Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 18 March 2025.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

Will everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent? Tea and coffee are not allowed in the Committee Room.

We are continuing line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I remind Members that interventions should be short and raise points of clarification or questions; they should not be speeches in themselves. Members who wish to make a speech should bob and continue to do so through the whole debate in which they wish to speak, until they are called. When Members say “you”, they are referring to the Chair. “You” should not be used to refer to one another; the debate should be through the Chair.

Clause 13 - Confirmation of request for assistance: second declaration

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 471, in clause 13, page 9, line 27, leave out from “if” to “that” in line 28 and insert

“the coordinating doctor is satisfied (immediately before witnessing it)”.

This amendment removes wording which would suggest that a second declaration is made before it is witnessed.

Amendment 316, in clause 13, page 9, line 36, at end insert—

“(5A) If, when making the statement under subsection (5), the definition of “second period of reflection” under subsection (2)(b) applies, the coordinating doctor must make refer the person for urgent specialist palliative care.”

This amendment will ensure that there is an immediate referral to a specialist in palliative care due if the patient is likely to die within a month of the declaration from the Court.

Amendment 374, in clause 13, page 10, line 2, at end insert—

“(8) Where the coordinating doctor has—

(a) witnessed a second declaration, or

(b) made or refused to make a statement under subsection (5),

the doctor must notify the Commissioner and give them a copy of the second declaration or (as the case may be) any statement under subsection (5).”

This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner of witnessing a second declaration, and of having made or refused to make a statement under clause 13(5).

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

As we heard from the hon. Member for Richmond Park, her amendment concerns the second period for reflection under the Bill as drafted. The second period of reflection would take place after the panel had approved a person’s application for assisted death. The Bill states that that period would be 14 days, unless

“the coordinating doctor reasonably believes that the person’s death is likely to occur before the end of the period of one month beginning with the day that declaration was made”;

in that case, the second period is shortened to 48 hours.

Some people who have a strong desire to hasten death might wish to avoid the second period for reflection. If they refused food, there would be a strong possibility that their physical condition would deteriorate, so that a doctor would indeed believe that they were likely to die within one month. That is not a hypothetical possibility. We know that there are people who do refuse food to the point where they become gravely ill with malnutrition.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I will speak briefly to amendment 316 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). She has tabled a sensible suggestion that if a patient makes a statement after the second period of reflection, there should be an automatic referral to palliative care. We have heard how expected and usual that is anyway, and the hon. Member for Spen Valley has frequently made the point that people who are having an assisted death, or going through the process, are likely to be in palliative care anyway—it is not an either/or. It is important that we clarify that expectation.

It will obviously be the case that the patient is not required to take up the referral, and if the referral already exists, that case is dealt with, but let us be absolutely clear that the decision to take an assisted death is not a fork in the road, as would be my concern. If that is not the case and that, in fact, palliative care and the assisted death process go hand in hand and will be seen as part of an integrated package of support for patients, my view is that we should specify clearly that in the event of a decision to proceed down the road to an assisted death, a palliative care referral should be made.

Bluntly, I want to make this as clear as we can, although I am not sure that we will ever be able to do that fully. It really has to be very plain to healthcare commissioners and managers that there is to be no cost saving as a result of an assisted death referral. I very much doubt that a single commissioner or manager would have that at the forefront of their mind; nevertheless, incentives apply in healthcare decisions. Ultimately, we have a ration system, and resource allocation necessarily is the job of commissioners.

If, as we are saying, a decision to proceed with an assisted death will be in parallel with palliative care, let us make that plain, so that if indeed it is the case that the patient requires the investment of palliative care services—hospice treatment or otherwise, even though, as we know, hospice care is inadequately funded through public money—nevertheless, there is a resource requirement. It is important that we specify to everybody in the system that an assisted death is not a way of avoiding the expense of proper end-of-life care.

I hope that Members will recognise that amendment 316 is consistent with the arguments that have been made consistently by advocates of the Bill, which is that there is not an either/or between palliative care and assisted death, and that, in fact, it is appropriate for patients to be on both tracks simultaneously.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey.

The purpose of amendment 457 is to exclude a person who has less than one month to live from being eligible for the shorter second period of reflection of 48 hours if that person has voluntarily stopped eating and drinking. That person would instead be required to comply with a second period of reflection of 14 days under clause 13(2)(a). The amendment could create uncertainty as to the required length of the period of reflection. It is unclear, for example, if “voluntarily” would include where someone’s appetite has naturally declined as they approach the end of life, and therefore whose decision to stop eating or drinking may not be deliberate.

As I have said previously, the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on certain amendments to bolster the legal and workability sides of the Bill, and the purpose of amendment 471 is to clarify that the co-ordinating doctor needs to be satisfied that, immediately before witnessing the second declaration, the criteria set out at subsection (4) are met, and not at any time before. That also ensures consistency with the duty on the co-ordinating doctor in respect of the first declaration.

Amendment 316 would require that where the co-ordinating doctor reasonably believes that the person seeking assistance has less than one month to live from the court declaration, they must refer that person for urgent specialist palliative care. As the referral must be made whether the patient wants that referral or not, this may result in unwanted referrals. The effect of this amendment is unclear.

As drafted, clause 13(2)(b) sets out that where the person’s death is likely to occur within one month, the period of reflection is then 48 hours. Amendment 316 sets out that the referral to urgent palliative care must be made alongside the co-ordinating doctor making the statement, which is the last step to be completed before the provision of assistance under clause 18. That would mean that in some circumstances, there may be insufficient time to make a referral before the person is provided with assistance to end their life.

Kit Malthouse (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

I want to emphasise that at the moment the patient reaches that point, they will have had their palliative care options explained to them extensively, under the Bill, and it is highly unlikely at that point, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire said, that anyone would not be in receipt of palliative care, given the very late stage of their disease.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

I happened to be at a hospice in Stafford yesterday on a ministerial visit and was extremely impressed by the work that the hospice staff were doing on family counselling, and advice and engagement both with the patient and family and loved ones, so the right hon. Gentleman is right that the hospice sector, among others, plays a vital role in that holistic engagement with patients throughout the process.

Amendment 374 requires that the co-ordinating doctor must notify the voluntary assisted dying commissioner where they witness a second declaration and where they make or refuse to make the supporting statement under clause 13(5), and that the commissioner must be provided with a copy of the second declaration and any statement. I hope that those observations were helpful to the Committee.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

It is a pleasure to serve under you this morning, Ms McVey. My amendments 374 and 471 serve to clarify that the second declaration must be made before it is witnessed—it is a drafting amendment—and to bring clause 13 in line with the reporting requirements elsewhere in the Bill. For the functions of the commissioner to be carried out effectively, including supervising the assisted dying panels and making annual reports on the legislation’s operation, it is essential that all relevant details and reports are made available.

I am unable to support amendment 457, in the name of the hon. Member for Richmond Park. As I said when we started discussing the amendment, I do not fully understand why it has been positioned at this stage in the process. The shorter period of reflection is a recognition that a person’s death is expected within a month, so they literally have a few weeks left of life.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

That was the hon. Member’s response when I made my speech on the amendment in the previous sitting. I have reflected on that over the weekend. I still think that the issue of the voluntary stopping of eating and drinking is a very serious one that ought to be reflected somewhere in the legislation, but she is correct that, at this particular point, we are talking about the second period of reflection already being at an end, so it cannot be hastened in any way by such a measure. Therefore, I will be withdrawing the amendment.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I appreciate that; that is helpful and I thank the hon. Member. As the Minister said, a person whose death is approaching may have stopped eating and drinking for a number of reasons. They may simply be too ill. They may be unable to digest food. It may be that they have lost their appetite, or that they will be even more ill if they eat and drink, so it would seem particularly cruel to intervene on that basis at that point, but I appreciate her comments.

Amendment 316 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central seeks to mandate the action a doctor must take if a patient is likely to die within one month. Like other amendments, it goes against the basic principles that underlie the Bill—that the wishes of the person seeking assistance should be respected. Surely that is even more important than ever as they face their final weeks. As the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said, palliative care will have been discussed at length throughout the assisted dying process. It is also worth noting, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said, that evidence from other jurisdictions with similar laws—Australia and America—shows that between 80% and 90% of people who have gone through the assisted dying process are already receiving palliative care, so I am not minded to support the amendment.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 14 - Cancellation of declarations

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I beg to move amendment 375, in clause 14, page 10, line 9, at end insert—

“(1A) Where notice or an indication is given to the coordinating doctor under subsection (1)(a), the doctor must as soon as practicable notify the Commissioner of the cancellation.”

This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner of a cancellation of a first or second declaration.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 376, in clause 14, page 10, line 12, after “doctor” insert “and the Commissioner”.

This amendment requires a practitioner other than the coordinating doctor to notify the Commissioner (as well as the coordinating doctor) of a cancellation of a first or second declaration.

Clause stand part.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I hope that these are a couple of nice, simple amendments. The right of the patient to cancel at any time is obviously really important. It is also important that, for the purpose of monitoring and reporting the process, the commissioner, as proposed, is kept informed at every stage. I hope that the whole Committee can see the necessity of these amendments.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

The hon. Lady is quite right that there is nothing to object to in these amendments or the clause. It is worth stating at this point, though, that in the context of the debate we are having in this Committee, we are moving at some pace. The likelihood is that there will be opportunity for only a five-hour debate on Report—maybe more, but possibly not. This Committee is the time we have to consider in detail the content of the Bill. My concern is that moving too quickly and trying to do too much too soon means that we will miss the opportunity to debate very important aspects of the Bill.

The hon. Lady says that these are “nice, simple” amendments, as if the only thing being discussed here is the paperwork around the declaration. What should we say to patients who decide to cancel their declaration? My concern—I am unaware of any other point when we could appropriately discuss this question—is what happens in the event of a cancellation. What duty of care do doctors have to patients who have decided not to proceed with an assisted death? The Bill does not currently address that question: it imposes no obligation on doctors to follow up in any way after a declaration has been cancelled.

As ever, I absolutely agree that, as hon. Members will no doubt be thinking in response, doctors have a duty of care to patients. Nevertheless, we are talking about a new procedure that sits in an uncomfortable hybrid state between healthcare and non-healthcare. We have special rules and procedures around the particular intervention being designed here. We are still ignorant of the precise mechanisms by which healthcare professionals, and potentially others, will be involved in the administration of this process. What exactly happens in the event of a cancellation? Perhaps the promoter could explain her understanding of what the expectation should be on the providers who have been responsible for supporting the patient up to that point. If amendment 316, which would have made a palliative care referral automatic, had been accepted, we could have had some reassurance that other doctors were there to pick the patient up.

Kit Malthouse (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

rose—

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

Before I give way to my right hon. Friend, I want to posit the hypothesis of a private provider that has been established explicitly for the purpose of facilitating the assisted death procedure for patients. If that provider steps back when the patient decides to cancel their declaration, the provider is required to notify the GP as soon as practicable, whatever that means—the timeframe there is clearly at the convenience of the provider, not the patient. My concern is what happens when the patient’s GP is not quickly informed that they have decided not to proceed with the assisted death and they are sitting in limbo. Obviously, there are significant concerns about their wellbeing, given their decision and the state they are in. It is not yet fully clear to me what the obligations on the doctors would be at that stage.

Kit Malthouse (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

I am not entirely certain that my hon. Friend’s remarks are germane to the amendments, but nevertheless. As we discussed when debating clause 13, at the stage he is talking about, the patient will have had all their options—“all appropriate”, as I think we have amended the Bill to say, services that will be available to them—explained to them. If they are cancelling, the presumption has to be, in respecting their autonomy, that they are choosing one of the alternative paths that has been laid out to them. It is quite hard to legislate for a negative.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I am speaking to the group as a whole, which includes clause stand part. I have no objection to the amendments. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, the expectation is that the medical professionals involved in the person’s care will have laid out their options clearly. We are to a certain degree trusting in that because amendments to insist on it have been rejected, although I recognise that it will be the clear expectation. He is right that it is hard, as it were, to prove a negative.

Nevertheless, the purpose of my speech at this point is to tease out from the advocates of the Bill what their expectation is. My right hon. Friend has clearly explained his expectation, which is that we are dealing with somebody whose mind is clear, rational, uncluttered by other concerns and entirely free of any undue influences or anxieties about the different choices they might make. Having previously decided in the fullness of their autonomy that they wanted to go through the procedure, they have now decided in the fullness of their autonomy that they want to do the opposite, and we should say, “Fine. We have no further interest in your decision making. It is your choice—you’re on your own.” I am very concerned about the implication of my right hon. Friend’s comments about the sorts of patients who might be involved in the process of assisted dying.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

To allay those fears, perhaps the fundamental answer to the question is that those people do not stop being patients—sadly, they do not stop being terminally ill patients. They have just chosen to cancel the declaration, and they will already have wraparound care. To some degree, the hon. Gentleman answered his own question when he said that doctors have a duty of care. That duty of care does not stop because the person has chosen to take this course of action. They will still be cared for by the professionals looking after them.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

Well, we certainly hope so. Nevertheless, that is inconsistent with the doctrine of absolute patient autonomy, which in this circumstance allows a patient to withdraw from the medical treatment, or at least from the support of the medics who had been facilitating their assisted death. They are rightly under no obligation to receive any other sort of care.

Of course, one would assume that in most cases medics will be closely involved in looking after these patients, because they are likely to be very ill. Nevertheless, the Bill has nothing more to say about patients who have just stepped back from the brink of suicide; the medics will have no further obligation to ensure that they will be looked after—except by the GP, as soon as it is practicable for the provider who has just been denied the business of looking after the assisted death to get round to emailing them. If that is seen as sufficient to ensure that those patients will be properly looked after, I beg to differ.

Kit Malthouse (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

I am not sure what compulsion there is in wider legislation for there to be a duty of care to patients who do not choose assisted dying in the first place. For thousands and thousands of patients who die, there is no legislation that imposes certain duties on medics or others to look after them; we rely on the professional standards and overall atmosphere of the healthcare system, as we would in the case of these patients.

As my hon. Friend knows, overseas experience shows that a large proportion of the people who obtain the right to an assisted death—up to a third—do not cancel but do not exercise it. As we have said before, for many people assisted dying is an insurance card that they may choose to use if and when they think their life becomes intolerable.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I recognise that, but that is not germane to the debate that we are having, which is about the actual cancellation. There is a question about why there would have been a cancellation. My right hon. Friend is right that there is no obligation to proceed once a patient passes a particular hurdle. Many will not, but when someone decides actively to renounce their decision, a big question should be asked: what is going on, and what further help is needed?

My right hon. Friend suggests that we do not step in and ensure that care is provided—that, in other circumstances, there is no additional obligation in relation to patients. I am afraid to say that he has, as ever, a coldly rationalistic vision of healthcare and of the sorts of patients we are dealing with. As I have said to him, these patients will be acting much as I imagine he would imagine—I think from a position of health and self-confidence—himself acting in that circumstance. In fact, we are dealing with people who have decided to renounce their decision to proceed, and so are by definition in some turmoil.

I crave the indulgence of the Committee, because I am talking at length about a set of amendments that I do not intend to oppose, and I recognise the value and necessity of the clause. However, I draw to the Committee’s attention that we are dealing not simply with a bit of paperwork, but with a human being who, having made one enormous decision—to die—is now making an enormous decision to live, and we are treating it as if it is only a bureaucratic question.

