Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting)
Simon Opher ExcerptsTuesday 18th March 2025
(1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 March 2025 - (18 Mar 2025)
Stephen Kinnock
The right hon. Member sets out clearly the difference between self-administration—the concept at the heart of the Bill—and the performance of the act either jointly or by the doctor. The latter is not permitted under the terms of the Bill; the former is. That is where we are.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
The lack of an ability to assist in the final process would put medical professionals in a very difficult position. Would carrying the medicine to the room where the patient is count as assistance? I think we have to have assistance in the Bill, but I also feel that, as the Minister has outlined clearly, someone can help a person to self-administer but cannot administer. That is quite clear to me.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend, who speaks with considerable clinical expertise. It is about exactly that difference between self-administration and administration. If we cleave to those two principles, that is the basis on which we will achieve the stated aim of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head, because it is the patient who is driving the decision. They are making that act by activating the electronic device—the computer or whatever it may be in terms of assistive technology—but they have the power and control over that decision-making process, which is completely distinct from a clinician doing that act. It is distinct because it is activated by the patient—by the person making that decision—and that is why I draw the distinction. My hon. Friend may not agree, but that is my rationale for drawing a distinction between the two.
Dr Opher
I agree with all the hon. Gentleman’s points. In terms of assistance, what we are talking about, potentially, if the technology arrives at that, is that the doctor may be able to put a Venflon into the patient’s vein, but they would not put the drug through the Venflon into the vein. That would enable the patient to have control. That is the type of assistance that could be quite useful in this scenario, but it would not involve the doctor actually delivering the drug.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I am grateful for that helpful and thoughtful intervention.
For the reasons I have set out, I consider that the amendments create unnecessary and highly undesirable legal confusion, so I shall not support them.
Dr Opher
Actually, if we did an autopsy on any person who has died, pulmonary oedema would almost certainly be found because that is what happens in death—the heart stops and the lungs fill with fluid. I would also like to correct the idea that there is neuromuscular paralysis with pentobarbital. There is no way that barbiturates act in that way. All they do is sedate and put the person to sleep, and death comes afterwards.
Danny Kruger
I was not suggesting that pentobarbital has a paralytic effect. Often in assisted dying, a paralytic is administered first as part of the cocktail of drugs. Subsequently, we discover that while the patient may have appeared entirely calm, sleeping peacefully, significant trauma may have been occurring beneath the surface.
I defer to the hon. Member’s knowledge, but my understanding from the scientific evidence I have read, and that medics have given to me, is that the extent to which people executed by lethal injection, by pentobarbital, have their lungs fill with fluid is peculiar—it is remarkable. They effectively drown beneath their peaceful exterior.
I intend to press amendment 464 to a vote, and I intend to support other amendments in this group. Although I support the aspiration of amendment 532 to make provision for what to do in the event of a procedure’s failure, I think it gives too much leeway to the Secretary of State, so I will oppose that amendment. I think the amendments that the hon. Member for York Central and I have tabled are preferable.
To make the obvious case for those amendments, and as I said in a previous debate, there are three choices in the event of failure. The first is to ignore the plain signs of distress, of things going wrong and of the patient suffering, which is clearly a failure of the doctor’s duty of care. The second is to expedite the death, which we have decided would be illegal under the Bill. Therefore, the only option is to revive the patient and escalate treatment, rather than actively or passively facilitate their death.
I hope Members will agree that, on the rare occasions when assisted suicide goes wrong, it is right that the patient is immediately revived and taken to hospital, or for the doctor to take whatever action is necessary. I am interested to understand why those amendments should not be supported.
Sarah Olney
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s professional experience, which is extremely helpful. He is absolutely right. Following the point made by the hon. Member for Banbury, we cannot define the circumstances in which a patient will find themselves when this is taking place. That is why it is incumbent on us to make sure we provide very clear guidance on precisely what Parliament intends.
As Dr Rebecca Jones told us in written evidence:
“As the death may take many hours, I’m uncertain of the practicalities of”
doctors remaining with the patient
“for many doctors…have competing demands on their time.”
In written evidence, Dr Chris Ainsworth asked how this will work in cases where death takes several days, as has happened in Oregon, while Dr Trevor Stammers wrote:
“If the doctor is required to be present until the patient’s death, this may require hours of practitioners’ time to fulfil and is unlikely to be adhered to in many cases if the dying process is protracted.”
Dr Rachel Fisher said in her written evidence that for Australian doctors, who are not required to be present at the final act, each assisted death requires around 60 hours of professional time. For British doctors, we will need to add the time it takes for the self-administration to result in death. Dr Fisher also raised the real impact on doctors, writing,
“imagine the practicalities of those who must deliver it. The GP, motivated by a deep desire to preserve life and relieve suffering arrives at the home of the patient with a cocktail of powerful drugs. What if the patient has symptoms? Who will collect their child from nursery or school if the patient takes a long time to die? How will they know when to decide the death was unsuccessful? Will there be counselling for GPs observing and feeling complicit in a potentially drawn out and symptomatic death?”
Finally, Dr Paul Shaw asked in his written evidence:
“How will this service be funded? What support will be required from the NHS when things go wrong or death takes longer than expected? Will this be a 0900-1700hrs service? What will be the out of hours arrangements?”
A lot of the written evidence touches on the practicalities of a doctor being required to remain with the patient until they die. Amendment 429, in the name of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, seeks to clarify whether “being with the patient” requires the doctor to be physically present in the room.
Sarah Olney
The hon. Gentleman gives me an opportunity to conclude my remarks. I support amendment 429 because it is important to provide clarity that when we say “with the patient,” we mean in the room. However, I invite the Minister to expand further on the resource requirement of assisted dying. I want the doctor to remain with the patient, which I think is critical. That is why I support amendment 429, but the implication of the Bill is a considerable resource requirement, particularly for GPs, and I would like the Minister to respond to that.
Dr Opher
I am glad to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. First, I will briefly address the whole area that we are talking about. GPs who are involved in terminal care will go and see a patient as they are slowly dying; we do not know at any point what will happen, and almost anything can happen. I have sat with people who may at any point have a massive pulmonary haemorrhage and drown, for example, or they may just quietly go to sleep—or they may start vomiting.
What those of us in terminal care do is react to what is happening with the patient. For example, if they start to be sick, we would give them an anti-emetic; if they start to become very agitated we would then give them midazolam. What I am saying is that this is normal medical care. We have to be very careful not to stipulate in the Bill what is actually normal medical care.
I understand that what we are proposing is a new option that has not been there before, and we know that there are complications. But in a terminal situation, there would be no occurrence where we would call an emergency ambulance and take them to hospital, for example.
Sean Woodcock
My hon. Friend speaks with a lot of knowledge, and every time he contributes I learn something about the medical profession. My challenge to him is that while he is right that at the end of someone’s life GPs and doctors are used to looking after somebody, and there are lots of different complications from medical treatment, in the situation we are talking about the treatment—if we can call it that—is to end their life. That is a distinct difference. Something has gone wrong if their life has not ended suddenly or peacefully, as they were hoping. That means that they might die hours or days later, potentially in agony, or they will linger on, potentially also in agony. The amendment is to try and clarify what then happens, because I would suggest that this is very different from a normal medical procedure.
Dr Opher
I thank my hon. Friend for his sensitive and clear worry. But it is important to note that we would not in any circumstances try to do something that would finish someone’s life after they had been given their self-take medicine, because that is against the law. In the Bill we have made a clear distinction between the doctor—a euthanasian, if you like—taking the life, and the patient taking medicine that finishes life. What we need to do is simply support the patient. If, as my hon. Friend suggests, they are in pain we would give them a morphine drip, which is in common use in terminal care. I absolutely respect what he says, but the same treatment principles would be in place as in terminal care.
Danny Kruger
Even in terminal care, when it is understood that a patient is close to death, doctors would surely not overlook a patient for whom an assisted death is clearly failing. The hon. Gentleman suggests that it would be inappropriate to—and that he would never—call an ambulance, or send a patient to A&E; I wonder whether he also means that he would never seek to revive a patient or bring them back to life, as it were, if they were experiencing complications. To his often-repeated suggestion that there is no difference between this and normal medical treatment, there is an enormous difference. Doctors administer lethal drugs to a patient, and are then also supposed to be somehow caring for the patient in the traditional way that doctors should. These things are inherently incompatible, and there is a choice between the two : is the doctor helping the patient to die, or is he helping them to live? That questions remains, and does he not acknowledge that there will be circumstances where it would be appropriate to revive the patient, and seek to support them as if they were living?
Dr Opher
I almost agreed with the hon. Gentleman earlier, when he asked at one point, should we not just leave this to doctors?
One of the key things the hon. Gentleman said is that the doctor administers the drug. This is self-administered, first of all, so that is a very clear line. However, also, in a case of terminal care—this is what I am trying to get across to the Committee—we know the patient is dying, and therefore if they are becoming worse we simply do things to make them comfortable, and we do not try to revive them, because they are dying. It is important that we realise that this is a very different medical situation from normal care, and that it actually needs very different skills as a doctor. Here, a doctor is not trying to prolong life, but trying to make a death as comfortable as possible.
