I think that should be the choice of the family.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

My job and that of my hon. and learned friend the Justice Minister is to defend the integrity and coherence of the statute. The concern that we have with the word “complication” is that it is a wide-ranging term and concept, and its inclusion could potentially undermine the integrity of the legal coherence of the Bill and how it could be interpreted in terms of its implementation. I am simply flagging the risk that if the Committee chooses to accept the amendment, there could be a muddying of the waters in terms of its meaning in law.

[Rebecca Paul]

Following on from the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford West, has the Minister taken into account the guidance on private Members’ Bills? It says exactly what the hon. Member has just set out: the spirit of amendments should be taken, and it is for the Government to ensure that the integrity of the statute is respected with the final version. That is to allow a free-flowing discussion and to ensure that we capture everything we need to in the Bill, in the light of the fact that many of us are not lawyers or experts.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Absolutely, if the Committee chooses to accept the amendment, it goes into the Bill. If the Bill gets Royal Assent, it becomes the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the Bill, as passed by Parliament, is implemented in the best possible way.

The hon. Lady is right that the Government’s responsibility is to take on whatever passes through Parliament and implement it to the best of our ability. My job in this Committee is to raise concerns about risks of amendments that could potentially muddy the waters more than other amendments, or more than the Bill as it currently stands. It is a balanced judgment about whether we are better off with the Bill as it currently stands, whether the amendment would improve the Bill, or whether it could lead to concerns about the integrity of the statute if it were included.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the Minister for that explanation. I suggest it would also be appropriate for him to set out the changes that could be put in place in order for the amendment to work in that way. To my mind, that would give the true neutrality that he is seeking to achieve. Rather than set out why something does not work, he could set out how it could work in order to deliver the spirit of the change.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I think what I am saying is that the word “complication” contains a multitude of potential interpretations and meanings. The work that would need to be done by the Government to unpack it and understand what it means certainly could be done if the amendment passes, but the Government are saying that, as it stands, it is not clear. The drafting of the amendment is so ambiguous that it causes the Government concerns about its inclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I rise to speak to amendment 499, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. Let me outline what the amendment does and why I believe that it provides an inadequate safeguard. Under clause 19, the co-ordinating doctor may authorise another doctor to provide assistance—meaning that they will help the patient to take the lethal drugs. For clarity, I will refer throughout my speech to this other doctor who may step in to provide lethal drugs as the second doctor.

Under clause 18(4), the co-ordinating doctor must be satisfied of three conditions before they proceed to assist the person to take lethal drugs. Those three conditions are that the person has a clear, settled and informed desire to end their life, has capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and is not subject to coercion. Implicitly, the co-ordinating doctor can therefore end the procedure if they are not satisfied that those conditions apply. Under clause 19(3), the second doctor has the same duty as the co-ordinating doctor to be satisfied of those conditions before the assisted dying procedure can go ahead.

Amendment 499 would impose a new duty on the second doctor: if they suspected coercion, lack of capacity or lack of clear, settled and informed desire, they would have to inform the co-ordinating doctor. I suggest that the amendment does not take things far enough. It is a very serious matter if any doctor, be it the co-ordinating doctor or the second doctor, suspects coercion, lack of capacity or lack of desire. That means that a very serious mistake may well have been made, and that mistake could lead to someone having an assisted death who should not have qualified for it.

There should be several more safeguards in this part of the Bill. First, let us consider a situation where there was no previous suspicion that a patient had been coerced but where the doctor now suspects that they may have been. There should be a proper system of notification for such cases. It is true that doctors have a duty of care for patients, but it is also true that, given our overstressed, underfunded social care, health and policing systems, difficult cases sometimes fall through the cracks. The Bill should have a clear system for an authority to check back with the social care authorities and a person’s GP to make sure that steps are being taken to protect them from potential coercion. Secondly, the report that the second doctor makes in those circumstances should go to not only the co-ordinating doctor, but the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. Thirdly, when that happens, the commissioner should investigate the incident.

To repeat: if a doctor originally assessed a patient as qualifying for an assisted death, but a second doctor could not support that assessment, that is a serious incident that could lead to the assisted death of someone who should not have qualified for it. That does not mean that the co-ordinating doctor was necessarily at fault—not at all. The co-ordinating doctor will have been taking very difficult decisions under considerable stress. However, it does mean that the proper authorities should investigate the initial assessment, whether it was wrong and, if so, why it was wrong.

