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

Debate between Sarah Sackman and Jake Richards

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 Friend has already said, amendment 407 has been superseded, and I think we all agree on that.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Amendments 267 and 105 to107, which have now been withdrawn, deal with the Bill as currently drafted in relation to the High Court.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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sarah Sackman and Jake Richards

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

May I express how sorry I am to hear of the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent? I am happy to write to him—he asks quite a specific question—but it is important that we provide support to all sorts of victims. That is why we have the victims code, which strengthens the power of the Victims’ Commissioner, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that specific matter.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Last week, the Court of Appeal overturned a first-instance decision regarding the anonymity of a judge who presided over the tragic Sara Sharif case in the family courts. I do not expect the Minister to comment on individual cases, and it is certainly not about that individual judge, but will the Government use this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to open justice and press freedom?

[Sarah Sackman]

As my hon. Friend rightly says, I cannot comment on that specific case, but we adhere to the principle of open justice and transparency in our legal system. That is why we have the publication of sentencing remarks and transcripts, and the broadcasting of many of our hearings, so that the public can see exactly how justice in this country is administered.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Sarah Sackman and Jake Richards

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

4. What steps she is taking to help ensure rioters are prosecuted efficiently and effectively.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

8. What steps she is taking to help ensure rioters are prosecuted efficiently and effectively.

[The Solicitor General (Sarah Sackman)]

There seem to have been a lot of congratulations this morning, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on being elected as Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.

The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have been clear that there is no place for senseless violence on our streets. During the summer, after the recent disorder, the Crown Prosecution Service deployed an additional 100 prosecutors, expanded its 24-hour charging service and received additional advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions to enable it to charge more quickly. The deterrent effects of this swift action are an example of how the system can work well when it works together.

[The Solicitor General]

I express my solidarity with my hon. Friend and his constituents, who will have been closely affected by the awful recent events in his neighbouring constituency. I know the Attorney General was deeply moved by his recent visit to Southport and what he learned there.

On the early release scheme, my hon. Friend will have heard the Lord Chancellor set out very clearly this week the importance of taking action on the mess on prison places that this Government inherited. Without the action we have taken, courts would have been unable to hold trials, the police would have been unable to make arrests and there would have been a total breakdown of law and order. The Lord Chancellor has provided details of the scheme, including its carefully considered safeguards. The scheme will apply across the board to all offenders, including rioters and those convicted of the most serious offences.

[Jake Richards]

It is wonderful to see my hon. and learned Friend at the Dispatch Box. I also congratulate the Government on the speediness with which justice has been done for many of the summer’s rioters, which is testament to the good work of the CPS and defence lawyers. What lessons can be learnt more generally to ensure that speedy justice can occur for specific offences, particularly domestic violence?

[The Solicitor General]

The main lesson that we can take from this is how well the system can work when all of its constituent parts—the police, the leadership at the top of Government, and the CPS—all pull in the same direction. That approach will inform this Government’s commitment to mission-led government, which will bring all the key elements of the criminal justice system together and ensure that decisions are taken with the whole system in mind. That will particularly apply to the mission on halving violence against women and girls.