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

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Q I have a question for Alex Ruck Keene. I noticed the concerns in your evidence about presumption of capacity, and I know that you have written in the past about concerns over different disciplines having different definitions of capacity. Later on in your evidence, you also mention multidisciplinary consideration of circumstances in assessing eligibility. How might that multidisciplinary eligibility assessment alleviate some of your concerns in relation to capacity decisions?

Alex Ruck Keene: We have capacity, but we also have to make sure that it is settled, informed and voluntary, and that we do not have things like pressure or influence going on. It is important to make it clear that we are not just saying that this is about all the weight going on capacity. For instance, if you have social workers involved—if you have, say, palliative care social workers involved, assuming it is a palliative care situation—they are going to be far better informed about what options might be out there than a doctor, potentially, depending on the doctor. Social workers more generally might well have more expertise in picking up signs of coercion or influence than a doctor, but I do not necessarily want to get into, “Some disciplines are good at X” and “Some disciplines are good at Y”—I have come across brilliant examples and bad examples in both zones.

It is partly about multidisciplinariness and also about the fact that you have more than one person trying to talk it through. When I train, I always try to tell people that 85% of capacity assessments are not all that difficult —they are just made difficult because you do not have time or you are not listening—but 15% are more difficult. I think a lot of these will be in the 15% zone, and in that zone, the more people you can have thinking about it, so long as they have an agreed framework within which to think, the more reliable, transparent and accountable the outcome is going to be.

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

Q I want to pick up on your evidence, Sir Nicholas, in relation to the panel that we have just been discussing with Sir Max. I have three questions. First, what do you envisage the panel doing under your model? Will it be ensuring that a lawful process has been followed or doing something more than that?

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: The former.

[Sarah Sackman]

Q That is helpful. Secondly, what information do you think the panel will need in order to reach a determination on that question?

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: It will have the statements in schedules 1 to 4, signed by both doctors twice. This is where it gets slightly tricky. Is the panel expected to be a ferret and say, “This does not quite chime for me”? The Committee will have to consider how investigative the panel will be, or whether it will purely sit back, be passive and work on the material it has. Of course, under clause 12, it has to hear orally. That might get the alarm bells going, but I believe that the panel should be entitled to call for further evidence if it has concerns. As I say, I have been trying to find out why 10% of cases were rejected by the panel in Spain. There must have been some kind of procurement of further evidence by the panel in order to do that.

[Sarah Sackman]

Q I suppose my third question, then, is how do you envisage such a panel, if at all, interacting with the High Court—with, say, a final right of appeal to the High Court, similar to what is in the Bill?

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Article 10 of the Spanish law gives an appeal on a point of law to their high court, so I would have the same, with an appeal on a point of law to the High Court, but only on a point of law.

Alex Ruck Keene: Either way—it would have to be either way. It could not just be against a decision not to approve, logically, because the current model is very odd in saying that you can only appeal one way to the High Court.

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Yes. Spain gives either side the right to appeal, so I agree with that, but it is confined to a point of law.

Sir Max Hill: I would only add that I wonder whether that is the only route through, namely leaving open a judicial review appellate process, or whether, for example, as we imagine with a number of commissioner-led processes already in this jurisdiction, the panel—or frankly, I suspect, panels, which might sit regionally, chaired perhaps by the retired judiciary—would have an appellate route to a national body, which you could call a national commission, instead of a judicial-review route to the Court.

There are a large number of commissioners, some sitting under the Home Office and some sitting under the Ministry of Justice—in a sense, I was a commissioner when I was the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation—with closely defined powers. There are many others who sit in an enhanced regulatory position—highly qualified individuals. You could describe them as national commissioners, if that is an appropriate term, and they would have superintendence over regional panels, and the power to appoint retired judiciary, perhaps with the assistance of the Official Solicitor, to sit on those regional panels, and then to have an internal appellate mechanism.

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: You have to have an appeals process of some type, because otherwise there will be judicial review. If there is no appeal, there is judicial review—so you have to have an appeal of some type or there will be judicial review.

Sir Max Hill: Yes, I agree.

[Sarah Sackman]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

We have some Members who want to ask more questions; we have about six minutes or so. Jake Richards, you did have a possible question earlier on.

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

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kit Malthouse]

Q I may be speaking out of turn, but the sentiment of the House generally seems to be that there should be a third layer of supervision over the process. There are other territories have that third layer of supervision, such as Spain and Australia. Have you examined any of those, and is there a model that you think might be effective?

Lord Sumption: I am aware of them. Basically, they fall into two categories. There are those, like Spain, that have a process whereby a tribunal deals with the matter in advance—and, in fact, in the case of Spain in arrears as well—and there are those like the Netherlands, where it is a retrospective process. I have heard it said that a retrospective process is of no use. I am not sure I agree with that. I think there is a case for having a retrospective process to ensure that the practitioners are doing what they are supposed to be doing and that any objectionable tendencies are stamped out at an early stage.

It seems to me that if you are going to have the opinion of two doctors, which is almost universal as a requirement in these cases, I do not think that it is necessary to have a third layer, and in some respects it is undesirable. I appreciate that the House must have concluded that it was in favour of it, but my own view is that I am not.

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

Q It may flow from what this third layer of a panel or court is doing, but what sort of information would be desirable for the panel to have before it in order to add a meaningful layer of scrutiny?

Lord Sumption: That is really the critical question when you ask yourself how useful this process is. Obviously, they will have the opinions of the two referee doctors—they will have their rather pro forma statements, and possibly statements they will make by way of expansion of those—but if they are going to add something of value in the way of safeguards, it seems to me that they have got to carry out an independent investigation of those same matters. That would involve getting, presumably, a third expert adviser and proactively seeking evidence about, for example, the patient’s state of mind. It seems to me that that is duplicative.

Obviously, there is no system that you cannot have a greater degree of assurance about, but I am struck by the fact that no other jurisdiction has felt it necessary to have a process as elaborate as this for the purpose of duplicating the expert views already required.

[Sarah Sackman]

Q Lord Sumption and Dr Graham, you will have seen that clauses 26 and 27 include criminal offences. Do you have any views on the operability of those criminal offences?

Dr Graham: My only contribution here can be that similar offences in other jurisdictions have been held to be perfectly compatible with European human rights law.

Lord Sumption: I have no problem about the criminal-isation of people who abuse or distort the system, which is what those two clauses envisage.

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

Q Dr Graham, thank you for your written evidence, which was very helpful and stated your view that the strength of the clauses in the Bill make it compatible with the European convention on human rights in relation to article 2 on the right to life and article 14 on freedom from discrimination. Can you explain why you hold that view? What has been the view of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to assisted dying laws in other signatory states?

Dr Graham: There are two main challenges to this legislation, and to legislation like it, in relation to the European convention. As you say, one relates to article 2 and one relates to article 14. The article 2 challenge can be dismissed fairly quickly, because we have authority from the European Court saying that

“the right to life enshrined under Article 2 could not be interpreted as per se prohibiting the conditional decriminalisation of euthanasia.”

As a matter of precedent, that is fairly clear.

The trickier argument comes with article 14, which is the anti-discrimination right. There is an argument that goes something like this—I hope that those who hold this view think I am giving it a good airing. By allowing some groups to access assisted suicide, but not other groups—in this Bill, allowing terminally ill adults who meet the criteria in the Bill but not non-terminally ill adults who do not meet those criteria—you are treating two different groups in different ways, and that is discriminatory. There is an argument that, because of that, the courts would find that the Bill is unlawful and needs to be expanded—that groups outside of the terminally ill that meet the criteria of the Bill need to be given access to assisted suicide. I think that argument does not work for a few reasons, chief among which is that in our jurisdiction treating different groups differently is not unlawful. Treating different groups differently without good justification is unlawful.

The question of justification, while it is for judges and the courts, is a question on which judges have deferred heavily to Parliament, especially in areas that involve difficult social, ethical or moral issues. If I may be forgiven for reading from a court’s judgment one more time, in the case of SC the Supreme Court said:

“The ordinary approach…gives appropriate weight to…the primary decision-maker”—

the primary decision maker being Parliament—

“a degree of weight which will normally be substantial in…matters raising sensitive moral or ethical issues.”

We can all agree that this Bill involves sensitive moral or ethical issues.

My point is that when it comes to justification, courts are very deferential to Parliament. Courts think that Parliament should be deciding whether treating two groups in different ways is justified or not. That is why, in my view, there is no real truck to the argument that article 14—the anti-discrimination right—will be operative and cause the Bill to be declared incompatible with the convention in any way. I hope that is an adequate summary of my view.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)]

Q I want to make a brief point of clarification, based on what both Baroness Falkner and Ms Hadi said. In the debate on the motion on the money resolution in Parliament last week, I stood at the Dispatch Box and confirmed that the Government will publish an impact assessment before Report stage. We are obviously working on that with officials.

I will also add as a point of clarification that both myself and my ministerial colleague are working with the sponsor of the Bill to provide assistance and advice, purely on the workability and operational aspects of the Bill, and impacts of the Bill, should it gain Royal Assent. It is important for the purposes of this discussion that everybody is on the same page on that point. The Government are absolutely remaining neutral on the principle of the Bill, but it is our job to ensure that any Bill that passes through Parliament is workable and implementable as and when it gains Royal Assent.

Baroness Falkner: Will there be a human rights compatibility assessment as well as a delegated powers memorandum? Those are the other things that Government-sponsored legislation would have contained.

[Sarah Sackman]

We can take that suggestion away. Thank you.

[Daniel Francis]

Q Ms Hadi, we heard evidence this morning that the majority of disabled people support the Bill. I would like to hear your comments on that. What analysis do you have on whether the majority of disabled people support the Bill? Baroness Falkner, based on what we have just heard, if we had had the equality impact assessment before oral evidence was sought and before line-by-line scrutiny, would you have supported the approach more?

Baroness Falkner: My answer will be very brief. Every additional piece of analysis is helpful, because there are gaps in the analysis. The problem is that because we have not had a consultation, and because the process of deliberation was not transparent—it never will be with a private Member’s Bill—there is a sense of not knowing quite enough as to the reasoning behind—

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

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Green]

Q To follow up on what you just said about legislative consent, in October of last year, the Senedd voted against Julie Morgan’s assisted dying motion. In your opinion, what implications does that have for the Bill and its progress?

Professor Lewis: A motion was put forward by Julie Morgan that was supported by three or four Members of the Senedd, which was broadly in support not of this specific Bill, but of the purpose of this Bill, and it was defeated, as you say, after a full debate on the Floor of the Senedd. Formally, legally and constitutionally, that is of no consequence, because it was not a legislative consent motion, and of course, as I said earlier, this Parliament is able to do what it likes. It could totally disregard that. Whether that would be a prudent or an appropriate thing to do, or even what one might describe as a constitutionally appropriate thing to do, is another matter.

I think it reinforces the point that there is a significance in making sure that scrutiny of the Bill has a Welsh focus. You might consider, for example, making different provision in Wales. How do you respect what was a democratic vote in the Senedd in Cardiff? Well, you might consider having different commencement provisions—I am not advocating this, it is just an example of what you might do. Commencement of the Bill in Wales might happen in a different way, on the assumption it was passed. You might put that in the hands of Welsh Ministers and the Senedd, just as an example.

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

Q To be clear, I am here as a Government Minister on this Committee, and the Government are entirely neutral on the Bill, so we do not take a position on the substance of the issues you have raised. Clearly, the draft Bill is intended to apply in both England and Wales, as you say, and your note is extremely helpful in highlighting some of those issues that will need to be worked out. As a Government, we will work closely with the Welsh Government to assess the legalities and practicalities of any potential changes to the law.

You have highlighted in particular the distinctions between health law, which is a devolved matter, and the law on suicide, which currently is not devolved. On the first page of your written evidence, you draw out clauses 32, 31, 33 and 34 in particular as issues that we should focus on in ironing out those legalities. Is there anything else you want to add to that that you think that we as a Government should focus on in our work consulting with the Senedd?

Professor Lewis: I think it is important that both Governments understand how the implementation of what will be a pretty radical change in the law will happen on the ground within the health service and among those who are responsible for delivering social services. I am thinking of issues such as adult safeguarding, which in Wales has its own specific law and is slightly different from the arrangements in England. There are those kinds of nuances between the two territories, and I think it would be prudent to focus on them.

I also think it is wise to bear in mind that Wales has certain statutory bodies whose interests might extend to the Bill. For example, there is the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales, in particular; there is the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales as well. I think it is important that there is some forum, some scope, for those people also to be involved in how this is shaped.