We see something similar with the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, which investigates not only accidents, but near misses that could have caused serious accidents. It does not assume fault when it investigates near misses. Often, it finds that there has been no human error. However, it has a statutory duty to investigate serious near misses. That is because the law passed by this House recognises that we need to understand why they happened in order to prevent fatal accidents from ever happening in the future.

For that reason, I do not think that my hon. Friend’s amendment is sufficient to fix the problems with this part of the Bill. I hope we can think about how better to address those problems, but I cannot support the amendment.

[Rebecca Paul]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 408, in the name of the hon. Member for Broxtowe. I also support amendments 499 and 210, in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley, and amendment 22, in the name of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato).

Clause 19 states that

“the coordinating doctor may authorise, in writing, a named registered medical practitioner to carry out the coordinating doctor’s functions under section 18…A registered medical practitioner may be authorised under subsection (1) only if…the person to whom the assistance is being provided has consented, in writing, to the authorisation of that practitioner”.

I support amendment 408, which adds that the person must also have been consulted.

I am sure the Committee recognises that, even where someone has basic training and the experience specified, delegating care at the end of life is something that must be done with great care, given the vulnerability of patients. If a co-ordinating doctor has guided someone through this profound and significant process, there are some intrinsic risks that come with delegating the administration of the final approved substance to someone else. I concede that there will be situations where a substitute may be required, but it will not be the doctor that the patient has trusted, confided in and relied on.

A new doctor will of course do the final checks for capacity and consent, but they do not necessarily have any specific detailed knowledge of the patient and may be unable to pick up less obvious cues that someone who knows the patient may be better able to. That gap matters, and history shows that it can lead to problems. The risks of delegation are well documented. If we take the Mid Staffordshire NHS foundation trust scandal in 2005 to 2009, detailed in the Francis report, consultants often delegated tasks to junior staff or nurses without adequate supervision, which contributed to poor care and an estimated 400 to 1,200 excess deaths. Patients suffered from neglect, untreated infections, dehydration and medication errors. That was partly because delegated staff lacked the training or authority to act decisively, and consultants failed to monitor effectively.

In surgical contexts, delegation can also falter. A 2006 Daily Mail report highlighted NHS payouts exceeding £1 million for wrong-site surgeries, where consultants delegated preparatory or operative tasks to trainees or assistants, who then misidentified sites—for example, operating on the wrong leg or tooth. Those errors often stemmed from inadequate briefing or supervision, pointing to a systemic delegation risk. We have to be really aware of this.

Those examples suggest that when consultants delegate, whether to junior doctors or other practitioners, including their peers, things can go wrong if communication breaks down, or if the replacement lacks equivalent expertise or is simply not aware of some of the detailed information. In order to manage some of the risks better, patients must be consulted about who takes over their care, and not just asked to consent after the co-ordinating doctor has decided what will happen.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

Given that valid consent requires a voluntary and informed decision, can my hon. Friend set out why that would not involve being consulted on the matter in any event?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I would like to think that that would naturally happen, and we have had lots of conversations where we have said, “In reality, of course this conversation would happen.” But I always like to be belt and braces, and I would like to have these things covered in the Bill. If Committee members are confident that these things would happen anyway, I am not sure there would be any detriment to accepting this amendment.

I want to finish with a question for the Ministers. I have been worried—perhaps unnecessarily—about the lack of photographic identification in this process, and I can see a situation where allowing another doctor to provide assistance could create a risk. Although it might be less of a risk in someone’s home, because it would probably be clear who the person is, I am worried about a doctor in a hospital or clinic being substituted in at the final hour with no photographic verification of the person. At the point where they assist the patient to take the approved substance, how can the doctor be sure that it is the appropriate person if they have not had any involvement with the patient before? I accept, given some of the deep sighs I can hear, that that may be a rare occurrence, but it is worth thinking about. The simple inclusion of a photographic ID check would address some of that risk. I will not go over old ground, but I have been worrying about that.

[Naz Shah]

I rise to support amendment 22, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. Before I carry on, I am happy to give my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley the opportunity to say whether she will accept the amendment, because my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft has had a hat-trick of amendments being accepted around training on coercion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I entirely agree. The regulations need to specify not only what drugs may be approved, but, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, how they should be stored and transported. I would expect that to be part of the package of regulations under the Bill.