I finish with a question to the hon. Member for Spen Valley or to the Minister, to help me understand something that confuses me in the clause.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

I have not given this matter as much thought as the hon. Member has. My interest is very much in the issue of domestic violence. Does he agree that this could be somebody who has experienced domestic violence? Or children could be at risk. This person may then decide not to take the option, even though they wanted to, because of obligations elsewhere.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

The hon. Lady is right, and her point goes to the question that runs through all of these clauses: why? As a Committee, we rejected the obligation on the doctors to ask, “Why are you doing this?” It was suggested by one hon. Member that it was nobody’s business why somebody was trying to take their own life and that if that person qualified, they should be able to summon the agents of the state to provide them with lethal drugs without any question about their motivation.

I agree with the hon. Lady. There is an equal expectation in my mind that doctors should ask the question, “Why are you changing your mind?” I would expect that. The clause could clarify what further referrals would need to be made, if they had not already been; as we have acknowledged, we would expect appropriate care to be provided by doctors anyway.

I conclude with a factual question. Clause 14(1) lets a patient cancel a first or second declaration, but subsection (4) says only that the duties of the doctor stop when a first declaration is cancelled. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Spen Valley would explain what happens if the patient cancels a second declaration. It strikes me that there would be a need for urgency because if a patient decides to change their mind at that point, that is arguably a more dangerous situation. What would be the obligations on the doctor at that point? Should we read across from subsection (4) that their duties stop in the same way? Perhaps that could be clarified in later drafting, if necessary.

To conclude, my general point is that the issue of a cancelled declaration is about more than the paperwork. Although, of course, we respect the autonomy of a patient to make their own decision to cancel a declaration—obviously, I would insist that that right should be in the Bill—it nevertheless raises a question in my mind: why is that happening, and what should we expect the patient’s medical team, or others, to do in that circumstance?

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

The Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on amendments 375 and 376. The amendments require that where the co-ordinating doctor, or any registered practitioner from the person’s GP practice, receives a notification or indication from the person seeking assistance under the Bill that the person wishes to cancel their first or second declaration, the doctor or practitioner must inform the voluntary assisted dying commissioner as soon as practicable. Where a registered practitioner from the person’s GP practice has received a notification or indication from the person to cancel their first or second declaration, they must also inform the co-ordinating doctor. I hope those observations are helpful to the Committee.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I repeat what I said earlier about what will happen to the patient if they choose to cancel: their care will continue. From a medical practitioner perspective, it is inconceivable that those patients would be abandoned, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire is suggesting. That would not happen.

I understand that cancellation of the second declaration does not need to be included in clause 14(4) because of when in the process it would happen. The first declaration comes much earlier, so clauses 7 to 9 would be applicable; the second declaration comes further down the process, so does not need to be included. However, I am happy to look at that in further detail and come back to the hon. Member on that, if necessary.

Clause 15 - Signing by proxy

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

I beg to move amendment 321, in clause 15, page 10, line 33, at end insert—

“(d) the reason why the person was unable to sign their name.”

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 431, in clause 15, page 11, line 1, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert

“the donee of Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare decisions, who has the ability to give or refuse consent to life-sustaining treatment, as registered with the Office of the Public Guardian.”

This amendment would restrict proxies to donees of Lasting Power of Attorney for Health and Welfare decisions, including to give or refuse consent to life-sustaining treatment.

Amendment 473, in clause 15, page 11, line 3, leave out from “person” to end of line and insert

“of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.”

This amendment provides that persons of a description specified in regulations (rather than persons “of good standing in the community”) may be proxies.

Amendment 253, in clause 15, page 11, line 3, at end insert—

“(6) For the purposes of this section “declaration” includes the cancellation of a declaration.”

This would allow a cancellation of the first or second declaration to be signed by a proxy.

Clause stand part.

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. Amendment 321 will mean that the proxy’s declaration must also include the reason why the person was unable to sign their name. That would add a vital safeguard for the person and for the proxy.

In this Committee, we have consistently discussed the need to safeguard vulnerable people from being coerced into choosing assisted dying; for those who need a proxy, the risk of coercion might be higher. As the Bill currently stands, the person needs to tell only their proxy the reason why they are needed. I would like to make it clear why the amendment is important. The Bill does not currently specify that the patient’s declaration of the reason for needing a proxy has to be heard by anyone other than the proxy themselves.

I am conscious that, since my amendment was tabled, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has also tabled amendments about the relationship and who the proxy could be, but I do not believe that amendment 321 would be a burden or cause any unnecessary complication. As the Bill currently stands, when a proxy signs the declaration they already have to include their full name and address, the capacity in which they qualify, and a statement that they have signed in the capacity of a proxy.

As we have said before, it is vital to safeguard vulnerable people at every stage of the process; adding the reason why the proxy was required allows other people during the process, including if there were allegations later, to understand why that was required. If the first declaration is signed by a proxy, then the co-ordinating doctor—the independent doctor—would be able to examine that reason, so including the reason for someone being unable to sign their own declaration would improve transparency around the process. I hope that hon. Members will agree that we need to be able to monitor how those requests are made and the reasons that people are giving.

In written evidence, several experts raised the importance of collecting good data to ensure that the assisted dying process is properly monitored, and amendment 321 would assist that; I believe that it would protect both vulnerable patients and proxies. I absolutely appreciate and understand that people may have a very good reason for requiring a proxy—if they are very ill during the process, for example. The amendment would simply mean that, if there were to be concerns or allegations at a later stage, the reason why the proxy was required would be written down.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

My hon. Friend is making a really sensible point and a fair argument, and I am very happy to support the amendment.

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

I welcome my hon. Friend’s acceptance of the amendment, and I think she sees the point behind it. It was meant not to be awkward—I do not think I have been at all awkward during this process—but simply to state that, if there were concerns later, the reason why the proxy was required should be there in a transparent way. I commend amendment 321 to the Committee.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I very much support his amendment; it is good to hear that the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, will as well. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford has made his points very powerfully, and it is good that we are in agreement.

I also support amendment 431, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, which would restrict proxies to donees of lasting power of attorney. The point is that somebody who has been through the process of taking on power of attorney has been properly vetted and approved; they are required to demonstrate their fitness for the role and undertake a meaningful duty of care to the person for whom they are a proxy. That strikes me as an appropriate suggestion from the hon. Lady.

Amendment 411, tabled by the hon. Member for Broxtowe, suggests that the phrase

“a person who is of good standing in the community”

should be deleted. I think she is absolutely right to suggest that. I made the point on Second Reading that—

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

Will the hon. Member give way?

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I think the hon. Lady is about to say that her own amendment addresses that point.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

My point was that I think amendment 411 has been withdrawn.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

Is that the case? I apologise.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

I will double check.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

Okay. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Spen Valley, if so. I regret it, because I think amendment 411 had a good suggestion. It would have been my preference if we were just amending the provision, although removing the whole question of a proxy might be the safest thing. Nevertheless, if we are proceeding with the proxy arrangement, it strikes me as dangerous to include a person of good standing in the community. While it sounds like an old-fashioned and sonorous expression, as if it has genuine meaning and recognition, I do not think it is an acknowledged concept and does not appear in English law much, if at all. It obviously begs the question of what on earth it means, and who is to determine who is of good standing.

I labour the point even though the amendment might have been withdrawn, because amendment 473 in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley proposes to delete that phrase and give the responsibility for who the proxies could be to the Secretary of State. That is another important instance of a running flaw in the Bill, and particularly the amendments tabled in Committee, which is the transferring of important decisions beyond the Committee and Parliament to the Government and the Minister of the day.

That matters, because we are trying to ensure that when the Bill passes—if it passes—it is safe, but a blank space is being left on the important question of who can determine who the proxies are. The proxies have enormous power to do the paperwork and to answer the questions—to essentially act on behalf of the patient who, in the scenario envisaged, would be silent. It matters who the proxy is.

The decision of the hon. Member for Spen Valley is not to resolve that question here in Committee but to pass it on to a future Minister. My concern is that the same ambiguity or openness that is currently in the Bill about this person of good standing—a serious-sounding but actually vacuous concept—could be replicated in the regulations specified by the Secretary of State.

I am worried about where we are going here. Instead, I wish that we could restrict the proxy to somebody known to the patient, without the inclusion of the person of good standing or, if we are to do without that phrase and imagine that there will be other criteria and other individuals judged appropriate to be the proxy, that we had the will to determine that now. The hon. Member for Spen Valley, working with the Government, may well have concluded that they did not have enough time to come up with such a list or to think through the various complications involved in deciding who the proxy should be. Again, if that was the case, I regret the pace at which we are moving. I do not see why the decision has to be delayed until the Secretary of State comes up with a plan in a couple of years’ time and why it is not being resolved in the Bill now.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

I confirm that amendment 411 has been withdrawn. I see no other Members bobbing; I call the Minister.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

Amendment 321 would require a proxy to record, when signing the declaration on behalf of the person, the reason why the person they are acting as a proxy for is unable to sign their own name. The recording of the reason may make the use of a proxy more transparent. It may also assist others involved in the scrutiny of the process to understand why a proxy was used.

Amendment 431 seeks to restrict who can be a proxy under the Bill to attorneys with a lasting power of attorney, or LPA, for health and welfare decisions—that is, those people who are able to consent to or refuse life-sustaining treatment. The amendment raises significant practical issues. First, not everyone has an LPA. Secondly, where a person has made an LPA, they will have decided whether to give the attorney the authority to refuse or consent to life-sustaining treatment. That is not automatic and means that not all attorneys would be able to meet the eligibility requirement of the amendment. Thirdly, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 enables an attorney to exercise power under an LPA only if and when someone has lost capacity.

Kit Malthouse (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

Does the Minister agree that, unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that there is some reputational test in becoming an attorney? In truth, I can appoint anybody I want to be my attorney. There is no verification or otherwise until there is some form of dispute around the exercise of the power of attorney. In fact, the regulations may mean that we have stronger verification of the bona fides of the person who is a proxy than we would have through the LPA route.

Does the Minister not also find it slightly sad that, given the type of Conservative I know my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire is, he thinks the concept of being of good standing in society is somehow meaningless?

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

I am not a lawyer, but thankfully I am sitting next to a very eminent and distinguished one—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green—who has confirmed that everything the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said was correct from a legal standpoint, so I shall leave it at that.

Clause 15(5) of the Bill defines a proxy as

“(a) a person who has known the person making the declaration personally for at least 2 years, or

(b) a person who is of good standing in the community.”

Amendment 473 would remove subsection (b) from the definition of proxy, instead introducing a regulation-making power to specify the persons who may act as proxy. That would avoid any ambiguity around the meaning of a person who is of good standing in the community and retain flexibility to amend the specified list in regulations.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State could simply reintroduce that ambiguous term at their own discretion? If they are being given the freedom to decide who can be a proxy, they might decide that it should be a term of equal ambiguity. My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire is absolutely right that I have great respect for the concept of “standing”; nevertheless, I do not believe that the Government have yet been able to define exactly what that means. Does the Minister agree that there is still the opportunity for ambiguity? We are just leaving it completely blank at this stage and hoping that some future Secretary of State will have more clarity than we do.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

I would not want to pre-empt the regulations, because clearly that is the point of the process. If this Bill gets Royal Assent, we then move on to making regulations, and I have confidence in the good offices of parliamentary counsel, legal advice and the drafting process. I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, that the purpose of those regulations must be to remove ambiguity, not to increase it. I am confident that the system will produce regulations that address his concern.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

Does the Minister agree that it will be on the record that we have had this conversation, and that many of us—including myself—have expressed our concerns about the concept of good standing in the community? I would like to think that that will be taken into consideration.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

I am acutely conscious that every word we say in this Committee is on the record. My hon. Friend makes a valid point in that context.

The purpose of amendment 253 is to clarify that a person acting as a proxy can both sign and revoke a declaration on behalf of a person seeking assistance under the Bill. This amendment would extend the provisions under clause 15 to a person who is acting as proxy to the person seeking assistance under the Bill, enabling the proxy to act on behalf of the person to cancel their first or second declaration if they are unable to sign their own name by reason of physical impairment, being unable to read or for any other reason. I note that the cancellation of a declaration is governed by clause 14, and the cancellation may be given orally, via writing, or

“in a manner of communication known to be used by the person”.

It does not require the signature of the person seeking assistance under the Bill, so a proxy may not be required for some people in relation to revoking a declaration, even if they have been required under clause 15.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

On the point made by the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, should the issue of proxy end up before a court, what will be relied on—the conversation that we are having here and the intentions stated in Committee, or a future statutory instrument and what the Secretary of State puts in the guidance?

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

The regulations will have primacy, and will be shaped by a range of inputs, including the conversation we have just had in Committee. The process is that the Bill gets Royal Assent, then the regulations are drawn up based on a range of consultations and inputs—including the Hansard. The regulations then become the basis on which this proxy process is managed, enforced and executed.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

I genuinely want to understand this issue. Even though we have had this conversation in Committee, what if the Secretary of State, following those consultations, decides otherwise? What recourse do we as a Committee have to challenge that?

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

The Bill, once it becomes an Act, places a legal duty on the Secretary of State to produce those regulations. The Secretary of State would be in breach of the law if he were not to enforce the conclusions of the Act.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I will speak first to my amendment 473. It is important to be clear that the role of the proxy is very specific and would be used only in a very limited number of cases, where the patient is not able to sign their own name. That is, however, important when we are talking about terminally ill people who may be physically impaired, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford alluded to.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady so soon into her speech. Nevertheless, the clause says that someone can use a proxy when they are unable to sign their name

“by reason of physical impairment, being unable to read or for any other reason”.

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that that is tantamount to saying that somebody can have a proxy for any reason at all? There is literally no restriction in the clause on the reason for why somebody could have a proxy—anybody could have one.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

That is why amendment 321 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford is really important. We have to put the reason down for why there is a proxy. It depends on personal circumstances and what that patient is going through, so we have to have a bit of flexibility, but they have to be unable to sign their name and they have to explain why they are unable to sign their name.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I hope that this does not appear pedantic, but we are talking about life and death after all. The patient’s inability to sign their name could be psychological; it is not as if they will have to do a writing test. They simply have to say that they are unable to sign their name, unless the hon. Lady is proposing that there could be some sort of test for that.

I entirely support amendment 321 in the name of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about the proxy being obliged to state the reason why—it is good to finally have the question “Why?” being asked in the Bill. Nevertheless, there is no obligation for anything to be done about that reason; someone could give a reason that would be regarded as irrelevant. I respect the intention behind the amendment, but it does not clarify the point that literally anybody could effectively get a proxy to sign their name, having said to the assessing doctor, “I want my friend to sign for me.”

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

That is the sort of thing that the doctor would explore with the patient. It would happen in a very limited set of circumstances. We have to accommodate people who are physically impaired as a result of their terminal illness, and we have to include that there are a range of circumstances where this might apply. The proxy is being asked not to make any kind of judgment or assessment, but merely to act as an intermediary for the patient if they are unable to sign for themselves. They would have to explain why they are unable to sign for themselves, and the proxy has to be satisfied that the person understands the nature and effect of the making of the declaration.

I thought long and hard about who should and should not be accepted as a proxy. As always, I try to imagine how it would be seen by someone with a terminal illness. As we know, no two people are the same, nor are their circumstances. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire said that surely it should be done by someone the patient knows. The clause defines a proxy as someone the patient has known for two years, which is an important inclusion, but not everyone might have known for two years a person who they are comfortable asking to undertake that role.

I also appreciate the challenges with the wording

“of good standing in the community”.

I will let the hon. Member for East Wiltshire and the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire fight that out among themselves. I am sure we all have our own version of what that means.