That is why I support the Bill—because I think it will enhance a comfortable death. I wanted to make it clear that that is normal practice now in terminal care: we do not revive a patient with a terminal diagnosis who is in terminal care, but we make them comfortable.
Sojan Joseph
This is a very good discussion, and with a clinician as well—maybe my hon. Friend can help here. Are we leaving the Bill to professionals to administer, who might be confused and not clear about what they should be doing? In normal current practice, when somebody has a poor prognosis and is very fragile; we use “do not resuscitate” or “do not attempt CPR” decisions. Why do we not build that into the Bill—that everyone who is going through this process should have a DNR or DNACPR in place?
Dr Opher
I thank my hon. Friend for his experience in a clinical setting. I would remind everybody that in the Bill we are trying to help people die in a comfortable way, and I do not feel it is the Bill’s job to define exactly how we treat nausea or abdominal obstruction and so on. What we would like to do here is ensure that a patient has a pain-free death, and a death that they are in control of.
Dr Opher
I will make a little progress and will then take my hon. Friend’s intervention.
On amendment 436, all medical practitioners are required under their code of practice to record any event they come across. I feel there should be better data and I agree with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that we need to collect data. We are actually very good at doing that in the NHS. Under clauses 21 and 22 there are provisions for the Secretary of State to collect data on complications. I am therefore not sure that particular amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central is necessary. I think I have covered amendment 464, from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire.
On amendment 429, about the doctor being in the same room, I totally understand the anxieties presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, but I feel that whether the doctor is there should be the choice of the family and the patient. There may be some confusion about this, but to me, what the Bill implies—I am interested to hear the Government’s opinion—is that the doctor should deliver the medicine to the patient, check that the patient is willing to take the medicine as per amendment 462 from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, give the medicine to the patient, and then ask the family whether they want them to be there or in the next room. They need to be available, but do they need to be in the same room? I think that should be the choice of the family.
Daniel Francis
I hear what my hon. Friend says, but the wording of clause 18(9) and (10) is ambiguous. Subsection (9) says that the co-ordinating doctor must remain with the person until “the person has died”, but subsection (10) says that the doctor
“need not be in the same room”.
I do not want to get into measuring metres, but where exactly is that place? Is it in the same room or is it in the same building? If it is in the same building, you cannot possibly be with the person until they die. Does my hon. Friend have comments on that?
Dr Opher
I am interested to hear what the Government say about the wording around that amendment and whether it is safe. I would defer to the Minister on that.
Amendment 430 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, about a code of practice that must address complications and failures, is quite a strong amendment and I am willing to support it. If as doctors we have a code of practice about how we handle this type of thing, the amendment would potentially help, and perhaps answer some of the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury.
I do not believe that amendment 255 from my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke is necessary. I believe it should be dealt with under clause 21.
I believe that the very well put amendments 532 and 533 from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich could be covered by amendment 430.
Dr Opher
I am in two minds about the doctor being present until the patient dies. In the circumstances, we need to encourage this to happen at home predominantly, because I think that is where most people would prefer to do this action. We perhaps need to look further at whether the doctor needs to stay, in the rare situation where the patient goes on.
Let me conclude by saying that I know that the amendments all come from a good place, and that this is an anxious time, but terminal care is an anxious time for doctors, for patients, for everyone, because we do not know exactly what is going to happen. The Bill allows someone a way of dying, when they have a terminal illness, that has a bit more exactitude than normal practice.
Jack Abbott
I fully understand and am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s point about the family having privacy and space in the last moments. However—this is a genuine question—what happens if things start to go wrong? Although it is uncommon, we know it is possible. Do we expect the family members who are going through the last traumatic moments to have to go out of the room to find the doctor, albeit they might just be behind the door? I do not know that that would necessarily make it less traumatic, and for some people it could make it worse if the doctor is not there and present next to their bed.
Dr Opher
I think there is some truth in that, to be fair, but I believe we should leave it open to the family’s discretion, with the proviso that the doctor should be close at hand, whether that means outside the door or whatever. We need Government advice on whether amendment 429 is safe. I have nothing further to say.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I will cover a few of the amendments, and follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, whose points I broadly agree with.
When it comes to the location and, actually, a lot of the elements, I fear we are trying to over-specify practical matters. As in so many cases, this is not about capacity, coercion, assessment and so on; it is about the practicalities of death, and it is right that we allow the healthcare team for dying people and their families to operate with the professional skill with which they currently operate.
On amendment 429, on the doctor being in the same room, I can think of many instances in healthcare in which a healthcare professional is in an adjoining room, potentially even with a door open so there is a line of sight, and that is entirely appropriate. I think of observations, for example, in various settings. That provision is absolutely necessary and allows an appropriateness of proximity without intrusion. I am sure the doctor will be in the room at the point at which the substance is taken, but if someone then goes into unconsciousness fairly quickly, as would happen in the vast majority of cases, and then takes half an hour or so to die, it is entirely unnecessary for a doctor to be standing there in the same room, towering over the family, when they could be near at hand. I just do not think we need to specify that in the Bill.
I have some sympathy with amendments 532 and 533, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, on the Secretary of State setting out regulations, but I fear the hon. Member for East Wiltshire did an excellent job of persuading me that they should not be accepted, because when a “must” is included in that way, we get into saying, “The Secretary of State must tell a doctor exactly what they must do in every situation.” The legal parameters are clearly set out in the Bill as drafted. There is no administration by a doctor on a person’s behalf; it must all be self-done. Additionally, we have not yet mentioned the existing provisions in clause 9(2)(c), which requires, at the point of assessment, a conversation between the assessing doctor and the patient about their wishes in the event of complications or any sort of delay.
Naz Shah
I absolutely agree and share those concerns. This is important. I appreciate that we have had this debate for many days now. Is this a healthcare intervention? Is it a treatment? What words should we apply? In this instance, when it comes to drugs, there are potential side effects. We have seen that they do not work everywhere and that they create complications. We have just debated whether a doctor should be in the room, outside the room or round the corner, as well as whether they should be visible or able to see what is going on. Ultimately, this is about the drugs. Having looked at the issue, I genuinely cannot imagine anything but the MHRA in this role. Are we really going to set up something completely new, outside our health service, that regulates drugs, their side effects and the potential implications?
Dr Opher
The matter of unlicensed drugs sounds very alarming, but we cannot regulate a drug through the MHRA if it unlicensed, and we would be looking for therapeutic effect, which would not apply in this case. More importantly, many other regulatory bodies, like the pharmacy framework and the General Pharmaceutical Council—
The Chair
Order. Remember that an intervention should be a sketch, not an oil painting. It should be a question or should seek clarification; it should not be a mini-speech.
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend clearly speaks with expertise. There are other regulators, but the reason why I support amendment 465 is that the MHRA is an institution that we trust and that has the expertise. My understanding—my hon. Friend might be able to tell me differently—is that, of the regulators, the MHRA is the body that does the ultimate rubber-stamping and gives our country confidence in the national health service.
NHS England Update
Simon Opher Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for those questions. Much of the change needed can be delivered without the need for primary legislation, which is a relief because, as right hon. and hon. Members will have noticed, this Government have come into office with the most ambitious legislative programme of any incoming Government. Time is at a premium, given the business of this House and the other place. We will work immediately to move forward without changes to primary legislation, but we will need to make them. I am working with the Leader of the House and business managers to ensure an appropriate timetable that enables us to do the things that we need to do in a timely way, but that also safeguards the ambitious legislative programme that has already been set out.
The hon. Lady is right to talk about the importance of social care. She asked where the urgency is. It was to be found in the immediate steps that the Chancellor took on coming into office to stabilise the finances of my Department, with an immediate release of funding. It came with the Budget, which delivered an extra £26 billion for the Department for Health and Social Care, protected funding specifically for social care and boosted spending power for local authorities. It came with the biggest expansion of carer’s allowance since the 1970s, and an £86 million increase in the disabled facilities grant not just from next year but released in January for the remainder of this financial year. The urgency is reflected in the Employment Rights Bill, which makes provision for fair pay agreements to deal with the work- force crisis—work with employers and trade unions to prepare for that legislation and the introduction of fair pay agreements is already under way.
I regret that we have not convened cross-party talks. That is genuinely due to practicalities on the part of a number of parties involved. We will be in touch over the next week to make arrangements for Baroness Casey to engage with parties across the House.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent statement. As he knows, I am a working GP in Stroud. We clinicians are simply fed up with the micromanagement of our caring clinical role, and many hospital colleagues feel the same. We want to be free to deliver excellent clinical care. Does he think that the abolition of NHSE will reduce the admin task for doctors?
Wes Streeting
I do think that is the case. I also think that this is not just about form and function but about the opportunities for productivity gains through modern technology and practices. One of my frustrations is that whenever we talk about the exciting frontiers of life sciences and medical technology—this country’s competitive advantage, and how we need to build on that position— I am greeted with a weary sigh from poor frontline NHS staff, and managers for that matter, who say, “That’s lovely, and we agree with you, but we’d just like a machine that turns on reliably, and it would be nice to use systems that do not require seven passwords to deal with a single patient.” I feel their pain. We will prioritise that investment in technology.