[Sarah Olney]

Q Dr Price, I am really glad that we are able to have the Royal College of Psychiatrists in front of us today; thank you for making the time. I want to ask you about paragraph 11 of your written evidence, which states that it is the royal college’s view that the Mental Capacity Act

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

Could you expand a little on that and, if you feel able, make some recommendations as to what you think could be sufficient?

Dr Price: Thank you. In answering this, I will also refer back to Professor Gareth Owen’s oral submission, thinking about the purpose that the Mental Capacity Act was drawn up for and the fact that decisions about the ending of life were not one of the originally designed functions of it. We would need to think carefully about how that would then translate into a decision that was specifically about the capacity to end one’s life.

We also need to think about how that would work in practice. When we are thinking about capacity assessments, it is usually related to a treatment or a choice about a treatment or about somebody’s life—for example, changing residence. Psychiatrists and doctors and actually lots of professionals are very used to those sorts of decisions and have gathered a lot of knowledge, expertise and experience around it. This particular decision is something that in this country we do not have knowledge, expertise and experience in, and we therefore need to think about how that would look in practice.

As for advice to the Committee about what that might look like, I think that we need to gather what evidence we have—it is actually very thin—from other jurisdictions that think about capacity as part of this process. I am thinking about my PhD: I visited Oregon and talked to practitioners who were directly involved in these sorts of assessments. They described the process, but they are not using the Mental Capacity Act as their framework. They described a very interpersonal process, which relied on a relationship with the patient, and the better a patient was known, the more a gut feeling-type assessment was used. We need to think here about whether that would be a sufficient conversation to have.

One of the things that I have thought quite a lot about is how we can really understand the workings of a mental capacity assessment, and one of the best ways we can do that is to see who is not permitted to access assisted suicide because of a lack of capacity and what that assessment showed. We do not have data because the assessments for people who were not permitted to do it are not published; we cannot read them, so if this becomes legislation, one of the suggestions that I would have—it is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists—is to, with patients’ consent, record capacity assessments to see whether they meet the standard that is necessary. I think it is important to set out the standard necessary and the components needed to be confident about a mental capacity assessment. That will help with standards, but will also help with training, because this is new territory for psychiatry, for medicine, and to be able to think about consistency and reliability, training needs to actually see a transparency in capacity assessments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis]

On a point of order, Mrs Harris. Yesterday, we heard evidence about the impact of the Bill on different groups with protected characteristics, including age, disability, race and sexual orientation. We heard from the EHRC, an arm’s length body of the Government, that it strongly recommends that a full impact assessment, a human rights assessment and a delegated powers memorandum be undertaken before the Committee begins line-by-line scrutiny.

We have also heard from witnesses about the impact that the Bill will have on disabled people, from Disability Rights UK and others, on black and minority ethnic people, from Dr Jamilla Hussain, from LGBT people, from Baroness Falkner, and on those from a low-income background, from Sam Royston of Marie Curie. We heard from Dr Sarah Cox and Dr Jamilla Hussain that evidence from their work shows that this Bill has a higher probability of pushing minority groups further away from seeking healthcare, while inequality pre-exists. As observed through the pandemic and from available data, minority groups do not always trust that their interests will be best represented in institutions that would enable the facilitation of someone’s death, should this Bill become law.

I therefore believe that on the basis of that advice, so as not to inadvertently widen health inequalities through Bill, it is essential to have health impact assessments. I appreciate that an equality impact assessment will be produced for Report stage, it will not be available for detailed line-by-line scrutiny. When we agreed the timetable for line-by-line scrutiny last Tuesday, we were not aware that this assessment would be produced, given it was first reported to the House during the money resolution last Wednesday. There is a risk that there will be a bigger impact on people with protected characteristics, and this will not be understood fully until the Government have produced the equality impact assessment. As things stand, that means that we will move into line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill on 11 February without a full understanding from the assessment of the impact of the Bill.

I am therefore minded to request a short Adjournment of the Committee so that, as advised, we can receive the assessments before we progress to line-by-line scrutiny. Please will you advise me, Mrs Harris, how I could secure such a motion to adjourn the Committee until we are in receipt of the evidence, as advised by the witnesses yesterday?

[Sarah Sackman]

Further to that point of order, Mrs Harris. I want to clarify the Government’s position. As the Committee knows, the Government are neutral on the Bill, but once the Committee has concluded its work and prior to Report, we are committed to publishing the ECHR memorandum, a delegated powers memorandum, the economic impact assessment that was committed to during the money resolution debate, and an assessment of the equalities impact of the Bill. In terms of the timing, it is necessary that the impacts that are assessed be of the Bill as it is brought forward. If the Bill is liable to change via amendments proposed by members of this Committee, it is important that we know what it is that we are assessing the impact of. That is why the proposed timing is to publish the impact assessment at that stage. The point is that before Members of the House come to a vote on Report and Third Reading, they will all have before them the impact assessment in respect of equalities and all those other aspects of the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

On a point of order, Mrs Harris.

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

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Paul]

I absolutely agree that such clarity would be very useful. The hon. Member and I both want to ensure that undue influence is captured somewhere; I am less picky about where. As long as it gets covered somewhere in the Bill, that would be an improvement to the Bill, and I hope that everyone would really welcome that. I think everyone recognises the issue. I am not hearing that people are opposed to this; they recognise that there can be more subtle forms of coercion. If we can work together to find the best place for that to go in the Bill, I am very open to that.

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

It might help if I offer—with the usual caveat that of course the Government are neutral—the Government’s position with respect to what the hon. Lady has been discussing. It is important to point out that the terms “coercion” and “coercive behaviour” and “pressure” that are used on the face of the Bill appear in existing legislation without statutory definition. In other words, they are given their ordinary meaning and they operate effectively in that manner in the criminal law. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that clause 26, which we shall come to in due course, is a separate matter, but of course it will be important to review the Bill as a whole and to understand the interaction between the different provisions in clause 1, as we trace it through to the criminal offences.

It is the Government’s view that manipulative behaviour or undue influence—the terms that the hon. Lady is using—would come within the normal meaning as understood in case law by the judiciary of the terms “pressure” and “coercion”. In terms of the integrity of the statute book, there is a concern that by adding additional terms, we run the risk of creating confusion, because when it comes to the interpretation of those provisions, judges will be looking to understand and ascertain what Parliament meant by “undue influence” that was not currently covered by coercion. Given that those terms are commonly broadly interpreted, it is the Government’s view that the sorts of behaviours that the hon. Lady is describing—“undue influence”—would be covered by the terms used on the face of the Bill. For simplicity, given that our existing body of law interprets those provisions widely, and to ensure consistent application of the law in this context and other contexts where coercion arises, it is important from the Government’s point of view to retain the Bill’s current wording.

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

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before I call Minister Sackman, I remind Members that “you” refers to me, not the person they are speaking to. Can we be very careful with the use of “you”?

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

I know that Members will be eager to engage, and have already engaged, in a robust discussion about the issue of safeguarding, and how best to protect and prevent individuals from being forced or coerced into seeking assistance to end their life. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg has said throughout the debate, I will not be offering a Government view on the merits of any proposed amendments tabled by Members. Instead, I will offer some observations on the legal and practical effects of the amendments, to assist Members in undertaking line-by-line scrutiny.

As a starting point, we have heard a series of concepts discussed in this debate, including manipulation, pressure, coercion, undue pressure and encouragement with coercive ends. There is a range of terms that some Members have used interchangeably, and fairly so. It is important to say that there is a consensus that all those things are unacceptable; the point, and the Government’s view, is that the current provision in clause 1(2)(b) would cover that behaviour with the currently used terminology “coerced or pressured”.

Amendments 23 to 33 set out to include consideration of whether a person has been unduly influenced, in addition to having been coerced or pressured by another person, in the determination of whether that person is accessing assisted dying voluntarily. As I have already indicated, the Government’s view is that the terms “coerced” and “pressured” would cover the term “unduly influenced” as it is understood. If the Bill is voted into law, the guidance and training for the healthcare professionals who would apply the tests would need to be developed to cover that sort of behaviour in this specific context.

Similarly, amendments 82 to 92 and new clause 5 seek to introduce an additional safeguarding requirement that a person has not been encouraged into undergoing the assisted dying process. It is important to contextualise the amendments, which would introduce this new safeguarding requirement into all the relevant clauses of the Bill where a doctor—or a court or panel, if that is what transpires—must already make an assessment as to whether the person has the relevant capacity, has a clear and settled wish, is making the declaration voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by any other person into making it.

I have listened to the debates about what encouragement may or may not mean in this context. As I understand it, new clause 5 states that the definition of encouragement is that which would constitute an offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961. In reality, that Act does not specifically define encouragement in legislative terms, so there is a risk that the definition becomes somewhat circular. As I will come to in a moment, as with the terms “coercion” and “pressure”, the meaning given to “encouragement” by the courts, where it is not defined by Parliament, is its natural meaning.

I now turn to amendments 113 to 115 and 118 to 122. Let me deal first with amendments 113 to 115. As the Bill is currently drafted, registered practitioners who act as co-ordinating and independent doctors are required to establish that the person seeking assistance has not been coerced or pressured. People seeking assistance to end their own life are also required to confirm in the first and second declarations that they have not been coerced or pressured. The amendments seek to add an additional requirement to establish that the person seeking assistance to end their own life has not been manipulated by any other person into making the decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Many of us on the Committee are first-timers. My understanding is that in a normal Government process we would have gone out to consultation. We are talking about coercion and undue influence, and undue influence in particular is not something that does not appear on the statute books in other legislation, as the Minister may recall I said earlier. We would normally go out and consult and speak to charities, particularly domestic violence charities.

As many Members have said throughout the last few days and this morning, we know that terminology changes. We did not previously have the vocabulary of coercion and the words that we have today. When was the last time, for any Bill—apart from in respect of Domestic Violence Act 2021 under the previous Government—that we actually went out to consult people? Given that there is no impact assessment, which we are so desperately missing and which is a huge chunk of this issue, I want to understand how we can be sure, and how the Government can come here and be absolutely sure, that this will work, given that this is a whole new concept.

This is not domestic violence, with which we have some familiarity. We had one Select Committee inquiry in 2015, and my understanding is that it did not produce anything conclusive either to support or not to support the concept of assisted dying. We have not had the debates to tease this out. Other Members may be much more familiar with these concepts, but will the Minister comment on that?

[Sarah Sackman]

To bring it back to the specific debate about the amendments, the terms “coercive” or “coerce” and “pressure” appear in the criminal law and have broad definitions. That is how they have been interpreted by the courts. Others have referred to section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, which created an offence of controlling or coercive behaviour. In that context and the relevant Bill, Parliament chose not to make a specific legislative definition, but the way in which it has been interpreted, in accordance with its natural meaning, has vindicated the proposition that a broad meaning is given to those terms. For example, that offence could include coercive behaviour such as repeatedly putting somebody down, telling them they are worthless, seeking to control their daily routines or isolating them from friends and family to put pressure on them. As my hon. Friend says, we understand those sorts of behaviours in a much broader way in a changing society.

[Danny Kruger]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am going to make a little more progress; we will come back to that in a moment. It is really important that we have these concepts in other parts of criminal law and other parts of our legislation. I come back to the point that we run a risk, which runs counter to the intent that lies behind the amendments, if we add additional language into the Bill. I will develop that point and then take further interventions.

As we have seen, clause 1 includes the terms “pressured” and “coerced”. The ordinary meaning of the word “pressure” is the use of persuasion or intimidation to make someone do something. There are broad types of behaviour, many of which have been eloquently brought into this debate, that would come within that. The ordinary meaning of the word “coerce” is to persuade someone to do something against their best interests by using force or threats. That could be subtle or it could be very blatant, but the word “coerce” is understood in that way by our courts and in other areas of our legislation. One can readily see how an act of manipulation such as in the examples used earlier, or the exertion of undue influence—I think the term “unduly pressured” was used—would all fall within the terms “coerced” and “pressured”. That is the settled view of the Government.

There is a consensus that none of these things, including applying undue pressure, are desirable or acceptable in this or any other context, but there is a risk that adding terminology does not do what hon. Members intend, which is to create more safeguards. The risk is that by adding new words, those tasked with applying and interpreting legislation, if it comes to court, will assume there must be some specific reason for their inclusion. They will assume that the words must have some meaning distinct from the other words in the list—coercion and pressure—notwithstanding the fact that, on their natural meaning, the terms overlap and, in the Government’s view, are inclusive of those sorts of behaviours. That risks the effect of narrowing the interpretation of the words used rather than inviting our courts to give them their usual expansive meaning.