As I have stated, I do not accept that we are talking about healthcare here; nevertheless, we are using products that are comparable to health products. The MHRA would need to significantly adapt its work in order to identify the most effective drug to cause what we currently perceive as harm—namely, the death of a patient. I recognise that that would be a significant change of remit and work for the MHRA, but we need to do it. One of the reasons that we need regulation of approved substances is to help ensure that falsified versions of the drug—drugs that do not have a licence for use in assisted dying—cannot enter the market. Such drugs may not be effective and could cause distress to those ending their lives and their families. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether, in his view, clause 20 is sufficient to establish the necessary regulatory regime, or whether further legislation will be needed.

We had evidence from Greg Lawton, and other pharmacists, who wrote to the Committee to suggest that the approved substances would not legally come within the definition of a “medicinal product”, so medicines law, the protections associated with medicines and the MHRA licensing process might not apply. If that is the case, what do we do about it? We need a new licensing regime to ensure that the MHRA is able to properly regulate the substances, or, potentially, another regulatory agency would need to be established to do the job.

The Committee needs to make sure that there is a process that applies to approved substances used for assisted dying. It is not necessarily the case that a product licensed for treating a medical condition could not be used to bring about death—it is not the case that we cannot use any drug that is currently used for genuine health treatment—but it would not be being used as a medicine, so medicines law may not apply to its use for that purpose. There is an ambiguity, and I would be grateful for clarity on it.

The amendments that I am supporting would ensure that the MHRA had approved the drug for the specific purpose of ending someone’s life, and that there was scientific consensus that the drug would be effective for that purpose. The MHRA, in the marketing authorisation for the approved substance, would define the dosage of the drug required to bring about death. It would also ensure that specific considerations and warnings were placed in the product licence.

For example, some patients have allergies to certain drugs. If they decide to end their own life, that should be brought about as a result of the effect of the drug, not an unintended allergic reaction to it. Some patients would not be able to take drugs orally and might need to have the drug administered through a tube into the stomach, so different formulations would need to be available. Some drugs may need to be administered by injection. Patients may be unable to do the injection themselves, as we have discussed. Even if the patient is physically capable, injection techniques require proper training, and that needs to be considered when licensing drugs for assisted dying if the patient is responsible for self-administration.

There will be further considerations when deciding what drugs can be used. Patients will have a right to know what to expect. If they take the drug orally, how long will they have to wait before they die? Will they lose consciousness first? If so, how long will that take? Could there be some side effects or reactions after taking the drug, such as seizures or choking, that the family or carers will have to deal with? Can the drug be taken at home—that relates to the point that the hon. Member for Ashford made—or must it be used in a clinical setting? We have suggested that it could be used at home, so questions about transportation arise. Is a combination of drugs required? If so, in what order should they be taken? What happens if the patient passes out before taking the entire concoction of drugs? Has the drug formulation been optimised for the purpose of assisted dying, so that it reaches maximum blood levels as quickly as possible?

All these sorts of questions are appropriate for medical regulators. The MHRA could ensure that the patient information leaflet, and the warnings associated with it, given with the drug when it is prescribed prompt doctors to think about what drugs are most suitable for the patient and to provide information to the patient about what to expect.

Parliament must have oversight. It must bear responsibility for the kinds of deaths that it approves. Both Houses of Parliament should approve the statutory instrument. To inform that decision, the Secretary of State should provide all relevant information on the likely time to death, and on complications and side effects. When the state is creating a regime that will end lives, there must be maximum transparency and accountability, yet the Bill provides that this will be done by a negative statutory instrument. In other words, Parliament will get a say on the regulations only if the Leader of the Opposition prays against them—that is the process for a negative SI. That is the only circumstance under which the Government would make time for a debate and a vote on a negative SI. Given that this is an issue of conscience, I find it inconceivable that the Leader of the Opposition would want to take a position on it and so pray against it to trigger a proper debate. I think it is highly likely that Parliament would never get a say on this crucial issue because of the use of the negative procedure.

That situation has been recognised repeatedly as being unacceptable. When Lord Falconer introduced his Assisted Dying Bill to the House of Lords in 2014, it too provided for a negative SI power on this matter. The highly respected House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—we do not have an equivalent Committee in the Commons, but it sits over Parliament—said that it did not consider either the power or the procedure in the Falconer Bill to be appropriate, yet that is the procedure that we are being presented with here.