Finally, we do want to liberate the frontline, and I am grateful for the leadership that GPs have shown in agreeing a contract with the Government for the first time since the pandemic, which contains substantial reform to benefit them and, even more importantly, their patients. We also have to liberate management in the NHS. As Lord Darzi said, it is not the case that there are too many managers, but there are layers and layers of bureaucracy between me as the Secretary of State and frontline staff. We have to liberate frontline staff and managers to help them be more effective, to manage their resources more efficiently and, most importantly, to deliver better and safer care.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twentieth sitting)
Simon Opher ExcerptsTuesday 11th March 2025
(2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 March 2025 - (11 Mar 2025)
Sarah Olney
The hon. Member is exactly right. An assessment of whether somebody should qualify for assisted dying needs to be based on objective criteria. If those are not met, the only way that a second independent doctor should have a role is if either the circumstances have changed or, for whatever reason, the first doctor is unable to reach a conclusion. There must not be a situation in which the first doctor has made one decision and a second doctor arrives at a different decision, because that would imply a variability in the way the objective assessments are made. Not tightening this loophole would imply that we are prepared to allow such a variability across the medical profession, and I do not think we should allow that.
My final amendment in this group is amendment 460. I am concerned that the word “particular” in clause 10(3) negates the subsection’s purpose of ensuring that only one second opinion from the co-ordinating doctor can be sought, because a person could withdraw their first declaration, make a new one and start the process afresh; that declaration would then not be the “particular” first declaration. By removing “particular”, the loophole would be closed, and the safeguard would be made more effective. This concern was brought out well in Disability Labour’s written evidence:
“We are concerned that whilst 10(3) only allows for one second opinion to be sought, there appears to be nothing in the bill that stipulates a waiting period before a new application can be made. This risks applications being repeated until a supporting opinion can be obtained, thus negating the purpose of 10(3).”
I hope the Committee will accept my amendments.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park for her considered amendments. I would like to go through all the amendments in the group.
Amendment 348 is about the doctor communicating the outcome of the assessment, but I understand that that is already covered in clause 8(5)(b), which states that, having carried out the second assessment, the independent doctor will
“provide each of the coordinating doctor and the person who was assessed with a copy of the statement.”
I therefore do not think the amendment is necessary—it would be doubling up.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I just point out that the amendment states that the independent doctor would
“inform the person’s usual or treating doctor”,
and that is not covered by the paragraph the hon. Gentleman just mentioned. I hope that is helpful.
Dr Opher
I do not see what that would add to the Bill. The co-ordinating doctor would have a result and the patient would have had the report back. I do not feel the amendment is necessary—it would over-complicate the Bill—but we can see what the Government’s legal position is on that.
Amendment 303, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, suggests that the independent doctor should have to check that there has not already been a second opinion. We need to step back a bit and remember how the Bill will work. Basically, a doctor will refer to a co-ordinating doctor, who will make a full assessment of the patient. If, having carried out the first assessment, the co-ordinating doctor is satisfied that the requirements in the Bill are met, they will refer the person for the independent assessment. That doctor will therefore need to see a report, because he is the co-ordinating doctor. He cannot then get a second opinion from a different doctor; that would not be part of the process under the Bill. I do not feel the amendment would make the Bill any safer.
Dr Opher
Actually no, I will not. I will go on, if that is okay.
Amendment 459 states that the second-opinion doctor “must produce a report” outlining their reasons for reaching a different opinion, but the whole nature of this is that the doctor is independent. As we have heard, if it is suggested that someone either is or is not allowed to get an assisted death, that might affect the assessment of the independent doctor. It would not be good medical practice to have that assessment in front of the independent doctor—that would lead to poor assessments. We need a right to a second opinion and we should have a truly independent doctor.
Amendment 460, which is the last in the group, would allow a patient only one declaration in any part of their lives, even if circumstances change. Although there will be vanishingly few instances where that would be relevant, I do not feel that such a provision would make the Bill any fairer or safer.
Amendment 143, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, would allow a second and a third opinion. It is my opinion, and the opinion of many of us, that we do not want doctor shopping. We want to allow one second opinion from an independent doctor, but not more than that.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.
I rise to speak to a couple of the amendments. Amendment 348 is likely unnecessary. I would have been minded to support it had it referred to a registered GP, but the language of “usual or treating doctor” is unconvincing. I am not sure what those terms refer to. The registered GP absolutely should be informed, and both normal practice and the provisions in the Bill about entering information into medical records would mean that that is the case. For me, “usual doctor” is not the right terminology; it does not achieve what I think some of its proponents want. With reluctance, I will vote against that amendment because it does not refer to a registered general practitioner.
On amendments 303 and 458, I believe there must be provision for a second opinion. However, I am persuaded by the points made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park about amendment 459. I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud: although the independence of the second opinion is important on matters such as the terminal prognosis, when it comes to the detection of coercion, the more information, the better. It is one thing to be independent in a medical assessment, but the amendment speaks to a psychosocial assessment. We are trying to detect coercion, so it is important that every decision maker gets further information as the process progresses.
The provision for five different touchpoints of assessment is one of the strengths of the Bill. Each assessment should be done in a way that can be progressed with more information. It is not just five different independent points of information; because of the Bill’s record-keeping provisions, the assessment should become increasingly informed throughout the process. I certainly think that the panel, or whatever we get to, should have sight of any negative assessment from an independent doctor, as well as any positive one. The panel will then be able to do its job of scrutinising the two decisions, potentially weighing them up, and calling the different doctors who have given different decisions. I am, then, persuaded by amendment 459.
Danny Kruger
What the amendment clarifies is that the doctor does not have to look at any records at all unless he or she considers them relevant. It gives total discretion to the doctor to disregard huge swathes of the patient’s history. Yes, I do expect the doctor to review the entirety of a patient’s record—obviously, the record of a childhood broken leg can be skipped over quickly. What I do not want to do, as the Bill currently does, is allow the doctor to say, “Oh, I missed this evidence of a mental health condition” or “this indication of coercion from five or 10 years ago, because I didn’t consider that aspect of their records to be relevant.” It places a significant obligation on the doctor, but that is, I am afraid, what we are doing in the Bill. We are placing huge obligations on doctors and we should do it properly.
Dr Opher
As the amendment states, it is about examining medical records for things that are relevant. If we are talking about coercion or capacity, these sorts of items will be relevant. I do not know if Members have ever seen medical records. Some people have extremely large medical records, and we have summaries for that, but if a part of that summary indicated something that we were suspicious of, we would look into it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central has just said, the complexities of childhood tonsillitis do not really need to be examined in this case. We have to, and we always do, specify what we look into doctors.
Danny Kruger
As I have said in my many exchanges with the hon. Gentleman, I want to see the good practice that he claims—absolutely accurately, I am sure—to perform is applied across the system. He says that if doctors see in the summary some indication of concerns, they will look more closely into it. Well, I jolly well hope they would. The problem is that the summary might not be complete. I suppose the distillation of my point is that we should say, “Don’t rely on the summary. Proceed with a proper analysis. Take responsibility for making sure that you have reviewed the entirety of the patient’s record.”
We have to address throughout our consideration of the Bill the workload that we are placing on busy professionals. Nevertheless, if we consider that this matters—and it is a question about knock-on effects on the NHS, which we could discuss in due course—it is appropriate to expect proper time to be taken. A specialist with two hours and a full record in front of them might spot the misdiagnoses, question the prognosis, flag the depression and catch the abuse. If given half the time and a licence to skim the record, as the amendment would give them, they could very easily miss something, so I think the word “relevant” is a great gamble.
Naz Shah
I will try to keep my remarks brief. I first speak to amendment 468, tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate, on the asking of the question why someone wants to have an assisted death. When I originally came to this debate, Dermot, a humanist who was also my election agent—a lovely guy—came to me and said, “Now that this Bill is going through Parliament, will you support it”? I said, “Explain it to me.” He never once mentioned the word “autonomy”. If I remember correctly, what he talked about was suffering, pain and horrible deaths, which many hon. Members have referred to. We have heard lots of examples during this Bill Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire said that the decision was none of a doctor’s business and that the issue was about autonomy. However, if a woman was being coerced into an assisted death, the idea that it was none of the doctor’s business would not quite wash with me. We talk about autonomy, but if someone does not have autonomy in their lives—if they are in an abusive relationship, are a victim of coercion or have a vulnerability—they might not have the choice.
When we ask a question, it is often about something else. I have experienced this myself. I am very passionate; when I am talking about things, somebody might just stop me and say, “Naz—what’s this actually about?” That is all it takes to make me stop, take a step back and a breather, and think for a deeper minute about whether the issue could actually be about something else. We do not always stop to think.
Dr Opher
The amendment is good practice; I do not in any way deny that. The hon. Member for Reigate is obviously coming from a really good place. However, the amendment is almost like specifying that when someone goes to see a doctor, the doctor has to say, “How can I help? What is wrong?” It is just unnecessary; that is my only feeling about it. If someone came in and said, “I would like to request an assisted death”, the doctor would not just say, “Okay”—they would ask how the patient was feeling. It is normal medical practice to ask what is going on in someone’s mind, so that does not need to be specified in the Bill.