In turn, that risks casting doubt on the current interpretation of those words in existing statutes such as the Serious Crime Act, which created an offence for coercive and controlling behaviour, and limits any read-across on interpretations from previous decisions into the application that we are debating. In short, it may actually serve to limit, not to add, to the safeguards in the process. It may risk adding confusion and uncertainty where what is already provided for in clause 1, with the words “coercion” and “pressure”, are simple, readily understood, expansive definitions that would cover precisely the behaviours that I think the hon. Members who tabled the amendments are concerned about.

[Danny Kruger]

I think the Minister just suggested that if we were to amend the Bill, there would be some kind of unfortunate knock-on effect with other legislation, which would thereby be weakened. I hope the argument being made is not that we should leave this Bill weaker in order to protect other legislation. We need to get this right.

I have another suggestion, which I would be grateful if the Minister could elucidate a little more. The fact is that no official definitions of coercion or pressure that exist in statute either. The definition of coercion that she used—what case law has taught us coercion means—and the examples she gave of people essentially exerting coercive pressure on partners would, of course, be captured by the Bill currently but, as we have heard, there are circumstances that would not meet that threshold but that we all agree would be unacceptable. The only way to capture properly those examples of people being encouraged and unduly influenced into an assisted death is by making it clear that that is what doctors are required to look for.

I revert to the point I have made a number of times; I would be grateful for the Minister’s response to it. The Suicide Act, which the Bill amends, explicitly uses the term “encouragement” for what people should not be subject to, and pressure is a subset of encouragement. It is not the other way around. Encouragement is not captured in pressure; pressure is captured in encouragement. Why do we not acknowledge that encouragement is the correct catch-all term for all the sorts of undue influence we are trying to protect against?

[Sarah Sackman]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, there is no suggestion that we should somehow accept any weaker form of provision in this Bill to protect other parts of the law. Having said that, he would well expect me, as a Government Minister, to be concerned with the integrity of our statute book as a whole.

It is because the Government take a holistic view of how the criminal law and other areas of our law operate and define these concepts, and how they are read across the piece, that we make our contention in respect of these particular provisions, because the terms “coercion” and “pressure” are given their natural meaning and are expansive. In the Government’s settled view, they would be inclusive of the types of behaviour that are described in the amendments before us—namely manipulation, undue pressure and the sort of encouragement that I think, when he keeps coming back to it, the hon. Gentleman is referring to, which is not encouragement in a benign way as might exist between two perfectly supportive family members in a normal conversation, but the sort of encouragement that is intended to lead to coercive ends.

The hon. Gentleman says that pressure is a subset of encouragement; the Government’s view is that coercion and pressure would cover off the other behaviours that are described in the amendments. It is not necessary to include those additional concepts, because it risks sowing confusion that somehow they are not included in the concepts of coercion and pressure.

[Naz Shah]

I want to understand the Minister’s point about multiple words. We have the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, referring to both coercion and pressure, and undue influence is also included. Those three terms are used in the same Act. Undue influence is also included in multiple additional statutes—over 10, including the Anatomy Act 1984, which is about people leaving their body to medicine for the purposes of tests and so on. Is the Minister saying that those are bad Acts, because they could confuse people? That is the test we are applying.

[Sarah Sackman]

I am certainly not saying that those are bad Acts, and I do not want anyone to quote me as saying that. We could in theory sit here and come up with a whole set of terms that would be descriptive of types of pressure and coercion. We have come up with a number of those, including “undue influence”, “manipulation” and “unduly pressured”. There are other types of behaviour that we might seek to describe. Indeed, if one refers to the Crown Prosecution Service’s guidance in respect of the offence in section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, there are a whole load of descriptors of different types of behaviour. We could name and enumerate all those different types of behaviours, but, in the Government’s view, that is not the best way to create legislation that is workable.

It is the Government’s settled view that the words “coercion” and “pressure” cover off the types of behaviour that Members suggesting these amendments would wish to include. The risk is that such amendments create more confusion and shed more heat than light, if you like. Indeed, there is then the risk that the definition of coercion is narrower than it in fact is under our law as it is understood in our courts and in the body of common law and case law, which has been developed in construing those sorts of terms.

We are still on clause 1, and we have spoken a little about the interplay between clause 1 and later clauses, particularly clause 26, which engages the criminal offence as drafted in the Bill. I want to stress that while the procedural clauses 1, 7, 8 and 12 may use the same language as the criminal offences in clause 26, they are conceptually distinct, as others have noted. Although it is right that a court could be expected to construe legislation as a whole, case law in relation to one provision will not necessarily flow through directly to a later provision.

It may be helpful to illustrate that with the word “encouragement”, which has been raised. As we know, it is an offence to encourage or assist a person to commit suicide. As the hon. Member for Reigate pointed out earlier, it will continue to be so if the Bill is passed, outside of the specific exemption in the Bill. It is generally also an offence to encourage or assist a person to commit any other offence under the Serious Crime Act 2007. Specifically, it is an offence to do an act capable of encouraging or assisting suicide or another offence. The term “encouraged” is not defined in either statute. While it is true to say that section 2A(3) of the Suicide Act—which was added in 2009—clarified that doing an act that is capable of encouraging suicide includes a reference to a person doing so

“by threatening another person or otherwise putting pressure on another person”,

that was intended to be illustrative of the meaning of “encouraged” in that context; it does not serve as a general definition.

Within the Bill, it is important to keep in mind the difference between the procedural requirements—which is what we are discussing in this group—and the criminal offence requirements. Adding words to one provision because they are found in a criminal offence elsewhere risks, in the Government’s view, unintended consequences. Adding “encouragement” to the procedural clauses is perhaps an example of this.

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

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Kinnock]

I think the right hon. Member has outlined what I was saying, in slightly sketchier terms, about legislation, regulation, training, capacity building and delivery. What he has described falls under what I would broadly refer to as regulations, but within that there are a multitude of interventions, which could include codes of practice, other forms of legislation, other forms of guidance—

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

Common law.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Indeed: common law, jurisprudence and whatever a professional body might take as a steer for delivery. It is then about the professional judgment of the professional body.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Jake Richards]

I will speak briefly, because many of these issues and themes will be debated in clause stand part and amendments 371 and the others from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. Amendment 267 was not moved, but I would have opposed it in any event, on the basis that the discretion given there was way too wide and I did not understand the basis of the amendment in any way. Amendments 105 to 107, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), attempt to add an adversarial element to proceedings. Again, I will not comment too much because that issue comes back in the fourth grouping under this clause.

I turn briefly to amendment 410, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe just spoke. My understanding is that, although this relates to the High Court—which may be deemed redundant as we move on through this clause—the amendment aims to limit the people that the judge or panel can hear from. In my view that would be wrong and dangerous. The purpose of a judge or a panel is to explore the circumstances in this matter. That must mean that they have discretion to hear from others as well. In my view, this amendment, if passed, would significantly limit the safeguards and be quite dangerous.

As my hon. Friend has already said, amendment 407 has been superseded, and I think we all agree on that.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. As I and my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg have made clear throughout the debate, the Government continue to remain neutral on this Bill and do not take a position on assisted dying. My remarks will therefore focus on the legal and practical impact of the amendments, to assist the members of this Committee in undertaking line-by-line scrutiny.

Amendments 267 and 105 to107, which have now been withdrawn, deal with the Bill as currently drafted in relation to the High Court. Clause 12 as currently drafted would require the High Court to make a declaration that the requirements of the Bill have been met, following a person’s first declaration to receive assistance to end their own life, with statements from a co-ordinating doctor and an independent doctor. The amendments relate to how the High Court will declare itself satisfied that a person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life and that they have not been coerced or pressured.

Briefly, amendments 407 and 410 seek to change who the High Court—as others have said, we might come on to debate some of these themes relation to the panel—would engage with when considering applications for assistance under the Bill. In determining whether the person has a clear, settled, and informed wish to end their life and that they have not been coerced or pressured, the High Court would be required to hear from and question the person seeking assistance, as opposed to having the option to do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley pointed out, in the later provision in relation to the panel, that has now become a requirement.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe made clear, under her amendment 410 the High Court would lose the ability to hear from or indeed question any other party other than the person seeking assistance and the assessing doctors. Removing the ability—whether of the High Court or, as we may come on to debate, of the panel—to hear from and question any other party may limit that body or court’s ability to interrogate wider evidence or points of view.

[Juliet Campbell]

The probe that I have on that point is that the individual who is seeking the assisted death, and the doctors who have been working with that person, really have all the information. I am trying to ascertain, if we are not going to agree on this amendment, who else they would be seeking information from. Is there a risk if they are getting evidence from family members or other people, or having them give evidence or speak on behalf of that declaration?

[Sarah Sackman]

As I understand it, both in the context of the High Court—which has the ability to speak to whomever it likes—and of the panel, when we come to debate its role, that is a discretion. It is a requirement to hear from the person seeking an assisted death; it is a requirement to hear from the co-ordinating doctor. However, hearing from others is discretionary, which means that, if it is necessary in order to be satisfied that the eligibility criteria are met—which is what the scheme requires—in that context, under the panel’s or the High Court’s discretion, it may seek evidence from elsewhere. That is what the provision, as the Government reads it, is designed to do.

The amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe puts forward clearly limits that discretion; whether that is desirable is a policy choice, but that is how it is intended to function. As I have said, the Government will continue to remain neutral on these substantive policy questions, but I hope that is useful to members of the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I think I have responded to the hon. Member for Broxtowe on amendment 407 by saying that the concern will potentially be covered by my new clause 21. On amendment 410, it is also my view that, whether it is the High Court or the panel or whoever we end up having over the course of this Committee, that third layer of scrutiny and safeguarding should be able to hear from other people, not just the patient and the doctor, so I would not support that amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I recognise that we are moving on and that we want to get on to the substantive clauses, and I certainly will not press these amendments to a vote. However, I want to put on record that I have extreme concerns about the role of the proxy in clause 15. It is unclear to me why a proxy is needed. I regret that we are not sticking with the High Court process, which would have enabled us to debate these amendments at this stage, but I will let it pass.

[Sarah Sackman]

Amendments 432 to 434 would remove provisions regarding proxies from the Bill. They deal with proxies in the context of the High Court process. As a consequence, the High Court would be unable to hear from the person’s proxy where the proxy has signed the first declaration, and the person would be unable to use a proxy to authorise a medical practitioner to provide assistance to end their own life. Removing the ability for persons seeking assistance to use a proxy would limit access to the assisted dying process for people who, for example, have a physical impairment, are unable to read or are for some other reason unable to sign the declaration. As I said earlier, the Government remain neutral, but I hope that provides some context and an explanation of how the amendments would operate.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will be brief, because we will come on to this debate when we get to clause 15. To be clear, the circumstances where a proxy would be involved in this process are literally when somebody is so ill that they are unable to sign their own name, so it is a very limited set of circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Again, I will not press this amendment; I just want to put on record my support for the principle. This amendment, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, is quite a clever device: if we were sticking with the High Court, it would have meant that someone with genuine concerns, for example a family member or acquaintance of a patient, could flag them without needing to be informed that the application was going ahead.

As we have discussed, there is a concern about these proceedings happening in the dark, as it were, without wider family being informed. If a family member suspected that there might be an assisted dying application in the works and that they were being excluded from consideration or discussion of that, there would have been the opportunity to put on record their concern, which would have required the judge to take a wider consideration than would be enabled without this amendment. I regret that that is not happening, but it may be possible through the course of the Bill to ensure that there will be further opportunities to introduce such measures. I welcome that new clause 21 would impose a requirement on the panel to consider family members, so there is an element of the right system there.

[Sarah Sackman]

Amendments 312 and 313 would make several changes to the process for High Court approval of applications under the Bill as drafted. Amendment 312 would allow a person who believes that the requirements of the Act have not been met to make that known to the High Court and to be heard before a declaration is made. The proposed mechanism is that the person would enter a caveat in any district registry of the High Court within 14 days of the application being lodged or received.

Of course we will come to later amendments, but under the Bill as drafted, the High Court has the power to hear from and question any person to determine whether the applicant has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life, and that they have not been pressured or coerced, so there is that mechanism to hear from others through that channel.