In 2021, when Baroness Meacher introduced her Assisted Dying Bill to the House of Lords, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee again issued a report, in which it said:

“In the interests of clarity and transparency on such important issues of public policy, the matters that are in due course to be dealt with under clause 4(7) by negative regulations should in our view be spelled out in detail on the face of the Bill from the outset. Accordingly, the Bill should contain a definitive list of medicines, and details of the manner and conditions under which such medicines are to be dispensed, stored, transported, used and destroyed. The power to amend such matters should be a matter for regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.”

We then come to Lord Falconer’s 2024 Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill, which he withdrew following the introduction of this Bill by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. That Bill in part took on that feedback from the Lords Committee. Although it did not provide a list of medicines, it did at least provide that the power to specify the drugs would be through the affirmative procedure.

The Hansard Society, which is non-partisan and neutral on assisted dying, has issued a critical report on this power. It says:

“MPs may wish to enquire why Kim Leadbeater has chosen not to adopt the scrutiny procedure set out in the 2024 bill, but has preferred that proposed in the 2014 and 2021 incarnations of the bill, despite the advice to the contrary of the Delegated Powers Committee.”

I would be grateful to learn from the hon. Lady why she has chosen this procedure.

It might be objected that the list that I am requesting might need to be modified quickly and that the affirmative procedure—having a parliamentary vote—would be an obstacle to doing that. The Hansard Society anticipated that objection. It said that

“this could be addressed by making provision for the use of the ‘made affirmative’ procedure in urgent cases where the Secretary of State wishes to remove a substance from the approved list and is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so immediately in order to prevent adverse medical events or failed assisted deaths. This would mean Ministers could act expeditiously but Parliament would have to debate and approve – albeit retrospectively – the change in the list. Whilst not perfect it would provide more opportunity for oversight than that offered by the negative scrutiny procedure.”

It seems to me that there is no justification for this vital matter to be regulated under the negative procedure. Too much power and responsibility is being given to Ministers subsequent to the passage of the Bill— if that is what happens. My amendment 467 would ensure that Parliament has a meaningful say, through the affirmative procedure, and that a report is published as part of that process setting out the expected efficacy of the drugs that will be used. I hope that the Committee will support it.

[Rebecca Paul]

My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire eloquently covered most of the things I would have said.

We have probably not spoken enough to date about the impact on pharmacists, but we are getting to the point in the Bill where it is really important that we take on board the written evidence and feedback that we are hearing from them. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society said:

“In dispensing a prescription, a pharmacist assumes a proportion of the responsibility for that prescription and therefore must be assured that all legal requirements are in place and that it is entirely appropriate for the patient. The link to the clinical assessment of eligibility criteria is essential and therefore the prescriber should always be one of the assessors. In addition to the usual practice of checking that the prescription fulfils the necessary legal requirement, pharmacists must have full access to the patient’s diagnosis and assisted dying care plan.”

That raises a few valid and interesting points that we need to take on board to ensure that pharmacists can do their jobs in line with the regulations and laws they are subject to, which are ultimately there to maintain patient safety.

I support amendment 466, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, which would ensure that the Secretary of State must be of the opinion that there is scientific consensus that the drug is effective without causing pain. I am of the view that the Secretary of State is probably the right place for that responsibility to sit. One reason for that, which my hon. Friend spoke about, is that I am not sure that the MHRA is the right regulating body for that. I am no expert on this, and I am open to hearing the debate, but the MHRA’s remit covers medicines and healthcare products, so there is a question about whether legally the responsibility falls to it. If it does not, do we set up another body, or do we adjust its remit so that it is covered? I have reservations about doing anything that would merge assisted dying into normal healthcare, but I have laid that out many times over the weeks, so I will not go over that.

My understanding is that, on top of all the things my hon. Friend set out, the MHRA’s role is to give marketing authorisation for the promotion and advertising of medicine. Once that has been given, reams of regulations and compliance must be done, including in respect of the labelling of medicine. I believe it would have to be put on packaging that a medicine could be used for assisted dying. We need to get clarity on that from experts in the field, so that we fully understand it. If that is the case, how do we feel about making it clear that said medicines, potentially out in the market, could be used for assisted dying? I suggest there could be some significant downsides to such clear labelling. That is something for us all to think about. I wanted to raise those important points.

[Naz Shah]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 465, tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reigate, who has made some powerful contributions. As we have heard, the amendment states that a drug may be approved under the Bill only if it has been approved by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for that purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I rise to speak to amendment 439, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, which would amend clause 21 such that the relevant body would provide the chief medical officer and the commissioner with the full set of documents relating to a person who had undergone assisted dying. The relevant body would be the co-ordinating doctor if that person were a practitioner with the person’s GP practice. If the co-ordinating doctor did not meet that condition, the person’s GP practice would have the responsibility of sending those documents.