Naz Shah
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There is a medical model and a social model of intervention. If I walk into a GP surgery with a really bad headache, I am prescribed paracetamol. If the headache gets worse, I am prescribed something stronger—maybe co-codamol or codeine. Doctors are really busy. We have had to add another 40,000 appointments just for people to get through systems, so we know how hard it is to get a GP appointment.
If the person who turns up at the GP’s with a headache is usually quite healthy, the doctor might not take a minute to ask about what has actually happened. If I say, “I have a headache because I am banging my head against the wall—I have that much stress”, that is a whole different conversation. Having that conversation with the patient—probing a little more—is, for me, very important from a holistic point of view.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighteenth sitting)
Simon Opher ExcerptsWednesday 5th March 2025
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 March 2025 - (5 Mar 2025)
Danny Kruger
It certainly is. Okay, so it could be either. This will be an NHS service, with all the implications for general practice, doctor-patient relations and secondary care and social care, but there will also be an opportunity to deliver it privately, without any clarity or transparency on who is being paid and how.
In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, this is different from cosmetic surgery, as even cosmetic surgery is regulated. In many ways, there is more regulation of the administering of Botox than there is in this Bill. The administering of assisted dying is of a significantly different category and gravity. It is appropriate and important that financial interests are clearly revealed and made public, particularly with the new intervention we are creating. If other hon. Members do not support the amendment, what provisions do they propose that would reveal where there may be potential conflicts of interest and how we may regulate this?
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for the amendment. The set-up of this scheme is similar to other NHS services. Essentially, a medical professional will opt in to provide the service. That will involve extensive training followed by a short exam, as it does in Australia and California, after which they will be accredited under the scheme—that is how I understand it will happen in the UK. No one is forced to provide the service, but training is offered and many doctors take that up. Therefore, it is a medically based service.
The British Medical Association will then negotiate the fee for doing the assessment with the Department of Health and Social Care. That is not about agreeing to provide the service; it is about doing the assessment. That is mirrored in many aspects of general practice, which itself is a private service contracted to the NHS. It is very complicated. It would be inaccurate to portray this as a private service, where people may profiteer, as it is based on medical professionals performing a duty for which they are trained and for which the price is clear to the general public, because it is negotiated and published.
On publishing the number of patients seen by a single doctor and the fees that doctor has accrued from the scheme, that is not something that happens for things like minor operations, which we perform outside general medical services, although we are rewarded by the Government at a set fee. There are other such services—inserting a coil, for example—where we are given a certain amount of money.
How this is arranged is very complicated. Doing appraisals, being a trainer and all these things have a price attached, and we need training before we can perform the service. I see this scheme as no different. The problem with publishing how many patients have been seen by a single doctor regarding assisted dying is that it puts a target on that doctor. As we have seen with abortion clinics and even this Committee—certain Committee members have been targeted by the press for what they have said—this is a very sensitive issue, and it would not be fair to publish the figures so that doctors could be targeted in the press and made to feel unworthy in all those ways. It is extremely difficult.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful argument about doctors being vilified in the press, but does he believe there is a risk that it may go further and present a genuine safety risk to those doctors?
Dr Opher
Exactly. That is what worries me. I acknowledge what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said about pharmaceutical sponsorship, but I do not think that has anything to do with what we are talking about here. What we are talking about is specifying what doctors are doing as part of their daily job, for which they are trained. It would not be fair to publish those figures and put those doctors at risk.
Naz Shah
I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying, because I have mixed views on this. I would like to understand what would be appropriate. My concern is that there will be a difference, because doctors normally have these set-ups for treatment options but, in this instance, the service is not a treatment, so to speak. I genuinely want to understand: in his eyes, what would a good service that provided scrutiny and accountability look like?
Dr Opher
There are examples. Appraising other doctors, for instance, is specified as a job that doctors are trained for, and it is paid at a set rate agreed with the Department of Health and Social Care. There are many instances where this occurs. I totally agree that the fee a doctor attracts for the service should be clearly specified and in the public domain, but I do not agree that a single doctor should be identified as having seen, say, 10 patients who have requested assisted death. I think that is unnecessary, will not lead to increased patient safety and will make it less safe for the medical practitioners too.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Nineteeth sitting)
Simon Opher ExcerptsWednesday 5th March 2025
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 March 2025 - (5 Mar 2025)
Rebecca Paul
This is a complex issue, and that is why I welcome the debate on this group. There are lots of things that need to be thought through to make sure that, if assisted dying is legalised, we manage it in the most effective way for patients.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for making this point, which is important, although probably not specifically relevant to what we are talking about in general with regard to making the Bill safe. Has the hon. Member for East Wiltshire not just completely contradicted the whole point of the amendment, however, by saying that we really do not know whether this process will cost more or less time for the NHS?
Rebecca Paul
Different situations will give a different result. It is a complex situation. We could have a patient who, if they did not have an assisted death, would be on a palliative care pathway, which might not involve as much time from their GP—the assessing doctor, in that instance. If they moved on to the assisted dying pathway, however, the assessment process would need to start, and it has to happen quickly for all the reasons that I have set out.
The Bill relies on doctors being highly conscientious and hard-working, but it also risks taking them for granted if it makes no allowance for the present realities that they face in our healthcare system. This amendment tries to reflect and recognise that.
In November, the hon. Member for Stroud said,
“I have watched with horror as our NHS has gone from being the best health service in the world…to being a service on its knees.”—[Official Report, 6 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 358.]
If the NHS is to get off its knees, surely we cannot afford for assisted suicide to jeopardise the care of patients who already struggle to get an appointment. We must recognise that there are people out there who cannot get an appointment to see their GP, and reflect that in the Bill.
Daniel Francis
Absolutely. This amendment, of course, is widely supported by Committee members for that very reason. As I was saying, we already use that assessment for organ donation, and Members supporting this amendment believe that should be the case for those that are seeking an assisted death.
I now move on to amendment 284, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. This amendment would change clause 9(3). Currently, that subsection lays out, and I will quote the language of the Bill, that the assessing doctor,
“(b) may, if they have doubt as to the capacity of the person being assessed, refer the person for assessment by a registered medical practitioner who is registered in the specialism of psychiatry in the Specialist Register kept by the General Medical Council or who otherwise holds qualifications in or has experience of the assessment of capability;”
This amendment would change the word “may” to “must”. In other words, the assessing doctor would have a duty to refer the person being assessed to a consultant psychiatrist if they had any doubt about that person’s capacity. I argue that this is a change that we both should make, and can easily make. If a doctor has doubts about the capacity of an applicant, it is good practice for them to refer that person to a doctor or a specialist in that field.
Dr Opher
Could I ask which amendment the hon. Member is talking about? Is it 284 or 6? Amendment 284 says that psychiatric assessment is mandatory in all cases, whereas amendment 6 says it is mandatory if capacity is in doubt. I just wondered which one he was talking about, because I support one and I do not support the other.
The Chair
Dr Opher, maybe you want to catch up on the papers and then intervene when you have a question to ask.
Jake Richards
I will be brief. I will talk about my amendment 280, which I will not press to a vote. There remains an area that needs more exploring in this legislation—it has come up in debates already, but needs to be looked at further—namely, that a person may have capacity but have other mental health conditions that may impair their judgment. In those circumstances, a more thorough assessment than the two-doctor stage there is at the moment would be right. In reality, that is very likely to happen under the current structure of the Bill. My amendment simply attempts to make sure that it is mandatory. Having had discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, I know that she is sympathetic to that.
There are amendments in the next group that aim to do the same thing. They, along with my amendment, may not be quite right. I urge the Government to look at this issue and see how we can work together to come to a conclusion, because I think that all members of the Committee would want that. I also support amendment 6, as I think everyone does.
Dr Opher
I apologise, Mrs Harris—I have got slightly confused with all the amendments. I do not have a speech that has been prepared for me, or anything like that, but I would like to make some comments. I think this is about the role of psychiatry and capacity, and how we deal that in the Bill. All these amendments reflect that. I would like to concentrate on whether we should actually mandate referral for all patients to a consultant psychiatrist, or adopt amendment 6, which suggests that if one of the two assessing doctors has concerns about either capacity or mental health, they should refer the patient to a psychiatrist. Those are the two choices I think we have here.
Danny Kruger
I appreciate the hon. Member’s point, and it is very logical that it should only be in the case of doubt, but does he not recognise that in the case of organ donation, it is mandatory? If people have this proper assessment when they are giving an organ, why should they not be asked to have one if they propose to give their life?
Dr Opher
That is an interesting point, but we are not discussing organ donation, and we are dealing in a different environment here; the patients we are talking about are about to die, and all we are giving them is the right to control the moment and manner of that death. I acknowledge that using a psychiatrist in organ donation has its benefits, but in this service, getting every patient—who, for example, are frail and ill by definition, because they are about to die—to see a psychiatrist is frankly neither applicable nor appropriate.
Kim Leadbeater
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. If we think about some of the people we have met—the families who have lost loved ones to terminal illness and the patients who are terminally ill—they are very clear in their decision. For me, it would be another barrier to those patients, who are dying people, to make them see a psychiatrist for every single case.
Danny Kruger
It is a very important point. Yes, we are talking about those people, but we are also talking about a different category of people who have a terminal diagnosis of six months or more, and may only be reasonably expected to die within six months. I am not just talking about people at the very end of their life, who are at death’s door; we are talking about people who qualify for the Bill, which is a much larger category of people, so it is appropriate to require them to do this.
