Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 25 March 2025.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

Would everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? Tea and coffee are not allowed in the Committee Room. I remind Members that interventions should be short, and raise points of clarification or questions; they should not be speeches in and of themselves. Members who do wish to give a speech should bob and continue to do so throughout the debate that they wish to speak in, until they are called. When Members say “you”, they are referring to the Chair. “You” should not be used to refer to each other. Debate should come through the Chair.

Clause 32 - Secretary of State’s powers to ensure assistance is available

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I beg to move amendment 525, in clause 32, page 19, line 26, leave out subsection (2).

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 537, in clause 32, page 19, line 27, after “assistance” insert

“by a registered charity but not”.

This amendment would limit the provision of an assisted death to charitable providers and not permit provision as part of the National Health Service.

Amendment 528, in clause 32, page 19, line 27, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) cannot authorise a body other than a public authority from providing such assistance even if that body is to be contracted by a public authority to do so.”

Amendment 529, in clause 32, page 19, line 28, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment 530, in clause 32, page 19, line 31, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State may not lay a draft statutory instrument before either House of Parliament that makes provision containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under subsection (1) unless they also lay before both Houses an impact assessment on such regulations.

(6) The impact assessment under subsection (5) must include an assessment of the impact of such regulations on the workforce of health professionals and on the National Health Service.”

Clause stand part.

Amendment 545, in clause 39, page 23, line 6, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—

“(3) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under section 5(3A), 8(6A),30(3), (Voluntary assisted dying services: England) or (Voluntary assisted dying services: Wales) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(4) Any other statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State containing regulations under this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(5) The Welsh Ministers may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under section (Voluntary assisted dying services: Wales) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru.”

This amendment brings together the various provisions about the procedure for regulations. It also makes regulations under clauses 5 and 8 about training, qualifications and experience, and regulations under NC36 and NC37, subject to the draft affirmative procedure.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

It is very good to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, on what is probably our last day in Committee. I fully expect that we will reject clause 32 in due course, so although I want to move my amendment, I have no intention of pushing it or any of the other amendments in this group to a vote, but I do want to take the opportunity to address the clause and to speak to the amendment in my name.

Clause 32 was always going to be an important one, because it would have allowed the Government to provide money to fund the assistance to die; it would have allowed the Secretary of State to make financial arrangements to secure the provision of assistance under the Bill. What we might have been debating if we were sticking with this clause—I think it is still worth inviting the hon. Member for Spen Valley and people who support the Bill to speak to this point—is that the Bill will require the Government to fund the provision of assisted suicide services, but it makes no provision to fund the supply of palliative care. I think everyone in this Committee recognises the absolute imperative of a properly supported palliative care sector, and I deeply regret that although the Government are supporting a resourcing of this new service, there is no balancing commitment to provide what we have all acknowledged is the essential corollary of any assisted dying service. What is worse, in clause 32 and in new clause 36, which will replace it, we have something different.

Last Wednesday night, just as the Committee rose, the hon. Member for Spen Valley tabled amendment 538, which would remove clause 32 from the Bill. This is the clause that committed the Secretary of State to make the financial commitments—commitments that were debated in principle when the House debated the money resolution on 22 January. Once again, I regret that important undertakings that were made by the Government and by the hon. Lady have, in the course of the debate subsequent to Second Reading and now subsequent to the money resolution, been superseded by further provisions.

Amendment 538 is consequential on two new clauses, one of which is new clause 37, which will allow Welsh Ministers to set up a system to implement the Bill in Wales. This will give very wide powers to Welsh Ministers, including the powers to make provision about the service that would be outside the legislative competence of Welsh Ministers. That is significant. Unlike clause 32 and new clause 36, which will replace it, new clause 37 does not make any reference to the health service in Wales. I think it is worth us teasing out the challenge to the devolution settlement that these new clauses represent; I am sure the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd will speak to that.

I want to speak briefly, but I hope clearly and powerfully, to the essential challenge. Without getting too involved in the party politics, we all talk about “our NHS”, and in a sense it is our NHS: this nation’s great domestic institution, created in the 20th century in response to the shamefully inequitable provision of healthcare that preceded 1946. Labour rightly claims the credit for having introduced the NHS under the Attlee Government and in fact the Liberals also have a good claim to it—it was a Liberal, Beveridge, who first advocated the provision of a national health service—but what is not enough recognised is that, as I am sure my hon. Friends are proud to say, it was a Conservative Health Secretary who first put before the House of Commons a plan for a national health service: Henry Willink, Health Secretary in the wartime coalition Government. Unfortunately, the public voted us out of power in 1945 and it fell to Labour to implement a slightly different plan. Nevertheless, we can all claim some parentage of this great institution, the NHS. That is why it is so significant that in the new clauses we are debating, a fundamental change to the NHS in England is proposed.

The duty on the Secretary of State under the National Health Service Act 1946, as updated in 2006, is to promote

“a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England…and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness”—

that is, physical and mental illness. That has been the purpose of the NHS since 1946.

I find it curious that a linguistic sleight of hand is being practised in new clause 36. The new phrase, “voluntary assisted dying services” or “VAD services”, is introduced, and it is used to avoid having to spell out that section 1(1) of the NHS Act 2006 will now include references to “assistance to end” the lives of people in England and Wales—that is the language of the Bill as introduced, in the long title and in nearly every clause up to this point. The explicit language that this is about ending people’s lives is avoided in the new clause. Why? I put it to the Committee that it is a hard thing to do: to take a red pen to Bevan’s legacy, to fundamentally change the NHS from one that is

“designed to secure improvement…in the physical and mental health”

of the people of England and Wales, and dedicated to

“the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of…illness”,

and to add to that founding clause “to end” the lives of terminally ill people.

I will be blunter than the drafters have been. New clause 36 changes the NHS from being the national health service to the national health and assisted suicide service. That is its direct implication. Furthermore, the new clause is also designed not only to alter fundamentally the national health service, but to enable the private sector to be paid from NHS funds to end the lives of terminally ill people—and not only that, but to do so with a Henry VIII power so broad as to enable any changes in the NHS or any law to facilitate that goal.

Simon Opher (Labour, Stroud)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that end-of-life care is also part of the NHS? That has always been part of the NHS, and it is not promoting health but enabling a good death.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

No, I fundamentally disagree: end-of-life care is healthcare. It is addresses symptoms and conditions, and it is designed in a way that is completely compatible with the founding principle of the NHS, whereas the Bill—I appreciate the honesty of the drafters in recognising this, even if they do not quite spell it out—and its proposal of an assisted suicide service is not compatible with the founding principle of the NHS. That is why adapting that founding subsection as in the original NHS Act is required. Of course I recognise that end-of-life care is healthcare and completely compatible with what the NHS does. I wish it were more part of the NHS—that is another debate. Palliative care should have been more closely integrated into NHS provision, and it still should be.

I want to tease out a tension among the drafters and advocates of the Bill about exactly how the assisted suicide service will be facilitated and provided. We have got a bit closer to it, but some questions remain, which is regrettable when here we are on the very last day of the Committee’s debate. Last month, the hon. Member for Spen Valley told the Committee:

“This is not assisted suicide by the state. The state is not involved.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 11 February 2025; c. 318.]

I am perplexed by that. I think many members of the public would not agree with that analysis of how the Bill has evolved in Committee. If involving the state in the provision of this service was not intended, then that is not the Bill we have.

In contradiction to that, and I think more accurately, the Minister for Care told us that the promoter’s intent—speaking for the hon. Member for Spen Valley—is

“to ensure that the assisted dying service is available as an integral part of the NHS. Officials are working on amendments to later clauses to establish the operating model for her consideration.” —[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2025; c. 802.]

That is clearly what has happened, and it is where we are now. However, I am sorry to say that I do not feel that the operating model is now clear. We still do not have an impact assessment, we do not know how the Government envisage it working in practice, and important information is still lacking for the debate today. We do not know the possible impact on general practice or medical specialists, nor how it might impact money that is available for palliative care. I hope the Minister can tell us more today about how he envisages the service being implemented, especially in the light of the British Medical Association conference earlier this month, which supported the motion that

“Assisted dying is not a health activity and it must not take place in NHS or other health facilities”.

That is a principle I agree with.

On 5 March, the hon. Member for Spen Valley said:

“there is no expectation that assisted dying would be set up as a private enterprise or service. It would be delivered within the provision of the NHS.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2025; c. 799.]

That now agrees with the Minister—fine, interesting; it is to be an NHS service not to be provided privately. But the new clauses do not rule out private provision, nor any profit making by providers or remuneration of people outside the NHS. Indeed, the new clauses refer to “voluntary assisted dying services”, which suggests the hon. Member for Spen Valley is supportive of services outside those that are NHS commissioned, which will be possible under subsections (1), (3) and (7)(a). That will be in line with comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, who made a very coherent case for private provision of assisted suicide if that is what Parliament chooses to legalise; he said that nothing should prevent someone from opting for private provision. In response, the hon. Member for Spen Valley said:

“This service, like many others, will be delivered through a range of providers”.––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2025; c. 800.]

I remain unclear about the extent to which this is an NHS monopoly, as it were, or whether there will be private provision that is privately paid for, or private provision that is publicly paid for. I would be grateful for the hon. Member’s clarification.

Sean Woodcock (Labour, Banbury)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I rise to speak to amendment (b) to new clause 36, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon). The amendment states:

“Regulations under subsection (1) may not amend, modify or repeal section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006.”

For clarity, I will read out the relevant part of section 1 of the 2006 Act:

“The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—

(a)in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and

(b)in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness.”

Those core principles have remained the same since the National Health Service Act 1946. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire stated, in a Britian that was devasted by war, Clement Attlee and Nye Bevan together promised a better future, one where healthcare should be available to all, regardless of wealth. It enshrined a principle that as a society we will care for the ill and we will do that together. No one’s health should be left behind, especially that of the vulnerable.

The NHS stands as the greatest legacy of a Labour Government—despite the input of Opposition parties referred to by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire—and perhaps of any Government since the second world war. The establishment of the NHS lives on in section 1 of the NHS Act. It is why at the height of the pandemic NHS staff courageously put themselves on the frontline to protect us. It is their mission to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of all, free at the point of service. As we consider assisted dying, we must not lose the values at the heart of the NHS.

Section 1 of the 2006 Act has changed little from the corresponding first section of the 1946 Act. It is not just a line in legislation; it has become part of our national story and our national identity, and amendment (b) to new clause 36 is about continuing that. It seeks to preserve the legacy of Attlee and Bevan, and that of Labour Governments committed to the betterment of the people.

Twenty-five senior doctors and pharmacists from Shetland and Orkney spoke of that legacy in their written evidence:

“We note with pride the founding principles of the NHS, with the 1946 National Health Service Act stating, ‘It shall be the duty of the Minister of Health…to promote the establishment in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness.’ We believe that Parliament must reflect the lasting ethos of our founding document.”

There are very few lines in legislation that come to represent an institution in this way. It is a testament to the ideal of those founding principles in section 1 that they guide doctors to this very day. This is the thread that runs through the 1946 Act to the 2006 Act—two Labour Governments, 60 years apart, united by this mission to improve the physical and mental health of the people. This Committee should continue the thread of those principles.

Of course, I understand that previous legislation may need to be amended to provide assisted dying services, and that may include the 2006 Act. New clause 36(4) clarifies that specified references to commission voluntary dying services may be included in that Act. I note with regret that the new clause gives us so little information elsewhere about the use of these powers, which are commonly known as Henry VIII powers or clauses. This is not a term that I was familiar with until very recently. I am sure other Members are much more familiar with it than I am, but on the off-chance that there are one or two Members who need a reminder, I will read Parliament’s own official definition of the term:

“‘Henry VIII clauses’ are clauses in a bill that enable ministers to amend or repeal provisions in an Act of Parliament using secondary legislation, which is subject to varying degrees of parliamentary scrutiny.”

Helpfully, it adds:

“The expression is a reference to King Henry VIII’s supposed preference for legislating directly by proclamation rather than through Parliament.”

I accept that it might be rather odd to talk about Henry VIII in this debate, but we should not let that distract us from the serious question of this new clause, which could result in a significant transfer of power from Members of this House to the Secretary of State, and it is not clear what that power will be used for.

The Hansard Society has noted that there is little indication about what role or nature these powers will take, saying:

“A key principle that the House of Lords Constitution Committee has applied to delegated powers is that they ‘should not be framed in such a way that gives little indication of how they should be used.’ The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s guidance to Departments states that the Delegated Powers Memorandum should set out how it is proposed that a power should be exercised.”

I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and Ministers could provide clarity on those questions. New clause 36(1) does not specify that voluntary assisted dying be provided on the NHS, but subsection (4) allows for the National Health Service Act 2006 to be amended. What is the intention of these powers? What will the structure of the voluntary assisted dying service be? How will it be funded and who will be responsible for the provision of the services? The answer to those questions will inform which legislation needs to be amended, and that information should be in the Bill.

To be clear, as I have said, I accept that changes to previous legislation may be required. However, the provision of assisted dying should not amend the foundational principles of the national health service. It should not break with the legacy of Attlee, of Bevan and of Labour. That is why I support amendment (b) to new clause 36.