I have explored various options and, contrary to the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, I have spent a huge amount of time on this question, because it is very important. Looking at different lists, there is the list of people who can sign the back of someone’s passport. I do not think that would be appropriate, so I moved away from that. I have also looked at much shorter lists. I do think that this question would be part of a consultation; it is really important to get it right, which is why we must have it as part of a consultation. I am content that having the Secretary of State put it in regulations is the right thing to do.

As I said, I am happy to support amendment 321 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. It is a sensible amendment that makes the reasons for the use of the proxy more transparent. If amendment 253 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) is moved, I am happy to support that too. As the Minister said, a cancellation need not be in writing; it can be made orally or through any other form of communication.

Clause 16 - Recording of declarations and statements etc

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I beg to move amendment 474, in clause 16, page 11, line 17, at end insert—

“(1A) In this section ‘recordable event’ means an event mentioned in a paragraph of subsection (1).”

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 475, in clause 16, page 11, line 19, leave out from second “the” to “in” in line 21 and insert

“occurrence of the recordable event”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Amendment 476, in clause 16, page 11, line 24, leave out from “the” to “, and” in line 26 and insert

“occurrence of the recordable event”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Amendment 477, in clause 16, page 11, line 27, leave out from “the” to “in” in line 29 and insert

“occurrence of the recordable event”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Amendment 478, in clause 16, page 11, line 30, leave out from second “a” to end of line 32 and insert

“declaration, report or statement within subsection (1) must include the original declaration, report or statement.”

This amendment is consequential on amendments 209 and 377.

Clause stand part.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

The amendments are designed to streamline the drafting of the Bill. Taken together, they create a new definition of a recordable event, namely those events set out in clause 16(1), where declarations and statements are required at any stage of the process. We can all agree that record keeping is essential, so it is necessary to define the events that should be recorded. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I very much respect the hon. Lady’s intention, and I support the amendments. On clause 16, however, I must take the opportunity to express a certain concern. The clause applies if, under subsection (1)(b), the co-ordinating doctor

“refuses to make…a statement”

to be entered into the person’s medical records. That is good but, as I understand it, a statement could be made that complies with the Bill but does not put on record, in relation to subsection (2), which requirements the co-ordinating doctor did not believe were satisfied. We have missed an opportunity to have more clarity about which exact requirements have not been met. There is also the eternal question about the co-ordinating doctor’s reasons for reaching that conclusion. I just note the missed opportunity to be a little safer with the drafting.

My more general point is about the importance of effective record keeping and declaration. I thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley, who throughout the whole Bill process has stressed the importance of good data collection and record keeping, which will be vital so that in later years, if the Bill passes, we can judge whether it is working as intended.

I am concerned about going on the evidence of other countries, which is frequently adduced in support of the Bill, particularly in respect of the absence of evidence of coercion, questions around capacity, proper administration of drugs or the support that patients receive. It is often said that concerns are exaggerated or inappropriate, “because look at what happens in other countries”, but let me briefly run through some evidence from abroad.

The fact is that no other country does adequate record keeping. One ambition of the hon. Member for Spen Valley that I really do share is to have a better system of keeping data than in other countries. In Oregon, the most recent annual report demonstrates a whole series of failures in record keeping. Ingestion status was unknown for 25% of the patients prescribed the drugs, so we do not know whether they took the drugs or what the process was. In 72% of cases, it was unknown whether there were complications; we have been talking about how exaggerated my concerns and those of other Members are about complications, but in 72% of cases in Oregon we do not know. In 30% of cases, it was unknown whether a healthcare provider was present. In 44% of cases, the duration between ingestion and death was unknown.

I very much recognise that the intention of the Bill is not to have those sorts of mistake. Indeed, the intention is to ensure that some of them should be impossible, because a doctor should be present and so on. Nevertheless, there is evidence that in other countries that have inspired the Bill, the data is inadequate. I will give a few more examples.

British Columbia has poor documentation, incomplete assessments, recurrent and excessive delays in reporting. In the debate on the last group of amendments, we spoke about the necessity that a doctor be informed if a declaration is cancelled; I am very concerned that that will not happen quickly and that people could fall through the gaps. That is what happens abroad. We have seen evidence from the former Attorney-General of Victoria, Australia, of all sorts of irregularities, with doctors falsely certifying that patients had signed statements and so on.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I do not know the details of the individual cases that the hon. Member speaks about, but he makes a powerful point and we absolutely agree on the importance of recording and monitoring. I know that he voted against the changes at clause 12, but I hope he gets some reassurance from the changes that the commission would bring in. Having the commission and the panels would ensure robust monitoring and reporting. I hope he agrees that that is a positive step.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I absolutely recognise that the hon. Lady has every intention of insisting that the system works well, that doctors do their job and that good record keeping happens. My concern throughout has been that we have not been robust enough in ensuring that all of that happens.

A huge amount of faith is being placed in the good professional conduct of doctors. Patient autonomy has been stressed, but it often translates into doctor autonomy. We are relying enormously on doctors doing their job well, and we are giving them significant latitude to do their job properly. As we see in other jurisdictions, particularly when assisted suicide becomes normalised and services are established explicitly to provide assisted suicide, we get into a dangerous area in which adequate documentation and reporting might not happen.

I will conclude with evidence from Canada, which is a very comparable country; it has a slightly different mechanism for delivering assisted suicide, but its legal framework is very similar to ours. The Health and Social Care Committee in our last Parliament received evidence from an academic in Canada, Dr Kotalik, who stated that federal regulations had been

“mandating a collection of data from MAID providers”,

just as the Bill will do. However, he noted that

“those legal and regulatory efforts have yet to produce evidence that the program operates as intended. We have no publicly accessible evidence that the eligibility criteria and safeguards prescribed by law were respected and that the Criminal Code has not been transgressed.”

It is fine for us, in this Committee and in Parliament, to specify that all doctors should do their job properly and that all data should be appropriately collected, transmitted and recorded. Nevertheless, as we all know from our casework, the reality is often one of bureaucratic mistakes being made, albeit not with any ill will. Given the volumes that we may well be dealing with, I think it is appropriate to raise significant concerns about the operation of the Bill and the data collection that we seek.

Sojan Joseph (Labour, Ashford)

Record keeping is a huge issue in our healthcare system. A huge number of coroners’ reviews have identified that record keeping has been an issue. By specifying only that clinicians need record a “recordable event”, we are leaving it as the responsibility of individual clinicians to decide what a recordable event is.

It is important that a good record be available to prevent future incidents and learn good practice. Leaving it open to a clinician to decide whether something is a recordable event could lead to most issues not getting recorded. For example, if a clinician has identified that there was coercion, it will be for the clinician to decide how much documentation to do. In my view, if they have identified a coercion, that should be recorded as an incident and further investigation should be done, but the Bill leaves it up to the clinician to decide. There is no standard for record keeping across the healthcare system, so a care home’s may be different from an NHS ward’s. I think it is for the Committee to look into what “recordable event” actually means.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

The purpose of amendments 474 to 478 is to improve the drafting of the Bill by creating a new definition of “recordable event”. Recordable events are the events set out in clause 16(1) related to the recording of declarations and statements.

The amendments would also make consequential changes to clause 16, which refer to the occurrence of the recordable event, as per the new definition, and include reference to a report in addition to a statement or declaration. The reference to a report is consequential on the amendments already agreed by the Committee to clauses 7 and 8.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I have nothing further to add.

Clause 17 - Recording of cancellations

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I beg to move amendment 479, in clause 17, page 11, line 37, leave out “at” and insert “with”.

This amendment clarifies that a cancellation may be given to a practitioner with the person’s GP practice.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

The amendment, which would clarify the drafting, speaks for itself. The important point is that the record of cancellation be with the GP practice as soon as is practicable. It is not necessary for that to take place physically at the practice, as that could potentially delay its delivery.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

Clause 17(2) provides that where a notice or indication regarding a cancellation of a first or second declaration is given to a registered medical practitioner “at” the person’s GP practice, that practitioner must record the cancellation in the person’s medical records as soon as possible. Amendment 479 seeks to clarify that the requirement to record the cancellation applies not just where the cancellation is given to a registered medical practitioner physically at the GP practice, but where the cancellation is given to a registered medical practitioner “with” the person’s GP practice, irrespective of whether the notice was given at the GP practice. I hope that that explanation is helpful.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Clause 18 - Provision of assistance

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I beg to move amendment 462, in clause 18, page 12, line 20, at end insert—

“(3A) When providing a substance under subsection (3) the coordinating doctor must explain to the person that they do not have to go ahead and self administer the substance and they may still cancel their declaration.”

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 463, in clause 18, page 12, line 34, leave out paragraph (c).

Amendment 497, in clause 18, page 13, line 9, leave out “decides” and insert

“informs the coordinating doctor that they have decided”.

This amendment provides that the duty to remove the approved substance arises on the coordinating doctor being informed that the person has decided not to self-administer the substance.

Amendment 498, in clause 18, page 13, line 10, leave out

“that the substance is not”

and insert

“to believe that the substance will not be”.

This amendment clarifies the circumstances in which the coordinating doctor is under a duty to remove the approved substance from the person.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

This group of amendments contains two sub-groups that I shall deal with separately. Amendment 462, in my name, and amendments 497 and 498, in the name of the hon. Member for Spen Valley, concern the information given at the provision of assistance and decisions around that. My amendment 463 concerns the question of assistance in the final act.

This is a rather sombre moment in the Bill, because it is somewhere in clause 18, between subsection (9)(a) and subsection (9)(a)(i)—between the self-administration and “the person has died”—that the death happens. The amendments are about making sure that we understand what is happening here and whether it is safe.

Amendment 462 would require the doctor to make it clear to the patient at the final moment that they do not have to proceed. Of course, this is clearly the implication of the Bill. We have stressed autonomy all along. Everybody who is helping us to draft the Bill, all colleagues in the House and all doctors understand that of course the patient is not obliged to proceed at this point. The reason for the amendment is to think about the patient: to put ourselves in the mind of the person who has gone a long way down the road, who has summoned multiple professionals to endorse a decision that they have made and who has, we hope, involved their family and other people in their life, all of whom will be aware of what is about to happen and will, we also hope, be supportive of that decision or at least neutral about it.

That person finds themselves suddenly at the moment when the drugs are due to be set up for self-administration, a point that we will come on to. That is the final opportunity that they have to decline to proceed. Throughout the Bill, hurdles and gateways have been introduced through which a patient must proceed. In many respects I do not think them adequate, but it is acknowledged by the framers of the Bill that it is necessary to pass through certain hurdles and, in what might appear to be quite a formulaic way, require the patient to confirm and reconfirm that they have a clear, settled and informed wish.

What we do not have at this vital moment—in a sense, the only moment that matters, because everything up to this point has been preliminary; it is at this point that they step through the final gateway—is an obligation, expectation or requirement for any conversation to take place. The doctor is expected to satisfy himself or herself that the patient

“has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”

and must be prepared to swear to that. Nevertheless, there is no expectation that they will have a conversation. We can pretend, imagine, hope or surmise that some kind of conversation would happen at that point—“Do you want to proceed?” “Yes, I do”—but we are not requiring it.

I raise this point in the clear and certain knowledge that many people do, at that moment, have second thoughts. We know that from the number of people who contemplate and get very close to the act of unassisted suicide and step back, literally, from the brink. I want to insist that there is an opportunity here to step back from the brink, just as our suicide prevention strategy seeks to ensure that at the moment when and in the places where many people tragically do take their own life, on bridges or on Beachy Head, there are signs saying, “Call the Samaritans” or “You are not alone”. I want to specify clearly that this is that moment, rather than it being assumed that the train has left the station and the person is just on it now. I think it would be a helpful amendment.

I cite written evidence from Dr Philippa Youd, writing in a personal capacity:

“I have witnessed ‘post-euthanasia regret’. I was 18 when my mother took her own life due to ‘interminable suffering’. She knew what she was doing—she had tried before. Just before she slipped into a coma, she told me she was sorry and that she regretted it. The inquest therefore deemed her death an ‘open verdict’. It was suicide, but it was suicide that was regretted, despite true intent and interminable suffering”—

and no doubt capacity and a lack of coercion. Dr Youd continues:

“No one can EVER be sure they want to die until the moment of death. They may still change their mind and then it is too late. No one can know what patients will truly face, emotionally and cognitively, at the point of death. I have witnessed firsthand the tragic circumstance of someone changing their mind after choosing to die. There is no peace in that.”

I hope that hon. Members will not consider that this amendment is unnecessary embroidery or that requiring a simple statement to be made is some kind of imposition on the autonomy of doctors or patients. Someone should still be able to turn back and change their mind at this point.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, and I thank him for the respectful way in which he is doing so. He has given an example of a very personal story; it is also important to remember the other personal stories we have all heard. We have with us today in the Public Gallery family members who have lost loved ones. Catie’s mum went to Dignitas in Switzerland for an assisted death, and her daughter could not go with her. As a family they have suffered to this day as a result of that experience.

We need to be really careful about the language we use around suicide. We have spoken about this before. The cases we have heard of are not people who want to die. They are people who want to live, but they are terminally ill. We need to be really sensitive to that, having heard so many examples of families who have been through these really difficult situations. But the hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I am minded to support his amendment because I think it comes from a good place.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I hear what she has said; we have had this conversation before. I am afraid that I do insist on my right to use the English language accurately. What is proposed in the Bill is a carve-out of the Suicide Act, so I regret to say to the hon. Lady that I will continue to describe it in terms that are appropriate to it. I hope I do so with absolute sympathy and respect for the many families who have suffered from the trauma of seeing their loved ones die badly—loved ones who would have wished for an assisted death under the terms of the Bill. I am very glad to hear that the hon. Lady supports my amendment. I do not think it would be any sort of imposition on families for the doctors to let the patient know at the last moment that they have the opportunity to turn back.

Sean Woodcock (Labour, Banbury)

The hon. Gentleman is making a really powerful speech, and I am minded to support the amendment on the basis that there will be a small but significant group of people who, having gone through the whole process, will feel they have been a burden on the people who have gone to all the effort, through every stage, to get to the end, so if they have doubts at the end, they may be reluctant to change their mind. It will be a very small group, but I do think it is significant. I see it as the re-establishment of autonomy for the patient, which we all believe in; does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

That is absolutely right. We have to think about the no doubt quite turbulent emotions that people will have as they approach the end of their life, and to reiterate their genuine autonomy. They are not on a conveyor belt that they cannot get off until the very last moment—until they have passed through this gateway. The amendment seeks to remind them and, indeed, their families of that. I am afraid we do hear terrible stories of people who have arranged their assisted death: often family members have flown in from abroad, doctors have been summoned and so on, and then they feel they have to proceed because, as the hon. Gentleman says, they feel a burden as it is and do not want to be an annoyance at the end by making everybody wait. I am afraid that is indeed the reason for the amendment. I am pleased to hear that it sounds like it will be accepted, and I am grateful to Members who will support it.

Amendment 463 is the other, more substantial, amendment in my name in this group. It would leave out paragraph (c) of clause 18(6), which says that the doctor can assist the patient

“to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.”

Here we are in a lot of difficulty and a grey area. Let me try to unpack the reasons for objecting to paragraph (c). The hon. Member for Spen Valley argued in an interview that there is a “very clear line” between the Bill and euthanasia, which is someone else doing the deed. She said that the act

“has to be the decision of the individual, and it has to be the act of the individual”,

which

“creates that extra level of safeguards and protections”.

I agree with her—it is right that we introduce the additional safeguard of insisting that the patient performs the final act themselves.