Dr Opher
I agree with all of this. I think psychological assessment is incredibly important in all patients, and I personally specialise in it from a primary care basis. But we are suggesting here that the two other doctors have no ability to do any sort of psychological assessment, and that is simply not true.
Dr Opher
I apologise to my hon. Friend; I will continue for a little bit. We use secondary care and psychiatrists when we have a doubt about our decisions. If we have a doubt, then it is entirely appropriate to use psychiatrists in that instance, and we must do so. That is why I approve of amendment 6.
Kit Malthouse
As I understand it, I do not think if someone is donating an organ that they do actually have to see a psychiatrist; they have to see somebody who is an appropriately trained assessor from the Human Tissue Authority. To me, that sounds equivalent to the second doctor in our process—someone who is appropriately trained to assess patients and what they need to do. This talk of it having to be a qualified registered psychiatrist, compared with an organ donation, is incorrect.
Dr Opher
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. By amending clause 12 to include social workers, who specialise in spotting coercion, there would be a psychological component in that panel. I emphasise that the first two doctors are trained in psychological assessment—they have to be to become a doctor, and we must respect their knowledge and decision making. Psychiatrists will be incredibly useful in difficult cases of capacity, but using them in every case would not be using them in the best capacity.
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. I do not question the capability of those doctors, but how does that square with the concerns of the Royal College of Psychiatrists that if a doctor has never met the person before, they cannot make an assessment on coercion? That might impact on capacity.
The Chair
Dr Opher, I remind you yet again that “you” is me, and I have not asked you any questions. It is “my hon. Friend”.
Dr Opher
I am grateful that you have not intervened as well, Mrs Harris. You did say that I am allowed to call you “you”.
I will finish on this serious point. Amendment 6 has much power, and we would all agree that if the first or second doctor has doubts, they must—not may—refer to a psychiatrist. Expecting every patient who requests assisted death to have a psychological or psychiatric assessment is simply not necessary, and it would not improve the safety of this Bill.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
Simon Opher ExcerptsTuesday 4th March 2025
(3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 4 March 2025 - (4 Mar 2025)
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I will briefly go through my impressions of the amendments. A lot of amendments in this group call to mind one of the difficulties that we are having in Committee, which is about the role of professional integrity against what we should be putting down in law. One problem is that, if we state something in law and a professional does not do it, then they are acting in an illegal way—and that introduces a different concept into a medical consultation. We must be very careful about introducing to a medical consultation a load of requirements in law, therefore reducing the freedom of that consultation whereby the doctor and patient can decide on what is best for the patient.
Amendment 342 is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. I reiterate that all the amendments have been tabled in good faith, and I absolutely respect them. The amendment would mean that the initial doctor—who is likely to be a GP—to whom the person comes and wants to speak to about assisted dying “must” conduct a preliminary discussion, rather than
“may (but is not required to)”.
The problem there is that some doctors will be conscientious objectors to assisted dying and we have to protect their integrity. We must not force them to do something that is against their will.
I note that amendment 341, which we will come to later, is about the obligation to give information to the patient if they ask for assisted dying. That is an appropriate amendment, but forcing a doctor who does not agree with assisted dying to discuss it is not fair on the medical practitioner. That is not what the Bill is about. In many other places, there is freedom for the medical doctor to avoid getting involved in discussions if they do not wish to. That is an incredibly important part of, and concept in, this Bill. Without that, I think the medical profession would not accept the Bill. That is very important.
Amendment 285 is about needing to consult a specialist in the relevant illness. I think we need to understand the process of what will happen under the Bill. Let us take an example of a patient under an oncologist—a cancer specialist. The oncologist will almost certainly say at some point during the consultation with the patient, “I think that there is no further treatment that is going to prolong your life, and you are likely to have six months or less to live.” That will be done by a specialist. I do not know general practitioners who would confidently predict a prognosis of six months or less; it would come from a specialist. Indeed, cancer care in this country, until the palliative phase, is generally run by specialists and hospitals. GPs are not generally involved, apart from to support the patient. However, if the oncologist feels that the patient has less than six months to live, they would probably come to see the doctor under this legislation, and the initial discussion will then take place. They will already have a steer as to the likely prognosis.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I am trying to understand. My hon. Friend is saying that the oncologist is a specialist, but that they might not be the first doctor to have the first discussion; he said that they might not want to be a part of this process. I would like to understand that a bit more.
Dr Opher
As far as I see, under the Bill there is an initial discussion when a patient who is requesting assisted dying goes to see a medical practitioner. It does not specify what type of practitioner, which is good because it means they can ask either the oncologist or the general practitioner. That initial discussion is with a doctor, and then the doctor will refer for the first declaration, or they may do the first declaration themselves. That is how the Bill is set out, but the general practitioner will have had specialist opinions on the patient. They would not just say, “Well, maybe you’ve got less than six months to live—I don’t really know, but let’s have a guess.” This will be based on informed information from a specialist.
Danny Kruger
I do not want to labour the point, but does the hon. Member not acknowledge the Bill does not require that at the moment? He is saying that it will happen. Why will it happen—just because the doctors do their job well? Does he recognise there is no obligation to have this wide consultation with other specialists under the Bill? The doctor could do just as he has described and take a decision on their own.
Dr Opher
Again, this is a really interesting part of the Bill. If a doctor is routinely giving prognoses of six months where that is not appropriate, they will come up against the General Medical Council for being poor doctors, and the regulation around poor doctors is within the medical profession. If it is proven that someone has given a diagnosis that they cannot back up in any way, they would then be subject to their own professional standards. That is one of the things here: we cannot go through this Bill and specify the medical requirements at every stage, because that comes under a different format, which is called the General Medical Council. If someone has given a prognosis of six months or less, and if that is clearly inaccurate and would be contested by other doctors, they would be brought before the General Medical Council.
Lewis Atkinson
Does my hon. Friend agree that the provision of a further independent doctor assessment—both one and two—in addition to the doctor conducting the initial discussion, would provide a further safeguard for a diagnosis, if terminality could not be supported by other professionals?
Dr Opher
I absolutely agree. We are imagining that the doctors will all be independent and will not know anything about what other doctors have said, but there will be communication and access to medical records, and they will also tell the original doctor what their opinion is, and so on.
If we accept these amendments, we risk over-embroidering the Bill, which will make it almost impossible for doctors to say anything in a consultation. We must leave that free, because that is a central tenet of medical care, and if we put laws around it, there will be legal process over the medical consultation, and doctors will be frozen with fear about breaking the law. They are regulated by the GMC, and we are all terrified of referrals to the General Medical Council for that very reason: because we are trying to operate at the best standard that we can. I truly understand the amendments, but I do not think they will make the Bill any safer, and that is what we are all here for.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I am very sympathetic to the amendment and have thought long and hard about it. Can my hon. Friend explain to me, from his experience, but also from looking at the Bill and speaking to others, the effect of clause 4(4)(b)? As a non-clinician layperson, it appears to me that if a medical practitioner is discussing the likely effect of any treatment, then by its very nature that would lead to a discussion about prognosis, and the uncertainty and certainty around that.
Dr Opher
What my hon. Friend points out is absolutely true. The Bill’s drafting is simple but very effective. For prognosis, for example, it says that it is
“reasonably…expected within 6 months.”
As we have discussed many times in this Committee, prognosis is not exact; it is an estimate. It suggests that the patient has a terminal illness—that is to say, the illness will lead to their death. All we are arguing about is exactly when that will happen. It is reasonable to say, as doctors already do, “It is likely that you have six months to live.” That is not exact—as doctors, we cannot predict the future, even if people think we can. I totally accept that. However, we can make estimates as to what is likely to happen.
As my hon. Friend just mentioned, there are lots of really good news stories of people living longer than their prognosis. However, for the Bill to be effective, and to give relief to people who genuinely need it, we have to have a prognosis, based on medical evidence, of six months.
Dr Opher
Again, I bring my hon. Friend back to the fact that this is a Bill in law, and what we have to guide us as doctors is the General Medical Council, which sets standards for doctors. That is how we do it. If we are hemmed in by legal matters, we can break the law without being aware of it, if we are not careful. If too many legal parameters are set around medical consultations, the patient will get less good care because the doctor will not be free to offer it. I can see that my hon. Friend does not agree with that, but it is the case.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Gentleman is praying in aid the General Medical Council as if it is some sort of effective backstop. He says that the guidance does not need to be in the Bill because it is there hovering over doctors anyway, but the Bill makes explicit reference to GMC guidance—some of it is in there. If he objects to our suggestion to include the full GMC guidance in the communication that should be had, why does he support the presence of some of the guidance that doctors should give? The Bill does not include what the GMC requires: uncertainties about diagnosis or prognosis. Why not include the full GMC guidance in the Bill, seeing as we are including some of it already?
Dr Opher
Sorry, Mr Efford. I do not deny that the hon. Member makes a good point, but if we embroider this too much, the Bill will not be safe. That has been the case throughout. Any good medical care is based on giving treatment, availability and the likely effects of that, and on giving prognosis and the chance of the prognosis being longer or shorter. That is all based in good clinical care.
