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—