Amendment 313 would enable appeals to be made against a decision by the High Court to make a declaration, as opposed to only where a declaration is not granted. As drafted, the Bill provides that any person may seek a judicial review of any decision of the High Court, including the decision to make a declaration, if they are adjudged to have standing.

Amendment 269 would enable any person, other than the person seeking assistance, to apply for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision of the High Court. The amendment would also enable appeals to be made against a decision by the High Court to grant a declaration, as opposed to only where a declaration is not granted. The Court of Appeal would not be obliged to consider the matters set out in the Bill when forming its decision. It is important to say that whether with or without the amendment, any person may still seek a judicial review of any decision of the High Court, if they are adjudged to have standing.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing to add.

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

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Sarah Olney]

I seek clarification. As drafted, in clause 12(1)(c), the High Court would give

“a declaration that the requirements of this Act have been met”,

but in new clause 21(6)(a), the panel is required to issue a certificate of eligibility, to which the Minister just referred. I seek the Minister’s guidance on whether it is the Government’s view that the High Court declaration has equal weight in law to the certificate of eligibility set out in new clause 21. I ask particularly because that certificate will be relied on for the purposes of suspending the Suicide Act 1961, under which a criminal offence would otherwise have been committed. The certificate of eligibility will need to be relied on to demonstrate that no criminal offence has been committed under that law. Is it the view of the Minister and the Government that a High Court direction, as originally required, can now be fully replaced by, and have equal weight with, a certificate of eligibility?

[Sarah Sackman]

As I understand it, everything has to be internally coherent in whatever the final draft of the Bill is. Within this structure, because in this case it is a panel that issues the certificate, it is its own sui generis certificate appropriate to this process. The declaration that was referred to in the earlier draft is one that the High Court would normally do. Given that this is on the face of the Bill, and will be in primary legislation, it would have legal force and would, if it were internally coherent with the rest of the legislation, have the legal effect of operating coherently with the criminal offences and, indeed, with the suspension of the Suicide Act, as the hon. Lady just asked. That is my understanding.

[Sarah Olney]

My original question was more about whether it has the same legal force as a High Court direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

My understanding is that it would, yes. If I am wrong about that, I will obviously come back to the Committee and correct it, but my understanding is that it would. They are two different things—one is called a certificate of eligibility and one is a High Court declaration—but in terms of how they operate within this legal scheme, my understanding is that they would have the same legal effect, and they are intended to.

Under new clause 21, the panel must hear from, and may question, the person seeking assistance and the co-ordinating doctor, or the independent doctor, or both. The panel may also hear, and may question, the person’s proxy if that is relevant, and any other person, including those appearing to have relevant knowledge or experience. This could include family members, or other individuals with an interest in the welfare of the person, as well as other experts. The new clause is explicit that the panel must not grant the certificate of eligibility if it is not satisfied that all the requirements have been met. Further consequential amendments introduce references to the certificate of eligibility throughout the Bill. Once the panel has made a decision, it will be required to notify the person seeking assistance, the co-ordinating doctor, the commissioner and any other person specified in the regulations.

As others have pointed out, the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley do not spell out every step of the process or the procedure that the panels would be expected to follow. That is left to secondary legislation, and it will be for the commission and the commissioner to produce their own guidance on how the panels and the panel procedure are intended to be governed and regulated. That is in line with the approach to legislation more broadly, with main objectives typically set out in primary legislation, and secondary policy issues and technical and administrative matters, dealt with through secondary legislation, regulations and guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Danny Kruger]

I just want to support the hon. Member for Bradford West. She is absolutely right. It is clearly intended that there should be a unanimous decision but, in fact, as the hon. Lady pointed out, if one of the members decides effectively to abstain, the procedure does go ahead. It is not that they all have to actively support the decision; only two of them have to do that. One of them could have their doubts and sit on their hands, and it would still go ahead.

[Sarah Sackman]

That might be something that other hon. Members wish to take away with them, whatever the policy intent may have been. In fairness, I do not think that the question of whether there is a requirement to give a positive indication of a decision either way is on the face of the Bill. However, I think that clearly the intention behind paragraph 5(3) of new schedule 2 is that there is unanimity in relation to the grant of an eligibility certificate.

[Daniel Francis]

I was once on a planning committee in which one member of the committee voted in favour and all the other members abstained, so the recommendation went through one to zero. Technically, given the way in which new schedule 2 reads to me, that could happen, because one member could vote in favour and two could abstain, and that would therefore be considered unanimous. Will the Minister comment on that?

[Sarah Sackman]

We are discussing how to construe the provision in paragraph 5 of new schedule 2. I should reiterate that, obviously, it is the promoter’s intent to have—hon. Members may call it what they will—the safeguard of unanimity behind that provision. If there is any feeling that the drafting does not fully reflect that intent, it can be tightened up. However, under of the Bill, there is clearly an intent to have unanimity in respect of the final decision about certification.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It absolutely is the policy intent that there should be a unanimous decision of the panel. If there is any lack of clarity, I am very happy to look into working with official draftspeople to tighten that up.

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank hon. Members for their interventions.

In respect of the standard that would be applied in order for the panel to be satisfied, in practice, as I was saying, the panel would establish a case on the balance of probability in those circumstances only on the basis of strong evidence. In other words, the more serious the issue to be determined, the closer the scrutiny and the stronger the evidence required.

Introducing a requirement for the panel to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt at this stage would create a difference to, or a divergence from, the standard applied by professionals earlier in the process, such as by the doctors in the first and second assessments, and—I think the hon. Member for Reigate acknowledged this in her speech—to ascertain whether, among other things, the person has capacity to make the decision to end their own life, whether they have a clear, settled and informed wish to do so, and that they have not been pressured or coerced. Such a requirement would create the problem of making the application of the Bill incoherent because, of course, if a civil standard has been applied earlier in the process, the higher, criminal bar could never be satisfied at the panel stage. The principal decision is what standard should be applied and, as I have said, the civil standard is used in other end-of-life decisions, but there is also a question of the internal coherence of the Bill.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the Minister for the very clear way in which she is explaining everything. I completely acknowledge what she has just said. As she rightly said, I alluded to the fact that I tried to make the change at an earlier stage, but was unsuccessful, and I am now trying to put it through here. Can the Minister comment on the meaning of “satisfied”? If we are not going to have “beyond reasonable doubt”, can she expand a little on the meaning of “satisfied” and whether she is comfortable that that is clear enough for these purposes?

[Sarah Sackman]

The answer is yes. I, on behalf of the Government, am satisfied that that would be commonly and well understood by those applying it, and any court construing it, that the standard to be applied is the civil standard. That would be understood by not just the commissioner in terms of laying down the rules for the panels, but the panels themselves. It is important to recall that as Lord Bingham, one of the most distinguished judges that this country has ever produced, once said,

“The civil standard is a flexible standard to be applied with greater or lesser strictness according to the seriousness of what has to be proved”,

and there is no doubt, based on what Parliament has debated, about the utmost seriousness of these issues. To answer the hon. Member’s question, the answer is yes, I think it is clear. That is the Government’s position.

Amendment (b) to new clause 21 would give the panel discretion to refuse to grant a certificate of eligibility where the requirements stated in the Bill are met if it believes there are

“particular circumstances which make it inappropriate for the person”

to be provided with assistance. The Government’s view is that this could risk unpredictability and inconsistency in the panel’s decision making and reduce legal certainty for the person seeking assistance, as well as for the panel.

Amendment (c) to new clause 21 concerns three specific requirements under subsection (2):

“(c) that the person has capacity…(h) that the person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”

and

“(i) that the person made the first declaration voluntarily and was not coerced or pressured by any other person”.

The amendment would mean that despite finding that those criteria had been met on the balance of probabilities, the panel could stay proceedings when it believed there was a real risk that they have not been satisfied. As with amendment (b) to new clause 21, this could result in uncertainty for the applicant and in terms of what is required of the panel in its decision making.

As I referred to earlier, in a lot of these decisions, the question of whether somebody has capacity or is being coerced is ultimately a binary decision for each panel member. The person has capacity or they do not. In applying the civil standard with the rigour that Lord Bingham spoke about in the most serious cases in circumstances when the panel or its members identify that there is a real risk, one would expect them to exercise their discretionary powers to seek more evidence to remove that risk and doubt, and if that persists, to refuse and make the binary choice that the person does not have capacity or is being coerced, or vice versa.

Amendment (d) to new clause 21 would require the panel to hear from and question both assessing doctors, as opposed to the requirement that the person must hear from, and may question, one of the doctors, and may hear from and question both. The amendment would also require the panel to hear from and question the person seeking assistance and the person’s proxy when clause 15 applies. Under new clause 21, the panel must hear from and may question the person seeking assistance and would have the ability to hear from and question their proxy.

The amendment would also make it explicit that the panel must consider hearing from and questioning parties interested in the welfare of the person and those involved in the person’s care. Under new clause 21, the panel would have the ability to hear from any other person, which could include family members, caregivers and whomever else it deems appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Danny Kruger]

I appreciate that an impact assessment is due to come later, after we have debated whether we should have this system or not. Nevertheless, will the Minister tell the Committee whether officials in her Department or in the Department of Health and Social Care have informed the hon. Member for Spen Valley whether the workforce will have sufficient capacity to provide the professionals required? Has any estimate been made of the number of people who will be required to step forward to take part in these panels?

I note the point that the reason why the proposed High Court stage was dropped was not that Ministry of Justice officials had informed the hon. Member for Spen Valley that the family court system would be overwhelmed. Can the Minister confirm that there was no communication to the hon. Member that the courts would not be able to cope with the demand? That was clearly reported in the media at the time, but can she confirm that it was not the case?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman’s first point is a matter for the impact assessment itself. Clearly both Departments have data on the state of the professions, on how many KCs there are in the country and on how many people will be needed to provide the service. As I say, if Parliament wishes it and legislates for it, the state will work to deliver it, but the detail will come in the impact assessment.

On the hon. Gentleman’s second question, as I made clear earlier, the effective shift away from the High Court model in clause 12 to the model in the new clauses has been driven by the policy intent of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. I will not get into the precise chronology of when the matter was raised, but it came from my hon. Friend.

Yesterday, I hotfooted it from the Committee to Justice questions, where I was delighted to see the hon. Member for Reigate. We discussed capacity issues in our Crown courts and civil courts. Those issues are well reported in the media, but there is no connection between them and the policy shift here. If this is what Parliament chooses to legislate, the state will work to deliver it.

[Kim Leadbeater]

It is important to acknowledge that it will be a number of years before this law will be implemented. Hopefully, the Government will continue the fantastic job that they are doing to improve capacity in our courts, so that even if capacity is an issue now, a few years down the line it will not be.

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouragement. The Government’s position throughout the entire process, in so far as we have worked with her on these amendments and others to give effect to her intent, is to ensure that they are workable and operable. If this were not workable, we would not be here discussing it.

There are several examples across Government of judges or senior lawyers and KCs sitting on decision-making panels or in organisations or bodies that sit outside the framework of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. We have discussed some examples, such as public inquiries. I say this as the Minister for courts: it speaks to the trust and public confidence in both judges and KCs that when there is a public policy challenge to which many of us as politicians struggle to find a resolution, we so often turn to judge-led and KC-led inquiries to establish either what has happened or how systems can be improved. That is partly because of the impartiality and integrity that they bring to that work. I offer the example of the judicial commissioners who operate on behalf of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and who provide independent authorisation of application for the use of the most intrusive investigatory powers.

We have mentioned inquiries; I have also mentioned Parole Board panels as an example of inquisitorial rather than adversarial panels. They are often multidisciplinary, and many of their members are current or retired judges. They sit and hear issues of the most complex nature, assessing the risk that prisoners may present to the public on release.

[Danny Kruger]

I appreciate the Minister’s point about the Parole Board. Does she acknowledge that in the Parole Board example there is the essence of an adversarial system, because the victim is invited to give a statement? The board therefore hears opinions from, as it were, both sides of the case. Who will fulfil that second role in the proposals before the Committee?

[Sarah Sackman]

I drew the comparison for the purpose of showing where judges and legal experts are deployed in a multidisciplinary forum that is not a court or tribunal. I was not suggesting that there is a straight-line analogy. After all, a Parole Board panel is performing a different function to make a global assessment of risk. That is what it is ultimately doing; it is not strictly speaking an adversarial process in that sense.