On amendment 343, the uncertainties of estimates of how long a person has to live are covered in clause 2(1)(b):
“the person’s death in consequence of that illness, disease or medical condition can reasonably be expected within 6 months.”
“Reasonably” is part of the Bill. It suggests that one cannot say that the estimate is exact. The Bill does not say that it is exact; it says that it is a reasonable estimate of that person’s life. I think that takes care of that amendment.
In amendment 344,
“the risks and benefits of such treatment, potential side effects, and the impact of the treatment”
are covered by
“any treatment available and the likely effect of it”
in clause 4(4)(b). My general point is that none of the amendments are actually wrong; they are just unnecessary. I would like to leave it at that.
Lewis Atkinson
I will be brief, as I am conscious that the Committee needs to make progress. I will speak briefly to amendment 275 in my name, which, as others have said, amends the current reference of “any available” to “all appropriate”. Listen—people at the end of their life deserve the best. They deserve to know about and have the option to access all appropriate care. In my experience of the NHS, that is exactly what clinical teams ensure patients get. But we need to guard against any suggestion that the information given should be somehow filtered around availability, which I know is not the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.
In my experience, views on availability are often incorrect anyway, so ensuring that “all appropriate” options are offered in information is the best thing to do. If nothing else, it creates a level of societal pressure to ensure that all appropriate care is available, which I hope we can all support.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Simon Opher ExcerptsTuesday 25th February 2025
(1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 February 2025 - (25 Feb 2025)
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I would like to make a short comment. It is very important that the Committee does not get too hung up on anorexia, because the Bill is very clear about what is excluded. Deprivation of nutrition is always reversible. Someone who is anorexic and about to die would go into multi-organ failure and be unconscious and unable to give any sort of consent. Before that, the nutritional deprivation is reversible and therefore not covered under the Bill.
Danny Kruger
I just wanted the hon. Gentleman to comment on the reality in our NHS at the moment that people are described as terminally ill with anorexia. They are given the label of being terminally ill and put on palliative care pathways because it is assumed that their condition is not reversible. Doctors today, in this country, are concluding that people with eating disorders are going to die and are treating them accordingly. Is he aware of that, and how does it affect his comments?
Dr Opher
I am not aware of that. I believe that this is always reversible until a person goes into the absolute terminal stage of multi-organ failure. Before that, we can reverse nutritional deprivation. I do not accept that point, and I think it is important that we look at the Bill in all its detail. I think it has enough safeguards to exclude someone with anorexia.
The Chair
I have received a manuscript amendment from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that he wishes to move. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a manuscript amendment requires a very high bar and exceptional circumstances. I do not believe that exceptional circumstances are present, and he will be aware that further amendments can be proposed to the clause for consideration on Report. That is my decision on the matter.
Rebecca Paul
I thank the hon. Lady for that extremely good news. That would definitely be helpful and provide some reassurance.
Amendments 9 and 10 are essential to ensure that those people who are never intended to eligible for assisted dying under this Bill are kept outside of it. Amendment 9 seeks to ensure that it is not just illnesses that can be reversed by treatment, but illnesses where the progress can be controlled or substantially slowed by treatment, that are ineligible—diabetes being the classic case, which can be slowed and controlled by treatment. Amendment 10 further bolsters that by ensuring that treatments that improve prognosis are not disregarded under clause 2(1)(a).
The problem that we have with clause 2 in its current form is that it fails to distinguish between those who are truly at the end of their life and those who only become terminal if they do not access treatment. There is no requirement for a person to be receiving medical care when their prognosis is assessed, which means that many manageable but irreversible conditions—like diabetes, potentially, and chronic kidney disease—could qualify as terminal if treatment is stopped. Let us take the example of someone with type 1 diabetes, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), who tabled these amendments. If she were to stop taking her insulin, she might meet the criteria for terminal illness under the Bill and qualify for an assisted death—I mean, I certainly hope she would not. Without treatment, type 1 diabetes could arguably be an inevitably progressive and irreversible condition that would result in death within weeks or months.
Dr Opher
There is nothing inevitable about a diabetic getting worse; they just need to take the right treatment, so I would say that “inevitable” is a key word. I respect what the hon. Lady is saying about the amendments, and they do have some value, but I do think it is covered by the current language—
“inevitably progressive…disease…which cannot be reversed.”
I think “inevitable” and “cannot be reversed” are enough of a safeguard to make this a good clause.
Rebecca Paul
I know the hon. Member has a huge amount of experience on this matter given his career, so I thank him for that contribution.
It must not be forgotten that it is the nature of such illnesses for there to be periods of unwellness, when people are at their lowest ebb, and it is our job to protect them from something that could sound appealing at that moment in time. The crux of this issue is that—subject to the point that the hon. Member for Spen Valley made about the improvements that we may now see following the amendments that we have just discussed—the Bill makes no distinction between a condition that is inevitably fatal and one that could be substantially slowed with treatment.
Naz Shah
It is absolutely what is guiding me. I am sure we all know people who were told that they had six months to live and have lived a lot longer. We have heard stories of people who were told that they had six months to live and lived beyond 20 years more. We have heard lots of tragic cases, for example in the world of Dr Jamilla Hussain, that would really benefit from the Bill’s being available to them. But equally, there are other families whose loved ones have survived—and not just survived, but thrived for years and years. In fact, a close friend of mine, who happens to be a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, was diagnosed not to live very long. It was an emotional time for her daughters. Eighteen and a half years later, she is still alive, well and thriving.
Naz Shah
I am happy to withdraw that comment, given the welcome intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. When intervening on me in a previous sitting of the Committee, she stressed that most of the assisted deaths of people with eating disorders took place in the Netherlands and Belgium. The survey that Ms Roff and her colleagues carried out did find that the Netherlands and Belgium had more assisted deaths of people with eating disorders than Oregon, but it also found that Oregon itself had more than one such case. California and Colorado have also accepted people with eating disorders as subjects for assisted death. I remind hon. Members that, as I noted earlier, Oregon has a considerably smaller population than England and Wales. In 2023, the last year for which we have full data, Oregon had a population of just 4.25 million. By contrast, England and Wales had a population of 60.85 million—more than 14 times higher.
Perhaps it is the case that Oregon has had two assisted deaths for anorexia sufferers, as one witness told the Committee. In England and Wales, we have 14 times the population of Oregon. If it became legal for sufferers of advanced-stage anorexia to take their lives by assisted dying, we would almost certainly have more cases than Oregon.
Naz Shah
Absolutely not. That is not the point that I am making. Eating disorders are reversible, but it has been found that where this kind of legislation has been enacted, across the globe, somebody who has anorexia and decides not to eat then falls within the scope of assisted dying because it becomes a terminal illness.
Dr Opher
Actually, there is a lot of debate about whether terminal states of eating disorders actually exist or not, so they cannot be said to be a real thing in that way. Some people in the profession think they certainly do not exist, so I would contest the point made by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire.
Naz Shah
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but the truth of the matter is we have 10 cases that have gone to the Court of Protection. In nine of those 10 cases, judges ruled that the young people—women and girls, one was only 19—did have the capacity not to take treatment.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Simon Opher ExcerptsWednesday 29th January 2025
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 January 2025 - (29 Jan 2025)
The Chair
Colleagues, if we are to try to get everybody in, I will have to confine Members to one question each from now on. Panel, if you could, be kind and, without denying us the information we need, keep your answers as brief as possible.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
Q
Dr McLaren: Again, each of our states, as well as the Australian Capital Territory, has different legislation and therefore different processes. In broad speaking terms, say in Victoria, for example, a patient will express their wish to engage in voluntary assisted dying independently, and often they are connected to the state-wide patient navigator service, which will connect them with a doctor to receive that patient’s first request and become their co-ordinating medical practitioner. That doctor will then conduct the patient’s co-ordinating assessment and determine whether they believe the patient is eligible or ineligible. If the patient is eligible, the doctor will refer them on to a consulting doctor, or a doctor who acts as the consulting doctor, for a consulting assessment.
If that process is also approved and the patient is found eligible, they meet again with the co-ordinating medical practitioner to make a written application to engage in voluntary assisted dying. That process then goes to our review board, to ensure that it is compliant with the legislation, before we can apply for a permit to prescribe the medication. The permits are specific to our state; many other states, such as Dr Fellingham’s, do not require a specific permit for individual prescription. The permit will come back within three days, and then we write a prescription, which goes to our centralised pharmacy service. The pharmacy will wait for the patient or the contact person to contact the pharmacy and organise the delivery or dispensing of the medication.
In Victoria, self-administered oral medication will be dispensed to the patient, and that is then their property; they may use it immediately or never use it—that is completely up to them. They do not require medical attendance at that time, although I have provided that on many occasions, sitting with a patient and their family as the patient has taken their medication and died. If the medication is not used, the contact person nominated by the patient is legally required to return the medication to the pharmacy.
If the patient is unable to ingest or digest oral medication, we can apply for practitioner administration, which I believe your Bill does not currently provide for. This authorises a co-ordinating medical practitioner to administer the medication, either via a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tube or by other means, including intravenously, to the patient to bring about their death. I have certainly done that—I do not keep count, but I have engaged in that many a time.