I also want to speak in support of amendments (c) and (d) to new clause 36, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. Amendment (c) prohibits the private provision of assisted dying, and instead places responsibility for such provision on public authorities. I have a number of practical concerns about private providers, but let me start with the question of accountability for assisted dying. Should Parliament pass this legislation, it will bring about a profound change to the role of the state. I do not think that is in dispute across the Committee; everyone is well aware of the importance of this piece of legislation. We must not make such a significant decision only to delegate to private providers; the risks are too great.

This is not simply a question of principle, or consistency within the Bill; it is about establishing proper accountability for assisted dying. The state must oversee and regulate the delivery of this enormous legislative and social change. It must remain visible. Public authorities like the NHS are directly accountable to Parliament and the Government; there must be that same accountability for assisted dying. Private bodies are not accountable to the state, the Government or the public in the same way as public bodies. For example, private services are subject to fewer checks and regulations than public ones, and there can be less transparency about organisational structure, recruitment and finances.

We have been assured that data collection and monitoring would safeguard the implementation of the legislation, but without uniform standards and clear ways of enforcing them across providers, the monitoring of the legislation will be limited, even with the best will in the world. The best way to establish uniform standards would be to provide assisted dying through public authorities.

There is also the risk of developing a patchwork of private providers with variable standards. Organisations may develop slightly different practices, guidelines and reputations, which could create an uneven framework, preventing the establishment of best practice across services. I reiterate that that will place the public at risk.

Simon Opher (Labour, Stroud)

My hon. Friend is making a reasoned speech. The thing is that the way the NHS is delivered is already very complex: for example, GPs are private providers who are on a contract with the NHS. Amending the Bill to completely ban private providers will not in any way enhance it; it will create a situation in which almost no doctors can get involved. We need to keep the private aspect simply so that the NHS can control what is going on, albeit the providers can be from independent organisations.

Sean Woodcock (Labour, Banbury)

I am afraid I just do not agree. My view is that if we are going to do this, it should be done via the NHS. As somebody who stood on a Labour election platform not too long ago, that is something I stand by.

We know that geography and socioeconomic factors render access to healthcare, especially private healthcare, unequal. In oral evidence, Baroness Kishwer Falkner, head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, and Fazilet Hadi of Disability Rights UK both explained how the impact of the Bill on an unequal society might cause problems. Baroness Falkner said that

“from what one understands, GP provision and general access to healthcare are poorer where demographics are poorer than it is in the better performing parts of the country. One other factor to consider in terms of a postcode lottery is that people in wealthier parts of the country tend to be more highly represented in private healthcare than in public healthcare and use of the NHS. That also impacts their choices and the care they get.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 181, Q235.]

The system must not only be fair, but be seen to be fair. If we had such a system of private provision in place, public trust would almost certainly fall. We do not have to look far to see what happens if these matters go unaddressed. When we have a lack of oversight and accountability, it is the public who suffer. There have been too many scandals in recent history for us not to recognise that reality.

One of the big factors in the Post Office Horizon scandal was that Fujitsu, the supplier of specialist computer software, did not admit when it knew that things were going wrong. I have spent much of my working life in the public sector and I am not saying it is perfect—far from it—but the Horizon scandal is an example that teaches an important lesson. Sometimes private companies will not share information that could mean they lose a lucrative contract. They do not have the same oversight as public authorities, which are ultimately accountable to the Government, to Parliament and, through them, to the public.

We must give the public reason to trust that assisted dying services will have proper oversight; otherwise, the consequences will be felt not just in the provision of assisted dying but in healthcare more generally. Amendment (c) to new clause 36 addresses some of the risks by establishing that voluntary assisted dying services must be provided by a public authority. Furthermore, a body contracted by a public authority to provide the service must be a public authority.

A public authority is defined as:

“A body substantially publicly funded which performs statutory duties, objectives and other activities consistent with central or local governmental functions.”

It is clear that public authorities have stronger mechanisms for transparency and reporting. Requiring assisted dying provision to be through such authorities also places the responsibility firmly with the state. It allows the direct implementation of regulations and guidelines on the provision of assisted dying. Best practice is easier to establish when the regulations apply to the same types of organisations.

Rachel Hopkins (Labour, Luton South and South Bedfordshire)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. In similar circumstances, with the provision of intense personal services such as in vitro fertilisation, there are a range of providers, some in the private sector and some in the public sector—in fact, most are in the private sector even if they deliver under NHS funding or an NHS contract—but they are all subject to the same rules, inspection and regulations. Does my hon. Friend not accept that if it can work in an intense, personal and sometimes ethically complex situation like that, it could equally work here, because there is experience in that sort of environment?

Sean Woodcock (Labour, Banbury)

I accept that it could work, but my view is that it is far less likely to work and that it is more likely to be successful if it is wholly the responsibility of public authorities.

I will vote in favour of amendment (d) to new clause 36. It would remove subsection (6), which says:

“Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament; but they may not amend this Act.”

It strikes me as dangerous to provide in the Bill for the Secretary of State to amend primary legislation, and we should vote to remove that power. It is surely a weakening of the Bill’s safeguards. Assisted dying must remain firmly in the control of the democratically elected Parliament. I urge Members to join me in voting to remove subsection (6).

If we fail to rule out the possibility of private provision and allow the Secretary of State the power to amend primary legislation, we will fail to implement the necessary safeguards. Amendments (c) and (d) to new clause 36 would go some way to addressing that, by ensuring that the state that sanctions assisted dying is also the body that provides it. Assisted dying services need strong reporting and accountability; otherwise, we risk inequality, or the abuse of assisted dying going unchecked. The provision of assisted dying through public authorities is essential to proper accountability, reporting and best practice, so I urge the Committee to support the amendments.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

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

In Richmond Park, a Henry VIII power has traditionally meant the right of the monarch to hunt the deer in the large open space that gives my constituency its name—something that I am sorry to say he has in common with the dog of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire—

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I didn’t know it was illegal. [Laughter.]

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

He paid a hefty fine, I think.

The efforts of Henry VIII’s descendants to try to enclose the park and maintain the powers for the exclusive benefit of the royal family were defeated by a popular and somewhat genteel uprising of the residents of Richmond. I stand here today as the Member for Richmond Park to do a similar job: to assert the rights of the House of Commons and the Houses of Parliament to determine what legislation is, and not to allow it to be delegated under Henry VIII powers.

The normal approach is that legislation made by Ministers is delegated legislation, and such legislation is therefore of subsidiary character to primary legislation. However, there is a type of power, known as a Henry VIII power, that gives Ministers the power to amend even primary legislation. The glossary on Parliament’s website says:

“The expression is a reference to King Henry VIII’s supposed preference for legislating directly by proclamation rather than through Parliament.”

We may in the course of time start to refer to them as President Trump powers—who knows?—but that is the precedent we act on.

The Hansard Society, a non-partisan organisation that is neutral on assisted dying, issued a report that was critical of the power in the Bill. It said this:

“little can be deduced about how it is thought this power will be used in practice, beyond the fact that it may, in particular, be used to enable the provision of assisted deaths through the National Health Service.

But as the DPRRC”—

the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—

“has previously stated, where a power provides that delegated legislation may ‘in particular’ include a specified matter, it implies the legislation may deal with matters beyond that specified matter. The explanatory notes shed little more light, except to clarify that the power could be used to make arrangements for the funding of any provision made by the regulations. Could the regulations thus be used to enable the provision of assistance through the private sector on behalf of the health service in England and in Wales? If the intention is that the regulations will be used only to establish an assisted dying service, either within or separately to the NHS, would they require that the service be free at the point of access to the person requesting assistance?

A key principle that the House of Lords Constitution Committee has applied to delegated powers is that they ‘should not be framed in such a way that gives little indication of how they should be used.’ The DPRRC’s Guidance to Departments states that the Delegated Powers Memorandum should set out how it is proposed that a power should be exercised.

In the current absence of the DPM, MPs may therefore wish to seek clarification from the sponsor of the Bill, Kim Leadbeater, about how she envisages the power being used, and similarly from Ministers how they expect to use this power if it were granted to them.”

The drafter of the Bill, Dame Elizabeth Gardiner, appeared on the Hansard Society podcast and gave some further detail on this power and how it arose:

“In other areas, like, is it going to be delivered through the National Health Service or in some other way, indeed the regulation of any substances that might be involved, in the time available, we didn’t have time to go into all the detail of how those regimes work and to make the provision on the face of the Bill, and so there are regulation making powers there, which enable that provision to be set out in detail, as you say, when the Government has looked at it and decided how it would implement it.”

Given the time available and the constraints of the private Member’s Bill process, the hon. Member for Spen Valley can be forgiven for not including the detail of how assisted dying will be provided on the NHS in the Bill on its introduction, but she and the Government have now had months to think about it. Many people had hoped that clause 32 would be replaced with detailed arrangements for the delivery of the service, to be put on the face of the Bill by way of an amendment, which the Committee could properly scrutinise.

On 5 March, the hon. Member for Spen Valley repeatedly said that it would be made clear by clause 32. When the hon. Member for East Wiltshire called for clarity in the Bill as to how the service would be delivered, the hon. Member for Spen Valley said: “It will be.” The Minister said:

“Officials are working on amendments to later clauses to establish the operating model for her consideration.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2025; c. 802.]

This does not appear to have happened, which means Parliament will be limited to a 90-minute debate on this issue when the regulations are eventually made, and such a motion will be unamendable. Surely the issue of how the service is to be delivered is much more important than that and deserves greater scrutiny.

It is disappointing to see new clauses 36 and 37 as the replacement clauses. Ideally, instead of the new clauses we would have had a detailed set of amendments to specify exactly how assisted dying is to be delivered. We do not have that; instead, we have a Henry VIII power that provides even more power than the one in clause 32, because the new one includes a power to modify Acts of Parliament passed subsequent to this legislation.

New clause 36 provides very little guidance on how the Henry VIII power would be exercised. Will assisted dying be provided by the state? If so, would that be on the NHS or through another body? Subsection (1) one does not specify that it must be on the NHS. Subsection (4) gives the power, but not the duty, to change section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006—a foundational piece of Labour legislation if there ever was one, as the hon. Member for Banbury said—but subsection (5) requires it to be free at the point of use.

The question of whether assisted dying should be provided as part of normal NHS services, or in a parallel service, as requested by both the BMA and the Royal College of General Practitioners, is not answered by new clause 36, although hopefully it can be fleshed out in the debate on the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. Alternatively, it would seem that the power can be used to commission private providers to deliver the service on behalf of the state. Instead of deciding between the various models, new clause 36 simply leaves it open. It therefore gives very little indication about how it should be used.

When giving the Gray’s Inn reading at Gresham College last year, Lord Falconer said:

“The wider the power—because there is less material in primary legislation to define how it should be exercised—the greater the reduction in parliamentary scrutiny, but also the harder”—

it would be—

“to identify any legal basis of challenge.”

He went as far as to suggest that such wide Henry VIII powers were “unconstitutional”. Given his great support for the Bill, it would be interesting to hear the response of the hon. Member for Spen Valley and the Minister to Lord Falconer’s remarks.

Despite paragraph 44.25 of the parliamentary business and legislation committee’s “Guide to Making Legislation” requiring an impact assessment of the Bill prior to Second Reading, we do not have that. We did not even get an impact assessment at the beginning of Committee stage. The justification given was that the Bill could change, and I accept that it has changed significantly given the removal of the High Court safeguard, which in my view has made it weaker. However, in other respects the Bill has not changed very much at all. The role of the doctors is the same as before. There has been no change on the issue of how assisted dying will be delivered by the state. New clause 36 does not provide us with any more clarity than clause 32 did. If there was insufficient detail to do an impact assessment based on clause 32, why is there now sufficient detail to do one in respect of new clause 36?

I fear that the impact assessment might not be terribly useful. I hope the Minister can give us a detailed impact assessment under all three models—delivery by the NHS, delivery by a new assisted dying agency, and delivery through third-party contractors—but until a clear decision is made on those models, I accept that the impact assessment cannot be as detailed. That is the problem: by failing to make a decision we are kicking the can down the road.

If we do not decide today, the decision will have to be made by Parliament in a 90-minute debate on a motion that cannot be amended. My amendment (e) to new clause 36 would require that an impact assessment be published prior to such a debate, and that it explains the impact on the healthcare and NHS workforce. We have a limited number of healthcare professionals. There are huge NHS waiting lists and we have all experienced difficulties in getting a GP appointment. A doctor having to book out a whole day to stay with a patient while they ingest a lethal substance is a doctor who cannot be with other patients.

Whether assisted dying is provided on the NHS, as part of another agency or by private providers, the issue is the same: it is a doctor who would not be seeing other patients. That is a trade-off that will need to be made. I would have hoped Ministers might have been open about the trade-offs on Second Reading, or even now; my amendment would ensure that, at least before voting on a particular model following only 90 minutes of debate, the House could see them clearly. I fear this would be too little too late, but it is still better than nothing, so I hope my amendment will be supported.

I will say more about the situation in Wales when we come to my amendment 535 to clause 42, but I fear that new clause 37 does not address the devolution issue. First, it completely fails to do the analysis of which matters are devolved and which matters are reserved. On 5 March, the Minister said to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd that that should be done on a clause-by-clause basis. New clause 37 simply kicks the can down the road again by giving a wide Henry VIII power to Welsh Ministers in respect of what is devolved, and a wide Henry VIII power to the Secretary of State in respect of what is reserved, but it totally fails to identify which is which.