I recognise that there is a distinction between euthanasia and assisted suicide, and I support the hon. Lady’s attempt to insist on that distinction in the law. It is another safeguard. But the fact is that there is a blurred line between the two, and I can also understand why many people object to the exclusion of euthanasia—of the fatal act being administered by other people. A doctor from Canada said it was inherently ableist to require the patient to self-administer, and I think that is unarguable. If that is the case, the logical provision would be to enable euthanasia, if one believes in the autonomy of the patient.

I am afraid my strong belief is that the reason why euthanasia has not been proposed in the Bill or by the campaign, which has been led by an organisation that used to call itself the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, is because the campaign has concluded that such a Bill would not pass Parliament and believes—I think correctly—that Members of Parliament and members of the public would object to euthanasia. But the logic of the Bill and of the campaign is actually for euthanasia, if one believes genuinely in autonomy, in equal rights and in not discriminating against people who are physically unable to perform the act themselves.

Despite my efforts, hon. Members have not been able to conceptualise the difference between withdrawing a medical treatment that affects a particular medical condition on the one hand, and administering drugs that annihilate the person on the other. There is a meaningful and important difference between those two things. One is a person declining to use a shield, and the other is the person using a sword against themselves. I think there is a difference there, and I regret that colleagues do not see it.

Where I do not see a difference, however, is between a person injecting themselves and asking someone else to inject them. There are two versions of the death of Saul in the Bible. I think this is the only reference to the Bible that I will make in this whole debate, and I make it partly to show that there is an inconsistency in the Bible—there is not a single Biblical view of these matters. In one account of the death of Saul, having been defeated by the Philistines, he asks his servant to run him through with his sword, but his servant refuses, so he falls on his own sword and kills himself. In the other version, he gets a passing soldier to run him through—to kill him.

To me it does not matter: the inconsistency in the story is interesting historically, but conceptually, logically and morally I do not see the difference. Whether you fall on your own sword or ask someone else to do it to you, it is still a sword, you are still actioning it and you are still responsible, if we recognise that the individual has autonomy. But there is a practical difference. We are talking about assistance to die and the role of another person who supports your decision and helps you to fulfil it, but that results in an obscuring of the practical difference. In practice, as we see in clause 18(6), the assistant comes very close to euthanasia. The role of the assistant, in my view, is closer to that of the soldier who kills Saul than of the servant who refused to do it.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

The hon. Member is making an interesting philosophical point with his biblical references. I think the point he may be making is that there might not be any difference for the individual, as the result is sadly the same, but I put it to him that there is quite a significant difference for the other person. If we think about the autonomy of the medical professionals we ask to be involved in the process, there is a strong argument that it would be very different for them to be more involved in the process. Does that makes sense?

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I am grateful—I really do thank the hon. Lady, because the effect of this process on the medical professionals who will be involved is a very important consideration, and one that we have perhaps not given enough attention to. That is why we will come to the conscience clause in due course, although we have discussed it a little already. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is a difference for the medics in the extent to which they are involved in the administration of the death. I am afraid I do not see a major moral difference between providing the wherewithal—setting things up for, or indeed helping, the patients to ingest or otherwise self-administer the fatal drug—and people performing the act themselves. The distinction is very obscure; there is a significant grey area there.

On the hon. Lady’s point about appropriate consideration of the feelings of the medical profession, if she believes in doctor autonomy, she should believe that doctors ought to have the autonomy to decide for themselves whether to perform euthanasia, if euthanasia were legal. That is what happens in other countries. In Canada, doctors can decline to take part, or they can participate.

Given the question of autonomy, it is worth noting that in countries where euthanasia is legal, it is the overwhelming choice of the patients, as I think it would be for me. If I were facing that terrible moment and choice—we will come in due course to the question of the drugs involved and the process of taking them, but swallowing all these pills is not a pleasant process—it would be far easier, more humane and less painful for a doctor to administer the drugs intravenously. I visited Canada and met a doctor who had been responsible for over 300 deaths, which she herself has performed, because that is the overwhelming choice of the patients. As I am sure the hon. Lady would agree, that doctor is acting with full professional discretion and autonomy.

To go back to my point, I am afraid this is one of the impossible dilemmas that the Bill and the whole concept of assisted dying set up: whether we allow the doctor to do it to us. My concern is that if the stress on self-administration is genuinely felt—not, as I cynically believe, because this is the only way to get assisted dying through the House of Commons—because the Bill’s authors recognise the need to be absolutely sure that the act is voluntary, and if the reason why we insist on self-administration is because we want to be sure that the act is voluntary, what does that say about all the so-called safeguards that exist up to this point? We have been told that those safeguards are sufficient to ensure that we have absolute confidence about the person’s clear and settled wish.

If we are sure that people at this stage in the process have a settled, informed and free wish to end their lives, why should they not be able to ask a doctor to do it to them? The only answer to that question can be that we do not genuinely believe that we are completely sure. We want, subsequent to death, to be sure—in terms of our own moral propriety and sense of amour-propre—that those people did it themselves. It was not our choice; it was not us doing it to them—they did it.

Kit Malthouse (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

I am a little confused by my hon. Friend’s logic. He has literally just proposed an amendment for the doctor to ask, at the last, whether the person still wants to proceed. Surely self-administration is the ultimate act of consent, which his own amendment requires a doctor to establish right at the last moment.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I support the distinction between self-administration and euthanasia. I am in favour of all possible safeguards and every possible opportunity to give the patient the chance to step back from the brink. The point I am making is that I do not recognise the logic of the distinction that the Bill insists on. Indeed, in the provision that I am concerned about, subsection (6), the distinction in fact does not apply.

Sojan Joseph (Labour, Ashford)

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something? He is making a valid point, and I have been thinking about it. As a nurse who has worked in many areas, I know that a disabled person may not be able to take medication by themselves, and sometimes a nurse has to administer it with a spoon. There may be occasions on which a person’s medication comes back out and they have to do it a few times. Is that something the hon. Gentleman is concerned about—actually pushing the medication into the person?

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

Once again, we are in an extraordinary no man’s land between medical treatment and something else that we cannot find a word for. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course, it is appropriate in medical treatment for a nurse or doctor to assist in the administration of a treatment. As he suggests, if the person found it difficult to raise a cup to their lips, the nurse would help them. Indeed, if they found it difficult to perform an injection, it would be expected that that would be done by the nurse or doctor anyway. But here we are setting up a strange new method of administering a so-called treatment in which the patient has to perform the physical act themselves.

It is apparent from the clause that it is very unclear what assistance actually looks like, so yes, I absolutely imagine that if the patient were struggling to raise the cup to their lips, a nurse or doctor who was present at the final act in an assisted suicide would help them to do so. Similarly, if the patient were finding it difficult to put their finger on the syringe, it would be appropriate—normally, one would expect—for the medical professional to lift the patient’s finger and put it in the right place. What happens next? Do they then apply a little pressure if the patient is finding it difficult to depress the plunger on the syringe? If the cup is at the lips, do they tip it up and let gravity take its course? These very complicated questions about where assistance ends and autonomy begins are, I am afraid to say, impossible to specify in the Act; therefore, it is apparent that we have a grey area.

I conclude with some evidence that we received from Iain Brassington, professor of applied and legal philosophy at Manchester University. He says:

“how are we to determine how the ‘final act’ of self-administration is to be differentiated from the penultimate act, in which the doctor may assist? How would helping a patient lift the cup to her lips be distinguished from helping her ingest its contents?”—

the hon. Member for Ashford referred to that. He goes on to say that

“the definition of the ‘final act’ is unclear, especially granted the wording of”

subsection (6)(c), and:

“The proposed law says that a doctor may not administer a substance with the intention of causing death, but also that a doctor may help a person self-administer. But how should we draw the boundary between helping a person self-administer, and playing a role in administration?”

I come to the penultimate point—not the final act—of my speech. There is some odd phrasing in subsection (7), and I wonder whether the hon. Member for Spen Valley or the Minister can help to parse the English. It says that

“the decision to self-administer the approved substance and the final act of doing so must be taken by the person”.

We understand about the decision being taken by the person, but the phrasing is that the final act “must be taken” by the person. I am not familiar with that construction. Does one take an act? Is that English? You perform an act—an act is not taken, it is done, by a person acting autonomously. The question of whether this is an active or a passive concept runs to the heart of my concern about the clause, and we need to think about redrafting, at least in deference to the English language.

Somewhere in this clause there is a magic moment when assistance gives way to autonomy, and the penultimate act by the doctor yields to the final act, which is supposed to be by the patient. We cannot tell when the responsibility for the action passes from one to the other. In proper medicine it does not matter because the medic works with the patient, but here it does matter. We are insisting that there is a difference between a doctor setting up a death, and the patient performing the action of suicide.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for his amendment, and for speaking in the powerful, sensitive way that he did. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Spen Valley and for Banbury, who made interventions.

I did not intend to speak to this amendment, but having heard the hon. Member for East Wiltshire speak so powerfully and sensitively, it is important for me to share a few things. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said a couple of times that the difference between people who commit suicide and those who will take this route is that the patients have been given less than six months to live, and that was not a choice. I was a Samaritan for years, because I had two failed suicide attempts in my early years, and since then I have battled with mental health demons all my life because of my experiences. To suggest that there is a difference between someone who gets a terminal illness and wants to take this act and people who want to commit suicide, and to suggest that they are doing it out of choice, is wrong. I felt really emotional when that exchange was happening. The reason why I think it is wrong is that, at the time that I wanted to commit suicide, I did not feel that I had a choice. I could not see a way out.

When I was on those Samaritans phonelines, speaking to people who rang in to unpick their feelings about what was driving them to feel suicidal in that moment, it was not because they want to die, but because they were in circumstances that drove them to feel that they had no option but to commit suicide. In some instances, it takes an amount of courage and bravery to even contemplate that option. To diminish that, which I feel is what has, intentionally or unintentionally, happened on occasion, is really wrong, because I have been there, and it was not easy and it was not because I wanted to die.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I certainly have not heard anyone try to diminish the experience of suicidal people. We probably all have our own stories of loved ones who we have either lost to suicide—I know that I do—or who had very severe mental health issues. The point I would make is that the families I have met who have lost loved ones through assisted dying or a harrowing terminal-illness death have said that they desperately wanted to live. That is the distinction I would make, but I appreciate that my hon. Friend is absolutely right that people with suicidal tendencies and ideation also want to live—they just do not feel they have a choice. It is a very delicate debate to have, but please be assured of my sensitivities to it.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

I am genuinely grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, because I do not want the Committee—or our constituents—to feel that there is an equivalence. There is not. People who are in that space, who ring the Samaritans helpline to speak to them, all desperately want to live a brilliant life. That is what brings us here: each and every one of us wants to make this place the best it can be, so that our country is the best it can be and all our communities, people and constituents—all members of society—thrive. It is a sensitive debate, but let us be careful not to draw a parallel where there is not one. It was important for me to put that on the record.

I will support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire because we have already voted down an amendment requiring doctors to simply ask the question why. This speaks to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury raised: I know, through my experience at the Samaritans, as somebody who has attempted suicide and as somebody who has gone on to chair a charity that leads mental health interventions, how difficult it is for a patient has gone through the process of having had that conversation with their family, who might not necessarily agree, and having convinced them that they are going to take this option because they want autonomy, and fear losing it.

I cannot imagine what it must be like for those people, at that moment, saying their final goodbyes, and the level of potential pressure they face right at the last minute, having spoken to everybody and put their family members, and indeed themselves, through the process. Would they not feel internal pressure on themselves to go through with it? Would they really have the option, and not feel, in a sense, obliged to say, “Yes”? Do we really not want to ask that question?

When we debated the amendment requiring doctors to ask the question why, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said that doctors would ask it anyway, but that argument would not work in this instance because doctors would not do this anyway. They would not say, “I am about to give you something—have you changed your mind?”, because by that point they are in a process. The drug, in whatever form it takes, is in the process of being, or will have been, handed over to the person who wants to take that option, so it is not the same. I genuinely hope that the Committee will support the amendment, because it is our last option to make this intervention.

Neil Shastri-Hurst (Conservative, Solihull West and Shirley)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I will speak briefly to this group of amendments, setting out why I support amendments 462, 497 and 498, but oppose amendment 463. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire set out very eloquently the reasons behind amendment 462. On the one hand, there is a cogent argument that it is not strictly necessary in the light of the provisions set out in subsection (4)(b) and (c), which set out that the individual wishing to have an assisted death must have

“a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”

and is

“requesting provision of that assistance voluntarily”.

However, it appears to me a logical and entirely appropriate extension of the intentions behind clause 18(4) to express that in slightly more explicit terms in the Bill by adopting my hon. Friend’s amendment 462. It strikes me that, after doing so, the Bill would provide a further check and balance that creates no greater onus on either the individual seeking an assisted death nor the co-ordinating doctor who is assisting them. In those circumstances, it appears eminently sensible to improve the Bill in that way. From the indications we have already heard, it appears that there is significant support for that amendment.

I struggle with amendment 463, which would remove paragraph (c) from clause 18(6). The effect would be to prohibit the co-ordinating doctor from providing assistance to the person seeking an assisted death, either through ingestion or other self-administration of that substance, in any circumstance. In my view, the amendment would make the operation of the Bill, were it to become an Act, unnecessarily restrictive. Clause 18(7) already stipulates that

“the decision to self-administer the approved substance and the final act of doing so must”—

I stress the word “must”—

“be taken by the person to whom the substance has been provided”.

On any interpretation of the construct of that, it is clear that the person seeking an assisted death must be the active participant in the process; it is mandatory. There is no discretion in that, by virtue of the word “must”.

Were we to remove clause 18(6)(c) and the Bill passed into law, it would have the effect, in what is an entirely legal process, that a doctor would be unable to aid a patient in any circumstance. For example, they would not be allowed to hold a glass or steady a straw as a patient moved towards it to imbibe a substance. Those are circumstances that are entirely foreseeable, when through the ravages of an illness, somebody is limited in what they are physically able to do. Of course, assistance could be provided in alternative ways—for instance, through assistive technology, which we have seen being used in other jurisdictions. The Swiss, for example, use a significant amount of assistive technology in administering and assisting the process of self-administration at the end of life.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

My point is that it is very difficult to draw a line here. I recognise the scenario that my hon. Friend raises: why should a nurse not be able to hold a straw for a person to drink from? I might say that should be acceptable; however, I do not think it should be acceptable for the nurse to tip the pills into the patient’s mouth. Does he think that scenario would be acceptable? Or to give another one, would it be acceptable to actively provide force on top of a patient’s finger to press a syringe? Would he regard that as acceptable assistance?

Neil Shastri-Hurst (Conservative, Solihull West and Shirley)

That is why clause 18(7) is so important: the final act must be undertaken by the person seeking an assisted death. The example my hon. Friend gives of tipping tablets into a mouth is a final act. Pushing a syringe is a final act. There is a significant distinction between an individual or practitioner holding a cup with a straw and the person seeking an assisted death moving their mouth towards the straw, sucking from it and imbibing the substance and the passive act of a substance being raised to that individual’s lips and poured in without any movement by the individual seeking an assisted death themselves.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

When we talk about this in future debates, it might be appropriate for this conversation to be referenced. I think my hon. Friend is suggesting that it should be acceptable, and that assisted death would be legal, as long as the patient moved their head towards the straw and cup, and that it would be illegal, according to my hon. Friend’s definition, were a doctor applying a cup to a patient’s lips and the drugs fell in by gravity. Is that right? Is that how judges in future should determine whether assistance has crossed the line?

