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

Tom Gordon Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Order. I have to take a question from another Member—Tom Gordon.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Q I have a question for Professor Esmail. One of the things that we have talked about with different witnesses is whether we should have a wider panel of people looking at these decisions; that might encompass people from social care, medical or legal backgrounds. I think that that would make sure that some of the issues that we have talked about would, hopefully, be more robustly picked up on. Do you think that by moving towards that in the Bill—were we to have assisted dying—it might provide a more holistic approach to end of life and to giving people that option? How might that influence and change palliative care and other interactions?

Professor Esmail: I feel that this Bill will make things much better, in the sense that when you have a conversation with someone, they could sometimes have even as a reassurance, “Look, if things get really bad, I have this option available.” That is important, and it can certainly help in that respect.

In terms of holistic care, currently when I look after dying people I never do it on my own; I am with district nurses, Macmillan nurses, or on call to a palliative care consultant. There is already a team of people looking after dying people. Where it works well, it works very well. We should not be burdened by the fact that everyone complains about how terrible everything is. I would say that probably 95% of the time, it is okay. There are issues with social care and so on, but I think that palliative care—the drugs people need, how often they get them and who gives them—works very well and it works in a multidisciplinary way. I think that this legislation will allow a much more open discussion and proper monitoring. It will improve training, guidance and everything else. People say that it will enhance palliative care, and that is what I think will happen.

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

Q I have a question for Professor Esmail. We heard from the Australian witnesses this morning that there was a period of implementation after legislation of 18 months. Do you think we should have a period of implementation, and what should that comprise?

Professor Esmail: I think we will need to have one, because we will need to train people up and put in place all these things. You do not want to pass a Bill that a lot of people cannot access. It will require thought about how we plan this. As with any service, it is much better to think about it and ensure that we cover all options. As I said, the worst thing would be to pass a Bill and not have the right things in place. For example, the training will take a while. I am not saying that it will take 18 months to train someone, but we are talking about training groups of doctors and nurses, and ensuring that the pathways are correct and that the legal system can deal with the requests. That will clearly take time, and we will need a lot of systems thinking about how it all fits together. You cannot specify, and I do not know how good this country is at this, but that is what should happen. It can sometimes happen very effectively and quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

Q Dr Graham, on the points about article 14, I very much appreciate and welcome your belief in parliamentary sovereignty, and the suggestion that the courts should listen to Parliament—most of us agree with you on that—but it is a big hope. They do have the opportunity, and have demonstrated their power, to object to statute on the basis of the ECHR. As you said, they could allow assisted dying, and indeed discrimination within an assisted dying law, if there was some justification for it.

You are presumably aware of Lord Neuberger’s judgment in the Nicklinson case. He said that there was

“significantly more justification in assisting people to die”

who have long-term chronic conditions and are going to suffer for years than for people who are on the verge of death. I also point out Lord Bingham’s judgment in the Pretty case, which suggested there would be discrimination against people who are unable to perform the final act themselves. Surely, then, there is a very strong case to be made under the ECHR that the Bill would be discriminatory. I would value your response on that, and maybe from Lord Sumption too, if he wants to come in.

My second question is to you both, on article 2. If it were to be allowed, the safeguards that would be required —I shall quote from the Mortier case, which you know well—would be that

“medical professionals are complying with the free, informed, explicit and unambiguous decision of their patients”

without pressure and abuse. Do you therefore accept that this comes down not just to the safeguards in theory, but to how they actually operate in practice? We have heard very serious concerns on that front. Are you confident that the courts would allow this? That is, of course, assuming this is an NHS service, because it could be that they decide it should not be.

Dr Graham: The takeaway message from cases like Nicklinson and others, both at the domestic level and the European level, is that this is a decision for politicians and a decision for Parliament—you mentioned the sovereignty of Parliament—regardless of what Lord Bingham and Lord Neuberger might think personally about or, I suppose, obiter about the relationship between discrimination law and the provisions that were looked at in those cases. For the reasons that I set out earlier, on the justification question, judges in our jurisdiction are heavily deferential towards the decision of our elected Parliament. In any future challenge, and there probably will be a challenge—we do not know, but there is nothing to stop someone from bringing one—the courts will adopt the same line of thinking.

I agree with you completely that the theory and the practice must both be taken into account when assessing whether there are adequate safeguards for the purpose of article 2. All I want to note is that in the Mortier case, which you mentioned—in which the Belgian legislation and its compatibility with article 2 were challenged before the Strasbourg Court—the Court found that there were sufficient safeguards in that legislation. That is despite the fact that if we put the Belgian legislation that the Court was looking at and this piece of legislation side by side, this legislation contains, at least in theory, more and stronger safeguards.

The Belgian legislation did not have a waiting period; did not require judicial approval; was not restricted to a terminal illness; and was not restricted to adults only. Yet the European Court said that there were sufficient safeguards for the purposes of article 2. At least from a precedent-based perspective, I think there is a strong argument for saying yes, the Bill complies with both article 14 and with article 2.