The situation that the Bill addresses is that of an individual seeking to establish their eligibility for a right that—if the Act is passed—Parliament will have conferred on those who meet the criteria. It is not an adjudication. It is the panel’s function to assess, through the various conversations and provisions and by interrogating the information that has been provided, whether it is properly satisfied that the eligibility of the person’s election to avail themselves of that right is sound.

[Sarah Olney]

I am trying to clarify this for my own benefit, because I am not familiar with some of these procedures. Is there a difference between a High Court judge leading an inquiry or sitting on a panel, using their legal experience to provide advice or recommendations or give an opinion, and having a judge sitting in the High Court, who, under the original wording of clause 12, would be giving a direction? If there is a difference, have we not crossed from one role to the other by introducing a panel rather than a High Court direction? Does that matter for the purposes of the legislation?

[Sarah Sackman]

To be absolutely clear, what we are discussing reflects the intent of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. It is important to break it down. We have a judge in the role of the commissioner, and the commissioner will set up the framework and guidance for how the panels will operate and will lend their expertise. Our judges often sit on the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, developing the appropriate practice to govern the process in question. In this case, it would be the process of providing the third layer and the assessment whether the eligibility criteria have been met.

The commissioner would also—and this is where the role is distinct from that of a court or tribunal—provide a monitoring and reporting function to Parliament on the operation of the Act. That is a fundamental distinction from the model that we will have if we pursue clause 12, because in that case each application for an assisted death would go to whichever High Court judge happened to be sitting on that day. There would be no requirement for particular expertise on the part of the High Court judge, and that judge would not have to report on the operation of the Act. It is a different model that my hon. Friend has elected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The situation exists already in Wales. For example, people are prepared to travel in order to facilitate Welsh-medium coroner inquests. There are local authorities such as my own, Gwynedd, that have a requirement that all social workers be able to work in the medium of Welsh. The requirement will already be there, but this is a process of acknowledging those psychiatrists who are able to meet it. It is critical for the Bill, if we are to put the person and their needs first.

I urge the Minister to consider the amendment. We are already familiar with this matter in relation to digital technology and the operations that we already need to put in place to allow people to use their language in Wales. The amendment recognises the dire situation. It recognises the absolute urgency of people who are at the most stressful time in their life being able to use the language that they prefer.

[Sarah Sackman]

I want to reassure the right hon. Lady about the provisions that will apply even if her amendment is not accepted. The Welsh Language Act 1993 requires public bodies that are either named in the Act or named by Welsh Ministers, and which provide services to the public in Wales, to prepare a Welsh language scheme setting out the steps that the body will take in relation to the use of the Welsh language while providing those services. As I understand it, this approach is used all the time in legal proceedings in Wales.

In an instance in which a party wishes to speak in Welsh at the proceedings, section 22 of the 1993 Act will apply. Any party to the legal proceedings can express themselves in Welsh, at which point a Welsh interpreter would be commissioned to facilitate the discussion. That will happen. That will be the status quo—the backstop, if you like—without the amendment. Requiring all members of the panel to speak fluent Welsh would, in the Government’s view, be a significant operational challenge that could lead to undue delay at the end of life.

[Tom Gordon]

I speak only one language and it is definitely not Welsh, even though I did have a stint working in Wales. With any language, things can be lost in translation. When we are talking about something like assisted dying, does the Minister acknowledge that even with very skilled interpreters, there would have to be a suitable level of training to make sure that everything was fully thought through and there were no cracks—that nothing would slip through the net. That is not covered under the Welsh Language Act currently, and that is why the amendment has been tabled. Does she appreciate the severity of that?

[Sarah Sackman]

]The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and the hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham and for Harrogate and Knaresborough have all put their case incredibly powerfully. In emphasising the operational difficulties that the Government have identified, I will make this point. The approach under section 22 of the Welsh Language Act is that the ability to speak in Welsh and have interpretation services is adopted in very serious legal proceedings indeed. The hon. Gentleman is right: we are talking about nuances that can determine civil or criminal liability; those are very serious issues indeed. I am not saying that that is quite as serious as matters of life or death, but getting right the sorts of things that interpreters need to ensure they are getting right, as well as vindicating the person’s ability to express themselves in their mother tongue or their preferred tongue, is something that happens already and would happen under the operation of this legislation.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I wonder whether the Minister appreciates that when it comes to Welsh speakers using their language in the face of the majority language, English, with its status, what we are doing here is putting another barrier in their way: “I am making a nuisance of myself; I have to ask a favour and get interpreters.” That is not what we should be doing with this legislation. We should be putting those people first and making sure that they can express themselves at this most emotional time as effectively as possible. Interpreters should not be in the room with the assisted dying panels. That is fundamentally against the nature of the Bill.

[Sarah Sackman]

I appreciate the passion and force with which the right hon. Lady makes that point. I have set out the Government’s concerns about deliverability—the operational challenges around delivering what has been suggested. This is a case of applying section 22 of the Welsh Language Act to the commissioner, who under the promoter’s new schedule 2 would be able to give guidance to panels on how exactly they should facilitate exactly what the right hon. Lady is seeking—the ability of the dying person who is seeking an assisted death to express themselves through the Welsh language within those most sensitive of proceedings. There could be facilitation by the commissioner in order to commission an interpreter and assist the person to speak in Welsh.

I appreciate that the right hon. Lady feels that that would create a barrier that is not appropriate to this context, but I think it is a reflection of the fact that certainly the Government are not seeking to stand in the way of people expressing themselves in Welsh. We want to vindicate that. It is in line with our wider commitment to devolution and to working with the devolved Governments in the context of the Bill. The right hon. Lady has made her point forcefully, and no doubt the Committee will come to vote on this amendment, but I have to, on behalf of the Government, acting responsibly, lay out some of the challenges that it would mean to the operability and deliverability of the Bill.

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

I accept that the Minister is in a difficult position, because she is presenting the case for the Government’s position and cannot take a position herself. I will just gently ask whether she accepts the weariness of Welsh language speakers and campaigners over generations, who have been faced time and again with the same argument—of operational challenges, whatever that issue may be. I suggest to her that perhaps it is time that the Government stopped using that excuse.

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. She has heard the Government’s position on the operation of the Bill. As I said, it is important that, in the event that this amendment is not taken forward, the points and the force with which they are made are fed into the commissioner’s modus operandi in order, as far as possible and within what resources allow, to allow people to express themselves in the Welsh language. As I said, I want to put on record our continued commitment to devolution in that context, and to working with the Welsh Government to resolve in a thoughtful and constructive way any of the outstanding legal, technical and constitutional issues that may arise.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Surely many of the constitutional issues that we are discussing should be decided by the Senedd and the Welsh Government. It is a matter of urgency now that we discuss the “appropriate authority”, which is a term used in other legislation. I believe that in the Crime and Policing Bill, “appropriate authority” is used in relation to England and Scotland. We need to have clarity on these decisions as we move ahead.

[Sarah Sackman]

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right that we do need clarity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has made clear, the intention is for the legislation to apply across both England and Wales, and the model being proposed under these provisions is a single commission. We need to ensure close working to resolve those technical and legal issues.

Amendment (b) to new schedule 2 deals with the issue of the Official Solicitor. It seeks to establish a process through which a person nominated by the Official Solicitor acts as an advocate to the panel. It is important to remind ourselves of the role that the Official Solicitor typically plays. They act as a litigation friend, and where they do act as an advocate to the court, the purpose of that function is to assist courts on a difficult or novel point of law. The focus of the Official Solicitor is in representing adults who lack mental capacity, and children. Both groups are plainly out of the scope of the Bill. The Bill applies to someone who has capacity and who is applying for an assisted death.

The amendment would require a significant and radical change in the function and focus of the Official Solicitor. Under new schedule 2, assisted dying review panels would have their own powers to determine whether the requirements of the Bill had been met, including the ability to hear from and question any other person.

[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?

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She has brought up that case a number of times in various debates on the Bill. In this context, part of the provision—in terms of the design and operation of the commissioner and the panels to which the various cases are referred—is the development of guidance. If the commissioner deems specific processes appropriate to the consideration of applications for assisted death where anorexia is an issue, that guidance can be developed. Again, that is a matter for the promoter of the Bill, but one might have thought that having a dedicated body in relation to assisted death—which also has the monitoring function that we will come to in clause 34—means the development of expertise in dealing with cases, in particular those especially difficult cases of the nature my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West raises. From a Government point of view, that would not necessarily flow—it is hard to see why it would at all—from the High Court, if we revert to that. That is a distinction between the two models that the Bill’s promoter has explored.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is another important argument for having the panel. Where a terminally ill person with an eating disorder has been deemed to have capacity by two doctors and—I surmise, as we now have the compulsory referral—a psychiatrist, we will have on the panel another psychiatrist and a social worker. The panel does help to address concerns about capacity. Does the Minister agree?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend has developed her thinking, and the Government have worked with her to reflect that policy intent. I think she is right that the panel is capable of doing just that and it could operate in that way.

Amendment (c) to new schedule 2 relates to the issue of domestic abuse training. It would make the voluntary assisted dying commissioner responsible for ensuring that all panel members had received training on domestic abuse, including coercive control and financial abuse. Persons appointed to the list of eligible panel members would already be qualified in the field of law, psychiatry or social work, and would have done all the training that pertains to receiving a professional qualification in those fields.

In addition, under new schedule 2 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, the commissioner would be able to give guidance to the panels, which could include training requirements, and the panels must have regard to that guidance in the exercise of their functions. That is all I propose to say about that. It might be seen as an example of something that would typically—I am not saying it has to—be left to regulation or the guidance, rather than being in primary legislation.

Amendment (d) to new schedule 2 relates to the panel sitting in private or in public. It seeks to ensure that panels sit in private by default.

[Kit Malthouse]

I am not sure that my amendment (d) was selected—unfortunately, I missed the deadline— so the Minister does not need to cover it.

[The Chair]

Order. I will suspend the sitting—

[Sarah Sackman]

Put us all out of our misery!

[The Chair]

I did not wish to say that, but the Minister did. We will come back at 5.10 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

[Sarah Sackman]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.

New clause 17, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, will establish an internal review process. Where a panel refuses to grant a certificate of eligibility, the person seeking assistance would have the option to apply to the commissioner for their case to be reconsidered on the grounds that the first panel’s decision contains an error of law, is irrational or is procedurally unfair—essentially public law grounds. If the commissioner is satisfied that any of those grounds apply, having considered the case without a hearing, they must refer the case to the second panel for a fresh determination. The commissioner will be required to give reasons for their decision in writing. The decision should be shared with the person seeking assistance, the co-ordinating doctor and any other person specified in regulations.

In addition to this internal review process, decisions made by the commissioner or a panel will be amenable to judicial review. It will be for the court to decide whether an individual or group is sufficiently impacted to have standing.

Amendment (a) to new clause 17 proposes a change to who can apply for reconsideration of the initial panel’s decision. This amendment, tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate, seeks to make changes to the process of applying to the commissioner for reconsideration of a panel’s decision, as set out in new clause 17. It would widen the range of persons eligible to apply for a reconsideration, to include not just the person seeking assistance but their next of kin and other relatives, the medical practitioners treating them, and any other person who engaged in the first panel’s proceedings.

Secondly, the commissioner would be able to allow the application for reconsideration on the basis that the first panel’s decision was wrong or unjust because of a procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings. This could include scenarios where a person wishes to challenge the panel’s decision to grant a certificate of eligibility. “Wrong” is an unspecific, subjective and uncertain term that is not typically used in legislation for these reasons: it is a far broader criterion than that set out in new clause 17 and would give the commissioner a significant degree of discretion on whether to exercise the power to have the matter reconsidered.

Lastly, amendment (a) to new clause 17 would make it mandatory for the commissioner to consider each reconsideration with a hearing, unless they consider it to be in the interests of justice to proceed without a hearing. This could increase the time it takes to complete the process, as well as the complexity of the process.

In addition to the internal review process under new clause 17, any decision made by the commissioner or any individual panel would be amenable to judicial review. It would be for the court to decide in each and every case whether an individual or group challenging any such decisions is sufficiently impacted to have standing for the purposes of judicial review.

[Danny Kruger]

I would be grateful for the Minister’s advice on whether she thinks a family member will always have standing. I appreciate her point that it will be for the panel to consider, but is it her view that in law, as in our experience, family members, in the normal understanding of the term—again, we are conscious of the definition of “family members”—will have sufficient standing? Or can she foresee circumstances in which it might be concluded that family members do not have sufficient standing to make a representation?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Gentleman asks about standing and the process of judicial review. It is fair to say that, in our corpus of administrative law, the rules of standing are fairly liberal. On having a sufficient interest to bring a case, the case needs to be meritorious and would need to meet the permission threshold, which again is a relatively low standard: does one have an arguable case? A family member who has identified a procedural irregularity or a public law error that is arguable will have standing, I would have thought, to bring a judicial review.