Neil Shastri-Hurst (Conservative, Solihull West and Shirley)

It is very clear from subsection (7) that this must be an active step taken by the individual. There is a risk that we go down a rabbit hole in terms of—[Interruption.] I am sure my hon. Friend would like me to finish my point. We risk going down a rabbit hole in drawing examples. I raised the example of a cup, but of course there are much wider assistive technologies that can be used and are used in different jurisdictions. I gave the example to illustrate the point that this is an active act, not a passive act.

Liz Saville-Roberts (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)

The hon. Gentleman mentions subsection (7). Subsection (8) states quite clearly that it

“does not authorise the coordinating doctor to administer an approved substance to another person with the intention of causing that person’s death.”

I think the passive and active roles are quite clear between the two subsections.

Neil Shastri-Hurst (Conservative, Solihull West and Shirley)

I agree entirely with the right hon. Member’s interpretation of the Bill.

There is a further unintended consequence of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, which I am sure is not his intention but would sadly be the effect: were an individual to qualify under the Bill, should it pass and were the amendment to be adopted, they would inevitably be forced to take the final decision at an earlier stage. If there is a restriction that they can have no assistance whatsoever in performing the act, they will end up making the decision when they know that they have the entire physical strength available for them to do it, and that actually brings forward the point at which they choose to die to an earlier stage.

Kit Malthouse (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

After 10 years of campaigning on this issue and spending so much time with people whose family have gone to Switzerland, one of the things they consistently say is that people went to Switzerland much earlier than they wanted to because they had to go while they were still physically able. I think this is a critical point that people have to realise. We should not compel people to do this earlier than they would otherwise wish to simply because of these restrictions.

Neil Shastri-Hurst (Conservative, Solihull West and Shirley)

My right hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point. I think there is a consensus among the Committee that there is no desire for people to take this ultimate step at an earlier stage than is absolutely necessary for them. My very real fear is that, were we to adopt this amendment, we would bring forward that point of decision.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

The logic of that argument is to allow physician-administered suicide, because there will be a point at which people are physically unable to perform the act but have capacity, and their autonomy should be respected—

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

Order.

Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Given the fluidity of matters on the Floor of the House today, my personal view, although it is only my view, is that I should not suspend the sitting at 5 o’clock. Hon. Members may leave the room at any time for a comfort break, but as there is likely to be an interruption and as the Committee may not want to sit too late, my view is that we should bash on, or rather that you should bash on. Mr Dowd will take the Chair at 5 o’clock, so I shall be able to escape. You have your own escape routes.

Sean Woodcock (Labour, Banbury)

One rule for one!

Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)

Yes, there may be an escape committee.

Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 463, in clause 18, page 12, line 34, leave out paragraph (c).

Amendment 497, in clause 18, page 13, line 9, leave out “decides” and insert

“informs the coordinating doctor that they have decided”.

This amendment provides that the duty to remove the approved substance arises on the coordinating doctor being informed that the person has decided not to self-administer the substance.

Amendment 498, in clause 18, page 13, line 10, leave out

“that the substance is not”

and insert

“to believe that the substance will not be”.

This amendment clarifies the circumstances in which the coordinating doctor is under a duty to remove the approved substance from the person.

Neil Shastri-Hurst (Conservative, Solihull West and Shirley)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. My hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire was mid-intervention when the Committee adjourned this morning, and I would not want to pull the rug from underneath him. Does he wish to intervene again?

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was simply asking what causes him to object to physician-administered assistance to die. If he supports the principle of assisted suicide and believes in doctor autonomy, why does he not think that doctors should be able to administer the fatal dose?

Neil Shastri-Hurst (Conservative, Solihull West and Shirley)

This gets to the root of how the law has operated in another jurisdiction, Switzerland, where Dignitas has managed this scenario over the past 40 years or so. The key—these are the words that its own guidance uses—is ensuring that the power of control remains with the person seeking the assisted death. That provides the individual who is making the choice with the ultimate autonomy at the end in controlling the circumstances and the manner in which they pass.

I have set out why I feel that although amendment 463 arises from good intentions, it would not achieve what is intended. There is a real risk that the constraints that adopting the amendment would create would lead to the regrettable unintended consequence of individuals being forced to have an assisted death at an earlier stage than they would otherwise have wished.

I can deal with amendments 497 and 498 in short order. They would tighten up the Bill by providing greater clarity around the circumstances in which the substance would be removed from the presence of the individual who had previously indicated a wish to have an assisted death. Amendment 497 specifies that the individual would need to set out to the co-ordinating doctor that they no longer desired to go through with the process. In my view, that is eminently sensible. Amendment 498 elaborates on the Bill to provide greater clarity to those who will be operating it. It will make it a much more workable piece of legislation. I support both amendments.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. Before I speak to amendments 497 and 498, on which the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, let me address amendments 462 and 463.

Amendment 462 would amend clause 18 to require the co-ordinating doctor to explain to the person that they do not have to proceed and self-administer the approved substance, and that they may still cancel their declaration. Although it is not specified, it is presumed that the amendment refers to the second declaration that the person will have made. The Committee may wish to note that there is already a requirement in clause 18(4)(b) that,

“at the time the approved substance is provided”,

the co-ordinating doctor must be satisfied that the person

“has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.

The purpose of amendment 463 is to limit what the co-ordinating doctor is permitted to do in relation to providing the person with an approved substance under clause 18. As the clause stands, subsection (6) sets out the activities that the co-ordinating doctor is permitted to carry out in respect of an approved substance provided to the person under subsection (2). It states that the co-ordinating doctor may

“(a) prepare that substance for self-administration by that person,

(b) prepare a medical device which will enable that person to self-administer the substance, and

(c) assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.”

Additionally, subsection (7) provides that

“the decision to self-administer the approved substance and the final act of doing so must be taken by the person to whom the substance has been provided.”

Amendment 463 would remove subsection (6)(c), which would result in the co-ordinating doctor being unable to assist the person

“to ingest or otherwise self-administer”

the approved substance. The co-ordinating doctor would still be permitted to prepare that substance for self-administration and to prepare a medical device to enable the person to self-administer the substance. This could mean that a co-ordinating doctor may not be able to provide assistance such as helping the person to sit up to help with swallowing, or explaining how the medical device for self-administering the substance works. This could result in practical difficulties in self-administration of the substance and/or place the co-ordinating doctor in a difficult position.

Sojan Joseph (Labour, Ashford)

Does the Minister think that it is confusing for health professionals when we say that they can assist the patient to sit up or hold a cup of water or put the medication into their mouth? Is it not confusing for medical professionals that we are giving contradictory statements?

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

One of the fundamental principles of the Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has prioritised, is self-administration. It is not for me as a Minister to opine on that; it is simply there in the Bill. Once that fundamental principle is established, it is about defining what “assistance” means, compared with what “self-administration” means. As I was setting out, I think “assistance” can mean things like helping the patient to sit up; it does not mean actually administering the substance to the patient. It is about the dividing line between assistance and self-administration—hence the term “assisted dying”, I suppose, which is very different from the doctor actually administering the substance.

Rebecca Paul (Conservative, Reigate)

I am going to read subsection (6)(c) again. It says:

“assist that person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance.”

I would interpret that slightly differently from the Minister. It talks about ingesting, which suggests the substance entering the body, so I would not suggest that sitting someone up would qualify. That in itself shows that perhaps there is some ambiguity here. The Minister has set out something that I had not read into the Bill. Will he comment further on that?

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

I will pretty much repeat what I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. There is a dividing line, as the Government see it, between assistance and administration. There is a dividing line between making the patient comfortable, enabling the procedure to take place, and the doctor actually putting the substance into the body of the patient. From the Government’s point of view, simply from the position of having a picture of the process in our mind, that dividing line is clear enough in the drafting of the clause.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I am grateful that the Minister is allowing us to push him on this, because it is crucial. This is the moment beyond which there is no return. He thinks that helping a patient to sit up would be within the scope of the clause. Does he think that holding the patient’s hand and tipping a cup of pills into their mouth would be consistent with the clause?

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

My interpretation is that it would not be, because if someone were actually tipping the pills into the mouth of the patient, they would be going through the act of putting the substance into the patient. This Bill is founded on the principle of self-administration. However, there are acts such as helping the patient to sit up that are not direct administration but assistance enabling it to take place. That is where the distinction lies.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

That is helpful, but if the patient were holding the cup and the doctor held their hand to help them tip it into their mouth, it is not clear to me at what point assistance would end and self-administration would begin. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that. What about the scenario in which the patient’s finger is on the plunger of a syringe and the doctor assists by putting their finger on top of the patient’s and assists them to press the button, adding a little force to that being given by the patient? Does he regard that as within the scope of self-administration, or does that cross the line into directly administering the procedure?

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley pointed out earlier that the scenario that he has just described would constitute more than assistance; it would be moving into administration by the doctor, rather than self-administration. I think that that aligns with the Government’s view, so I refer the hon. Member for East Wiltshire to those comments from the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, who has far more clinical experience than I do.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I am grateful for that, and I will leave it there, but does the Minister agree that it is incredibly difficult to distinguish who is administering the treatment in that scenario? If both their hands are on the instrument, whatever it is—a cup, a syringe or a button on a computer screen—it is very hard to know who has actually delivered the final act.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

What is hard to do in this Committee is imagine and agree on how many different scenarios there can be. Every circumstance and every individual experience will be different, so it is difficult for us to envision all the different scenarios. Nothing about this is easy, of course. We would not have been sitting in this Bill Committee for hours on end if it were all easy, but from the Government’s point of view there is a clear enough distinction between assistance and self-administration. As long as we are clear on those basic principles, we feel that that gives enough safety to the Bill and enough clarity around the process.

Kit Malthouse (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

Does the Minister agree that my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire is perhaps unintentionally creating a lack of clarity where there is clarity? Surely there is complete clarity in the distinction between assisting a patient to be in a position to carry out their final desire and act, and performing or even jointly performing that final act with them. Is it not the case that in overseas jurisdictions there is quite a lot of assistance with technology? It needs to be prepared and put in place, but it can put even those who are the least physically able in a position in which the final act of administration can be clearly theirs. In many ways, our life is made easier by modern technology in that regard.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

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.

Simon Opher (Labour, Stroud)

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 (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

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.

Sojan Joseph (Labour, Ashford)

Does the Minister agree that assisting a person to ingest is different from assisting a person to self-administer?

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

In order to ingest, there has to be self-administration. The self-administration is the precondition for ingesting the substance. That is my reading. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend.

Rebecca Paul (Conservative, Reigate)

The Minister is being incredibly patient with our questions. The question from the hon. Member for Ashford raises exactly the point with which I am uncomfortable. To me, the phrase

“assist that person to ingest”

means something else. I am really concerned that it could be interpreted differently from how the Minister has laid it out. I want to place that on the record and raise that issue, which I believe the hon. Member was also raising.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

The hon. Member’s concerns are absolutely noted. I completely understand that hon. Members are not comfortable with this, but what I am trying to do is set out the Government’s view on the workability of what my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley is seeking to achieve and the basic principles on which that is built.

Amendment 497, on which the Government have worked jointly with my hon. Friend, would amend clause 18(11), which states:

“Where the person decides not to self-administer the approved substance, or there is any other reason that the substance is not used, the coordinating doctor must remove it immediately from that person.”

Under the clause as it is currently drafted, there could be difficulties in relation to the duties of the co-ordinating doctor where the co-ordinating doctor does not know what the person has decided. Amendment 497 seeks to resolve that ambiguity by clarifying that the duty on the co-ordinating doctor to remove the approved substance applies where the person

“informs the coordinating doctor that they have decided”

not to self-administer the approved substance.

I turn to amendment 498. At present, clause 18(11) provides that the co-ordinating doctor has the duty to immediately remove the approved substance where the person decides not to self-administer the approved substance, or there is any other reason that the substance is not used. The amendment clarifies that the duty to remove the substance arises when the co-ordinating doctor believes that the substance will not be used. I hope that those observations have been helpful to the Committee.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

The Minister has covered my amendments 497 and 498 very clearly, so I will not speak to them.

I am happy to support amendment 462, tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, about which we had a conversation this morning. I only make the observation that there is already a requirement in clause 18(4)(b) that, at the time the approved substance is provided, the co-ordinating doctor must be satisfied that the person has

“a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.

Nevertheless, I am happy to support the amendment, because the hon. Member made a very valuable point this morning.

I cannot support amendment 463, however. The Bill states that the patient must self-administer the drugs. Clause 18(7) states that “the final act” of self-administering the substance

“must be taken by the person to whom the substance has been provided.”

That is very clear. The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, with his medical background and expertise, has been clear and helpful on this point: it is a question of passive versus active. We have to be clear that the patient must have an active role in self-administration.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I propose to press both my amendments to a vote if necessary.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

On a point of order, Sir Roger. I am sorry if I missed it, but are we not going to debate amendment 496?

Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)

I put the Question and nobody spoke. I am afraid the moment has passed. Under this Chairman, you have to be fleet of foot.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

Clearly! Fair enough.

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment 350, in clause 18, page 12, line 34, at end insert—

“(d) subject to subsection (6A), provide additional assistance to administer the substance in the presence of an independent witness.

(6A) The coordinating doctor may provide the additional assistance under subsection (6)(d) when—

(a) the coordinating doctor is satisfied that the person is permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer the substance due to—

(i) significant risk of choking as a result of dysphagia, or

(ii) the loss of use of the limbs; and

(b) the person has authorised that the additional assistance be provided.”

This amendment would define the eligibility criteria for those who are permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer the substance and are therefore eligible for additional assistance to administer the substance.

Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 351, in clause 18, page 12, line 35, after “substance” insert

“or to authorise additional assistance to be provided”.

This amendment would ensure the decision to administer the approved substance remains with the person but would allow those who are unable to self-administer the substance to receive further assistance.

Amendment 352, in clause 18, page 12, line 40, at end insert

“, unless the criteria in subsection (6A) are met.”

This amendment would authorise the coordinating doctor to provide additional support with administration for those who are unable to self-administer the substance.

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I speak in support of this group of amendments, which address the issue of fairness and accessibility in the Bill. The amendments seek to ensure that those who are physically unable to self-administer the approved substance due to their condition are not excluded from the choice of an assisted death.

The principle at stake here is equity: making sure that this opportunity would be available to not only those with the physical ability to self-administer but all eligible individuals, regardless of their condition. The Motor Neurone Disease Association made it clear in its written evidence that conditions like motor neurone disease can be cruel, devastating and progressive, locking people inside their own failing bodies. More than 80% of people with MND lose the ability to speak. Many lose all limb function, leaving them unable to lift even a glass of water, let alone self-administer medication.

There is a common theme here that relates to a point I made in an earlier sitting, when we debated the period of time for eligibility. For these individuals, the Bill in its current form creates a barrier. It states that the final act of ingesting or administering an approved substance must be taken by the person themselves. For someone with advanced MND, that may simply not physically be possible. The MND Association’s evidence highlights that in other jurisdictions, such as Queensland in Australia, allowances have been made for people unable to swallow or self-administer. If we fail to include such provision here, we risk excluding some of the most vulnerable people or, even worse, creating a perverse incentive for them to seek an assisted death earlier, possibly abroad, when they may still have physical function.