Let us suppose that, following a vote in the Senedd, Welsh Ministers do not wish to implement assisted dying in Wales, but the Secretary of State decides to use his powers on reserved matters to enable it to the extent that he can. What will the effect of that be? Would it not create legal uncertainty? There is a real risk that if the Senedd does not want assisted dying in Wales, we could end up with a position where it is decriminalised, unregulated and not commissioned in Wales. That would not be a sustainable solution, and the Welsh Government may feel they have no real choice in the matter. The better solution is to have, as Professor Emyr Lewis suggested, different commencement provisions for England and Wales. I do not want to pre-empt the debate, but that is why I do not feel that new clause 37 is an adequate solution.

My amendment (c) to new clause 36 would specify that if a public authority contracts for the provision of voluntary assisted dying, it must be with another public authority. It would place a block on outsourcing this incredibly sensitive service to private providers. There are two basic principles. First, provision should be by public sector organisations because they are subject to greater oversight and scrutiny and are more likely to be held to account. This is not about distrusting private enterprise: it is about recognising that the stakes demand the highest level of public oversight. We have only to look to the findings of the Paterson inquiry to understand the risk of failures in oversight. Spire Healthcare lacked robust governance, and Paterson operated with little scrutiny, exploiting laxer regulations in private settings while patients assumed that NHS-level standards applied, unaware of the accountability gap.

The second principle is equally critical: NHS funding must not be diverted to external organisations that profit from, or are sustained by, the business of ending lives. Every pound spent on healthcare is a pound fought for by taxpayers, by clinicians and by patients. To direct that money into the coffers of private providers, whose incentives might lean towards efficiency over compassion, risks betraying the NHS’s founding ethos. We cannot allow a system where the end of life becomes a revenue stream and where the decision to die is shaped, however subtly, by a balance sheet rather than a patient’s free will.

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire referred to IVF. My wife and I have been through IVF, and what exists is exactly what the hon. Member for Richmond Park described. There is an annual show at Olympia where it has been commercialised and it is put to people, “Why not go down this route? Why not go down that route?” Does the hon. Member agree that that is really not a route we want to go down?

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, because it provides a comparison. We are talking about there potentially being a market for end-of-life services. I do not think that is the way we should be going.

Simon Opher (Labour, Stroud)

I thank the hon. Lady for her impassioned speech, but we are rather getting off the point. The division between private and NHS provision is spurious in a process that will be delivered by doctors who are working under a code of practice. They will be rewarded in their pay which, as we have said, will be stipulated by the BMA in contracted arrangements with the Government and will be proportionate. The doctors will do the work and get the money for that. That is no different from IVF or anything else. If we accept that the NHS will be the commissioning body and will ensure standards in that way—sorry, I am going on a bit, Ms McVey; I shall now finish—the division between an NHS provider and a private one is spurious.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

The issue is who is commissioning the service. The issue is not the doctors or how they are recompensed for the work that they do, but who is doing the recompensing and what their incentives are. If the process is part of an NHS-provided service where it is agreed that it is a compassionate end of life choice, and where it is properly regulated within the wider NHS service and connects with other NHS services, that is one thing.

If the person commissioning that doctor has any kind of incentive around making a profit—and any profit-making organisation will be incentivised to increase the amount of profits that it makes—then, however carefully regulated, there will be subtle influence, pressure, coercion or persuasion that assisted dying is an option that patients should choose, or possibly not-so-subtle influence, to take the example from the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. Under other circumstances, in an NHS model, that may not have been a solution they would have been persuaded to choose. It is that issue of persuasion and of incentives that really troubles me.

Kit Malthouse (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

I am not clear: is the hon. Lady suggesting that doctors who operate in the private sector are less ethical than doctors who operate in the public sector?

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I think I said very clearly to the hon. Member for Stroud that it is not about the doctors. It is about the people who are commissioning them. I absolutely do not believe that about doctors operating in the private sector, who in my experience are often the same doctors as the ones in the NHS. It is about who is commissioning them and who is asking them to carry out this work, and whether those commissioners are motivated by a profit incentive as opposed to the incentive in the NHS to provide the best possible care.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. We are all equally ethical and unethical—the point is that we respond to incentives, and incentives have their effect. Does she agree that there is a further concern? If we had a tariff system, which we probably would, that would by definition create a market, if there was the opportunity for private provision, to earn tariffs—to make more money the more assisted deaths one provides. Furthermore, to the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud that this is all perfectly fine and normal, what about the opportunity to top up the public provision—the tariff one gets from the NHS—with one’s own money, therefore definitely creating the opportunity for some sort of upmarket arrangement through the additional fees and services that might be provided? As the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said, we could see expos dedicated to providing the most luxury or glamorous forms of assisted death through private providers with NHS funding.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

That is not a prospect I particularly want to reflect on, but it is worth noting that the particular risk in assisted dying services is that, as we heard in oral evidence from the chief medical officer, it is really hard to define, first, whether an illness is going to be terminal and, secondly, that somebody has only six months to live. There is an element of subjective judgment in assessing who is going to be eligible for assisted dying. Aligning subjective judgment to a profit incentive could create a serious ethical minefield.

I want to state absolutely clearly for the record that I am not questioning the ethics of doctors or the ethical standards of doctors or of any of the bodies that represent them in any way at all. My question is merely about introducing a profit incentive to this issue. As I said, this process could be contrasted with something like the provision of abortion services. Abortion services are clearly available only to pregnant women. The fact that the qualification, as it were, for this service is on a rather more subjective basis creates a risk.

Without this amendment, I am concerned that the Bill commodifies the end-of-life process and pushes what should be a sensitive, careful process towards being a transactional one. It also increases the risk that everything becomes focused on facilitating ending the patient’s life rather than supporting the holistic ethos of the NHS in addressing all the patient’s needs. Without the amendment, I worry that the Bill opens a door to the commodification of death, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has so graphically anticipated. What should be a careful, compassionate process could slide into something more transactional: a service that is marketed, packaged and sold.

We need look only to the parallel of care homes to see that danger writ large. In England, social care has been quietly overtaken by for-profit providers. Today, 75% of adult care homes, and over 80% of children’s homes, are run for profit—not by design or explicit policy, but by the slow creep of market forces. The Economics Observatory, drawing on studies such as Patwardhan et al. 2022, Barron and West 2017 and Bach-Mortensen et al. 2022, reveals a stark truth: for-profit care, particularly where private equity is involved, consistently delivers worse outcomes.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

The hon. Lady said that she is not questioning the ethical judgment and practice of doctors, but the comments she is making suggest otherwise.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

Again, I am talking about the companies that are running the service. I am not questioning the ethics of the doctors involved. I am merely suggesting that the people who are commissioning the doctors to carry out the service will have their own priorities that are not directly related to the safety or welfare of patients.

Kit Malthouse (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

I am sorry if I have failed to understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but under the Bill as it stands, every single stage is supervised by a doctor, even the final moments. I fail to see how the motivations that she seems to be applying to the private sector, malign or otherwise, might affect the conduct of the doctors, given that she accepts that doctors are equally ethical in the private and public sectors, unless she thinks that those motivations are pressuring doctors to behave unethically.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

It clearly remains to be seen, but that may be an outcome as we do not yet know what model we are proposing for the delivery of assisted dying. Perhaps doctors will feel pressured to deliver an outcome because that is how the model has been set up. If we have a model that incentivises profits, particularly if we do not have a similar service within the NHS itself, it is quite possible that that will happen. It will not necessarily affect the care that doctors give to patients at the end of life, but the point is that we do not know.

We cannot fully explore that matter in Committee, because we do not have the full clarity of exactly how the process will be delivered, so we cannot examine the proposed model and identify its potential risks and pitfalls. That continues to be a real concern. Perhaps doctors will feel that pressure; perhaps the service will be precisely designed to encourage them to, for example, diagnose someone with having fewer than six months to live even when it is a slightly more subjective judgment and a different doctor operating in a different system may come to a different view.

Kit Malthouse (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

That is an extraordinary claim to make against doctors.

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am just trying to wrap my head around the argument. We already know that integrated care boards and other commissioning bodies have incentives given to them when they commission services, so it would be in their interests to diagnose or produce a demand for a service in a particular area. There is already an analogous situation within the NHS; I do not see how that is any different.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but those incentives are not about creating profits that make money for individuals. They are about directing the way that resources are allocated to ensure that a broader range of health outcomes are achieved. When I talk about a profit incentive, it is an entirely different kind of incentive from the one he has just raised.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

This is a very important debate, and my concern is that there is a naive assumption that the innate goodness of doctors will render them impervious to all the incentives in the system. As the hon. Lady suggests, if it were possible, as I think it is under the Bill, for a profit-making organisation—a company—to set itself up to provide an assisted suicide conveyer belt as a pathway through this process, and to earn money publicly or privately according to the volume of the provision it enables, we are setting up incentives that would corrupt the doctors who would be required to sign it off.

I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire has such an optimistic view of human nature that he thinks that no doctor would respond to the incentives in the way that is clearly enabled through the Bill. There are other medical professionals—ethical doctors—who do respond to incentives, such as those in the cosmetic surgery industry.

Simon Opher (Labour, Stroud)

Will the hon. Member give way?

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I would, but actually I am making an intervention. It may appear that I am making a speech, so I will soon sit down, but I would be interested in the hon. Gentleman’s response to the suggestion that even he —the paragon of virtue that he is—might not be entirely resistant to the economic incentives in the system. That is why we have an NHS that explicitly tries to exclude profit making from the provision of healthcare.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I do not associate myself with his use of the word “corrupt”; I am absolutely not implying that in any way, and I want to be very clear about that. However, there is a grave risk—even for the most ethical person, if they are offered money to carry out an action that they are inclined to carry out anyway as part of their professional practice—that those incentives drive behaviour that leads to worse outcomes for patients, specifically in relation to assisted dying.

Simon Opher (Labour, Stroud)

There may be an incentive to review a patient for assisted dying, but there is absolutely no incentive in the Bill to approve assisted dying. The idea that doctors would approve assisted dying for financial reasons is completely spurious.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

As I say, we do not have a model before us that we can fully scrutinise or test for risks, and we will not have the opportunity to propose amendments to address those risks—nor will we at any stage. There is a serious risk about all the different parts of the system, not just the doctors, being incentivised by private profit. My amendment would comprehensively remove that, so it would not be a risk. Given that we cannot fully and properly scrutinise the proposed model, my amendment is the best we can do.

Simon Opher (Labour, Stroud)

I really want to point out that there is no incentive to agree to assisted dying, only to assess for it. There is no reason for people to be corrupted into agreeing, because it would not mean they would get any more money.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

We do not have the model to scrutinise, and we do not know within that whether the first or second co-ordinating doctor will be paid for their services in carrying out those initial assessments. To say that there is no incentive for making the final decision ignores the fact that people might be incentivised for making those initial decisions, where the professional judgment is required and may differ between doctors. That is why there is a risk.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

Clause 40(4) is very clear that medical practitioners can receive only “reasonable remuneration” for the provision of services, so it is clear that they cannot make money from the provision of assisted dying. Is the hon. Lady saying that where there is a private provider or one commissioned by the NHS—the model that I have set out in the Bill—there is a financial incentive for doctors to do more hip or knee operations, or other things? That is a question about the model of public and private healthcare as it stands, not about assisted dying.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

On the hon. Member’s comment about clause 40, “reasonable” is a fairly elastic term. We will find in time that the word “reasonable” will come to have its own accepted definition, but it does not preclude a profit margin.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I would argue that it does.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

But the Bill does not say that. It does not say that the payment to the doctor should not include any consideration of profit. Regarding hip operations, someone would have one only if they needed it. My point is that assisted dying is one of a range of options at the end of life being presented here. The concern is that people motivated by profit would be incentivised to push for assisted dying at the expense of other options for the patient that do not attract the same level of reward. That is the issue. It is not a binary decision in the way that most treatments are.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

In response to the hon. Member for Spen Valley, the scenario that she mentions is exactly the problem in many healthcare systems around the world, particularly in America, where doctors are incentivised to deliver volumes of treatments and procedures that are often not strictly necessary. We do have a problem even in our own system with the over-prescription of certain medical treatments, particularly pharmaceuticals, so incentives do apply. Doctors are subject to them, and we do our best to regulate them out of the system. One of the great advantages of the NHS compared with other healthcare systems is that we manage to prevent the over-provision of services in response to economic incentives. That is a founding principle of the NHS that we are overriding with this process.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I will conclude my remarks by observing that the only reason that we are looking at contracting out assisted dying services to a private provider is that the country is simply not ready for assisted dying. We know how overstretched and under-resourced our NHS is, and we are looking at cutting corners in the Bill, in our policymaking, in our scrutiny of this legislation, and in how this legislation and the service is delivered.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park, because I rise to speak to amendment 537, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. The amendment goes further than the hon. Member for Richmond Park would as far as local authorities are concerned.

The amendment also concerns both the national health service and the provision of healthcare by charities. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley knows both fields extremely well. She was the director of quality and strategy and chief analyst at the Department of Health, and then had a senior role at the Centre for Ageing Better. Her amendment would mean that assisted dying services could be provided only by charitable organisations and not by the national health service.