The hon. Gentleman also asks about the potential for judicial review of individual decisions to issue a certificate of eligibility, but of course any decision by the commission, the commissioner or any of the subordinate panels will be amenable to judicial review. For example, the decision to issue guidance or policy documents relating to the commission’s operations will be amenable to judicial review. One can imagine that, under our broadly liberal rules of standing within the administrative court, a range of bodies not pertaining to the case of an individual and their family, but having an interest in those rules, might be eligible. Ultimately—as the Minister for courts, I would say this—that will be a matter for the independent judiciary, but it is right that, within our public law system, the rules of standing are fairly broad.

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

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful. With great respect to other members of the Committee, I think the hon. Gentleman is the most honest advocate of assisted dying among us, because he genuinely recognises that autonomy demands the widest possible range of eligibility. It might be that other Members feel that we have the balance exactly right. I recognise the force of his argument that if we are going to introduce a new human right, it is very difficult to circumscribe its boundaries. He himself thinks that there should be some boundaries: he proposed an amendment that specified 12 months, and he thinks that only certain people should be able to ask someone else to perform assisted death to them. Nevertheless, he is acknowledging that if we believe in autonomy, the Bill would not satisfy some people.

I think it would be intellectually coherent and more logical for proponents of the Bill to want to repeal section 2 of the Suicide Act, and I do not understand why they are not doing so. We could certainly continue to insist on prohibitions against any form of coercion, persuasion or inducement to take one’s own life, but if somebody is clearly in their right mind and wants to receive assistance to kill themselves, that is the principle of the Bill. It would be neater if we amended the Suicide Act accordingly.

The fact that proponents do not want to do so suggests that they see some value in the law and that they consider that that value trumps concerns about autonomy and the impact of the law on family members of someone who wishes to travel to Switzerland to end their life. I agree that there are such principles—namely, the intrinsic value of life and the protection of the vulnerable—but I do not see why proponents of the Bill consider that such principles trump autonomy when it comes to terminally ill adults in England.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. My remarks, as ever, will focus on the legal and practical impact of the amendments to assist Members in undertaking line-by-line scrutiny. In exercising our duties to ensure that legislation that is passed is legally robust and workable, the Government have worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to reflect her intent.

Clause 24, as amended by amendments 504 and 505, will mean that individuals who assist a person to end their life in accordance with the terms of the Bill are not subject to criminal prosecution. Currently, it is a criminal offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 for a person to do an act that is

“capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person”

and intended

“to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide.”

That offence attracts a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. Amendment 504 would amend clause 24(1) to ensure that a person is not guilty of an offence—[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Sarah Sackman]

I was introducing amendment 504, which amends clause 24(1) to ensure that a person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of providing assistance in accordance with, or performing a function under, the Bill—for example, by undertaking the first or second assessment or providing the approved substance. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that a person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with the Bill. The phrase “in accordance with” the Bill is key. For example, where someone accompanies a person to the appointment at which they will self-administer the substance, the amendment would carve out any criminal liability for the accompanying person.

As originally drafted, the wording would have limited the protection offered by subsection (1) to the far narrower situation of the medical professionals providing assistance under clause 18. The amendment will give effect to the policy intent of the hon. Member for Spen Valley of applying that protection to all those who provide assistance in accordance with, or by performing a function under, the Bill. Subsection (2) clarifies that the clause does not override other ways in which a court may find that a person is not guilty of an offence.

Clause 24(3) inserts proposed new section 2AA into the Suicide Act 1961. As amended by amendment 505, that new section ensures that it is not an offence under the Suicide Act to perform a function under the Bill, or to assist a person seeking to end their own life by doing anything under the Bill. That is for the same reasons that I set out in relation to subsection (1). The new section also provides a defence to the offence of encouraging or assisting suicide, where a person reasonably believes that they were acting in accordance with the Bill, and that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence.

Taken as a package, the effect of these amendments is to make the Bill legally workable. To do that, it is necessary to ensure that those who assist a person to use the lawful route are not then subject to criminal liability for doing so. Clause 24 clause, taken together with amendments 504 and 505, gives effect to that.

Let me address some of the issues raised by Opposition Members. There was a question as to whether there is any overlap between offences under the Bill—we will come to some of those offences in due course with clauses 26 and 27—and offences that remain on the statute book under the Suicide Act. The short answer to the question from the hon. Member for Reigate, although I know she has written to my Department, and I will ensure that she receives a full written answer, is that it would remain an offence under the Suicide Act 1961 to encourage suicide, including an assisted death under this Bill.

To the extent that any overlapping offences remain, that is not an unusual approach to drafting in the criminal law. However, the effect of the clause is that it would remain an offence under the 1961 Act to encourage someone to commit suicide. Where a person’s “encouragement”—the hon. Member focused on that term—is such that it amounts to what the courts would understand to be pressure or coercion, that could be an offence under clause 26, which we will come to. As I said, it is not unusual to have a degree of overlap in criminal offences. Again, what someone is charged and prosecuted with falls to the prosecutor, depending on the specific circumstances of the case and what would be most appropriate in that scenario.

I also want to address the scenario that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire posited, about whether a pharmacist who acted in a way that amounted to gross negligence manslaughter would benefit from immunity under clause 24(1) as amended. Again, with the important caveat that it will depend on the particular facts of the case, the offence of gross negligence manslaughter is committed where a death is the result of gross negligence in what would otherwise be a lawful act or omission on the part of the defendant, and where the defendant owes a duty of care to the victim—there are a number of actors within the Bill’s process who owe a duty of care to the person applying for assisted dying.

Let us assume for a moment that, in the hon. Member’s scenario, we do have gross negligence manslaughter on the particular facts; in those circumstances, the Government are content that the pharmacist could not be properly said to be performing a function under the Bill, or in accordance with the Bill, so clause 24(1)—the carve-out from criminal liability—would not apply. I think that that covers most of the questions that were posited earlier.

[Danny Kruger]

It may well be that the Minister has clarified the case sufficiently, but will she explain something for my sake? She is suggesting that the pharmacist inadvertently but negligently caused the death of a patient, having performed the duties under the Bill and believing that they were doing so. Surely, they were performing duties under the Bill, so they would potentially be captured by the carve-out.

[Sarah Sackman]

Again, it would depend on the actual facts. However, if they were attempting to perform duties under the Bill, it is highly unlikely that, in circumstances where the facts establish and meet the threshold of gross negligence manslaughter, they could be said to have carried out those duties in accordance with the Bill. They might have been carrying out duties that they thought were what the Bill prescribed, but if they have done that in such a way that it amounts to gross negligence manslaughter, then clause 24(1) would not apply.

The hon. Gentleman makes the point about what the pharmacist in that scenario believes they are doing; that belief has to be reasonable, and that is a test that our courts are well used to applying. That is why the amendments introduce the belief that someone is acting in accordance with the Bill. It is not enough that they think they are doing it; it has to be a reasonable belief. That is an objective standard.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the Minister for those helpful clarifications. Was any consideration given to also exempting encouragement as an offence under the Suicide Act? I am interested in why it was not exempted in the same way as assistance, particularly given that if it did fall within coercion and pressure—based on what the Minister said—it would get picked up as a criminal offence anyway under the Bill. I appreciate that the Minister will write to me on some of this, but the issue comes back to what is encouragement. As the hon. Member for Spen Valley set out—

[Rebecca Paul]

My apologies, Mr Dowd, but it is a technical point. I think the Minister understands what I am asking.

[Sarah Sackman]

Helpfully, the hon. Member has also set out her questions fully and precisely in a letter to me, so I think I know what she is asking and I will try and answer it as best I can. I reiterate, as I and the Minister for Care have said throughout, that the policy choices have been for the promoter—the Government remain neutral. The offence of encouraging or assisting suicide or attempted suicide in section 2 of the Suicide Act is well established. Encouraging someone to go through the assisted dying process under the Bill with the intention of encouraging suicide or an attempt at suicide would therefore remain a criminal offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act. That is what I made clear earlier.

What we are talking about will always depend on the particular circumstances of the case. It is the Government’s view that in a scenario—I think this is what the hon. Member for Reigate is getting at—where a family member or friend simply suggests to a person with a terminal condition that the option of assisted death under the Bill is something they may wish to consider, and nothing more, it is unlikely—dare I say, inconceivable—that that would amount to an offence under the 1961 Act.

However, if someone encourages a person in a more tangible way, such as encouraging or pressuring them to make the first declaration, that could well amount to an offence under the 1961 Act. Where that encouragement crosses the threshold into what, interpreted in line with their natural meaning, the courts would understand as pressure or coercion, that could amount to an offence under clause 26 of the Bill, which we will come to in due course. I hope that that addresses the hon. Lady’s question. I will set that out to her in writing, and she is welcome to write back if there is any ambiguity.

I hope that that assists the Committee. I am going to sit down before anybody else intervenes.

[The Chair]

May I make an observation? I understand where the hon. Member for Reigate is coming from, but if letters have gone back and forth to the Department and other Committee members are not privy to what they say, the debate gets a little abstract. That is all I am trying to get to—we should not get too abstract, so that everybody knows what is being said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

Thank you, Chair.

[Sarah Sackman]

I will address the point about injunctions, which we have touched on at a number of junctures in our debate. In terms of applying for an interim injunction in a civil case, a very well-established test is the American Cyanamid test, which all the lawyers in the room would have learned at law school. The first of those tests is, “Is there a serious issue to be tried?” Someone does not have to establish to the civil standard—

[The Chair]

Order. Can we get the order of debate right? Members may make a speech for as long as they want, on the issues they want. They may intervene to get clarity from another Member, but that has to be short and sweet. There is nothing to stop a Member from making another speech, even if they have spoken before. I exhort Members, if they want clarity, to make a speech separately, unless it is a very short intervention. If it is going to be a long intervention, they may well want to make another de facto speech and get clarity through that. They are entitled to stand up as much as they want. I am not encouraging Members to do that, but that is the gist. If the Minister wants to stand up again and clarify the point in its own speech, that is fine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

The clause, as amended by amendments 506 to 509, creates two stand-alone criminal offences that apply when a person uses dishonesty, coercion or pressure to induce a person to do a particular act. Subsection (1) creates an offence of inducing another person to make a first or second declaration, or not to cancel such a declaration, by dishonesty, coercion or pressure. That offence, as we heard, will carry a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment, ensuring consistency with the maximum penalty under the Suicide Act.

Subsection (2), as amended by amendment 506, creates an offence of inducing another person to self-administer and approve substances provided under the Bill, by dishonesty, coercion or pressure. Amendment 506 replaces “in accordance with” with “under” for this offence. That gives effect to the policy intent of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley that the offence should capture those who induce a person to self-administer a substance that, due to some error in the process, has not been provided strictly in accordance with the processes in the Bill. The amendment therefore ensures that the offence in subsection (2) will operate effectively.

Amendment 508 inserts proposed new subsection (4) to establish life imprisonment as the maximum penalty for the offence in subsection (2). That amendment gives effect to the policy intent of my hon. Friend by emphasising that inducing someone to undergo an unwanted assisted death through a legal system established by Parliament is a grave offence warranting the most severe penalty of life imprisonment. Amendment 507 is consequential on amendment 508 and amends subsection (3) to reflect the policy intent of my hon. Friend that the offence in subsection (2) should carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, rather than 14 years’ imprisonment.

Amendment 509, which a number of Members mentioned, amends the clause to provide that neither of the offences could be prosecuted without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That amendment achieves the policy intent of my hon. Friend that the legislation, first, be consistent with the Suicide Act 1961, which makes the same provision for the DPP’s involvement and where such consent is required; and, secondly, to ensure that spurious prosecutions are not brought, for example, by those who may oppose the process that the applicant for assisted dying is undergoing simply because they oppose it, rather than because of any illegality or criminality. That is the function of having the DPP consent baked into the legislation.

To be clear, the terms “coercion”, “dishonesty” and “pressure” remain undefined in the clause. That was an issue that we touched on right back in the early days of clause 1. Without a statutory definition, the terms will carry their natural, ordinary meaning, well understood by the public and the courts alike.