These amendments are not about lowering safeguards in any way, shape or form. As we know, the Bill has robust safeguards, which these amendments would maintain. It would only be applicable in instances where doctors deem it necessary, and it would not be open to more than those with conditions restricting their ability to self-administer. If the Bill is about compassion, then we must ensure that that compassion extends to everyone; if it is about choice, then we should not deny that choice to those with severe physical limitations; and if it is about justice, then we should not allow injustice to be written into the law.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

I rise to oppose amendments 350 to 352, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne). They would allow the co-ordinating doctor to provide additional assistance to administer the substance in the presence of an independent witness, in some circumstances. Those circumstances would be when, as amendment 350 says, the doctor determines that the person is

“permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer”

the lethal substance because of an inability to swallow or the loss of use of the limbs. The amendments do not spell out what the additional assistance would be, but I think it is reasonable to believe that it refers to the doctor injecting the lethal substance into a person’s circulatory system.

My hon. Friend’s amendments comes from genuine concern about the situation that some people may well find themselves in. Some people who might otherwise qualify for assisted dying under the Bill might be unable to swallow or inject the lethal drugs. We should all respect the feeling that lies behind the amendments, but we should reject them. If we pass them, we will have accepted that doctors can help people who have qualified for assisted dying to prepare to inject themselves with lethal drugs or swallow them. The Bill does not say that doctors can do that. I do not know whether the House would have voted for the Bill on Second Reading if it had, but that is beside the point—it was not part of the Bill. If we were ever to consider taking such a radical step, we should only do so after hearing as much evidence as possible on why and how this might be necessary. I urge the Committee to oppose the amendment.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady; I very much agree with her points. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who spoke with his now customary intellectual clarity and moral constituency. He believes in autonomy, and he is doing what he can to resolve the essential contradiction in the Bill, which is designed to enable people to end their lives at their own discretion. He recognises that some of the safeguards in the Bill, which of course I do support, nevertheless represent barriers to what we are now suggesting is a human right, and that that human right will be restricted to a limited number of people, according to the Bill.

It is my view that the pressure, momentum or inherent direction of travel that the Bill sets us on will necessarily result in these sorts of amendments to the legislation in due course, whether in the form of subsequent amendments passed through legislation, the guidance that is issued, or indeed the practice of doctors. As I tried to explain in my comments on the previous group, my concern is that the Bill allows for quite a wide degree of discretion, naturally and necessarily enough, in the form of doctors interpreting their ability to assist in ways that respect the autonomy of patients, but are, in fact, a step beyond what the Bill—quite rightly, in my view—seeks to allow.

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The hon. Member mentioned that down the line the Bill could be changed through guidance. I do not think there would be any scope or ability to do that. Does he agree that that point might be a little bit beyond what we all think might be possible under the terms of guidance?

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I hope the hon. Gentleman is right. Nevertheless, one of my concerns about the Bill is that we are leaving enormous areas of clinical practice, and regulated conduct for the professionals involved in assisted suicide, to be performed under guidance that is still to be set out and that it is the job of future Ministers to determine.

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, because he has correctly identified a group of patients for whom the drafted Bill may present obstacles to the fulfilment of their wish for an assisted death. My belief is that the ability to assist will probably cover almost anybody who wants it and has found a doctor who wants to help them, but the hon. Gentleman is right that there are some groups for whom that might be more of a challenge than others. I think the answer we are going to get—it is one made by hon. Members in the debate already—is that technology will fix it, and I fear it will, because I think we are going to find ourselves in a world in which it is perfectly possible for the administration of death to be enabled through some kind of technological device, which somebody with the most limited physical mobility will nevertheless be able to activate.

I fear the insistence that we have on self-administration. Although we can all acknowledge, as referenced in the previous debate, the conceptual difference between administration and self-administration, we do have this idea that we are individuals cut off from each other and that there is an essential gap between us and other people. At the very end of life, though—in the moments that we are considering and legislating for—that distinction is void, because we are intimately connected with other people, as per the clauses that we are debating. I fear that we are going to find ourselves in a world in which a laptop will be set up and even a movement as small as the blink of an eyelid by the patient will be enough to trigger what will be called “self-administration” of the fatal dose.

I oppose this group of amendments, moved by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, because I do not believe in assisted suicide. I do not understand why other supporters of the Bill are not following the hon. Gentleman’s lead, and acknowledging that if we believe in autonomy and assisted suicide, of course we should enable patients to have the final act performed upon them, rather than insisting on this arbitrary distinction that it is possible to insist on self-administration in all cases.

Rebecca Paul (Conservative, Reigate)

It is clear that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is trying to create equity, which we all understand. We need to think about the patient on the one hand, but also the doctors, nurses and medical practitioners involved. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to think about the obligation and impact of such amendments on them?

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

Yes. We discussed this briefly this morning. There is an important consideration about the effect on medical staff involved in the administration of assisted suicide, and we have to make sure that those who do not want to participate are properly insulated from any sort of obligation, which I know is the intention of the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Spen Valley. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the knock-on effect of participation in assisted suicide spreading across a practice. I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to be mindful of the impact on doctors. The more we widen the scope—as logic compels us to do, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough suggests—the more it is about not just discretion, but an obligation on doctors to approve.

We need to think about the conversation that doctors will be required to have with patients who are expressing that wish. If the Bill is widely drawn, as it would be if we were to accept these amendments, there is more opportunity for a doctor to feel compelled to assent to a request.

Sean Woodcock (Labour, Banbury)

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is clearly trying to right what he believes to be an inherent injustice in the Bill, but is the hon. Member for East Wiltshire concerned, as I am, that if the amendment were to pass, it would take the debate from a place of being about assisted dying towards what many people would term euthanasia? That is not something that the House in any way endorsed by voting for the Bill on Second Reading.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I am absolutely certain that if the amendment had been in the original Bill, the Bill would not have passed Second Reading, because it would have validated the argument that many of us made that the implication of assisted suicide is euthanasia. The distinction between them, while valid in the abstract, does not apply in practice, and that distinction will be quickly overridden in time. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Neil Shastri-Hurst (Conservative, Solihull West and Shirley)

Although I have certain sympathies with these amendments, I do not feel that they are necessary or desirable. They are not necessary because of the provisions that are already stipulated in clause 18(6)(b), which provides the co-ordinating doctor with the ability to prepare

“a medical device which will enable that person to self-administer the substance”.

That subsection, in effect, negates the scenario that is put forward in amendment 350 around dysphagia or the loss of a limb. It would permit, for example, the use of a nasogastric tube or a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tube to be used for the administration of the substance in the case of dysphagia. In the case of the functional loss of limbs, as was discussed in the debate on the previous group, a range of assisted technologies are available that would remove the barriers that that would present.

Beyond the necessity, or lack of necessity, of these amendments, I fear that they create legal uncertainty, which is clearly undesirable and, in this instance, could have a serious and significant unintended consequence through the amendments’ interaction with clause 24. Subsection (3) of that clause inserts proposed new section 2AA of the Suicide Act 1961, which is an exemption to that Act in respect of the assistance provided under this Bill. In effect, proposed new section 2AA disapplies sections 2(1) and 2A(1) of the Suicide Act where the provision of assistance is done in accordance with the Bill. Those sections specifically relate to an act

“capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person”.

Introducing the concept of additional assistance, as these amendments would, creates a legal uncertainty. The word “additional” creates a further concept that is beyond assistance but is, thus far, ill defined. Would it go as far as, for example, the clinician taking full control of administering the substance? It is entirely unclear. It would therefore place the clinician in an invidious position as to what it would mean for them to provide additional assistance in such circumstances. As I read the interplay between the Suicide Act and the proposed legislation, the clinician would not then be exempt by virtue of clause 24(3), leaving them open to prosecution under the Act.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I am grateful for that; I particularly respect my hon. Friend’s concern to protect the doctors from any confusion in the law they might be operating under. Just to take him back to the question of technology resolving what I regard as an insuperable problem—the difference between assistance and administration—is it my understanding that my hon. Friend would oppose a patient’s being able to ask a doctor to administer a lethal drug to him or her, but that he would support a patient’s being able to ask a computer to administer a lethal drug to him or her? Would he accept the computer performing the act at the patient’s request?

Neil Shastri-Hurst (Conservative, Solihull West and Shirley)

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.

Simon Opher (Labour, Stroud)

rose—

Neil Shastri-Hurst (Conservative, Solihull West and Shirley)

I am being ambushed by the left.

Simon Opher (Labour, Stroud)

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.

Neil Shastri-Hurst (Conservative, Solihull West and Shirley)

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.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

Currently, clause 18(6) permits the co-ordinating doctor, in respect of an approved substance provided to the person under subsection (2), to undertake the following activities: prepare the approved substance for self-administration; prepare a medical device to enable self-administration of the approved substance; and assist the person to ingest or otherwise self-administer the substance. Furthermore, subsection (8) expressly provides that subsection (6)

“does not authorise the coordinating doctor to administer an approved substance to another person with the intention of causing that person’s death.”

Amendment 350 seeks to enable the co-ordinating doctor, in the presence of an independent witness, to provide “additional assistance” to the person to administer the approved substance. Such assistance can be provided only where the person has authorised it, and where the person is

“permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer the substance”

due to a significant risk of choking due to difficulty swallowing—dysphagia—or loss of the use of their limbs. The term “additional assistance” is not defined in these amendments.

Amendment 351 is consequential to amendment 350 and would require any decision to authorise additional assistance for the self-administration of the substance to be made by the person to whom the substance has been provided. Amendment 352 would create an exception to the condition in clause 18(8), and would have the effect of permitting the co-ordinating doctor to administer an approved substance to another person with the intention of causing that person’s death where the criteria introduced in amendment 350 are met—that is, where the co-ordinating doctor is satisfied that the person is permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer the substance, and that the person has authorised that the additional assistance be provided.

Our assessment is that the amendments would enable the co-ordinating doctor to administer the approved substance to the person, rather than merely assisting the person, in the limited circumstances provided for in clause 18(6), to self-administer. That would be a significant change to one of the fundamental principles of the promoter’s Bill—that the final act of administering the approved substance must be taken by the person themselves, and not by a co-ordinating doctor. That is a policy matter and a decision for the Committee.

However, should the amendments be accepted, further amendments may be needed to ensure that this provision is fully legally coherent and workable in several areas. First, amendment 350 does not define who qualifies as an independent witness—for example, whether this would have to be a health professional or whether it could be a family member. Secondly, it does not address whether anyone would be disqualified from being an independent witness, as provided for through clause 36, which is entitled “Disqualification from being witness or proxy”.

Finally, as drafted, amendment 350 does not detail how authorisation of the additional assistance must be obtained and/or recorded in order to be valid. It also does not require that any details about the independent witness be recorded. This could lead to difficulties in complying with and/or evidencing that the requirements to provide the additional assistance have been met. By extension, there will be a lack of clarity over when and how the criminal provisions are to apply. I hope that those observations were helpful.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I completely understand where these amendments are coming from. In many jurisdictions where assisted dying laws are in place, this would be an accepted part of the process. However, as I have said repeatedly, our Bill stands in its own right, and its safeguards are stronger than those anywhere else in the world. One of those safeguards is that the line cannot be crossed between a person shortening their own death by administering the drugs themselves and by having another person—in this case the doctor—do it for them.

While I am hugely sympathetic to the argument, that is a line that I do not believe the Bill should cross. I concur with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West about Second Reading and what the House voted for, and with those of the hon. Member for Reigate about medical profession levels, which we discussed this morning. I also agree with the Minister’s comments about the concept of an independent witness, and with the comments from the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley about the concept of additional assistance. On that basis, I will not be supporting the amendments.

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I will keep it short and sweet. I had not intended to push the amendments to a vote and will not be doing so. A lot of important points have been raised. Irrespective of whether the amendments were going to be pushed to a vote or would have been successful, it is important that we listen to and take into account the voices of people with different diseases who might wish to access an assisted death. We must also take into account the evidence that organisations have submitted, because it is important that those voices are heard too. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I beg to move amendment 435, in clause 18, page 13, line 6, at end insert—

“(9A) Where the procedure has failed, the coordinating doctor must escalate the care of the person by making the appropriate referral to emergency medical services.”

This amendment would require the doctor to escalate the care of the person in cases in which the procedure fails.

Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 429, in clause 18, page 13, line 7, leave out subsection (10).

Amendment 436, in clause 18, page 13, line 8, after “provided” insert—

“(10A) If complications occur as a result of the provision of assistance the coordinating doctor must—

(a) make a detailed record of the complications in the patient’s medical records,

(b) make a declaration on the final statement issued under section 21, and

(c) make a report to the relevant Chief Medical Officer and the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.”

This amendment would require the coordinating doctor to record any complications in the patient’s medical records, to make a declaration on the final statement issued under section 21, and make a report to the relevant Chief Medical Officer and the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner.

Amendment 464, in clause 18, page 13, line 8, at end insert—

“(10A) If the person loses consciousness and it appears to the coordinating doctor that the procedure is failing, the coordinating doctor—

(a) must not do anything with the intention of causing the person’s death, and

(b) must seek to revive the person.”

Amendment 532, in clause 18, page 13, line 12, at end insert—

“(12) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about what the coordinating doctor is legally permitted to do if it is determined by the coordinating doctor that the procedure has failed.

(13) The regulations under subsection (12) must include what specific actions can legally be taken by the coordinating doctor if—

(a) there is a greatly prolonged time to death,

(b) the person has been rendered unconscious, or rendered unfit to make a second attempt at self-administration, but has not died, or

(c) the person is otherwise undergoing complications.”

Amendment 533, in clause 18, page 13, line 12, at end insert—

“(12) For the purposes of subsections (2) to (11), the Secretary of State must, by regulations, specify where the provision of assistance under this Act may take place.

(13) Before making regulations under subsection (12), the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(14) The persons to be consulted under subsection (12A) may include—

(a) persons requesting or considering requesting assistance to end their own lives, and

(b) professionals working in palliative and end-of-life care, including hospice staff, and

(c) persons from disadvantaged and marginalised communities, and

(d) registered medical professionals and other healthcare professionals.”

Amendment 430, in clause 30, page 18, line 30, at end insert—

“(da) responding to unexpected complications that arise in relation to the administration of the approved substance under section 18, including when the procedure fails;”

Amendment 255, in schedule 6, page 32, line 13, at end insert—

Means of administration of approved substance

….….….….….….….….….….”

This would add the means of administration to the final statement set out in Schedule 6.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I am supportive of all the amendments in this grouping, including amendment 255 in the name of the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) about the importance of recording the means of administration of the substance. We have discussed that a bit, and I think it is important to include it. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford are also important, as they insist on the actual physical presence of a doctor while the treatment is being carried out. His amendments also suggest that there should be a code of practice about what should happen when things go wrong; I want to go further than that, but I do approve of that measure.

On amendments 532 and 533, tabled by the hon. Member for Ipswich, I again support in principle the requirement—although there is a little too much regulation by the Secretary of State, in my view—that we be clear about where the act should take place and make provision about what the co-ordinating doctor is legally permitted to do if they determine that the procedure has failed. That is the point I really want to discuss; the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and the amendment that I tabled, would impose an obligation on the co-ordinating doctor to provide assistance if the procedure fails.

Let me take a moment to explain to the Committee how important it is that we recognise the genuine risk of that eventuality in the case of assisted suicide being performed. There is significant evidence—even given the lack of adequate data collection and the paucity of record keeping, with over half of assisted deaths not properly recorded at all in many places—that in places such as Oregon, which is one of the worst offenders when it comes to data collection, there are significant rates of complication. These can be difficulty with ingesting the drugs, regurgitation and seizures. As I said, 72% of deaths do not record whether complications have occurred, but among the quarter that do, there are significant rates of complication.