I strongly support the general principle that if we do have assisted dying, it should be free at the point of use. If this House decides that people do indeed have the right to an assisted death under the conditions that this Bill sets out, then it should not be something limited to those who can afford private healthcare. There are, however, strong objections among general practitioners to providing assisted dying as part of their services, and I do not think we should plan to have private firms work under contract from the NHS to provide assisted dying either.

The Royal College of General Practitioners said in its written evidence that

“any assisted dying service should be seen as a standalone specialised service that healthcare professionals may opt to provide with additional training and should not be deemed core GP work.”

The royal college’s advice, which is founded on the views of its members, means that we should give very strong consideration to putting assisted dying outside the normal workings of the NHS. If we do that, it seems that there are a few options. One is for the Secretary of State to invite private firms to tender for contracts and administer assisted dying services. As I have said, there are very strong reasons why we should not plan to have private firms work under contract to the NHS to provide assisted dying; for me, that it is one of the worst possible options.

Another option is for the NHS to fund a specialised assisted dying service that would be separate from its other functions. That could potentially be feasible, but it could also represent a significant cost for the NHS, because we still have not had the impact assessment from the Government and we have no idea how significant that cost may be.

There is also the worry that if assisted dying becomes available on the NHS, some people will become too frightened to access palliative care, as was outlined to the Committee by Dr Jamilla Hussain. I will read a brief part of her written evidence to the Committee. After talking to the patients in ethnic minority and other disadvantaged groups, she said:

“Overwhelmingly, racialised communities expressed deep concerns that they would be more likely to be pushed towards AD through systemic biases and societal attitudes about whose lives are valued… While safeguards were acknowledged, many remained sceptical that they would be applied fairly and equitably, fearing that vulnerable individuals, particularly those who lack strong advocates or English proficiency, might be at greater risk of being guided towards AD rather than offered appropriate care options.”

I want to share something with the Committee. We often get taxis to and from work and home; I got into a cab yesterday, and the chap who was driving was called Dave. His 84-year-old aunt died on Friday. When we were discussing this option, he told me really clearly that she has opted for a cremation, which would cost less money, just because she internalised that idea of burden and she did not want a cost for those that she left behind. She had not seen a doctor for 40 years. That brought home the idea of internalised coercion, internalised pressure and mistrust, because he also talked about what happened during covid. We had an interesting conversation. I told him that it was interesting that he had said that, and today I am talking about it. That is the reality: it is about how people perceive healthcare provision, the potential inequalities, and what the barriers are to access—all the preconceived ideas that we have about the provision of healthcare.

That brings me to a potential third way, which is what amendment 537 is about: charities. Charities are one way of addressing the concerns I and the hon. Member for Richmond Park have outlined about the risk with private companies and the risk of loss of confidence and access to the NHS, as well as the concerns outlined by the Royal College of General Practitioners. They could well be mitigated by ensuring that the lead responsibility for administering assisted dying is given to charities rather than the NHS.

There is a strong argument that if we have assisted dying services, they should be administered by those primarily motivated by public service. I am not suggesting that doctors are not motivated by public service, but I have made it plain that that is unlikely to happen if we turn assisted dying contracts over to Capita, Serco or G4S. Most people who work in our NHS are absolutely motivated by public service, including doctors, as are most people who work in the charitable sector, but that is not to say that either NHS workers or charity workers are faultless. What happens if members of the public or the press begin to say that there are problems with an assisted dying service? In that case, who is more likely to investigate problems and put forward solutions: people motivated by public service or multinational firms potentially motivated by profit?

That speaks to the debate we have just had, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud talked about NHS commissioned services. When we commission specialised services in the NHS, and when we commission charities, they are not for profit. That is different from commissioning a profit-making service. I would certainly not agree that the doctors would be corrupted in any way, but with private healthcare providers, there are profits to be made, and those profits influence how things work in those companies.

Hon. Members could argue that, if the assisted dying service was turned over to the charitable sector, it would become underfunded in comparison with other NHS services. However, that argument does not wash because, if the Bill passes, I hope it goes without saying that it would be a state-funded service, fully funded through the taxpayer. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that because, in the absence of an impact assessment and clarity on what model is being proposed, I have not been able to unpick this in its entirety as I would have liked. We should therefore support amendment 537, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley.

Rebecca Paul (Conservative, Reigate)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I rise to speak on clause stand part and new clause 36, and in support of amendment 525 and amendment (a) to new clause 36, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire. This is a really important debate. The NHS is the greatest achievement of any Labour Government, and maybe even of any Government.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

Steady on!

Rebecca Paul (Conservative, Reigate)

It transformed the quality of life of British citizens at a time of mass unemployment and widespread slums, ensuring free healthcare, in the words of Beveridge, from cradle to grave. The provision of healthcare free at the point of delivery was life-changing and life-prolonging. Although it is far from perfect, we have seen time and time again that as a country we can be very proud of the NHS.

The National Health Service Act 1946 came into effect on 5 July 1948, as a direct consequence of the Beveridge report. Section 1 of the Act states:

“It shall be the duty of the Minister of Health…to promote the establishment in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness”.

It was set up to help people to get better and live healthy lives, and to give hope in situations where otherwise there would be despair. It was lifesaving and life-changing. New clause 36 turns all that on its head. Subsection (4) states that:

“Regulations under this section may for example provide that specified references in the National Health Service Act 2006 to the health service continued under section 1(1) of that Act include references to commissioned VAD services.”

If this new clause passes, the founding principles of the NHS will be monumentally changed to include helping eligible people to commit suicide. That is what it does.

I want to be really clear that it is entirely possible to support assisted dying—to want to ensure that a small group of people, whom palliative care cannot help, have that assisted dying option—but not to support this new clause, which forces provision of the service through the same channels as normal healthcare. Assisted dying is not a medical treatment or a healthcare service and accordingly there should be a degree of separation.

We should be incredibly cautious about incorporating the service into the NHS. It will forever change the relationship between doctor and patient, breed mistrust and fear, discourage vulnerable groups from seeking the healthcare they need and fundamentally violate the Hippocratic oath. Dr Catherine Day, a senior partner of a large GP practice in Coventry, states:

“Trust lies at the heart of the doctor patient relationship. I believe this trust will be shattered if patients consider that their GP…may think that they should end their life and stop being a drain on our NHS.”

Siwan Seaman, a palliative care consultant said:

“How could a terminally ill patient trust a doctor if they know that the doctor was prescribing medication to the patient in the next bed in a bay or cubicle with the intention of ending their life. Letting these assessments take place alongside other NHS services will irreversibly impact on patients’ trust in healthcare professionals and negatively impact our therapeutic relationship with patients as doctors.”

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

If the hon. Lady is saying that she would not want to see assisted dying services within the NHS, then where does she think they would sit? Would she support my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley’s suggestion that this should be done by the voluntary sector and charities, or would she suggest the private sector?

Rebecca Paul (Conservative, Reigate)

It is important that there is a degree of separation, but I would say to the hon. Lady that it would have made more sense for her to put forward a proposal that we could evaluate, assess, and identify the upsides and downsides of. It would be much easier for me to then come up with suggestions. It does not make sense to ask me, “What is the solution and how would you do this?”, and for me to lay out the many different ways that this could be done, without having first laid a proposal in front of me.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

There is a clause that I have laid before the hon. Lady—that is what we are discussing. I will come on to that in my comments. Since she is clear that she does not think this sits within the NHS, she must have given consideration to where she thinks it should sit, if it were to come into effect.

Rebecca Paul (Conservative, Reigate)

I will come on to some of that, and it goes back to my belief that there should be a degree of separation. I think it should be separate from normal healthcare services and there are multiple ways that we could do that. I regret that we are not specifically debating the various different options, with a proposal in front of us detailing exactly how it would work. I am assuming, from the new clause put forward, that the proposal is for this to go through the NHS as healthcare; that is the only assumption I can make based on what is in front of me in this Bill, because there is no other detail to give me any other impression.

Sarah Davies, a consultant respiratory physician in north Wales, argues for a separate service so that ordinary NHS care is not associated with assisted dying. She said:

“It is already my experience that patients and their families are anxious about limiting treatment when they are dying. Many people believe that symptom control medication, such as those delivered in a syringe-driver to aid symptom control amount to hastening or bringing on death. This perception can hinder the patient’s acceptance of medications which can afford significant alleviation of distressing symptoms.”

I have raised my concerns about providing an assisted dying service alongside and in conjunction with day-to-day healthcare many times over the last few weeks. I think it is a massive mistake both for patients and healthcare staff. It blurs the lines of what a treatment is, increases the risk of bad decisions and, as we heard so powerfully from Dr Jamilla Hussain, it will discourage some of the most vulnerable groups from seeking essential healthcare. We have received so much evidence and it is really important that we take it on board, so I will be quoting some in my speech.

Dr Green of the BMA said:

“It should be set up through a separate service with a degree of separation. We believe that is important for patients, because it would reassure patients who may be anxious about the service that it would not just be part of their normal care… It would reassure doctors, because doctors who did not want to have any part would not feel that it was part of their normal job, whereas the doctors who wanted to go ahead would be assured of having support, emotional support and proper training.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 45, Q32.]

In oral evidence, Professor Preston argued for a separate system and pointed to the Swiss example. She said:

“In covid, we did research in care homes, and there was real concern about ‘do not resuscitate’ orders and emergency care plans that were blanketed across the care homes. Care home staff were traumatised by that, so there are real issues. We know that there are real issues day to day in how people are treated within the NHS. I think it is unconscious—I do not think people are intending it—but we know that people are treated differently and that different things are done. That is partly why we think a system outside that would protect them, because then you are not within the healthcare team that is treating you and giving you advice about such things”.

She went on to talk about the Swiss system, also being adopted in Germany and Austria, which seeks to

“protect these people by keeping it one step removed”

from normal healthcare. She said:

“Most hospitals in Switzerland will not allow assisted dying to occur, because they do not want a lack of trust in their patient group.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 246, Q317.]

I therefore support amendment 525, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, which would amend clause 32 in order not to allow the provision of the assisted dying service to be done through the health service. That would ensure that much-needed degree of separation. In light of what the Bill’s promoter has said, I recognise that there are different ways to do that; I am very open to those different ways, but I need to see that degree of separation from normal healthcare. I also support new amendment (a) to new clause 36, also tabled by my hon. Friend, which does the same thing.

Let me come to the other amendments in this group. Amendments 537 and 528, tabled by the hon. Members for Shipley and for Richmond Park respectively, are important to debate—we have had some good debate on them this morning—as they raise the different ways of delivering an assisted dying service. I have been listening closely to the points made. Amendment 537 would limit the provision of an assisted death to charities rather than to the NHS, and conversely, amendment 528 would limit provision to public authorities only.

I do not have the answer on the best way to do this, and that is why I regret that a royal commission has not been set up to properly investigate and evaluate all the options and recommend the best way forward. Instead, we are here without all the relevant information and expertise available to us, trying to land on the best way to do it. That is not the way to make such an important decision. I can tell the Committee, however, that—like many others, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire—I have huge reservations about delivering such a service through the NHS alongside normal healthcare.

I agree with much of the evidence that has already been cited: there should be a degree of separation. The BMA said that assisted dying could be part of the NHS, but should be outside existing care pathways and separate in some way:

“Our view is that assisted dying should not be part of the standard role of doctors or integrated into existing care pathways—it is not something that a doctor can just add to their usual role… The separate service could take the form of a professional network of specially trained doctors from across the country who have chosen to participate, who come together to receive specialised training, guidance, and both practical and emotional support. They would then provide the service within their own locality—for example, in the patient’s usual hospital, or their home. Or it could be a combination of some specialist centres and an outreach facility.”

In its written evidence, the Royal College of General Practitioners also proposed a separate service:

“The establishment of a separate service which covered every stage of the process would ensure healthcare professionals of multiple disciplines (including GPs) who wanted to do so could still opt in to provide assisted dying, but this would be arranged through a different pathway.”

I agree with both bodies that the service should be separated out in some way. It is now apparent that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), whose amendments would have created an assisted dying agency, was on the right track. I regret that the Committee did not explore his ideas in any real detail during our proceedings.

We received important written evidence from Robert Twycross, a pioneer of palliative care who sadly died in October, but had given his friend Ariel Dempsey permission to submit it. Dr Dempsey writes:

“Twycross recommends a de-medicalized model in which AD is a separate service, delivered outside of healthcare practice. He argues for a standalone Department for Assisted Dying, separate from the NHS. He writes, ‘Data indicate that the primary reason for a persistent desire for AD is to relieve distress over a perceived loss of autonomy and to experience a sense of personal control over the circumstances of their dying. These are not medical reasons. Thus, for patients fulfilling the legal criteria, a separate AD service should be established. Indeed, this would be the best way to prevent a corrosive effect on medical practice generally.’ ‘Given the widespread disquiet felt by doctors, a law with minimal medical involvement would be the most equitable.’ He suggests, ‘One way to achieve this would be for [AD] to be delegated to a stand-alone Department for Assisted Dying, completely separate from the NHS and with its own budget. Victoria almost achieves this with its combination of Care Navigators, mandatory training for participating doctors, and a separate Voluntary Assisted Dying Statewide Pharmacy Service.’

Twycross emphasizes that hospice and palliative care must be a ‘sanctuary’ for patients – ‘an assisted dying free zone. Even in the absence of AD, some people decline referral to palliative care despite unrelieved pain and/or other distressing symptoms because they fear they will be “drugged to death”…This unfounded fear will most likely be enhanced if AD is legalized, particularly if palliative care is involved’ and result in an overall increase in suffering.”

