Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to speak to amendment 3 in my name, which would do the exact opposite of the amendments of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee)—in fact, it would see the commencement period reduced from four years to three years. As a member of the Bill Committee, when we had the initial conversation about increasing the commencement period from two years to four years, I was the only person to speak against it, and I pushed it to a vote.

What frustrates me about the situation we are in is that, in effect, we are acknowledging that the reason we are here and debating this Bill is that the status quo is not acceptable. People are pushed to taking decisions that they should not be and having to go to foreign countries to have opportunities overseas. Those of us who support the Bill are broadly in agreement on those principles. A number of things frustrate me about the four-year period, principally that the people in office—the Government of the day—will not necessarily be here to implement it. I am really hesitant about supporting a Bill when we do not know who would see through those details.

Amendment 3 would reduce the threshold back down to three years, which would still be more than most jurisdictions around the world. Countries have implemented assisted dying legislation after as short a time as six months, 12 months or 18 months, so three years would still be a substantial increase compared with other countries. We are not innovators or leaders in this field: there is no reason why we cannot take best practice and learn from and speak to colleagues around the world. I believe that this Bill has the strongest safeguards of any, which is why I think an implementation period of three years would more than meet the requirements.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I want to put on record my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for the way that she has approached this Bill. Her willingness to listen to concerns from across the House has been evident, not least in new clause 14, brought forward in the names of the hon. Members for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) and for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin). That is a testament to how we can work together on these deeply sensitive issues.

I rise to speak in favour of new clause 14 and against amendment (b) to new clause 14. I absolutely understand the intent behind the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). Nobody in this House wants to see voluntary assisted dying services being advertised in a way that is insensitive, inappropriate or exploitative. We all want to protect individuals, particularly those who may be vulnerable or more easily influenced, so I fully share that concern. Although I respect the principle behind the amendment, however, I do not believe it offers the right solution.

New clause 14 rightly prohibits advertising voluntary assisted dying services to the public, while giving Ministers tightly defined powers to create appropriate exceptions through regulations. That is important, because in a healthcare system as complex as ours, we must be able to draw the line between unethical promotion and responsible professional communication. I think the new clause gets that balance right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan]

I will press on.

Secondly, the amendment attempts to limit the scope of future regulation by barring any changes to the Suicide Act 1961, but that is already covered by new clause 14, which prevents other changes to this Bill, should it become an Act. The amendment is not only duplicative, but closes off avenues for future clarity that might be needed in the Suicide Act, such as to ensure that offences around coercion or fraudulent practice are properly dealt with.

In short, the amendment does not add clarity; it risks confusion. It does not strengthen the advertising ban; it introduces constraints that could make it harder to enforce with evolving practice.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for giving way, given the time constraints. I have a simple but key question: does an advertisement include a leaflet on a GP’s surgery table or on a door going into the GP? It seems unclear to me what is information and what it advertisement.

[Tony Vaughan]

That will have to be worked out; I do not have the answer at my fingertips, but others might.

I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley say earlier that she is open to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale and others in the Lords to find a workable way forward on all these issues. I hope that he will take her up on that offer. This is obviously an area where constructive cross-party work could ensure that strong safeguards are achieved without unintended consequences.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Tony Vaughan]

I am essentially finished.

I urge hon. Members to reject amendment (b) to new clause 14 in its current form, not because we oppose its aim, but because we can and must find a better way to achieve it.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I am grateful to have my first opportunity to contribute on this Bill. It would not be appropriate to dilate on my profound anxieties about it, but I approach these amendments in the spirit of constructive engagement. I rise to speak to linked amendments 82 to 86, which would strengthen the panel by giving it some of the features of the High Court safeguard that was, regrettably, removed.

We heard from the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) that the panel will now be stronger because it includes a broader range of expertise. The argument against that, of course, is that the High Court was a stronger safeguard because it has the powers of a court and the independence of the judiciary. My amendments would mean that we do not have to choose between the two: the panel is part of the Bill, but we can have a better panel if we give it some of the features of the High Court, namely its independence, the calibre of its judges, and its powers as a court.

Amendment 82 would require all panel members to be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission, which nominates judges in England and Wales. Currently, the selection of panel members is wholly down to the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. Schedule 2 says:

“The Commissioner must make appointments to a list of persons eligible to sit as members of panels.”

I have absolutely no doubt that the commissioner will be someone of great integrity and experience, but he or she will certainly be a strong advocate of assisted dying, as will those who put themselves forward for the panels. That may create an impression that the VAD commission is a self-selecting group with a particular set of institutional views.

If the system is to command public confidence, I believe that appointments would be best administered by an external body, and the Judicial Appointments Commission is the obvious choice. We in this country trust the judiciary, partly because we know that they represent no set of opinions.