Sometimes death can take days, and there can be a long time of unconsciousness. The Committee has heard from me and others in previous debates about the extent to which there is real concern about the actual experience of the administration of assisted death. But it is striking how ill-defined the current Bill is on the point about complications, compared to jurisdictions where such laws are in operation. In other countries, there is clear guidance in law for what should be done. In the Netherlands, euthanasia is recommended when assisted suicide seems to be failing; in Canada, doctors are likewise given licence to administer the death themselves if it fails. The Committee has decided not to proceed down that road. Nevertheless, the question arises as to what on earth patients should do.

To the point that we are talking about a small or non-existent population group—those we might have to worry will experience complications after the administration of fatal drugs—I refer back to a previous debate, when the hon. Member for Stroud, referring to me, said:

“The hon. Gentleman is bringing up lots of rather horrible stories about assisted death. That is why, in Australia, Switzerland and Holland, they have decided, instead of using the regime that he is talking about, to use pentobarbital…One of the reasons why Dignitas uses it is that it is so effective and it does not have those effects.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 11 March 2025; c. 925.]

Having looked into the issue and consulted other medics, I am afraid that the fact is that the safety of pentobarbital is highly contested. It has been debated in litigation in the United States because of its use as a death penalty drug. The executioners who used it said that the deaths were peaceful and akin to falling asleep, but lawyers for inmates on death row have said that

“pentobarbital caused flash pulmonary edema, in which fluid rushes through quickly disintegrating membranes into lungs and airways, causing pain akin to being suffocated or drowned.”

That is evidence from professionals who have examined the effect of pentobarbital on deceased people.

The anesthesiologist Joel Zivot of Emory University hospital in the United States testified to the Canadian Senate on the subject of assisted suicide drugs. He said that when he researched the autopsies of those executed by lethal injection, he stumbled on an alarming discovery:

“When I looked at the autopsies, to my surprise, I found that, in most of the cases, the individuals who had been executed by pentobarbital had fluid congested in their lungs. The lungs of these individuals were twice the normal weight, full of water. Now, the only way that this could have happened would have been as a direct consequence of the pentobarbital that was injected into these individuals.”

What is the relevance of that for assisted dying?

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I am not aware of the situation in America, but is the hon. Gentleman not reassured that the evidence from Dignitas, which we all now have access to, says that there have been

“no cases of failure at Dignitas using this medication”?

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

Let me come on to that, because I am not aware of any evidence from Dignitas that disputes the assertion that is being made—certainly none that would meet the concerns raised by the genuine evidence of the effect of pentobarbital on death row patients. Again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I do not think that Dignitas has supplied evidence to contradict the point that I am making.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

For the hon. Gentleman’s reference, I believe that the evidence is TIAB 425.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Let me let me look that up later. I am happy to exchange data, because this is clearly something we should be trying to get right.

Nevertheless, I want to try to explain why I am suggesting that we have a problem with the drugs that are used in assisted dying and that it has been suggested we use here. Let me continue the quote from Dr Zivot:

“When one watches an execution, it’s not clear that this is happening”—

meaning that it looks like a peaceful, painless death. He continues:

“There is not much to see. Executions, like, I imagine, medical assistance in dying, are a rather bloodless event; not much can be seen outwardly. But the autopsies revealed a very disturbing and surprising finding.”

He makes the point that that is particularly disturbing, given that assisted dying often uses a paralysing drug, which induces the impression of peace and calm in the patient, when in fact something else might be going on below the surface.

To conclude my quote from Dr Zivot, he says:

“To claim that this is a death that is peaceful, well, it can be nothing else because now a person is unable to move in any way, but whether or not they have any conscious experience of what is happening is unknown…it should be clear to the Canadian public that the kind of death that they will experience…will be something other than the way it is represented. It could be exceedingly painful and more akin to drowning.”

I cannot judge whether Dr Zivot is right, but we should be very wary of any claims that there is a simple answer to the question surrounding lethal drugs. To the point made by the hon. Lady, and I think by the hon. Member for Stroud, there is no evidence in the many reports from Dignitas, which has a regime very similar to the one we are imagining here—I will certainly look at the evidence mentioned made by the hon. Lady—that contradicts the concerns raised by Dr Zivot.

Sojan Joseph (Labour, Ashford)

Does this not show that clinical documentation is very important? We debated the issue in Committee earlier, when we talked about professionals being required to complete all relevant documentation. Maybe we are missing certain data because these things are not clearly documented in other places. Should we not take from that the learning that if we go ahead with this proposal, we should have proper documentation and make it clear to the clinician what they should and should not document?

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I entirely agree that there is great concern about the lack of evidence in countries on which we are constantly relying for evidence of why this proposal is safe. I have suggested that, from the quite limited evidence we have, that it may not be safe. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that if we are to proceed, we need to be extremely strict about data collection.

To the hon. Gentleman’s point about making it clear to clinicians what drugs they are permitted to use, we also need to have a proper regime of clearing and approving those drugs. In earlier clauses, we debated the imperative on the NHS, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the Department of Health to properly authorise the specifics of what drugs will be used. It is not clear at the moment what those would be, and I very much agree that we need to be clearer on that.

I finish with a reference to an earlier debate, in which it was suggested, on the basis of the Australian example, that there is no evidence of complications. The hon. Member for Stroud talked about horrible stories from the United States and Canada. He also referred to Australia, where there is apparently no evidence of problems. In fact, I understand that of the six states, only Western Australia records complications, and it does so in relation only to practitioner administration—when the doctor administers the drug—which we do not propose to do here. It does not record complications in relation to self-administration, which is what the Bill proposes. In Western Australia, complications have been reported in 4.3% of cases involving practitioner administration. Again, we are dealing with the great mystery and enigma of how death happens with assisted suicide, and it is certainly unclear what we should do about it.

My last quote is from evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee from Baroness Finlay, a leading palliative care specialist and, of course, an opponent of assisted dying:

“Many years ago, I asked for somebody to do a study to see whether patients, given these cocktails in euthanasia, regained consciousness before they died. There was a study of lethal injections in executions that showed 80% of people probably regained a degree of consciousness. Nobody has undertaken that study, so we are dealing with something that is unknown.”

I am afraid that goes for the whole field. There is a great mystery in this space, and the Bill does not clarify it, I am afraid to say.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

Following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, I have just looked at some of the evidence, and it does not cite any papers. In effect, the evidence says the effect can be seen in three documentaries. Nor does it explain why Dr Zivot’s concerns are scientifically accurate. Does the hon. Gentleman want to speak to that?

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

There is great anxiety about the validity of much of the evidence in this space. I have great respect for the work of Dr Zivot, because nothing else gets us close to understanding the actual effect of these drugs, once somebody has died.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

In response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, the evidence from Dignitas is really clear: there have been no cases of failure when using this medication.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

My strong suspicion is that this is because the evidence is not being accurately collected or reported. With Dignitas and in all these jurisdictions, as the hon. Lady has acknowledged, there are significant failures of data and record keeping. Obviously, it is very much in Dignitas’s interest not to collect and certainly not to publicise evidence of things going wrong. However, that clearly happens in jurisdictions where data is properly collected.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

I recognise that the written evidence, particularly TIAB 425, says there have not been any failures at Dignitas, but it does not cite any published, let alone peer-reviewed, research, nor does it challenge the analysis of scientists such as Dr Zivot. That remains a grey area.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I agree.

Simon Opher (Labour, Stroud)

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 (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

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.

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I will speak to amendments 429 and 430 in my name. During oral evidence, we discussed the issues in subsections (9) and (10) of clause 18 and whether there is a contradiction. Subsection (9) states that the co-ordinating doctor

“must remain with the person”

and subsection (10) says:

“For the purposes of subsection (9), the coordinating doctor need not be in the same room as the person”.

We also discussed how that works in other jurisdictions. My amendment 429 would deal with that conflict. If the Bill were to become law, that conflict could be queried.

We also need to consider the possibility of complications. Clearly, if there are complications and the doctor is not in the same room, they would not necessarily be aware of those complications. I accept that, in some normal circumstances, doctors and medical professionals are not present in the room at the time of death; at other times, they are present. The amendment would mean that if something were to go wrong and someone was having a painful reaction to the drugs, the doctor would be there to see and help.

I do not understand what the Bill means when it says the doctor does not have to be in the same room. How far away would the doctor have to be? One subsection says the doctor has to remain with the person, and the following subsection says they do not have to be in the same room. If the Bill were to pass, we would be asking doctors to do something that is unprecedented. If the person were to suffer complications such as seizures or vomiting, or if they were exhibiting signs of distress, it appears that the doctor should be present. Members may think this could encroach on a patient’s privacy, but I think there is a discrepancy between the two subsections.

On amendment 430, I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich has tabled a similar amendment. The intention of my amendment is to ensure there are regulations in responding to any unexpected complications that arise in relation to the administration of the approved substance, including when the procedure fails. I am conscious that if a doctor intervenes, they could end up in breach of the Suicide Act 1961. I therefore left the wording in that vein, as I understand that we will receive more information in due course.

Again, we received oral evidence from a number of people that what a doctor is meant to do in the event of unexpected complications is a matter of concern from both a legal and a medical perspective. We know from the evidence received from other jurisdictions that—I accept in a small minority of cases—there can be complications or the death can take much longer than expected. We also received evidence that, on rare occasions, death can take days.

Amendment 430 would show we have thought about those circumstances and provided for them by giving doctors a code of practice to refer to, rather than being left in the dark if a difficult situation arises at the time of death. We must not find ourselves in a circumstance in which doctors and patients are unprepared. It is important for us to think through, provide for and safeguard against all possible scenarios, however rare they might be. Of course, we would not want them to happen, but in some circumstances they might, and we would not want there to be a legal hole. Accepting the amendment would mean the Secretary of State has the opportunity to provide a code of practice for such circumstances. I hope hon. Members will be able to support the amendments in my name.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I support amendment 429, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford.

I do not understand how subsection (9) can require the doctor to remain with the person until they have self-administered and died, or until they have decided not to self-administer, while subsection (10) states that the doctor need not be in the same room. The Bill becomes even less coherent when we consider subsection (11), which requires the doctor to remove the substance immediately if the person decides not to self-administer—how can the doctor do so if they are not in the same room? Amendment 429 would make the scheme more coherent and I support it for that reason.

I accept that there are downsides to having the doctor present, especially before the administration, as people have a normal desire for privacy, but that needs to be balanced against the risk of someone else taking the substance or something going wrong in the process of self-administration. In Australia, there is no requirement for the doctor to be present, which has led to some cases of abuse. I understand why the Bill’s promoter has chosen not to go down the Australian route, but the position arrived at in subsection (10) lacks coherence and is unclear.

What does it mean to remain with the person without being in the same room? Does it mean being in the corridor just outside the room, but with the door open? What if it is closed? What if, as a result of the door being closed, the doctor is no longer within earshot? I am not the only one who is confused, as so are the doctors who will have to apply the legislation. For example, Dr Janet Menage, a retired GP, told us in written evidence—TIAB 182—that the provisions

“are mutually exclusive: doctor ‘must remain with the patient’ but ‘not in the same room’…This makes no sense. In any case, if the attending doctor is not in the same room there could potentially be an intervention by another person to the patient’s detriment. Or the patient may wish to cancel the suicide at the last moment and be unsupported in voicing that decision.”

With or without subsection (10), I would like to know whether the Minister has made an assessment of the workforce impact of such a requirement for the doctor to be present. As Dr Rebecca Jones told us:

“As the death may take many hours, I’m uncertain of the practicalities of this”.

Sean Woodcock (Labour, Banbury)

The hon. Lady is making an important point about the lack of coherence that amendment 429 is trying to sort out. Throughout these weeks of debate in Committee, we have heard about the importance of clarity for practitioners. This provision introduces severe doubt as to exactly what a practitioner is meant to do. I understand that we do not want to say, “You have to do this and this, and in this order”, and that amendments have been rejected on that basis, but this clause opens a massive loophole in the law and practice, which concerns me. Does the hon. Lady share my concern?

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is fundamental that, with this legislation, we provide very clear guidance to the medical practitioners who will be engaged in assisting patients with this matter. This is not only for their peace of mind that what they are doing is acceptable under the law, and accords with what Parliament has decided, but for the protection of patients. It is incumbent on us to be really clear about what we mean, and I do not believe we are as the Bill is currently drafted.

Sojan Joseph (Labour, Ashford)

We repeatedly talk about doctors, but nurses, healthcare assistants and other professionals will definitely be involved in a hospital environment. The Bill does not talk about other professionals. Furthermore, within a hospital environment, NHS wards may be bays without individual bedrooms. Does the hon. Lady think we need to be clearer on the procedures that will happen in those areas?

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

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.

Simon Opher (Labour, Stroud)

I understand that hon. Members are coming from a good place, but I do not understand how amendment 429 would stop the doctor having to stay with the patient until they die. I agree that it is an important issue, so could the hon. Lady elucidate on that?

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

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.

Jack Abbott (Labour/Co-operative, Ipswich)

I rise to speak to amendments 532 and 533, standing in my name, and in support of amendments 429 and 430, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. I appreciate that my amendments are similar to amendment 430. They go a little bit further, but probably not as far as we have previously discussed in the Committee.

I totally understand the concerns about the Bill being overly prescriptive about the regulations that could be passed down to the doctors making such decisions. However, it is important that we enable the Secretary of State to provide guidance, in addition to GMC regulations, on what the co-ordinating doctor must do if the procedure has failed. At the moment, the Bill simply states:

“The coordinating doctor must remain with the person until”

that time. However, I appreciate that amendment 429, if passed, would cover that issue.

Clause 9 states:

“The assessing doctor must…discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance under section 18”.

However, the Bill as drafted is not clear about what a doctor is legally permitted to do in the event of such complications. That is particularly important, as the Bill expressly states that the final act of administration must be taken by the person themselves. Therefore, the Bill as it stands stipulates that the doctor must discuss the patient’s wishes in the event of complications without stipulating what actions the doctor can take in such an event and thus what the patient’s options actually are.

There is a gap in the Bill and a lack of clarity on that critical issue, which has been raised frequently in both written and, to an extent, oral evidence. Dr Alexandra Mullock argued that, as

“the Bill would only permit”

a doctor only to assist in the patient’s self-administering a substance,

“administering drugs to end the life of a patient who might be unconscious (but not dying) is not permitted.”

She also raised the possibility that a patient might regain consciousness, but

“be too ill to make a second attempt”

at self-administration. What should a doctor do if that occurs? Unless the Secretary of State clarifies what a doctor can do in that situation—my amendment would not do that; it would merely give the Secretary of State direction to do so—the co-ordinating director could be placed in a difficult position.

Professor Alex Ruck Keene argued that the Bill as it stands could lead to the potential for medical professionals to be “required to stand by”, yet without being able to take steps to respond to complications so as to ensure that the process is completed. I fully appreciate that all doctors would use their good training, common sense and years of extensive practice to make a best-case judgment, and we would always support them in that, but the Bill has the unintended consequence of not giving doctors true cover in that area.

Dr Mullock also asked what should occur if the patient survives a procedure, “but is badly affected”. What treatment should be provided? Should the patient be moved to hospital? Should the patient be sedated or made comfortable until a natural death occurs, or should the doctor be able to take steps for the patient to die following the initial failed attempt? We need answers to those questions. Amendment 532 does not seek to answer them, but it would stipulate that the Secretary of State must do so at a certain point.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, setting out the gap at the heart of the Bill. Does he agree—I think that he does, as he has just explained it—that there are quite straightforward choices: to expedite a death, which is illegal; to do nothing, which is inhumane; or to treat, revive or resuscitate? Why does he think that should not be clearer in the Bill? Why does he want to leave it for the Secretary of State to determine that in the future? Why do we as Parliament not get to decide what the right options should be?