Dr Sarah Davies says:

“Specialist assisted-dying centres would be better placed to talk with the patient about the process and the potential complications. It would also be more likely that a specialist centre can procure the medications required.”

She goes on to make the important point that in rural areas it would be difficult for the co-ordinating doctor to find a second doctor. She says:

“In a large city like London, this could readily be circumvented. In rural areas then this aspect of the bill is impractical and unworkable. This is another reason why I think specialist private assisted-dying centres should be considered.”

I am also concerned about the imbalance in resources and the message sent out by including a fully funded assisted dying service within the NHS. In written evidence, Dr Amanda Harlow says:

“The NHS is at breaking point. There are 16% less GPs in the UK than in countries with similar economies…Patients find it difficult to access both GPs and hospitals. Are patients who have requested Assisted Dying going to have priority over those who want to live?”

Claire McLachlan, a retired clinical nurse specialist, says:

“The NHS was set up to support people ‘from the cradle to the grave’ yet while our maternity care (rightly) receives 100% Government funding, Palliative Care receives just 30% government funding. But if this Bill becomes law in the future, we could have assisted dying that is 100% funded.”

What message does it send out when palliative and end-of-life care is not fully funded and is not provided ubiquitously? Why are we as a society happy to rely on charity shops selling second-hand clothes to fund it, while assisted dying will be fully funded by the NHS?

Professor Nancy Preston, who also gave written evidence co-written with another professor at Lancaster, Suzanne Ost, said:

“Our concern is the real risk that placing AD within the NHS will communicate the wrong symbolic message when the majority of palliative care is provided through charities.”

Simon Opher (Labour, Stroud)

Briefly, the hon. Lady says that only 30% of palliative care is funded by the NHS, but that is quite spurious, because everyone who gives palliative care—all doctor time, palliative care consultants, palliative care departments, all GP services, all district nurses—gives it under the NHS. What she must be talking about is social care, which is obviously very different from medical NHS care.

Rebecca Paul (Conservative, Reigate)

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I was quoting written evidence, so I just quoted it, of course, as written.

We should be ashamed if what I have set out is where we end up as a result of this Bill. How would it in any way recognise patient autonomy and give them a real choice? Clearly, it would not. We will end up with patients taking an assisted death because there is no alternative to dying well. If as much effort was put into improving palliative care as has been put into legalising assisted dying, a much greater number of people would be given the dignified, comfortable deaths they rightly deserve. It is a travesty that we find ourselves considering the introduction of assisted dying while hospices are on their knees and patients face a postcode lottery when it comes to receiving adequate end-of-life care. Accordingly, I will vote against new clause 36.

Lewis Atkinson (Labour, Sunderland Central)

It is a pleasure to serve under you this this morning, Ms McVey.

I rise in support of new clause 36, which sets out an entirely workable, appropriate and safe set of provisions for the Secretary of State to ensure that these services are provided across England, as well as appropriate powers for Wales, although I am far from being an expert on those matters.

The new clause would convey powers to the Secretary of State to commission services free at the point of use, in a way that is entirely analogous to the commissioning of other health services that are provided, as we know, by a range of providers.

I came to this place having been an NHS manager for nearly 20 years, and I feel that the debate has sometimes slightly confused elements of commissioning, provision and the way in which the NHS commissions and manages services. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said that the state must oversee and regulate the service, and I entirely agree. Commissioning powers sitting with the Secretary of State will ensure that that is the case. The hon. Member for Richmond Park said that the issue is who is commissioning. Again, we are clear that the only person doing any commissioning will be the Secretary of State, potentially delegating this to NHS structures at the time.

The NHS and the Secretary of State are not unused to commissioning highly specialised, sensitive services in this way. Indeed, I would be amazed if the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley do not confirm that the Government were involved in the drafting of this new clause to ensure that it is equivalent to the other powers that the Secretary of State has.

This will clearly be a specialist service. It is a new service. At high levels of NHS England and equivalent bodies, there is significant expertise and practice in commissioning specialised services. The importance of the commencement period, which I hope we will discuss later today, is that engagement around the exact service specification will be drawn up in just the same way that it would be for a new cancer treatment or a treatment for a rare disease. It is right that the time will be taken to engage on that.

Fundamentally, services have to be commissioned. Some suggest that this will be a free-for-all, that anyone can provide this service and that anyone can be paid for it, but that idea is nonsense. There is no obligation for the Secretary of State to reimburse anyone who decides they want to provide this service. The service must be explicitly commissioned.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

My hon. Friend says that this will be explicitly commissioned. I completely agree with everything he has said, but this will be a newly designed service by definition, so will that not leave the door open for new providers, such as Serco or G4S, to come in, design a new service and bring in the expertise to deliver it?

Lewis Atkinson (Labour, Sunderland Central)

No, it will not, in the same way that G4S does not suddenly appear and provide treatment through a new cancer service that the Secretary of State decides to commission under specialist powers.

I am afraid that some opponents of the Bill are trying to scaremonger about potential provision as a way of altering the way people voted on Second Reading. A number of amendments clearly deal with whether potential providers should be public sector, voluntary or, indeed, private organisations. I emphasise that the overwhelming majority of GP services in this country are private contractors. It is inconsistent for Members to argue that we should maximise continuity of care and have the best safeguards around coercion and capacity by having someone who has known the individual for a long time, while also arguing that the Secretary of State should not be permitted to commission that individual’s GP to play any role. I challenge opponents on that matter.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

As ever, the hon. Gentleman is speaking very coherently in support of the Bill and the principles behind it. I think he does regard assisted suicide as another form of healthcare that, as he says, should therefore be completely consistent with the normal duties of every medical professional. I would genuinely like him to help me to understand this. Does he envisage the service being provided by bespoke clinics in the NHS? Would established professionals set themselves up with the purpose of delivering it, or would it genuinely just be something that any general practitioner would provide as part of their services? Does he imagine that there will be specialists in the NHS whose sole job, or most of whose job, would be to provide this service?

Lewis Atkinson (Labour, Sunderland Central)

I hope to help the hon. Gentleman with the points I am about to make.

What I would say to begin with is that we have talked throughout this Committee about using an opt-in model. There is this idea that everyone will be doing this, but we have rightly set out requirements for specialised training and so on. There will clearly be individual doctors in the NHS, and so on, who decide that they want to provide these services, and specialisms and appropriate regulation will accordingly be developed as part of that.

The other thing I would highlight is that the current drafting explicitly requires a range of provision. The second doctor must be independent. Indeed, clause 8(6)(d) requires that they must not be

“a partner or colleague in the same practice or clinical team as the coordinating doctor”,

so although some are suggesting, perhaps in a positive sense, that there should be one, entirely separate organisation that does all this, that would not meet those requirements. There are those who are trying to instil a fear of one large organisation being set up to take someone from start to finish, but that is not possible under the Bill as drafted.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I am reflecting on the earlier intervention on me by the hon. Member for Stroud about how the only payment under assisted dying would be made at the very end, so therefore there would no possibility of a doctor making an assessment at an earlier stage in the process being influenced. Now the hon. Member for Sunderland Central is saying—this is obviously implied by the drafting—that the different bits of the approval process would need to be delivered separately. Whether that involved a payment from the NHS or a private provider, the doctor making those assessments will clearly be paid at different stages in the process.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this points to the fundamental problem we have in this Committee, which is that we do not have a proposed model that we can properly scrutinise? All of us are just talking about potential suppositions about how things might work. We are effectively talking about a range of straw men.

Lewis Atkinson (Labour, Sunderland Central)

No, I do not agree with the hon. Member, and I will tell her why. The reality is that the shape of the health provider landscape is different in different parts of the country. For example, in Wolverhampton, there has been a significant amount of vertical integration, such that in many cases GP services are part of the NHS provider trust. Therefore, those amendments that would prohibit any public body from participating would explicitly prohibit GPs in Wolverhampton from that provision. Elsewhere, some hospices—a small number—are provided directly by the NHS. Given the history of the hospice sector in the UK, there is clearly a strong voluntary and charitable element of that provision, which is entirely right, but that varies in different parts of the country.

To return to the point made by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, there are some hospices and end-of-life providers who have made it known that, if this law passes, they may wish to explore whether they will provide such services. Equally, others will not. This goes back to the conscience debate that we had last week. There will be no obligation, so a hospice in one part of the country may well say, “Yes, we wish to provide this service as an option to our patients,” whereas a hospice in another part of the country might say, “We do not.” We need to get past this metropolitan mindset, whereby ll the providers are within easy travelling distance from each other.

Kit Malthouse (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

The hon. Gentleman is making a strong point. Surely what should be at the heart of the organisation’s disposition is consideration of the condition and circumstances of the patient. Whether on the cancer ward, in the hospice or at home, the health service adapts, and has adapted with all sorts of treatments, to dealing with the different circumstances of the patient that it encounters. We must have a system that is flexible enough to allow it to do so for this.

Lewis Atkinson (Labour, Sunderland Central)

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. These powers need to provide for that patient-centric nature, in a service that is explicitly commissioned by the Secretary of State, which will vary in different parts of the country, and not just in the provision landscape. The services provided in rural North Northumberland will, by their nature, probably be different from those provided in London, and that is entirely appropriate.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

And yet the irony of this measure is that it is not specific to the patient. Genuine healthcare treats the symptoms and condition of the individual patient. This proposed treatment has nothing to do with the individual symptoms or the condition of the patient; it just kills them. It is totally unrelated to the condition, which is why it is not healthcare.

The hon. Gentleman suggested earlier that the Bill somehow ensures that the provision and the pathway are deliberately fragmented because the second doctor needs to be independent of the first. Does he agree that, with that single exception, it would be perfectly possible for an independent provider to set up to provide for the whole pathway of assisted death, with the single requirement that the co-ordinating doctor, who would manage the whole process from beginning to end, must get a second opinion from outside their organisation to sign the paperwork for the second assessment? With that single exception, the whole process could be managed by an independent, profit-making provider—commissioned by the NHS or otherwise—entirely on its own.

Lewis Atkinson (Labour, Sunderland Central)

The hon. Gentleman is providing a masterclass in scaremongering. I know he needs Labour votes to switch before Third Reading, but this service must be explicitly commissioned by the Secretary of State, and it is inconceivable that they would commission that in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. The co-ordinating doctor is of course one person, and they would be involved in the first assessment and the provision of assistance. Whether that is a doctor employed by the NHS or somebody else, it can only be one individual, but there are the other safeguards we have talked about, such as the panel, which the hon. Gentleman has spoken against. It is absolutely appropriate that the Secretary of State has the powers and the duty to commission the service, and that they will do so from range of providers, reflecting the differences.

On the other point that some hon. Members have made about regulation, I remind the Committee that any provider will be regulated not only under this Act, but by the Care Quality Commission, in entirely uniform manner. I am therefore confused by the points made by opponents of the Bill. Some have said there should be no provision of this by the NHS or any public body, some say there should be no provision by charities—including, presumably, local hospices, should they make that decision—while others say there should be no provision by local GP practices to provide continuity of care.

Perhaps those different points reflect different ideologies within the Committee that are deeper than this issue, but they perhaps also reflect the fact that opponents of the Bill simply do not want this service to be provided at all.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

Will the hon. Member give way?

Lewis Atkinson (Labour, Sunderland Central)

No, I am going to finish this point.

The hon. Member for East Wiltshire did a good job of reading a Bevan quotation before—although I do not advise him to seek Labour party selection with such gravitas in his voice. However, I think he is the heir not to Bevan, but to Bernard Braine, the Member for South East Essex, who said in the 1967 debate on the David Steel abortion Bill:

“The idea has been spread around that it will be available on the National Health Service.”

In reference to the waiting lists, Braine went on to ask:

“Are our consultant gynaecologists going to make that list longer by making beds available to those who want abortions?”—[Official Report, 13 July 1967; Vol. 750, c. 1382.]

That is the tradition of objection that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire is in. Just because he does not wish to have the option for himself, he does not believe that there should be free-at-the-point-of-use provision on the NHS for anyone else.

I will take Bevan back to this side of the Committee Room. He said:

“The essence of a satisfactory health service is that the rich and the poor are treated alike, that poverty is not a disability and that wealth is not advantaged”.

At the moment, at the end of life, wealth clearly is advantaged. Those who are wealthy and are able to go to Switzerland do have choice at the end of life. Dignity and independence and autonomy should not be based on ability to pay. That is why we need to pass this Bill; that is why the powers to commission in new clause 36 are entirely appropriate and necessary; that is why I support it.

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

I call Liz Saville Roberts.

Liz Saville-Roberts (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)

Diolch yn fawr—thank you very much, Ms McVey. I rise to speak to clause 32 stand part and to new clauses 36 and 37.

It is gratifying that everybody on the Committee has taken so seriously the need to recognise where the powers lie in relation to the Senedd in Wales and Welsh Ministers, and Westminster and the Secretary of State. The evidence we heard from Professor Emyr Lewis is that clause 32 would contravene the Sewel convention by giving the UK Government powers of regulation to provide an assisted dying service in the NHS in Wales.