Lord Sumption: I have read Dr Graham’s evidence, and obviously have listened to him this afternoon. I agree with it in its entirety. Dr Graham points out the additional layer of safeguarding in the form of clause 12, but I do not understand him to be suggesting that without clause 12 the Act, if the Bill became an Act, would be defective on human rights grounds.

I also agree with Dr Graham on the question of the likely approach of the courts. The courts would be dealing with legislation that reflected a balance between two very powerful but contradictory moral instincts, both of them fundamental to our legal and social culture. That is not a context in which the courts are going to feel that they ought to be putting their own oar in.

I would also point out that, since the Nicklinson case, there have been a number of decisions of the Supreme Court—two in particular: the Shamima Begum case and the Child Poverty Action Group case on the two-child limit—in which the Supreme Court has expressly said that in issues of this kind, the courts should not devise policies of their own, independent of policies that can be discerned in parliamentary legislation. It is therefore even less likely now that the courts would intervene on human rights grounds than it was at the time of Nicklinson.

[Tom Gordon]

Q My questions are to Dr Graham and Lord Sumption. The Bill, in its current form, has several opportunities for confirming capacity and whether the people who want to take up assisted dying have the capacity to do so; there are a number of safeguards and steps within it. That is more than is typically required for any other end-of-life decisions. I wondered whether you would comment on that. Is the Bill safe enough in its current form? If not, what other steps could be added?

Dr Graham: The only thing I would feel comfortable saying is that, yes, I agree with you that the Bill does contain further safeguards, more safeguards, than some of the other legislation in European countries. The legislation in those countries has been held to be compatible with the right to life and with other rights under the European convention. From a pure human rights perspective, which is all I feel qualified to comment on, I think you are on very safe ground.

Lord Sumption: I take exactly the same view. We must all be conscious of the fact that coercion, even when it is overtly applied, is extraordinarily difficult to detect: the kind that Baroness Falkner described a few moments ago as the subtle pressures that old and disabled people—in fact, people who are very sick generally—will feel without the need for any pressure. That spontaneous feeling of pressure is, I would have thought, practically impossible to detect. We have to live with the limitations of what human beings can do. In the end, I have come down in favour of the principle behind the Bill, but I regard it as an extremely difficult balance to draw—notably, for that reason.

[Sarah Olney]

Q Baroness Falkner, do you consider that in its current form the Bill upholds the rights of all the different groups whose rights are protected under the Equality Act 2010?

Baroness Falkner: Several human rights are engaged in the Bill: article 2 has been discussed; article 3 relates to inhumane and degrading treatment; article 8 is the right to privacy; article 9 is about freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and of course there is article 14, which has been discussed. They are all engaged at different levels of the Bill, and they are important and serious considerations. We are not clear, at this point in time, that the reservations we have about them can be resolved without further changes to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon]

Q I would like to direct my question to Dr Neerkin. We have heard from lots of different jurisdictions where assisted dying is commonplace now. In those areas, the actual uptake is very small. That is in places where they have a lot less in the way of safeguards than we do in this Bill. Can you comment on the fact that we are talking about a very small group of people for whom palliative care would not be enough anyway? This option might give those people peace of mind and enable them to have a good period of life while they have it, and then choose to leave on their terms.

The point I am trying to get to is, we keep talking about big populations and groups, but in your professional experience, how wide or narrow does the Bill need to be? Do the safeguards in it not already restrict it to a very small group of people whose needs would not necessarily be met by palliative care?

Dr Neerkin: I agree. People who request assisted dying are a tiny proportion—we see that in other jurisdictions. Of those that request it, the number that go through with it is even smaller. As I said earlier, people want to live—people do not want to die. But what people do not want to have is a prolonged death where they are suffering—they want control. In my experience, the number of those that actually really wish for it, ask for it, and would potentially go through with it, is small.

[Dr Tidball]

Q This is a question for Dr Neerkin. That was extremely helpful. We know that Tōtara hospice in New Zealand—one of the largest hospices there—has said that it does not think that assisted dying and palliative care are counter to each other, and that a system can work where they are running side by side. Can you touch on, first, any evidence we have from countries that have adopted assisted dying that demonstrates that marginalised groups are seeking it much more regularly than those with more economic resources; and, secondly, choice and the ability for assisted dying to give greater dignity to individuals seeking that choice?

Dr Neerkin: Some of that question, at least the first part, would have been better posed to the people from Australia and America this morning, who probably have more details on it. I have looked extensively at the data from Oregon, and there is not a skew towards the elderly, the disabled, people of different minorities or people in poverty. I do not think there is a skew. You actually tend to find that people are younger and from wealthier and more educated backgrounds. Looking at it from that side of things, they are probably more knowledgeable in that background. Could you repeat the second part of your question?