Jack Abbott (Labour/Co-operative, Ipswich)

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s question. In short, the answer is because we are not medical professionals. [Interruption.] Well, some members of the Committee are medical professionals, but not all of us are. I do not think that it is for the Committee to make a judgment on whether to put that in the Bill. I am happy and comfortable to leave such a directive and further recommendations, in addition to the GMC guidance, as further work to do in the coming months and years ahead of the Bill’s implementation. I think that is a healthy and strong thing to do. This is an important compromise to some of the conversations we have had in this Committee over the weeks. The amendment seeks to give a clear direction that these sorts of regulations and procedures should be stipulated at some point down the line.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

The hon. Gentleman suggests that this is something that should be left to the medics. Nevertheless, here we are legislating for medics to be able to administer lethal drugs to people; we are responsible for what happens subsequent to the administration. Let me put this another way: does the hon. Gentleman foresee any scenario in which the guidance from the Secretary of State could be anything other than that the patient should be revived and helped to live in the circumstances where there are clearly complications under way? What else could be the appropriate direction given by the Secretary of State?

Jack Abbott (Labour/Co-operative, Ipswich)

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. We have discussed this point at length, across a range of subject areas, but we cannot legislate for every single permutation that could possibly happen. That could be about the initial conversations, when the patient is given a terminal diagnosis. Where do those conversations leave us? Clearly there will be a number of different scenarios, which could occur to various degrees.

I do not think it is possible to legislate for every single eventuality. I do not believe that whether to revive or not revive will be so black and white; it will completely depend on the scenario at that particular moment in time. Therefore, further work would need to be done over the coming months and years before the final introduction of the Bill. I believe that it is important to allow the time for that work to happen alongside the existing guidance as it stands.

I do not seek in my amendment to stipulate exactly what every single permutation might be—indeed, that could run to many pages and beyond. The amendment seeks to empower the Secretary of State and the Department to make sure that those eventualities, and the concerns that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has raised, are covered by regulations over time.

In my view, the failure to provide a clear answer to these questions is an oversight. Data from Oregon shows that it is unfortunately not totally uncommon for patients to suffer complications following the administration of a lethal substance. In 2023, of the 102 patients for whom we have data on whether they suffered complications—out of a total of 367 patients who died by assisted death in Oregon in that year—10 suffered complications. That is just under 10% of the patients we have data for.

Of those 10, eight had difficulty ingesting the substance or regurgitated it. One suffered a seizure, and for one we have no data of what complications occurred. If I may say so to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, that goes back to the variances that I referred to. It is not as simple as whether to resuscitate or otherwise. There are a number of different factors. Although that is a relatively small sample size, it shows the diversity of the challenges ahead.

In Oregon, information about complications is reported only when a physician or another healthcare provider is present at the time of death, which means that we evidently have less data on this issue than is desirable. However, despite the small sample size, that data would put the complication rate at one in 10. It would not be a completely uncommon occurrence for patients to experience complications following the administration of a lethal substance, although it would be rare.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

My hon. Friend is referring to Oregon. Obviously every jurisdiction has its own methodology when it comes to assisted dying. Is he reassured somewhat by the evidence from Dignitas that for not one person did the procedure fail? A survey from Victoria in Australia showed that 1,076 deaths from the self-administration process took place, and 86% of patients died within one hour. There are different models, and it is important to look more broadly at this if we can.

Jack Abbott (Labour/Co-operative, Ipswich)

I fully accept my hon. Friend’s points, and I agree. To reiterate, complications are not a regular occurrence by any means. They are relatively uncommon. In saying that, there are still 10% of people who did experience them. As she says, these complications are not huge, but there were issues with being able to ingest the substance or with regurgitating it. The figure of 86% that my hon. Friend refers to is absolutely correct, but that would suggest that for 14% of people it took longer than an hour. In my view, that is a relatively high percentage for what we are talking about here.

As I say, my amendment does not seek to stipulate in the Bill exactly what measures have to be taken in every single scenario. I am not suggesting for a moment that we have to legislate about what we must do in the event that, for instance, someone has difficulty ingesting the substance; I am sure that will come naturally with the GMC regulations. I fully appreciate the points made about how this will probably naturally occur, but it is important to provide a reassurance that we are looking at the long-term effects in such scenarios.

Sojan Joseph (Labour, Ashford)

Does my hon. Friend think that 10% is a high number? Does he also think that if we informed patients about the side-effects of those medications from the beginning, the number of patients opting out would probably be higher?

Jack Abbott (Labour/Co-operative, Ipswich)

I thank my hon. Friend for the question; I agree that 10% is a statistically reasonable figure and should be noted, which is part of the reason for my amendment. However, this is still relatively uncommon from the small sample sizes we have. For example, while it is important to refer to the Oregon example, the sample size is only 100 people, so we should always keep that in context. Will fewer people choose to go down that path because they feel, for example, there is potentially a small chance they might struggle to ingest the substance? To be perfectly honest with my hon. Friend, that will completely be their personal choice, and it is really important that, in every stage of the process, we are very clear with those looking to go down this path about what those eventualities might be.

Everyone will take their own personal opinion about that, but we want to be very clear about any risks that might come about, and we have already stipulated that this will be part of the process. Everyone should be very clear about the process—what it will look like and the associated risks. Many people will look at this and still say, “This is the path for me”, but that of course will be their own judgment.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I wonder whether, in the hon. Gentleman’s view, it might be appropriate for the Secretary of State, when framing the guidance he requests, to leave it to a doctor’s discretion. Would that be an appropriate outcome that he would be happy with? My concern is that we will end up with a Bill that has a blank space when it comes to what should be done in the event of complications, as it does currently, and that the Secretary of State might find it equally confusing and unclear and might be reluctant to specify too precisely what should be done in the range of different circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. Will we not end up with a further passing of the buck to clinicians to make that decision? Given that, is it not even more appropriate at this stage for us to give a direction to the Secretary of State stipulating that, whatever the guidance will be, it is entirely inappropriate for a doctor to expedite the death of the patient in any way?

Jack Abbott (Labour/Co-operative, Ipswich)

In the case of this Secretary of State, he is more than happy, as we have seen in the last week or so, to take decision making back in-house and make them himself as well, although that is perhaps a separate political point.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I trust this Secretary of State.

Jack Abbott (Labour/Co-operative, Ipswich)

Absolutely, I know. I am sure the Committee supports him as well.

I would also point the hon. Gentleman to proposed new subsection (13), which my amendment 532 would introduce, saying what “specific actions” can legally be taken, for example, if

“there is a greatly prolonged time to death”,

the person has been “rendered unconscious” or

“the person is otherwise undergoing complications.”

That quite clearly states that we expect the Secretary of State, through this amendment, to take specific co-ordination actions on that. Under proposed new subsection (12) alone, the Secretary of State would have to make provision on that, which could lead to what the hon. Gentleman is alluding to. However, what I propose in proposed new subsection is very clear: that we would expect specific actions from the Secretary of State in that area.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

My hon. Friend is making an important speech. He talked about percentages earlier. Is he aware of a study in the Netherlands that concluded that 21 people—18% of the cases in the study—were assisted with lethal injection? In five of those cases, that was because the person could not swallow, but in the rest, they were unable to complete.

Jack Abbott (Labour/Co-operative, Ipswich)

I have used the statistic of 10%; we might find additional statistics from different jurisdictions that put that figure slightly higher or slightly lower. The point I am trying to make is that this is a relatively uncommon occurrence; none the less, this is an area of the Bill that we can make stronger with additional provisions.

I will make some progress on amendment 532. I have made the basis of my point and want to get on to amendment 533. As I have said, amendment 532 seeks to provide clarity on what doctors can do if the procedure fails or is failing by stipulating that the Secretary of State must specify in regulations what actions the co-ordinating doctor can legally take if there is a prolonged time to death; if the person has been rendered unconscious or unfit to make a second attempt at self-administration, but has not died; or if the person is undergoing complications following the initial attempt.

While there is existing GMC guidance, if no further guidance comes forward in the coming years, we risk placing some doctors in an incredibly difficult position. We always say that we should abide by good practice and the experience of many doctors, but additional cover is no bad thing. We need to say what doctors are legally permitted to do in the event of a patient undergoing severe complications. Leaving aside the doctors, that presents a risk to the patient, who may suffer needlessly and intolerably because the co-ordinating doctor does not know what they are legally allowed to do and is thus seeking to avoid legal ramifications of actions. We do not want them to take steps to respond to those complications or support the patient to die in a painful manner.

I will speak briefly to my amendment 533, which is about where assisted dying can take place. The Committee has already touched on that, and I do not want the Bill to be too prescriptive, which is why I have not stipulated exactly where the locations should be. However, this question was raised a number of times in the submitted written evidence. It is incredibly important that we address this question to ensure that assisted dying takes place at a certain location and does not have a detrimental effect on that location or community, and that the implementation of assisted dying does not exacerbate existing healthcare inequalities or deepen the mistrust of the healthcare system that exists among some ethnic minority communities in particular.

We have a duty to ensure that anyone seeking an assisted death under the Bill feels that it is safe to do so, is able to experience the positives of assisted dying and is not traumatised or retraumatised by the process. That is not possible if assisted dying takes place in settings in which people feel unsafe, which they feel unable to control or in which they have no agency. The amendment seeks to ensure that the question of where assisted dying can take place is properly addressed and that the possible impacts of assisted dying taking place at any particular location are fully considered. Only then can we address and mitigate its possible detrimental impacts.

That is a particularly important point because the criterion in the Bill that the doctor must remain with the patient until they have died realistically precludes assisted dying taking place at home, as there may be a prolonged time to death. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said, 86% of patients in Western Australia died within the hour, but 14% took longer than that. To use another comparison, in Oregon, 87.7% of those who died via an assisted death in 2023 did so at home. If we are essentially precluding assisted dying from taking place at home because of the stipulation that a doctor has to be in attendance, we must answer the question of where it can take place.

In written evidence, Sue Ryder and the National Care Forum cited concerns about the impact on the wellbeing of staff and the other residents of hospices and accommodation-based services, should assisted dying take place within those communities. Dr Jamilla Hussain, in arguing that the question of where assisted dying could take place needed to be addressed, stated that her consultations with

“ethnic minority groups across Bradford highlighted the risk that AD could significantly deepen mistrust in healthcare services, including but not limited to palliative care.”

She argued that that needed to be considered when determining where assisted dying would take place, and because of that it would be preferable to avoid

“healthcare settings that these communities rely on, such as hospitals and hospices.”

Again, amendment 533 does not seek to specify where assisted dying should take place—I think further work is possibly needed over the coming months and years before this policy is potentially implemented—or to prohibit any particular location, I must add. The rationale behind the amendment is to ensure that through extensive consultation with relevant parties, the possible impacts of assisted dying taking place at any particular location are fully and comprehensively considered, and thereby any potential harm is addressed and mitigated against.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Abbott (Labour/Co-operative, Ipswich)

I was just finishing, but the hon. Gentleman has timed it perfectly, so I will.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I think the hon. Gentleman is right about this one. Does he agree that the hospices that have written to us have a very valid point of concern that they might be required to facilitate assisted dying on their premises, even if many members of staff or other residents do not wish that to happen? Does he agree that it is important that we protect hospices from having to have anything to do with assisted dying?

Jack Abbott (Labour/Co-operative, Ipswich)

I appreciate that point. Throughout this process we have spoken about the absolute need to ensure that very good palliative care options are being presented to everybody along this pathway. I do not think you can separate care homes and hospices from the Bill, but I fully appreciate and sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. As I have said, there may be some hospices that are simply not appropriate for this, so although amendment 533 does not seek to put that on the face of the Bill in terms of precluding any particular areas of our healthcare system, it would require the Secretary of State, through consultation, to make sure that the legislation is used properly, and make suitable recommendations.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

I rise to speak to amendment 436, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. The amendment concerns what would happen after a patient has suffered complications while going through the administration of lethal drugs. Let me stress that we know that people suffer complications when they are undergoing assisted deaths. Unfortunately, one thing we do not know is how common those complications are. Another thing we lack is data that would allow researchers to investigate whether certain drugs, perhaps in combination with certain medical conditions, were more likely to cause complications.

The reason that we do not know those things is because of the many gaps in the data collected in places that have assisted dying laws. It has been mentioned before, but very much bears mentioning again, that the Australian states’ reports on assisted dying do not publish data on complications suffered by patients who self-administer drugs, and that is the overwhelming majority of assisted deaths in Australia.

Western Australia’s most recent report does tell us how frequently there were complications in the cases that involved practitioner administration of lethal drugs—4.3% of those deaths were affected. I understand that the Bill does not allow practitioner administration, but that is not the relevant point. What is relevant is that first, the Australian data shows that some people given lethal drugs suffer complications, and secondly, those complications were ones that we would not wish on someone in their last minutes or hours of life. For example, five out of 198 practitioner administration deaths involved “other complications”, which included people coughing and/or reporting a burning throat after they were helped to swallow drugs,

“hiccups with gastric reflux, involuntary muscular contractions, and delayed loss of consciousness.”

Western Australia could be much better than other states on average in avoiding complications, or it could be worse. I am afraid that we really do not have the robust data that would allow us to make those comparisons. I repeat: the Australian state does not publish data on complications affecting the majority of assisted dying cases. They do not because they cannot, since no one is mandated to stay with the patient and observe their condition. We do not know, therefore, how common those complications are.

Record-keeping in other jurisdictions is also concerning. This House’s Health and Social Care Committee examined the records kept by the state health department in Oregon while inquiring into assisted dying. They found that Oregon authorities kept very poor records into how many patients suffered complications and what those were.

Amendment 436, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, would take a very different approach. Under this amendment, the doctor attending the person having an assisted death would have to make “a detailed record” if the person suffered complications. They would then have to declare that the person had suffered complications, on the final statement concerning that case. Finally, they would have to make a report, to both the chief medical officer for either England or Wales and the voluntary assisted dying commissioner.

If we do not gather data on a problem, we do not know how widespread it is, and we will find it very hard to solve that problem. That is what is happening with the problem of assisted dying complications in Australia and Oregon. We need to gather clear data on how many complications occur and on the circumstances around each one. We need complications to be clearly flagged on the final report, and we need both the chief medical officers and the voluntary assisted dying commissioner to have an absolutely accurate figure for the occasions when people suffered complications.

I frankly struggle to see what objections hon. Members could have to amendment 436. If it is that doctors will be gathering that data as part of their good practice, then we are hardly adding a burden to them by including it in the Bill. If we say that doctors will in any case be putting this information on their final report, then again, putting that requirement in the Bill is hardly a great burden for anyone. If we say that doctors will in any case be reporting the data to the chief medical officer, then I am rather more sceptical, but again, if they were doing that as a matter of routine then there is hardly any problem with requiring them to do it as a matter of law.

If England and Wales are to have assisted dying, it should not be conducted as it is in other jurisdictions. The states that currently have it gather patchy and incomplete evidence on the complications that people suffer. Let me repeat that those complications include pain, vomiting and lengthy deaths. We want to avoid people suffering those, and one way that we can do that is to gather data on how often it occurs. The amendment would do exactly that, and I hope all members of the Committee can support it.

Simon Opher (Labour, Stroud)

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 (Labour, Banbury)

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.

Simon Opher (Labour, Stroud)

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 (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

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?

Simon Opher (Labour, Stroud)

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 (Labour, Ashford)

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?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.