I want to pick up on two other points touched on in various speeches. The first has to do with the issue of coercion, coercive control and its subtleties, the way in which that is dealt with and, indeed, the painfully low conviction rates for domestic abuse and coercion. I am not seeking to make a wider political point beyond the amendments that we are discussing, but the hon. Member for Reigate and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West know that the Government have a mission to halve violence against women and girls. I assure the Committee that, in my capacity as Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice, we are intently focused on addressing that, and ensuring that the criminal justice system plays its part more widely. The offences sit in that context.

The other point that I want to address, and touched on earlier, was the one made by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire about our duties to the statute book. It is right that there is a degree of duplication and to acknowledge that, as the Government do in working with the promoter of the Bill to reflect her policy intent. That is not unusual. It is something those in law enforcement, in particular in the CPS, are well versed in. It will be for them to make the appropriate charging decisions, depending on the facts in the particular case.

The function of the offence created under subsection (2) and the penalty attached to it affect the gravity that the promoter of the Bill sought to indicate for the offence of inducing someone to undergo something through dishonesty, coercion or pressure, in the context of what we all acknowledge is a new process. If the Bill is passed, there will be a new legal regime for assisted dying. The manipulation of such a new regime to ends that are criminalised under the provision is reflected in that specific offence. To be clear, the degree of duplication is acknowledged, but the Government’s view is that that is neither unusual nor poses a problem for the CPS.

[Danny Kruger]

That is helpful and makes sense. The only justification for duplication must be that the duplication is only partial, which the Minister has just suggested it is. Not a complete overlap—some cases will fall into one category, but not into the other. I wonder if she could help us to understand with an example that would help the CPS when it makes its decisions about which offence to charge someone under—an example of an offence that would be illegal under this clause and not already illegal under the Suicide Act or the laws of homicide.

[Sarah Sackman]

I am not going to answer that question directly, because I will not get into hypotheticals, which would be a test. I understand the question the hon. Gentleman is asking. As I said, the policy intent here—the policy of including the specific offence within the context of this new legal regime and the signal that doing so would send to all those participating in this regime by attaching the severest penalty of life imprisonment to the offence created under subsection (2)—has been a matter for the Bill’s promoter. The Government have worked with her to create a workable regime.

I will not proffer on my feet a hypothetical factual scenario that would be caught by this offence, but would not be caught under other offences that exist in our criminal law. The point is that overlapping criminal offences exist in our criminal law. That is not unusual. The CPS is well versed in dealing with that. The charging decisions will be for the CPS, with the consent of the DPP. Satisfying the purpose of having criminal liability—to catch those who perpetrate what would be, in any view, a heinous crime, and to deter such crime—would be discharged by the drafting that we have here.

[Danny Kruger]

I respect the difficulty of the position that the Minister is in, but I am afraid that we have to consider hypothetical scenarios, because we are creating law. Does she acknowledge that, even if she cannot imagine, or cannot suggest to us, a case that falls under the provisions of this clause, but is not caught by the Suicide Act or law of murder, someone who is charged with murder could plausibly claim that, in fact, they should have been charged with the offence under clause 26(2) of the Bill? Plausibly, they could make a case, perhaps through judicial review, that the charging decision was wrong, and we would have months of litigation before we even got to the prosecution beginning. Can she envisage such a scenario happening?

[Sarah Sackman]

I find that highly implausible; the likelihood is that the CPS will apply the appropriate charging decision to fit the facts as they have arisen. If they have arisen within the context of this legal regime, for someone acting nefariously, dishonestly or coercively about assisted dying, the charge under this clause would be the appropriate one. I find it implausible that the other scenario would arise. As I said, the CPS is well versed in applying the appropriate charging decision to the appropriate crime on the facts of the crime. I will not speculate or hypothesise on what that might be.

[Kit Malthouse]

As the Minister said, this is not an unusual exercise for the CPS and operates in lots of other areas. For example, the CPS regularly makes decisions about whether to charge someone with grievous bodily harm under section 18 or section 20 of the relevant legislation—they are both forms of GBH. Which one the CPS chooses depends on the circumstances, the seriousness and the level of intent. As she said, the charge naturally—whether it falls under the same Act or a different Act—comes down to the circumstances.

[Sarah Sackman]

That is a good example. One knows from charging decisions that often, on indictment, one might have multiple offences to capture the totality of the criminal behaviour. Some of those may be made out, some of them may not. What the Government have sought to do here, working with the Bill’s promoter, is to reflect her policy intent: to convey the gravity of the offence in this wholly new legal regime. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out earlier, we are sanctioning and decriminalising conduct that has previously been criminal, while ensuring that this offence captures what would be criminal under the new legal regime. From the promoter’s point of view, it is important to signal that the Government have worked with her on this, and the Government’s position is that the result, in this amended form of the Bill, gives both some satisfaction to her policy intent and is compatible with how our criminal law routinely works, so it is workable from the point of view of the CPS.

[Danny Kruger]

I acknowledge the point that the Minister is making. To the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, we are talking not about two categories of offence within the same legal framework, namely GBH, but about two different legal frameworks altogether, the law of homicide and the law on assisted dying. Does the Minister agree that the clause as it is to be amended will create the opportunity for a murderer who would otherwise be convicted of or charged with murder to claim that, in fact, he was committing an offence under the assisted suicide law? We are creating a new opportunity for someone who would otherwise, were it not for this law, be legitimately charged with murder to claim that they are committing this offence instead.

[Sarah Sackman]

I do not consider that through this amended form of the Bill—if the Committee chooses to vote that way—we will have created an opportunity that could be exploited in that way. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that there has not been consultation on that point, but there has been close working of highly experienced Government lawyers with the promoter to reflect her policy intent.

What the clause interlocking—and indeed overlapping, as I have acknowledged—with the Suicide Act does is prescribe new forms of criminal offence and liability that will capture criminal behaviour, which is ultimately what the measure is about. Tellingly, the punishment attached to the clause 26 offence is the same as the maximum punishment for murder, that of life imprisonment, which is indicative of the gravity of the offence that would be caught.

[Kim Leadbeater]

That is the point I would like to make: the penalty is the same, but it is important that the offence is specific, hence why I have put it in the Bill. The outcome for the criminal involved, however, would be the same.

[Sarah Sackman]

That is all I intend to say on this matter. I think we have probably ventilated this particular issue as far as we can.

Amendment 506 agreed to.

Amendments made: 507, in clause 26, page 16, line 9, leave out “or (2)”.

This amendment limits subsection (3) to offences under subsection (1).

Amendment 508, in clause 26, page 16, line 10, at end insert—

“(4) A person who commits an offence under subsection (2) is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment provides for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for an offence under subsection (2).

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

It is good to see you this evening, Mrs Harris.

I have no objection to the hon. Lady’s amendments. I think there is value in broadening the offence to include actions performed intentionally or recklessly, as that is critical for patient safety. Given the finality of the result of assisted death, there should not be any room for carelessness, and liability must ensure that not only deliberate misconduct but negligent record keeping is subject to legal scrutiny. I want to put on the record the evidence we had from the British Journal of Nursing, which has documented the serious risks of poor record keeping in medical practice. That demonstrates how inadequate documentation contributes to clinical errors.

I think the hon. Lady recognises that this is not just a matter of bureaucratic tidying-up. The principle is straightforward: if the decision to assist in ending a life is to be lawful, the documentation supporting it must be unimpeachable. Expanding liability to cover reckless documentation is entirely consistent with existing legal and professional standards in the UK medical profession.

[Sarah Sackman]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I will be brief. As we have heard, clause 27 creates various stand-alone criminal offences regarding the falsification or destruction of documentation related to assisted dying. Amendment 510 replaces “wilfully” with “intentionally or recklessly” in subsection (1)(b), to align the wording with that used elsewhere in the clause. The Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on the other amendments, to tighten up and improve the workability and operability of the Bill.

Amendment 510 agreed to.

Amendments made: 511, in clause 27, page 16, line 22, leave out “that person” and insert “a relevant matter”.

This amendment and amendment 512 clarify that the offence under subsection (2) relates only to an opinion about a matter relating to a function under the Bill.

Amendment 512, in clause 27, page 16, line 23, at end insert—

“(2A) In subsection (2) “relevant matter” means a matter relating to any function under this Act.”

See the statement for amendment 511.

Amendment 513, in clause 27, page 16, line 24, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) A person commits an offence if they intentionally or recklessly fail to comply with an obligation under—

(a) section 14(1A) or (2) (notification of cancellation of declaration), or

(b) section 17 (recording of cancellations).”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment clarifies the scope of the offence under subsection (3), by providing that the offence occurs where a doctor fails to comply with a notification or recording obligation in relation to the cancelling of a first or second declaration.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I beg to move amendment 514, in clause 27, page 16, line 28, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment is consequential on NC24.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

In combination, amendments 514 to 516 and new clause 24 refine and strengthen the legal framework surrounding assisted dying, shifting the focus towards serious fraudulent misconduct and the falsification of documents, and ensuring that prosecutions are conducted with careful oversight by the Director of Public Prosecutions. These changes mark a clear departure from the original drafting, which focused clause 27 more generally on non-compliance with administrative duties, and introduce more severe consequences for deliberate wrongdoing related to the assisted dying process.

New clause 24 is an important addition to the Bill. It creates an offence in respect of certain conduct, where the person engaging in the conduct does so with the intention of enabling another person to obtain assistance under the Act. I made some comments about that previously, so I will leave it there for now, but I hope the Committee will join me in supporting the amendments and new clause.

[Sarah Sackman]

I intend to be brief. New clause 24 and amendments 514 to 516 create stand-alone criminal offences relating to the falsification or destruction of documentation where a person acts with the intention of facilitating the provision of assistance to another person to end their own life under the Bill. That reflects the policy intent of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley that those who falsify documents with the specific intent of facilitating another to end their life should be subject to a higher maximum penalty than those offences in clause 27.

Amendment 514 agreed to.

Amendments made: 515, in clause 27, page 16, line 31, leave out from beginning to “an” and insert “A person who commits”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 514.

Amendment 516, in clause 27, page 16, line 36, at end insert—

“(6) Proceedings for an offence under this section may be instituted only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”—(Kim Leadbeater.)

This amendment provides that proceedings for an offence under this clause may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Prescribing, dispensing, transporting etc of approved substances

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 442, in clause 28, page 17, line 3, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment will make it an obligation for the Secretary of State to make regulations on the prescribing and dispensing of approved substances, their transportation, storage, handling and disposal and the associated records with this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The concern is that it should be automatic. I just cite Professor Ahmedzai’s recognition of the frequent necessity, or the distinct possibility, of a referral to the coroner being appropriate. I suggest that it should happen as a matter of course. I would be grateful to understand from the hon. Lady or the Minister under what circumstances they feel it would be appropriate for a coroner to be involved. The difficulty is that we are putting a lot of emphasis on the role of the local medical examiner to decide whether it should be appropriate for the coroner to consider a case; I suggest that they should consider all cases.

The obligation on coroners need not be over-burdensome. Some coroner’s inquests can be dealt with in as little as 20 minutes if matters are simple and not in dispute, which they would be in the great majority of the cases we are talking about. The presence of this jurisdiction—the ability of the coroner to investigate—would be a most valuable safeguard. It would help to identify whether matters have gone wrong in the act of self-administration and the process of dying, which could significantly assist whatever regulatory regime—we are yet to discover that—oversees the process. It could assist the continuous improvement of the regime.

It would also help to identify issues relating to misdiagnosis, which we know happens often. It is remarkable—and worth pointing out in response to the suggestion that terminal diagnoses are always accurate—that one study found, after autopsy, that one in four cases had been misdiagnosed. Doctors might say somebody is dying of a certain condition, but it turns out they were not.

I take the point that a coroner would not be prohibited by clause 29(1) from launching an investigation in appropriate cases, but given that we do not know what we do not know, it might be hard to decide when that is required. With a new scheme like this, it would be best to start with an investigation in every case. If, in a few years’ time, it appears that the safeguard is not needed, a future Parliament could change the law to reduce it, but I implore the Committee to consider the idea that we should start with the safest Bill we can.

[Sarah Sackman]

Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, coroners have a duty to investigate and certify deaths that are reported to them. That duty is triggered when they have a reason to suspect that the deceased died a violent or unnatural death, the cause of death is unknown, or the deceased died while in custody or otherwise in state detention. There are also regulations made under the powers of the 2009 Act that require medical practitioners to notify such deaths to the coroner.