I am very appreciative of the way in which we have discussed the matter. This is, of course, a private Member’s Bill; by the nature of the subject it is discussing, it is unprecedented since devolution in 1999. As we talk about constitutional matters and the Sewel convention, it is important to remember what we are doing as a Bill Committee: we are trying to make sure that we tease out the questions about the environment in which all these services will be provided, and that we are giving people who are at the most vulnerable time in their life the appropriate protection and the appropriate autonomy. That is what we should always be balancing.

New clause 36, which relates to England, and new clause 37 certainly appear—I use the word with as much generosity as I can—to clarify the responsibilities as between Welsh Ministers and Secretaries of State. My amendments would go through the Bill clause by clause and would then insert a definition into clause 40, rather than making a broad statement as the new clauses do.

Although we have debated the content of new clause 36, I believe strongly that it is not for us in Westminster to specify how Welsh Ministers may make provision for those areas over which they have responsibility. It is appropriate that we have a debate, because that raises awareness of the potential for a legislative consent motion or motions. It is appropriate to have that discussion; it is also appropriate to be aware that there may be a discussion about the commencement date and the implications, which we will address in the debate on a later amendment.

I am looking particularly at Wales, and new clause 37 would do what my amendments were attempting: it would give us future-proofing. The powers that have been granted to the Senedd in Wales are considerably different, and lesser in their extent, than those that have been granted to Scotland and to Northern Ireland. That may well change in future, and new clause 37 would allow for that.

I put it on the record that I await further discussions between Welsh Ministers and the hon. Member for Spen Valley, although I understand that some have already taken place. It is already on the record that UK Ministers, the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and I will have further discussions as we move ahead. There will be opportunities on Report to do what the Committee is trying to achieve, which is to future-proof the legislation and ensure that it works as effectively as possible.

I welcome the changes that the new clauses would make. Clause 32, as it stands, does not recognise the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom, and it is important that we do that.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I thank the right hon. Lady for her constructive and collegiate approach to the Committee, particularly on devolution. I have contacted the Welsh Government and am keen to speak to them when Committee proceedings have finished. They have said that they are happy to do that. I am keen to continue to work with the right hon. Lady and other colleagues on devolution to ensure that we get the Bill right for the people of England and Wales.

Liz Saville-Roberts (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s comments. I think there is a lesson to be learned. I understand that the legislation is unprecedented in coming through the private Member’s Bill route. After this, we will have to think about how we deal with such legislation because we are feeling our way. I appreciate the opportunity to work with the co-operation of colleagues on something for which there is no road map, but I fear, although I also appreciate, that we are making the road map as we go.

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I genuinely did not intend to speak today, but the debate, particularly the speech by the hon. Member for Richmond Park and the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire, has brought me to my feet.

It was 13 or 14 years ago that my wife and I embarked on the IVF road. It never worked—our children came naturally in the end—but I know the pain and despair of that process. Although I do not call into question the efficacy of any doctor, some companies, looking to their profit margins, will always prey on people.

We have had discussions today about the regulations to be made under new clause 36, but we need some clarity on Report. I referred to the annual fertility show at the Kensington Olympia; I have checked, and it is still held. I visited it about 13 years ago. Frankly, it is complete marketisation. People who are already on their knees and really depressed are left feeling that companies are simply trying to make a profit out of them. People can already book their tickets for the event in May and navigate a path through it: there are expert-led seminars, real stories, whereby people connect with others who have been through the process, wellbeing workshops and more than 70 exhibitors. Of course, they are all paying a fee to be there, and they all aim to have made a profit by the end.

Our first set of IVF treatment was free on the NHS. We paid £7,000 for our second, which was again through the NHS. We went through several visits to NHS and private providers to assess whether we were willing to pay a top-up for a slightly better service. I really did not intend to speak this morning, but I wonder whether, in the final part of the process that we are considering, there would be the sort of upsetting process that has taken root in the fertility industry in this country. We need more clarity on that by Report.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

I stopped myself intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central; I had lots of questions, and he has confused me even more. He referred to the provision in clause 8(6)(d) about the doctors being different. If I am right, healthcare providers such as Aspire or Ramsay Health Care could be commissioned to deliver the services. If so, does that mean, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire suggested, that we will need two separate doctors or providers because the co-ordinating doctor and the second doctor cannot be linked? That confuses me even further. After what we have heard this morning, it strikes me that we do not have any proposed model and the measure has not been thought through. It speaks to the idea that this is not right. We are spending hours and hours going through hypotheticals and possibilities—this could happen, that could happen—but there is nothing actually before us.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I am not sure that anything in the Bill would preclude a private provider—“Virgin Health” or some such organisation—from providing the whole pathway of the assisted death, including employing, albeit in separate clinics or separate practices, the two doctors who would provide the two assessments. The provider would comply with the Bill, but the doctors might be part of the same organisation even if they work in different practices.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I have observed two things this morning. First, the reality has really hit home. Are we going to look at the amendment regarding local authorities providing the service? Are we excluding private providers? Are we excluding big firms? A new service has to be designed. Will it be two organisations or one? How will the Bill be delivered? We do not even have that before us, and that concerns me deeply.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said, it is common practice in healthcare and in the NHS for services to be commissioned in a range of ways. We would not put such a level of detail in the Bill, but it would be normal practice for the Secretary of State to do that commissioning work. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West has her own experience of that, I imagine.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

Absolutely. As a former commissioner, I am very familiar with commissioning; I commissioned millions of pounds’ worth of services across Bradford when I was in the NHS. The difference is that that was under Government Bills that had pre-consultation, impact assessments and a model that was debated. None of that has happened with this Bill. I agree that in an ideal world the process set out in new clauses 36 and 37 would be the right one, but without an impact assessment and a consultation, I am afraid that I have been left really disheartened.

I am disheartened about something else, too. I thank all Committee members, regardless of the points that they have or have not made, for the way in which the debate has been conducted, both before and during our sittings. On a few occasions, hon. Members have questioned other Members’ reasons for tabling amendments—but to suggest, as has been suggested today, that we are scaremongering, when we are actually going through the detail, is something else.

I am afraid. This is not me scaremongering; this is me being afraid for women who are anorexic. This is a gendered Bill. There are amendments that I support because I want to strengthen the Bill. I genuinely do not think that the Bill, as it stands, has that strength. I feel disheartened that we are talking about what is going to happen on Third Reading and potential votes, when we should be concentrating on the amendments on the selection list.

I oppose the new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, which would replace clause 32. As my hon. Friend explained, new clause 36 outlines the powers that the Secretary of State for Health would have over voluntary assisted dying services in England. New clause 37 does the same for Wales, but makes changes that are necessary because health is a devolved power. I will concentrate on new clause 36, as I represent a constituency in England.

Put very simply, if new clause 36 is agreed to, it will give the Secretary of State three sorts of power. First, it will give the Health Secretary powers under subsection (4) to, effectively, change the National Health Service Act 2006. Secondly, it will give the Health Secretary powers to set out regulations about how any service, whether public or private, carries out assisted dying services. Thirdly, the Health Secretary will have powers under subsection (1) to commission assisted dying services. As I understand it, the wording means that assisted dying services could be provided directly by the NHS or by private firms working on contract for the NHS. I will discuss those powers in the order in which I mentioned them.

Subsection (4) of new clause 36 says that the Health Secretary may pass regulations that

“may for example provide that specified references in the National Health Service Act 2006 to the health service continued under section 1(1) of that Act include references to commissioned VAD services.”

To make it clear how the new clause works, I will quote from the subsection of the National Health Service Act 2006 that it would affect. It states:

“The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement—

(a) in the physical and mental health of the people of England, and

(b) in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness.”

That Act is an adaptation of the original National Health Service Act 1946, section 1(1) of which states:

“It shall be the duty of the Minister of Health…to promote the establishment in England and Wales of a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales and the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness”.

The 1946 and 2006 Acts both give the Health Secretary a very clear set of duties that I think we can all support. Those duties have been the basis of how the NHS has been run for the nearly eight decades for which it has existed.

My hon. Friend’s Bill would give the Secretary of State powers to change the duties set out in section 1(1) of the 2006 Act. I ask my hon. Friend and both Ministers why the Bill needs to give the Secretary of State those powers. The only reason I can think of is that someone who was part of the drafting process has pointed out that the Health Secretary’s current duties might be incompatible with assisted dying.

The Health Secretary has duties to secure improvement in the people’s physical and mental health and in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness. Someone could bring a legal challenge on the basis that assisted dying does not fit with that duty, and that challenge might well succeed. I think that, to prevent that happening, my hon. Friend has proposed subsection (1) of new clause 36. If there is any other reason why she has suggested that we should give those powers to the Secretary of State, it is important that the Committee understands and hears it.

What is proposed underlines just how major a change the Bill would make. Since the NHS started operations in 1948, we have had a clear understanding of what it is there for. The 2006 Act is little different from the 1946 Act in that respect. For nearly 80 years, we have had an NHS that is there to improve health and to improve the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illnesses. The fact that we may have to change that shows us that we are taking a very big step indeed. To make such a fundamental change to the NHS, we should have had the best possible evidence and proper consultation, not three days of witness hearings and then hundreds of pieces of written evidence, often published after we had finished discussing the topics to which they relate. That is nowhere near good enough.

The next set of powers that I want to talk about is mentioned in subsection (3) of new clause 36, which says that the Health Secretary

“may by regulations make other provision about voluntary assisted dying services in England (whether or not the services are commissioned VAD services).”

I absolutely accept that if we have assisted dying services in England, the Health Secretary should ensure that they are properly regulated. That will have to include privately provided services as well as those offered on the NHS. However, I must ask: why does the Bill say that the Secretary of State “may” pass such regulations? The best interpretation I can think of is that a future Health Secretary might decide that private firms should provide assisted dying services directly to paying customers rather than via outsourced NHS contracts. In that case, the Health Secretary would need to provide regulations for those private sector services.

If that interpretation is correct, surely we could have tighter wording. For example, the new clause could say that if the Secretary of State decides to allow private firms to provide assisted dying to paying customers, the Secretary of State must make regulations to govern that. I would welcome clarification on the point, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley previously accepted an amendment—I think it was amendment 477—

Esther McVey (Conservative, Tatton)

Order.

Carolyn Harris (Labour, Neath and Swansea East)

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

We will now continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. I remind Members that interventions should be short and should raise points of clarification or questions; they should not be speeches. Members who wish to give a speech should continue to bob at the appropriate points throughout the debate in which they wish to take part, until they are called. When Members say “you”, they are referring to the Chair; they should not use “you” to refer to one another.

Carolyn Harris (Labour, Neath and Swansea East)

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

Amendment 537, in clause 32, page 19, line 27, after “assistance” insert

“by a registered charity but not”.

This amendment would limit the provision of an assisted death to charitable providers and not permit provision as part of the National Health Service.

Amendment 528, in clause 32, page 19, line 27, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) cannot authorise a body other than a public authority from providing such assistance even if that body is to be contracted by a public authority to do so.”

Amendment 529, in clause 32, page 19, line 28, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment 530, in clause 32, page 19, line 31, at end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State may not lay a draft statutory instrument before either House of Parliament that makes provision containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under subsection (1) unless they also lay before both Houses an impact assessment on such regulations.

(6) The impact assessment under subsection (5) must include an assessment of the impact of such regulations on the workforce of health professionals and on the National Health Service.”

Clause stand part.

Amendment 545, in clause 39, page 23, line 6, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—

“(3) The Secretary of State may not make a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provision) regulations under section 5(3A), 8(6A),30(3), (Voluntary assisted dying services: England) or (Voluntary assisted dying services: Wales) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(4) Any other statutory instrument made by the Secretary of State containing regulations under this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(5) The Welsh Ministers may not make a statutory instrument containing regulations under section (Voluntary assisted dying services: Wales) unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru.”

This amendment brings together the various provisions about the procedure for regulations. It also makes regulations under clauses 5 and 8 about training, qualifications and experience, and regulations under NC36 and NC37, subject to the draft affirmative procedure.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, for what might be the last time on this Bill Committee. When we adjourned this morning, I was speaking to new clauses 36 and 37. To bring us up to speed, I will repeat my last paragraph.

If the interpretation that I suggested this morning is correct, surely we could have tighter wording. For example, the new clause could say that if the Secretary of State decides to allow private firms to provide assisted dying to paying customers, the Secretary of State must make regulations to govern that. I would welcome clarification from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on whether she would be minded to accept such an amendment, given that she accepted a change from “may” to “must” in previous amendments.

Finally, we come to what I think is the most important part of new clause 36: the powers in subsection (1) to commission assisted dying services. How the Secretary of State uses those powers will be crucial to the transparency of the system and to the impact of assisted dying on the NHS.

We do not know whether the Health Secretary will contract private firms to provide services to the NHS or whether all assisted dying will be provided under the NHS. We do know, however, that many parts of the medical profession are strongly alarmed by the idea that the NHS would provide assisted dying. For example, the Royal College of General Practitioners said in its written evidence TIAB 108 that it

“does not believe that, if assisted dying is legalised, the process should be integrated into existing care pathways as part of the standard care and treatment they provide i.e. assisted dying should not be deemed core GP work…As such, we consider that if assisted dying is legalised the Bill should make provision to establish a separate Assisted Dying service. This may help to ensure that assisted dying was not a core part of GP work and that any doctor who did not want to be involved would not be forced to do so.”

Carolyn Harris (Labour, Neath and Swansea East)

Order. Please could I ask the hon. Member to stick to the point?