Those documents would be the person’s full medical records, court records and all documentation relating to assessments and procedures relating to the person’s assisted death. I note that “court record” refers to the Bill before we agreed to the amendments and new clauses that replace the High Court procedure with a panel system. We should be able to slightly tweak the wording to reflect that when we tidy up the Bill. That is what the amendment does. Let me say a little about why it does so and how it would make the Bill stronger.

The key aim is to ensure proper public oversight of any assisted dying scheme. The Bill creates the role of the voluntary assisted dying commissioner, who will look at and report on the workings of the system, appoint panel members and be the final court of appeal, so to speak. Those are far too many powers to give to one person, but if we are giving the commissioner a duty to report on how the system works, they should have the best possible information. It is only right that the information also be sent to the chief medical officer for England or for Wales, as appropriate; they are both very senior public officials and experienced doctors.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has tabled amendment 382, which, to quote the explanatory statement,

“provides for monitoring, investigation and reporting functions under Clause 34 to be carried out by the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner (instead of the Chief Medical Officers for England and for Wales).”

I will have more to say on that amendment when we come to it, but removing the chief medical officer from the monitoring, investigation and reporting functions is not a good idea.

What use could the commissioner and the chief medical officers make of the data provided under amendment 439? Let me give some practical examples. If there were reported instances of a person experiencing discomfort or pain as a result of taking the medication, that would be of interest to the CMO and the assisted dying commissioner. It could trigger a further exploration of the titration of medication used in the procedure. As another example, let us think about what could happen if a family raised concerns about a person receiving assisted dying despite lacking capacity or being coerced. The CMO and assisted dying commissioner could use the information provided to investigate those allegations.

The amendment will ensure that the assisted dying commissioner and the chief medical officer receive detailed qualitative as well as quantitative data on people who have received assisted deaths. It is an important step towards making sure that the assisted dying scheme receives proper, well-informed scrutiny. In turn, that scrutiny will make it less likely that the scheme will allow abuses or ignore serious problems. I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.

[Rebecca Paul]

I will be very brief. I rise to ask a few questions about clause 21 as a whole. Following our debates on various amendments, I am aware that family and those close to the patient could not be involved in the process, although potentially for understandable reasons. I appreciate that we are not here to deal with the whole operational piece, but we should think about it. For example, what happens with notifying next of kin after death, bearing in mind that “next of kin” has a different meaning after death? That is when we start to get into legal considerations, such as who the executor is—and this could be the first time that they are hearing about it. What would be the process for that, given that the person has potentially died on their own at home with the doctor?

What is the process for handling the next stage? Is there anything that we need to include in the Bill to make it a clearer, simpler and easier process? Who will the medical certificate of cause of death be given to for registration of the death? While all that is going on, what will happen to the body? At that point, we may not have family members to take care of that. Those are some questions arising from clause 21 that are worth reflecting on.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The amendments relate to clause 21, which applies where the person has been provided with assistance to end their own life in accordance with the Bill and has died as a result. Throughout this process, we have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. Amendments 379 and 500 have been mutually agreed on by her and the Government, so I will offer a few technical and factual comments.

Amendment 379 would require that, where a person has been provided with assistance to end their life and has died as a result, the co-ordinating doctor must provide the voluntary assisted dying commissioner with a copy of the final statement under clause 21 as soon as practicable. That links to the commissioner’s role in monitoring the operation of the Bill, as set out in new clause 14. Amendment 500 sets out the information that must be included in the form of a final statement, which is to be set out in regulations in accordance with amendment 214.

The effect of amendment 439 would be to introduce a new requirement for the relevant body, defined as either the co-ordinating doctor or the person’s GP practice, to provide full medical records, court records and all documentation related to assessments and procedures relating to bringing about the death of the person in accordance with the Bill to the chief medical officer and the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. The amendment is broad, and it is not clear whether doctors would be able to comply with the duties fully.

For example, GPs do not normally have access to court records, and would need to request them to provide them to the chief medical officer and the commissioner. Currently, a decision to share court records is made at the discretion of the judiciary in most cases. As such, any statutory burden to disclose court records agreed by both Houses would require consultation with the independent judiciary. Depending on the type of record, there could also be data protection considerations.