Dr Opher
Actually, my question has already been asked.
Chelsea Roff: May I respond briefly? I want to address the question. I know it is not your intention for eating disorders to be included in this Bill, and I am grateful for that. When I started our research, I thought, “We just need stronger safeguards.” That was where I began, and after looking at 33 jurisdictions around the world, I have real doubt about whether safeguards are enough; I know how difficult it is to put it on the page, and I am seeing it expand and be applied through interpretation. I disagree with Professor Shakespeare, respectfully, that diabetes is a reversible condition. You cannot go back in time and reverse that condition.
I agree that you are doing this for a noble purpose, and there are members of my family that want this Bill to go through, and yet I emphasise to all of you on the Committee that the question before you is: could this Bill have knock-on effects for some of your most vulnerable constituents? How many deaths are you okay with? If the safeguards fail once, that is a human being who maybe, in a despairing moment, was handed a lethal medication instead of the care, the treatment and the help they needed. That is what we are talking about. You really have to get this right, because those people are depending on you.
Lewis Atkinson
Q
Yogi Amin: I have worked in a range of medical treatment cases over many years, covering different illnesses and conditions, and clause 2 reads fine to me. It works. It is clear. I do not consider that it needs any additional words. I can understand, when we go to court, that cases will come through and they will fall within those definitions, and it will be clear. I do not consider anorexia to come under a terminal illness unless it is right at the end of life, and that does not really fit within the parameters of the Bill, because we are not talking about right at the end of life. We have section 63 of the Mental Health Act, which deals with anorexia, and there is force-feeding that clinicians consider. That is my view on the anorexia side of things.
Doctors will provide the evidence on terminal illness. You heard from the chief medical officer yesterday, and they will provide guidance around all of that. Subsequent to the Bill, there will be secondary legislation and then the guidance. They will provide clear guidance that will then feed into this and the evidence that will be before a judge that says, “Yes, it is a terminal illness, and this is the prognosis” and so on. It is nothing different from what we produce in medical treatment cases before the court at the moment, where the doctors produce expert reports and give evidence. They explain the condition, the prognosis and their decision on capacity, and they explain what is in the best interests of an individual if they lack capacity. As I understand it, the Bill is crafted to produce the evidence as you go along the path here, and then eventually to the judge.
Chelsea Roff: May I add one sentence, because it is related to eating disorders? I would refer to a 2012 Court of Protection case, where a 29-year-old with anorexia was described as being in the terminal stage of her illness and multiple physicians described her death as inevitable. I would also refer to a 2023 case seen at the Court of Protection, which said, “I recognise with deep regret that it will probably mean that she will die.” She was also described as being at the “pre-death stage”. Again, that young woman is still alive and still fighting for services. Although I respect what Mr Amin is saying, and I agree with his interpretation, we have case law in the UK where people with anorexia are being found to be terminal. We have to take that reality into account.
Yogi Amin: I do not think they were found to be terminal. They were described by a doctor in a case as being terminal, and that doctor may not have described it properly.
Chelsea Roff: Indeed, but a judge will be relying on doctors.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Money)
Simon Opher ExcerptsWednesday 22nd January 2025
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 22 January 2025 - (22 Jan 2025)
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) is right that this is not unprecedented; in fact, it is the normal procedure for a money resolution relating to a private Member’s Bill to be debated ahead of Report. That is not true of Government Bills, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, it is really important that we examine the detail of what we are presented with today, which is an open-ended commitment. The wording makes it absolutely clear that
“any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and…any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act”,
money is so provided. The hon. Lady says that this is not a blank cheque, but it cannot get much more blank than that. Essentially, any moneys associated with the Bill—if it becomes an Act—will be provided.
Pertinent to this vote, we have to ask the question: where will that money come from? Presumably it can come only from existing resource, and one assumes palliative care; it will not come from A&E, surgical treatments or GPs, so it will presumably come from that source. One does not know, of course, but it is perfectly reasonable to ask that question.
Sir John Hayes
I will in a second.
On the judicial point, I simply say to the hon. Lady that the establishment of a judicial competence to deal with this system will be resource-hungry. To offer her a parallel example, when I took the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 through the House, we established what was then described as a double lock—it became a triple lock—which required a whole new judicial function to make it happen. It may well be that the same applies in this case, with immense cost and immense pressure on an already overstretched judiciary.
Therefore, in considering those precise matters—not the ethics of the Bill, which are an entirely different consideration, and highly questionable—it is absolutely right and pertinent to ask what this will cost, when, and how it will be delivered. Those questions have not been answered. I scanned the hon. Lady’s speech on Second Reading, and it contained no mention of scale or cost. That is why I am immensely sceptical about what we have before us. While I accept that the money resolution is not unprecedented, it is certainly not desirable.
Maya Ellis
I will not, if that is all right. Sorry.
At the other end of the spectrum, we need to be acutely aware that we are not today expanding overall budgets in the NHS, so what we agree to in this money resolution will put further strain on our already stretched NHS. That means that, for example, St Catherine’s hospice in my constituency, which already requires private fundraising for almost 80% of its income, will have further NHS funding pulled away to accommodate publicly funded assisted dying. It is prudent for us to make clear what we put at risk if we vote through the Bill, having agreed this money resolution. The resolution means that money for palliative care will likely be diminished. The House should consider that in the next stages of the Bill, given what it is supposedly designed to alleviate.
Finally, let us make it clear what we are agreeing to today. I have asked a few times, and never really got a clear answer, why making assisted dying legal has to go hand in hand with a commitment to funding assisted dying on the NHS. Most of us, including me, fiercely protect the idea of an NHS that is free at the point of use, but we risk maternity services encouraging women to pursue induced births rather than planned caesareans, partly because of resource limitations in the NHS. I caution against an agreement to spend money on guaranteeing dignity in dying when we lag so far behind on guaranteeing dignity in birth, and in many other areas.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I would like to raise a couple of practical and principled concerns about the finances around assisted dying. First, on the practical, I welcome the comment from my hon. Friend the Minister that there will be an impact assessment in due course. However, until we see it, we have no idea what the measure will cost. We are being asked to approve a blank cheque for assisted dying. We have heard that the NHS is a blank cheque, but the NHS has a clearly defined budget. At this point, we do not have any sense of what the Bill will cost. If that were the case for any other legislation, we would be shouting about it.
The Bill represents a profound change to the very nature of our healthcare system, and we are simply guessing at the cost. That is not good for the Bill Committee’s ability to scrutinise, and not good for this place, or for the democratic and legislative process. In order to legislate well, we need a firm commitment. I am glad to have heard that the impact assessment will be published before Report. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) that the motion is routine, and I accept that. However, the consequences are extraordinary, and that is why this is an important moment.
On the principle, whatever the cost, once it is assessed, and despite the Government’s recent financial boost for the hospice sector, palliative care is massively underfunded. The postcode lottery in the provision of end of life care has led to some of the horror stories that we heard on Second Reading. The hospice sector has only 30% of its funding provided by central Government, so this technical stage represents a commitment to taking potentially scarce funding from end of life care and allocating it to ending lives.
David Smith
I do not have time. That opens up the dark possibility of a race to the bottom—to looking for savings in the health and social care budget. Any Government would be tempted, where cost saving is a possibility, to push assisted dying as a cost-saving measure; we have seen that in jurisdictions such as Canada.
Finally, let me say this with humility and respect to my hon. Friends on my left. I fear that the Bill will lead to the marketisation of death and dying. We have learned from other jurisdictions that many medical services and clinicians do not want to be part of the delivery of assisted dying, for reasons of principle or because they fear that they will be sued. Independent private health organisations will have to take over to fill the space. Those businesses will have shareholders and annual reports. They will be driven by the desire to maximise profit, with death for the bottom line. They will advertise and seek to expand their market share.
David Smith
I am sorry; I am almost finished. This could seem like a tangential point to make on a money resolution, but, to summarise this and my other points, I fear the consequences of the relationship between money—this resolution in particular—and assisted dying. Although I will not be voting against this resolution, because I believe in the democratic process, I think we seriously need to consider the relationship between money and this Bill.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Last summer’s Labour manifesto included the words
“Fully costed, fully funded—built on a rock of fiscal responsibility”,
and they were words on which I was proud to be elected. Money resolutions are normally a formality, but not this one—not today. This resolution asks us to give a blank cheque to this Bill, which makes me nervous, because that sounds like something that we in this changed Labour party just do not do. When we put forward a proposal for public spending, we know how we will fund it.
Antonia Bance
No, I will not.
In the case of this Bill, we not only do not know how much it will cost or how it will be paid for, but we do not even know what the money will be spent on. Let us think of the questions that we do not know the answers to. What will be the cost of NHS doctors attending the final appointment and waiting while their patient dies? What will be the cost of a second doctor to sign off? What drugs will be used, and how much will they cost? Will assisted dying happen in hospitals, in hospices or in new, purpose-built facilities? How many will there be, and where?
Obesity: Food and Diet
Simon Opher Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of food and diet on obesity.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating parliamentary time to this crucial issue. We were actually going to have this debate before Christmas, but we decided that before Christmas was not a good time to discuss obesity; we were then going to have it last week, but it was postponed. I am really grateful to colleagues across the House for supporting the debate.