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

I will get back to the point, Mrs Harris.

Serco and G4S carried on getting huge public contracts because the Government found it too hard to replace them. Assisted dying would also be a specialised service.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

My hon. Friend has mentioned a couple of companies. I have to say that I do not know very much about those companies. Are they healthcare providers? Do they deliver healthcare?

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

Some of them do, or they deliver parts of healthcare. Any company can bid or design a service to recruit doctors, as I said earlier. That is the reason I mention these companies. Big companies already do provide some services to our NHS, albeit that they may be in different areas at the moment.

Carolyn Harris (Labour, Neath and Swansea East)

Order. Can we stick to the point, please?

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

I am happy to, Mrs Harris.

We should be determined not to see big outsourcing companies bidding for assisted dying contracts and then potentially misusing them the way in which they have misused other public services. That is not because I am opposed to firms operating in a free market or making money when they do their job well; it is because the way we run outsourced Government contracts in this country often has nothing to do with the free market and nothing to do with companies working well.

Finally, we need to ask hard questions about how the contracts for assisted dying would be structured. Would companies be paid a fee for each stage of the assisted dying process that they have provided: one fee for providing the first assessment by a doctor, another for a second assessment and so on, up until the final fee for helping the patient take the lethal drugs? As I said this morning, we do not know what the proposal for the structure is. That is why it is important that we explore and understand the risks of every structure.

There are Government services that we can safely outsource. Assessing whether people are fit to end their life is not one of them, and neither is helping people to take lethal drugs. These clauses will enable future Governments to open up lucrative contracts for assisted dying that will almost certainly be won by companies that have often been incompetent and have potentially been dishonest. I strongly oppose the new clauses.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I share all the hon. Lady’s concerns. In relation to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, is she aware that G4S has a health services division in the UK that directly employs doctors and other healthcare professionals?

Carolyn Harris (Labour, Neath and Swansea East)

Order. Mr Kruger, we have already had that issue. We need to stick to the amendments.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I take your ruling, Mrs Harris, but the amendment is explicitly about this.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

When it comes to NHS providers, or any service providers, and contracting or outsourcing, we have legislation in this place for whistleblowing. I raised the subject with the Health Secretary in relation to my local trust only today. With the best will in the world, mistakes happen. We legislated to protect whistleblowers, and that ties in directly to these risks. We must do everything we can to mitigate such risks in the Bill.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mrs Harris. The Government remain committed to ensuring the legal robustness and workability of all legislation. For that reason, we have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on some amendments to the Bill. Where changes have been mutually agreed by my hon. Friend and the Government, I will offer a technical, factual explanation and a rationale for the amendments.

Amendment 525 would remove the Secretary of State’s explicit power to make regulations enabling the provision of assistance as part of the health service in England and Wales. It might therefore prevent such assistance from being provided by the NHS. The Secretary of State would still have the power to make arrangements for the provision of assistance or to delegate the making of arrangements. However, it is doubtful that those arrangements could be made through the NHS; rather, the Secretary of State could, for example, make arrangements for another body to provide assistance.

The effect of amendment 537, as drafted, is potentially ambiguous. However, the Government’s assessment is that it could be interpreted as allowing regulations to enable the provision of assisted dying by a registered charity, while not allowing provision as part of the health service. That could put into doubt whether assisted dying could be provided as part of the NHS in England and Wales.

Amendment 528 would prevent any body other than a public authority from being authorised by regulations to provide assistance as set out in the Bill, regardless of whether that body is contracted to do so by a public authority. That would limit the scope of the Secretary of State’s powers to ensure that assistance is available in the absence of a definition. The meaning of “public authority” might be unclear.

Amendment 529 would remove the power to amend, revoke or repeal legislation via regulations made under clause 32(1) concerning arrangements for assistance, where passed or made before the end of the Session in which the Bill is passed. That could lead to gaps in the Secretary of State’s regulation-making powers and in other legislation. It could also have an impact on the workability of arrangements for assistance and, ultimately, the Bill.

Amendment 530 would add two requirements when making regulations under clause 32, which sets out the Secretary of State’s powers to ensure that assistance is available. The first is that the Secretary of State may not lay regulations before either House under subsection (1) unless an impact assessment of those regulations is also laid before both Houses. The second is that the impact assessment must include an assessment of the impact of the regulations both on the health professional workforce and on the NHS itself. Impact assessments are routinely prepared to accompany secondary legislation. However, the amendment would impose a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to prepare an impact assessment, which would need to be laid before both Houses. It would therefore create a legal requirement that is not the standard for secondary legislation.

Clause 32 gives the Secretary of State the power to make necessary provisions so that assistance can be provided in accordance with the Bill. Amendment 545 clarifies that various regulations made under the Bill are subject to the affirmative procedure. That includes regulations about training, qualifications and experience, about when any code of practice comes into force, and about the provision of a voluntary assisted dying service in England and Wales. Although regulations about the commencement of any codes of practice are already subject to the affirmative procedure, this amendment will mean that regulations relating to the required training, qualifications and experience, and the provision of a voluntary assisted dying service in England and Wales, will be subject to increased parliamentary scrutiny, compared with the Bill as drafted. The amendment also clarifies that any other regulations made by the Secretary of State will be subject to the negative procedure.

In addition, the amendment provides that Welsh Ministers may not make regulations in relation to the voluntary assisted dying service unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by the Senedd. That means that regulations about the voluntary assisted dying service in Wales will be subject to increased scrutiny and debate in the Senedd.

New clause 36 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that arrangements are made for voluntary assisted dying services to be provided in England. It also imposes a power on the Secretary of State to make other provision about matters related to voluntary assisted dying services in England. The regulations made by the Secretary of State can provide that references to the health service in the National Health Service Act 2006 include references to a voluntary assisted dying service in England. That ensures that voluntary assisted dying services can be provided via the NHS. The new clause further ensures that voluntary assisted dying services provided as part of the health service must be free of charge unless charging is expressly provided for.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

First, on the proposed amendment to the NHS Act, will the Minister confirm that the implication is that it is not currently possible to deliver assisted dying services under the Act? Secondly, to help me understand new clause 36, is it proposed that the Government will amend the NHS Act through regulations, a statutory instrument, or will the courts read the new clause as inferring that assisted dying is compatible with the NHS Act? Is there an intention to change the wording of the NHS Act, or is it just that we should now read “healthcare” as including assisted dying? I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain, because it is not clear to me from the phrasing.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

New clause 36 creates the basis for the provision of assisted dying services, in compliance with all the legislation that defines how the national health service works. If the new clause is agreed by the Committee, and ultimately by Parliament, further amendments and changes will not be required. It will be the basis for the provision of the assisted dying service, within the framework of all the legislation that defines how the NHS works.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

New clause 36 specifies that the NHS Act will require amendment. Is the Minister saying that that is not in fact the case?

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

New clause 36 specifies that the Secretary of State will, by regulation, set out the operating framework for the delivery of the assisted dying service. That will be the change to the legislation that is required. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I am missing something. I do not know whether we are talking at cross purposes here. What I am saying is that new clause 36 provides the basis for the delivery of the service. I am sorry if I am missing his point, but that is my understanding.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

The Minister is absolutely right. The point is that new clause 36 provides that provision for assisted dying services can be made through the NHS. It gives flexibility: if the NHS Act needed to be amended, it could be, but that is certainly not the intention at this stage. The Act has been amended on numerous occasions, not least by the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. It is very helpful, because I perhaps did not quite understand what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said. My hon. Friend sets out very clearly the optionality represented in new clause 36.

The new clause further ensures that voluntary assisted dying services provided as part of the health service must be free of charge, unless charging is expressly provided for. Subsection (6) confirms that regulations made under this new clause can make provisions with the same effect as an Act of Parliament, including amending other primary legislation. However, they cannot amend the provisions in this Bill. The amendment also defines voluntary assisted dying services.

Amendment (a) to new clause 36 would prohibit regulations being made that authorise the provision of voluntary assisted dying services by the NHS in England. The Secretary of State would still have a duty to ensure that arrangements are made for the provision of assistance, but not by the NHS. The Secretary of State could, for example, make arrangements for another body to provide assistance, which would mean that the Secretary of State could not ensure that assistance was provided in accordance with the Bill or through the NHS in England. This would apply only to England, not Wales. Welsh Ministers could still make regulations for the provision of voluntary assisted dying services by the NHS in Wales. This could result in a divergence between England and Wales in the provision of assisted dying services.

Liz Saville-Roberts (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)

The Committee should be aware that the Isle of Man has today passed an assisted dying Act, and we already have divergence between the different jurisdictions of the United Kingdom.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

I think we are all moving in a direction where, if this Bill passes, we would like its delivery in England and Wales to be compatible, based on full respect for the devolution settlement and for the legislative consent motions. Divergence in the context of the devolution settlement is what the right hon. Lady is keen to achieve, and I think she is working with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to achieve that aim.

Amendment (b) to new clause 36 would provide that the Secretary of State must, by regulations, make arrangements for the provision of assisted dying services in England. The amendment would remove the provision that regulations under new clause 36 may provide that specified references to the health service in the NHS Act include reference to commissioned assisted dying services. Secondly, it removes subsection (5), which states that regulations under new clause 36

“must provide that section 1(4) of”

the NHS Act

“applies in relation to commissioned VAD services”,

which provides that health services must be free of charge unless exceptions apply. Finally, amendment (b) to new clause 36 explicitly provides that regulations made under subsection (1)

“may not amend, modify or repeal section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006.”

If accepted, the proposed amendment may impact the provision of assisted dying services through the health service in England. The effect would be that section 1 of the NHS Act could not be amended, modified or repealed via regulations under new clause 36(1). The proposed amendment applies only to England, and the restriction does not apply to Welsh Ministers. This could result in a divergence between England and Wales in the provision of assisted dying services, as Welsh Ministers could amend section 1 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006.

Amendment (c) to new clause 36 would limit the scope of the Secretary of State’s power in subsection (1) of new clause 36 to make regulations that secure arrangements for the provision of voluntary assisted dying services in England. Under this amendment, such regulations cannot authorise the provision of assistance by a body other than a public authority, even if that body is contracted by a public authority to do so. That would effectively prevent the NHS from contracting with private providers to provide assistance. The NHS regularly contracts private providers to provide NHS services. It is possible that being unable to do so here may present operational challenges. The amendment applies only to England, and the restriction does not apply to Welsh Ministers. That could result in a divergence between England and Wales in the provision of voluntary assisted dying services.

Amendment (d) to new clause 36 seeks to limit the Secretary of State’s power to amend, revoke or repeal other legislation for the purpose of making provision for assisted dying services.

Rebecca Paul (Conservative, Reigate)

I am sorry to backtrack slightly, but I want to clarify that the Isle of Man is a Crown dependency and not part of the UK.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

The hon. Member is absolutely right that it is a different situation from the point of view of devolution. Perhaps my answer was conditioned by the intervention of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, so I perhaps jumped to a conclusion.

Liz Saville-Roberts (Plaid Cymru, Dwyfor Meirionnydd)

On that point, we are also expecting a decision in Holyrood in Scotland, which I think the Committee will agree is part of the United Kingdom. These jurisdictions influence our discussions in this place.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

The right hon. Lady makes a valid point, although Scotland has a different legal system from the one that governs England and Wales. That takes us back to the legal jurisdiction question versus the devolution of health service delivery. How to make those two work compatibly is a key challenge that the Committee is seeking to address.

Amendment (d) to new clause 36 could limit the Secretary of State’s ability to make provision for assisted dying services via the health service in England. For example, it could limit who can commission and regulate assisted dying services, as the Secretary of State will not have the power to amend primary legislation. If the amendment were agreed, the Secretary of State would not be able to make, via regulation, the required amendments to relevant legislation for the purpose of enabling the provision of assisted dying services in England. The Committee may wish to note that the amendment would apply only to England, which could lead to a divergence in provision between England and Wales.

Amendment (e) to new clause 36 would add two requirements. First, it would provide that the Secretary of State could not lay regulations concerning the provision of voluntary assisted dying services in England unless an impact assessment of the regulations is also laid before both Houses of Parliament. Secondly, the impact assessment would need to include

“an assessment of the impact of such regulations on the workforce of health professionals and on the National Health Service.”

Carolyn Harris (Labour, Neath and Swansea East)

Order. The Division bell is ringing. There will be multiple votes, so I suggest that we suspend for 45 minutes.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

I was cut off in my prime, but I am ready to start again.

New clause 37 will give the Welsh Ministers a power to make regulations about voluntary assisted dying services in Wales, including regulations to secure that arrangements are made for voluntary assisted dying services to be provided in Wales. Such regulations can make any provision that could be made by an Act of Senedd Cymru and that would be within the legislative competence of the Senedd if it were contained in such an Act. The Secretary of State will be able to make regulations about such services where this would be outside the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru.

Subsection (6) confirms that regulations made under the new clause can make provisions with the same effect as an Act of Parliament, including amending other primary legislation. However, they could not amend the provisions in the Bill. I hope that those observations have been helpful to the Committee.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

We have had some excellent and extremely thorough debates covering all aspects of the Bill since the Committee first met. There has been an unprecedented level of scrutiny, and rightly so, given the gravity of the issue. The clause before us is one of the most important that we will consider. Without it, the Bill’s objective of offering a compassionate and dignified choice to terminally ill adults could not be met. The injustices of the status quo would remain, with too many people travelling abroad to seek an assisted death or taking matters into their own hands here at home, alone and often before they need to, in order to protect their loved ones from the threat of prosecution. Those people would be left, as they are now, with no protections against coercion or pressure to end their life and, crucially, with no ability to choose the manner and timing of their death so that they can say goodbye and be remembered by their loved ones as they would wish.