Clause 29(1) disapplies the coroner’s duty to investigate in the case of an assisted death that has been carried out in accordance with the Bill’s provisions. In practice, that would mean the assisted death would instead be certified by an attending practitioner—the doctor who has attended the patient—and scrutinised by an independent medical examiner working in the NHS. Therefore, the attending practitioner and medical examiner, rather than the coroner, would certify the cause of death. It would remain open to anyone—such as a family member or a medical practitioner who has interacted with the deceased and has concerns—to report a death to the coroner if they had concerns that it had not occurred in line with the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment 522 would remove the disapplication of the coroner’s duty to investigate in relation to assisted deaths, essentially reversing the Bill’s current provisions. Consequently, given that assisted deaths are inherently unnatural, the amendment would require that the coroner has a duty to investigate each and every assisted death and then certify the cause of death. To answer the hon. Member for East Wiltshire’s point, the bereaved family would, as I have said, be able to raise any concerns with the medical examiner, and the coroner’s duty to investigate would be triggered if they suspected that death had not occurred in line with the process prescribed.

It is important to note that medical examiners follow their own structured process of investigation. They review medical records, consult practitioners involved in the case and then apply the criteria set out from the Notification of Deaths Regulations 2019 to determine whether the death meets the threshold for a coroner referral. In doing so, they would proactively speak to family members, thereby providing the opportunity for any concerns to be raised; if there are any, they would make the referral to the coroner. I hope that assists the Committee.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will be very brief. My understanding is—I think the Minister said this—that the attending practitioner, the medical examiner or anybody else, including family members, could refer to the coroner if they felt it was necessary or suspected anything untoward. If that is the case, I am content that the Bill is fit for purpose as it stands.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I was not planning to speak on this group either, but the debate speaks to a number of the things that we have talked about in the past few weeks. I add the caveat that all hon. Members present acknowledge that the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, has repeatedly made it clear that data collection is essential to what we are proposing. I am also sympathetic to what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said about not necessarily needing to put everything in the Bill.

Without trying to sound like a broken record, however—I have made this point several times over the past few weeks—it is critical that in certain situations, although there may be some regulations or inferences that exist that may lead to certain outcomes that we on this Committee would all like to see, there is nothing necessarily wrong with putting them explicitly in writing.

Hon. Members have used different stats from different jurisdictions in their own way to lend weight to their arguments, and although many of those stats are relatively consistent in a number of areas, they are not necessarily decisive. I cited a stat yesterday when speaking to an amendment that around 10% of people using the assisted dying route have complications during the final stages, but as I said then, that came from an incredibly small sample size of just over 100 people.

It is therefore critical that, if the Bill is passed and we go down this path, we pursue robust and expansive data gathering in a number of different areas, and I am sure that any Government would look to do so. As long as it does not create any loopholes or unintended consequences, that sort of evidence gathering should be in the Bill because, at the very least, that would provide reassurance that it will happen if the Bill is passed.

[Sarah Sackman]

I do not have a lot to add, but I point out that, as the Bill stands, clause 34 requires the chief medical officer to, among other things, submit an annual report to the relevant national authority on the operation of the Act. Amendment 382 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley would make the voluntary assisted dying commissioner responsible for that function instead. Amendment 274 would require that the report under clause 34 contains an analysis of the additional information to be collected under new clause 10 and amendment 273. I remind the Committee of that because we are discussing what information should be gathered, and at what point in the process. There is then the monitoring, reporting and co-ordinating function performed by the voluntary assisted dying commissioner, should those later amendments be passed.

[Kit Malthouse]

My assumption is that once a commissioner is appointed, and in drawing up the regulations and guidelines for reporting, there will be consultation between the Government and the commissioner about what the commissioner actually wants to report on. From what the Minister is saying, I assume that, unless we collect the data, the commissioner will have nothing to say in their report.

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and that is exactly why I made that point. One of the design features of the commissioner model is the monitoring function, through which they will undertake annual reporting and an assessment of patterns in the practice, should the legal regime come into force. That is exactly how I anticipate it working.

The commissioner can also be self-correcting and say, “We need to see more information on this because it is a concern. We have this equalities data”—or whatever data we have collected—“and we need to see more on this aspect, because this pattern is a concern to us or it would help to illuminate how the practice is operating.” That is all I wanted to add, because one has to appreciate the operation of the regime as a whole.

[Kim Leadbeater]

As has been alluded to by various Committee members, I fully support the intention behind amendment 273, but I think it will be covered already. I have mentioned my amendment 500, but amendment 455 is probably more pertinent. It looks at the annual report that the assisted dying commissioner would produce, which makes reference to protected characteristics, and sets out that any other such data can and should be collected under regulations.

I am therefore confident that that report would encompass the points made by amendment 273, and that reference is made to the analysis that is covered by amendment 274. I feel confident that the intention will be met by the introduction of the voluntary assisted dying commissioner, but I wholeheartedly agree that data collection is a fundamentally important part of the process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

These amendments were tabled by the hon. Member for York Central. As discussed, clause 29 requires the Registrar General to

“prepare and lay before Parliament a report providing a statistical analysis of deaths”

arising. We have spoken before about the paucity of data from other jurisdictions and the problems arising when data is not collected from the start; when data is collected only in relation to one thing, such as disability in Canada; when data collection is suddenly discontinued, as in Washington state as I understand it; or when data is insufficiently granular, so that we get only the headlines. I therefore think that this approach is valuable, and I welcome the Committee’s decision to support amendment 273 tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. Amendments 446 and 486 would ensure that we fix those problems from the start.

Amendment 446 would give the Secretary of State the power to specify the datasets that must be made available, and those must be approved by Parliament. MPs would then be able to interrogate what data we are collecting and what questions that enables us to answer. Ensuring that that is determined by regulation places it in law, and ensures ministerial responsibility and parliamentary oversight.

Amendment 486 sets out the data that must be included. That includes demographic information, including breakdowns by protected characteristics—and I acknowledge the conversation that has just been had on that topic—and the length of time between the taking of the approved substances and the time of death. It strikes me that that is a very important consideration. I hope that that would be specified in the data that the Registrar General will provide, but that is not clear at the moment. It is also vital that any complications are properly reported—not just recorded, but reported.

I do not propose to push these amendments to a vote; I think that the argument has been sufficiently made. I am grateful to the Committee for supporting the previous amendment. However, I wish that things were otherwise and that we were specifying more clearly what data will be collected. I hope that perhaps this debate will encourage the Registrar General to ensure that the most comprehensive data is presented to Parliament.

[Sarah Sackman]

In light of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, I do not have anything further to add, other than to note what he has said.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I have nothing to add.

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

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Naz Shah]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that are developed; to investigate and report on

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

I think that CMOs should be the main officials reporting on the assisted dying system—as I have said repeatedly today; it is a very important point—but, since the Bill’s promoter is tabling amendments that mean that only the CMOs should be consulted on the commissioner’s report, we need clarity on what that should mean. These amendments, unfortunately, do not give that. Amendments 455 and 456 would leave us with a much weaker system of monitoring and reporting than is in the Bill as drafted, which is why I do not support them. I hope that other Members will also reject them.

[Sarah Sackman]

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

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

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

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

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

[Naz Shah]

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

[Sarah Sackman]

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

[Naz Shah]

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

[Sarah Sackman]

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

[Sarah Olney]

I had an interesting exchange with the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge last week about socioeconomic indicators. They are in the Equality Act but have not yet been implemented. I understand that it was in the Labour Government’s manifesto to bring forward the implementation of the socioeconomic factors in the Equality Act. Given that, as I understand it, the implementation of the Bill will probably take us up to the next general election, does the Minister not think that, at some point before it is fully implemented, there will be a way of collecting the relevant socioeconomic statistics?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Member is right. Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 refers to taking into account the impact of public administration decisions on socioeconomic disadvantage. The previous Labour Government brought that provision in under that landmark Act, but it was never brought into force. She is right that the Government are looking to do that. The question is: what is appropriate for the Bill that we are considering right here, right now? From the Government’s point of view, the voluntary assisted dying commission will be subject to the Equality Act, as it stands, and it is right that there is no need to specify the carrying out of an equality impact assessment in the Bill. That assessment will, at the appropriate time, contain whatever the Equality Act requires of that public decision maker. I do not think that we need to pre-empt, through this vehicle, things that have not yet happened in other areas of legislation.

The other point is that, leaving over for the regulations and guidance that the voluntary assisted dying commission is anticipated to produce, to take into account what needs to be taken into account in order to fully understand the regime and how it is operating, can all be developed by what will ultimately be an expert body in this field, should Parliament decide to vote for it. The question in the context of the amendments is: what do the Committee and Parliament say needs to go in the Bill right now? The Government’s position is that the amendments are neither necessary nor workable in our current legal regime.

Amendment 451 seeks to further specify what is included in the commissioner’s annual report under the promoter’s amendments to clause 34. Under amendment 451, the report must contain information on where there have been complications in the procedure, and we assume that to mean the procedure relating to the self-administration of the approved substance, as I think was clarified earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, who referred to clause 9 in that regard. The commissioner’s report would also be required to include analysis of a specified list of matters, including the diagnosis and prognosis of persons seeking assistance, concerns raised by family members or the multidisciplinary panel, and demographic data, including socioeconomic data and information on protected characteristics.

The Government have worked with the promoter on her amendments 455 and 456. Under amendment 455, the commissioner’s annual report would be required to include information about the application of the Bill to persons with protected characteristics and any other descriptions of persons specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. That is the point: the regime can evolve as appropriate when we know what it looks like and how it is operating. It can even go further than some of the categories that Members have described. That may include persons from different demographics and socioeconomic backgrounds, as proposed by the amendment. The amendment would also require the commissioner to consult, when preparing an annual report, with the chief medical officers for England and Wales and others who appear to the commissioner to represent the interests of persons who have protected characteristics and who the commissioner deems appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I would not choose to have this specific definition in the Bill. There may well be another definition that I would be more comfortable with, so I cannot rule that out. However, I completely agree with the hon. Lady that this has been a helpful debate, and I really appreciate her tabling the amendments so that we could have it.

[Sarah Sackman]

Bear with me one moment, Sir Roger. I have just had a message, and I want to see whether it is relevant to what I want to say. Forgive me.

[The Chair]

I think it says, “Keep it brief.”

[Sarah Sackman]

I was just checking that my eyes are not failing me.

It is good to see consensus break out across the Committee on these issues. For what it is worth, both as a Government Minister and a Committee member, I think it is excellent that we have had this debate on definitions. All members of the Committee have an interest in ensuring that where the words “coercion”, “pressure” and “dishonesty”, which run through all the relevant amendments, appear in the Bill—whether in relation to the eligibility criteria or the criminal offences—they operate as intended and with the breadth to capture the range of behaviours they are seeking to safeguard against.

I will be brief because we have rehearsed a number of these issues before. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge has stolen my thunder in many respects and said a lot of what I was going to say. In relation to the definitions of coercion, pressure and dishonesty, to which the various amendments relate, it is important to note—and this is the Government’s view—that including a statutory definition would risk overcomplicating the issue and inadvertently narrowing the protections that the criminal offences in the Bill are intended to provide. At the moment, the Bill does not include a statutory definition for any of those terms. As a consequence, they carry their natural meaning, as construed by the courts, and therefore have, in practice, a broad meaning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Abbott]

At this point, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge and for Bexleyheath and Crayford. They have consistently tabled really important amendments that are very close to my heart, measurably improving the Bill.

I am briefly speaking in favour of new clause 35. We have had a number of good amendments about ensuring proper representation for vulnerable people during the process. We have also had a lot of discussion about the very important need to regularly monitor and report back on the Bill. This new clause brings all this together, ensuring that there is real oversight, with real thrust and a point to it. It is not good enough just to report back some statistics; the question is what we do with them. Having this sort of panel, with expertise and life experience, would be a significant step forward for people with disabilities, learning needs and anything else that might be included.

Once again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends for this work. I am fully supportive of the new clause.

[Sarah Sackman]

I hope to be brief, given it is the witching hour.

This new clause would require the voluntary assisted dying commissioner to establish within six months of their appointment a disability advisory board. The advisory board must include representation from disabled people and disabled people’s organisations. Within six months of its appointment, the advisory board must report to the Secretary of State and the commissioner to advise on the implementation of the Act for disabled people. We anticipate that the advisory board’s annual report will be separate from the commissioner’s, and that in time this may be subject to a level of integration between the two bodies. Practical arrangements for the advisory board would require further consideration, but the Government can see no workability reason why this should not go ahead.