Our country has an obesity crisis that is threatening the health and wellbeing of the whole nation. It is a cross-party issue: since 1990, rates of obesity have doubled. Two thirds of all adults in the UK are carrying excess weight, and a quarter of adults are classified as obese. The figures are even more worrying in children: 10% of children aged four, when they enter school, are obese; that figure rises to 22%—nearly one in four—in year 6. One problem with obesity is that, as many of us know, once someone becomes overweight, it is difficult to shift. That is why the most important age group to concentrate on is young people.
Obesity is now the single most important modifiable risk factor for the prevention of disease, and I will briefly go through its effects—as a doctor, I cannot resist. Around 4 million people in this country have type 2 diabetes, which is five times more likely in obesity. Type 2 diabetes almost doubles a person’s mortality rate, with 22,000 people with diabetes dying early every year. Ischaemic heart disease, the leading cause of death in the UK, is much more common in obesity, as is hypertension and osteoarthritis, which causes joint pain and reduced mobility. Something that a lot of people do not know is that 13 cancers are directly attributable to obesity—it is actually also the second commonest cause of cancer.
As a GP, there are other things I see quite regularly, such as reflux, varicose veins, infertility and even thrombosis, all of which diminish quality of life. The commonest cause of liver disease is now obesity. I will not go into the cost too much but, as we can imagine, obesity costs the country an absolute fortune: on average, four extra sick days a year; and, taking into account the cost to the NHS and so on, an estimated £98 billion a year, or 4% of GDP. The cost to the NHS is £19 billion a year.
What is the cause of obesity? From the evidence, it is clear that the main cause of obesity is diet—it is what we eat. The food system in this country is fundamentally broken. I welcomed the statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) about sustainable food production: nutritious foods grown while restoring nature, and farms with good food production at its core, rewarded properly. There is a complicated relationship in food production, whereby farms mostly exist on Government subsidy with very small profit margins and then the supermarkets make profits out of what they sell. We need to look into that complicated relationship.
One problem is that unhealthy and ultra-processed foods—UPFs—that are high in fats, salt and sugar are often the easiest, cheapest and most convenient. Crucially, they make the most profit for the food industry. The other problem with these types of food is that they are addictive—salty, fatty foods are addictive. Another problem, revealed by the Food Foundation, is that healthy foods, calorie for calorie, are twice as expensive as less healthy foods. So there are a lot of issues there to unpick.
Inequalities and deprivation are very, very strong causes of obesity, with less well-off people being twice as likely to be overweight. Therefore, one strategy has to be to increase the living wage, reduce child poverty, improve health and social services, and invest in education —all of which the Government are doing.
On pregnancy, obesity actually begins in the womb—it does not even begin when we are born. In one fascinating experiment, one group of pregnant women were fed a lot of carrots and another group did not have any carrots. The children of the women who ate carrots loved carrots, so a memory is made in utero. It is therefore really important that pregnant women have a very healthy diet, as this is a risk factor for obesity in young people. Another is formula feed. Breastfeeding protects against obesity, but formula feeds do not. Follow-on feeds, hungry baby feeds, are just normal milk packed full of calories, so they tend to increase obesity. That is perhaps something we need to discuss, too.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I am the chair of the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group. To make any progress, we have to understand that eating disorders are highly stigmatised. Many people with obesity also have an eating disorder. To make real progress, is not the first thing to take the stigma away from obesity and get to the people who really want to improve their lives?
Dr Opher
I absolutely agree with that. We must treat people in a fair and compassionate way. We must point that out to them, as medical professionals, and help them to get better. I agree with the hon. Lady about stigma.
On obesity strategies, since 1990, we have had 700 separate policies to tackle obesity, yet it has doubled. Clearly, we are doing something wrong. Having looked at the evidence, it is clear that voluntary targets do not work. Voluntary targets for the food industry and relying on individual agency—giving us choice in what we eat—cannot reduce obesity. The food industry, of course, has a vested interest in making money. While education and exercise are really good, there is not much evidence to suggest that they reduce obesity. It is all about food.
There has been a lot of research. Nesta, the Obesity Health Alliance and the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee have done multiple reports on obesity, and it is clear that we can halve it. All we need to do is reduce everyone’s calorie intake by 200 calories a day. That is the difference between McDonald’s large fries and standard fries—other fries are available—so it is not a massive thing, but we all have to do it. As always with public health, small drops in what we take can have a massive effect on the population.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important, when there is such a strong correlation between child poverty and child obesity, that we tackle not only the food systems leading to poor health outcomes, but the price of food? We must see those two challenges in lockstep and work to address both the quality of food and the cost.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for allowing me to intervene. I commend the Government’s new policy of free breakfast clubs for all primary school children, but does he agree that we should not miss the opportunity to ensure that that meal is wholesome and nutritious so that all our kids can get off to the best possible start?
Dr Opher
Yes, I could not agree more. As I said in the debate on education, we should be careful about the food industry sponsoring school breakfasts. As I pointed out, there is no such thing as a free breakfast. Companies often make unhealthy and addictive food and get young people addicted to it, so we must be cautious.
I wanted a recipe to solve this crisis and what I am suggesting comes from evidence from Nesta and the House of Lords Select Committee. It should be mandatory that all stores report on the food healthiness of their sales. We need a fully independent Food Standards Agency. We should have a ban on advertising junk food, as has already been proposed, and there should be a watershed for children—that is incredibly important. As is planned in Scotland and Wales, there should be a ban on price promotions, particularly for unhealthy foods, ultra-processed foods and takeaways. We also need to put a lot more resource into breastfeeding and diet in pregnancies—remember the carrots—and we must regulate formula feeds.
One measure, which has worked with the drinks industry in reducing sugar, is a reformulation tax on foods that are high in sugar and salt. Supermarkets and food companies would reformulate their foods to avoid the tax, thereby making them healthier. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) mentioned breakfast clubs. There is a lot of evidence that free school meals and breakfast clubs reduce obesity. Where free school meals have been introduced in London, childhood obesity has been reduced by 11%. That is because the food is healthy and a healthy hot meal is really important, rather than high-calorie snacks, which are what a lot of packed lunches consist of. If we cannot have free school meals, because of financial problems, we should have auto-enrolment so that children who should be on free school meals actually get enrolled. That would benefit schools, too.
We must have mandatory front-of-packet labelling. I have never met a parent who does not want to buy healthy food for their children. The trouble is that they pick up a packet of cereal and it says, “High in iron and filled with vitamins,” and think it must be healthy. Nothing could be further from the truth, so we must have accurate labelling. Healthy school foods should be sourced locally. In Stroud, I have been working closely with local primary schools to encourage them to eat fresh, locally grown, highly nutritious food. I think the Government’s target is to procure at least 50% of food in schools from local sources.
Then there is the famous hospital food. I was recently in hospital with a relative, and I can tell the House that hospital food is not healthy. We had white-bread sandwiches and some crisps—that was our healthy snack. We must introduce healthy foods in hospitals.
Takeaways are another big barrier to healthy eating—there was a massive explosion in their use during the covid pandemic—and we need to include them in any regulation. As I have said, in Scotland and Wales a ban on takeaway price promotions has been proposed. On average, those in deprived areas order more takeaways than those in non-deprived areas. We certainly must not let takeaway outlets open near schools—that is a planning must.
I would also caution against the treatment of the obesity crisis with injections of drugs such as Ozempic, which could well turn out to be dangerous.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
According to today’s press, there is clear evidence of that. Apparently, 400 people across the United Kingdom who took Ozempic experienced poor health as a result. It is not for everyone, and the sooner that people know that, the better.
Dr Opher
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention reminds me of the GP I took over from—an old chap; very wise—who said, “Always be a few years out of date, Simon, because we never know what these new drugs are going to cause.” I think that is good advice—not that I am suggesting that doctors are out of date, of course.
Are we proposing the creation of a nanny state? That is the great fear of many people when they are confronted by controls of this kind, but let us look at what happened with the ban on smoking inside pubs. People—particularly in Ireland, but also in England—were saying, “This is crazy; it is never going to work”, but it worked fantastically well. We need to be aware of the vested interests of food companies, and we need to take radical steps.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I thank my Gloucestershire neighbour for giving way. He mentioned the nanny state. As a Liberal, I believe in freedom, but there are two sides to it: freedom from and freedom to. Should not freedom from some of those representing the big, powerful vested interests in the food companies, who are not interested in our health, be at the centre of this debate?
Dr Opher
I entirely agree. I think that this Parliament could do to obesity what the Government who were in power between 1997 and 2010 did to smoking: we could drastically reduce it. For the sake of our children and our older adults, I urge everyone to accept that we need to act now, and we need to act radically.
Dr Opher
I thank the Minister and all who have spoken because this has been a genuinely interesting debate about an essential topic. I would just like to say in summary that the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) needs to go into the supermarket when she is really busy and pick up a tasty healthy snack. If the Government can get people doing that, it will be fantastic. I say to the Minister that the House is behind him being radical; it is not the time for non-intervention.
I thank all who have contributed. I missed supper and am starving, so I am going to go and have a healthy snack.
Hon. Members
Hear, hear!
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of food and diet on obesity.