Clearly, some hon. Members do not want those people to have that choice. They are fully entitled to that view. However, if Parliament decides otherwise and gives that choice, it is our responsibility to ensure that it can be exercised without adding constraints and impediments that would serve only to make people’s last days and weeks more traumatic, not less. That is one reason, although not the only reason, why I am clear that the process must be available as part of the range of services available to patients under the NHS and free at the point of need. It must be for the Secretary of State to make provision for the service in England, and for Ministers in Wales to do the same in Wales if the Senedd agrees. The House of Commons must have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations under the affirmative procedure.

Despite the challenges that it faces, the NHS is a trusted institution staffed by some of the best qualified and skilled health professionals anywhere in the world. Not all of them will want to participate, and it is their absolute right not to, but patients and the wider public should be reassured that assisted dying services would be commissioned and regulated in the same way as other services through the NHS, a system with which they are familiar.

There is another very important reason why I do not believe that voluntary assisted dying should be a service that is separate from the core responsibilities of the NHS. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire and others have described the decision to request an assisted death as a fork in the road. I fundamentally disagree. “Fork in the road” implies that once someone decides which route they will take, that is it: they have chosen their direction of travel. That goes completely against the principles behind the Bill.

The option of an assisted death is just that: it is an option throughout. Right up until the final moment, the person can decide not to exercise that choice. Experience from around the world suggests that consistently 30% to 40% of people do not, but knowing that they have the option has given them the comfort and reassurance that they need to make their final days less stressful and less fearful. It is crucial that the option of a voluntary assisted death remain part of an holistic approach to end-of-life care. If other options—including palliative care or the comfort provided by a hospice or other institution—are working for the individual, they have no need to take it up, but if it remains their clear, settled and informed wish to do so, that is their decision.

My belief that a person requesting an assisted death should be guided through the process, in a health and care environment that they trust and are familiar with, extends to private provision. Other commissioned and regulated services are supplied by a range of providers; the same should apply in this context, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central said.

NHS trusts and ICBs may use private providers in some circumstances, as they already do. This provides flexibility, which is important, but what matters is that the safeguards and protections in this Bill will apply no matter where the service is supplied. The same requirements on doctors will apply, including the need to prepare reports and send them to the commissioner, and the stipulation that a medical practitioner cannot benefit financially or in any material way from the death of a person and can only receive reasonable remuneration for providing the service. My new clauses 36 and 37 make provision for this. The amendments to the new clauses seek to frustrate or delay that intention, and I cannot support them.

Perhaps it is the Committee that is at a fork in the road. One route leads towards the correction of an injustice that has already lasted too long, and it offers a safe and compassionate choice at the end of life. The other route is to say that we are okay leaving things as they are, that the status quo is defensible and that people do not deserve to be given that choice.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I hope the hon. Lady does not really think that I or others think the status quo defensible. There are clearly major problems with our palliative care system that we all recognise and want to improve. I would be grateful if she acknowledged that we need to improve palliative care.

On the hon. Lady’s point about remuneration, the Bill specifies that it would not be regarded as illegitimate for doctors to earn reasonable remuneration. What does she think “reasonable” is? How would we designate the appropriate remuneration for doctors? Does she agree that there is nothing in the Bill to stop private providers supplying the service and making money from it?

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

The approach to reasonable remuneration would be the same as in any other service commissioned by the NHS. There are tariffs for services that doctors provide. That is not for us in Parliament to decide; it would be up to the NHS and the commissioning bodies.

I understand that some people might be uncomfortable with private providers. If so, I suggest that they are probably uncomfortable—which might be surprising, given their politics—with the concept of private healthcare provision per se. Whatever our moral view on that is, we cannot take assisted dying out of the system that we currently have. I think it is really important that the choice is given to terminally ill patients within the framework that we have.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 33 - Notifications to Chief Medical Officers

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I beg to move amendment 539, in clause 33, page 19, line 34, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—

“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring a registered medical practitioner to notify the Commissioner of the occurrence of an event of a specified description.”

This amendment replaces a power to make regulations requiring practitioners to notify the relevant Chief Medical Officer of certain events, including any events specified in regulations, with a power to make regulations requiring practitioners to notify the Commissioner of any event specified in the regulations.

Carolyn Harris (Labour, Neath and Swansea East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 172, in clause 33, page 19, line 34, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to require any registered medical practitioner to notify the relevant Chief Medical Officer of any notifiable event.

Amendment 540, in clause 33, page 20, line 17, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision enabling the Commissioner, by notice, to require persons (or a specified description of persons) to give the Commissioner information (or a specified description of information).”

This amendment confers a power to make regulations enabling the Commissioner to require persons to provide information to the Commissioner.

Amendment 541, in clause 33, page 20, line 18, leave out “subsection (1)” and insert “this section”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 540.

Amendment 542, in clause 33, page 20, line 19, leave out “the notification” and insert

“a notification under subsection (1)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 541.

Amendment 543, in clause 33, page 20, line 20, leave out second “the” and insert “such a”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 541.

Amendment 544, in clause 33, page 20, line 22, leave out from “section” to end of line 23 and insert

“‘specified’ means specified in the regulations.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 539 and 540.

Amendment 173, in clause 33, page 20, line 24, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

This amendment would mean that any regulations made under this section (Notification to Chief Medical Officers) must be made under the affirmative rather than the negative statutory instrument procedure.

Clause stand part.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

The purpose of these amendments is to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the notification process within the context of the Bill and to ensure that the commissioner, who plays a key role in monitoring and reporting, receives the necessary information to fulfil their duties effectively. The amendments will empower the Secretary of State to make regulations that require registered medical practitioners to notify the commissioner of any events specified. This change is a critical step towards centralising the notification process and will ensure that the commissioner is directly involved in overseeing these events in a manner that supports the broader goals of the Bill.

Under the amendments, the Secretary of State will have the authority to make regulations that require medical practitioners to notify the commissioner and that grant the commissioner the power to request information. They are designed to enhance the commissioner’s ability to effectively monitor the operations of the Bill.

New clauses 38 and 39 are designed to facilitate the proper and secure exchange of information between the commissioner, various regulatory bodies and the Secretary of State in relation to the voluntary assisted dying framework. These provisions are critical to ensuring that the operation of the Bill is transparent, effective and within a secure, legally compliant framework.

New clause 38 seeks to create a structured system for the exchange of information between the commissioner and key bodies involved in healthcare regulation and oversight. This is an essential provision to ensure that all relevant parties can co-operate in the administration of the Bill and that the commissioner has access to the necessary data to fulfil their duties effectively.

New clause 39 addresses a critical issue regarding the disclosure of information under the Bill. It will ensure that information can be shared as required without compromising data protection laws or breaching confidentiality obligations; it seeks to ensure that while the Bill facilitates necessary data sharing, it will not override the existing protections for privacy and confidentiality. That is crucial both for the professionals and for the individuals involved in the processes established by the Bill.

New clauses 38 and 39 will ensure that the voluntary assisted dying commissioner can effectively share information with key bodies while maintaining strict adherence to confidentiality and data protection laws.

Rebecca Paul (Conservative, Reigate)

I rise to speak briefly to amendments 172 and 173, in my name, but amendment 172 will fall if amendment 539 is voted through. The point of amendment 172 is to ensure that the commissioner has adequate data about important events. It turns a “may” into a “must”. It means that the Secretary of State must issue regulations requiring a doctor to notify the chief medical officer, or the commissioner as in all likelihood it will be, of any notifiable event.

I note that amendment 539 would entirely remove subsection (2), which lists what constitutes a notifiable event. Gone, therefore, is the list of the minimum that must be included: the witnessing of a first declaration, the first assessment, the second assessment, the second declaration, a refusal to make a statement and so on. That seemed a reasonable list to me and I am not sure why it should be removed and the decision left to the Secretary of State. It seems to be a watering down of the type of event that must be notified, as the amendments allow much more discretion about what is requested. It seems eminently sensible that a doctor should notify the commissioner of all the various stages of the process. However, that is unlikely to be the case now—with or without my amendment.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I will double-check, but I am pretty confident that those reporting mechanisms are covered elsewhere in the Bill. I am very happy to confirm, but I think they are covered in clauses 7 and 8.

Rebecca Paul (Conservative, Reigate)

It would be reassuring if that were the case because such data can be very useful. By making sure we get into the routine of providing it, it is there if we ever need it.

Amendment 173 provides that any regulations under the clause must be made under the affirmative rather than the negative statutory instrument procedure. In the interests of using our time well, I will not repeat the arguments that were made last week on this. However, if amendment 539 is accepted, the Bill will again defer a lot to ministerial powers and non-binding guidance and codes of practice. Under the negative procedure, Parliament is reduced to watching rather than properly participating in the decision-making process.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

I rise to speak in support of amendments 172 and 173, tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate, and against amendment 539, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.

Clause 33 currently provides that the Health Secretary “may” bring forward regulations to require a doctor to report any notifiable event to the chief medical officer. That would be either the CMO for England or the CMO for Wales, according to where the assisted death takes place. The clause lists those notifiable events, such as the first declaration, the two statements by the doctors, including when they refuse to make such a statement, and the final statement that follows the person’s death. The weakness in the clause as originally written is its use of the word “may”. It should not be optional for the Secretary of State to make such regulations. Amendment 539 retains that weakness, while adding what I view as a new problem. The new weakness is that the amendment removes the requirement for doctors to notify the CMO of the events. Instead, it specifies that they should notify the voluntary assisted dying commissioner.

By all means let us have doctors reporting these events to the commissioner, but they should still be required to report the events to the chief medical officers too. There are at least two good reasons for that. First, the chief medical officers are extremely experienced, senior doctors. They and their staff have the ability to look at this kind of data from a medical and especially a public health perspective. The VAD commissioner will come from a legal, not medical background. They will have other abilities but they will not look at this through the lens that a senior doctor would. Secondly, it cannot be good governance that the only person who must see the data is the commissioner—the official who runs the assisted dying system and who appoints all the panel members.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I hope that my hon. Friend can take some reassurance from amendment 455, which says that

“the Commissioner must consult… the Chief Medical Officer for England”

and

“the Chief Medical Officer for Wales”

when making a report.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

I will come on to that point.

As I have said previously, this Bill will not just create a VAD commissioner, but give them the power to assess their own work. That means it is much less likely they will critically assess the data for any signs of a major problem. We all suffer from unconscious bias, even the very senior legal officials who will be eligible to become VAD commissioners. If the data were sent to the chief medical officers as well as the commissioner, that would mean two sets of officials with different perspectives and fields of expertise looking for problems. We would have a much better chance of locating problems earlier that way.

Amendment 172 would change the clause so that the Health Secretary must bring forward such regulations. As things stand, regulations brought forward under the clause would be subject to the negative procedure, which, as all hon. Members know, considerably reduces the amount of parliamentary scrutiny they receive.

Amendment 173 would make regulations under the clause subject to the affirmative procedure. I honestly try to see the arguments for and against each amendment, but I have real difficulty in seeing what the arguments against these two might be. Clearly, notifiable events are important information that must be collected nationally for a transparent assisted dying system. Equally, they need to be governed by regulations so that all doctors participating in the scheme have a clear picture of their responsibilities.

Finally, on such an important matter, Parliament should be required to vote to accept such regulations, as that will increase the scrutiny from both this House and the other place. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley drew my attention to her amendment, which says the commissioner must consult the chief medical officer. However, it does not specify whether the consultation should include data or if it is the beginning of the process; those things are not stated on the face of the Bill. That leaves it open to interpretation, which is why I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate. I thank her for tabling those two very sensible amendments and I urge hon. Members to vote for them. From my perspective, amendment 539 weakens the Bill and we should vote against it.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

These amendments seek to ensure that the voluntary assisted dying commissioner receives the necessary information to fulfil their functions in monitoring the operation of the Bill. Amendment 539 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring registered medical practitioners to notify the commissioner, instead of the relevant chief medical officer, of any event specified in such regulations. That could include the events currently listed under clause 33(2), such as where a practitioner carries out a first or second assessment and provides or refuses to provide a supporting statement. Setting out these events in regulations would allow for greater flexibility.

Amendment 540 empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling the commissioner to require persons or specified descriptions of persons to provide information. For example, this could be access to medical records to inform panel deliberation. The regulations made by the Secretary of State under amendments 539 and 540 may also provide for how such regulations are to be enforced. The enforcement mechanism would help ensure compliance regarding the notification of provision of information to the commissioner under the regulations. Amendments 541 to 544 are consequential amendments.

I turn to amendment 172. As introduced, clause 33(1) provides that

“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, require any registered medical practitioner to notify the relevant Chief Medical Officer of any notifiable event.”

A list of such events is provided in clause 33(2). The effect of amendment 172 would be that the Secretary of State would instead be required to make regulations under clause 33(1), requiring any registered medical practitioner to notify the CMO of any notifiable event. Amendment 173 would require any regulations under clause 33 to be made under the affirmative procedure, rather than the negative procedure, meaning that they would be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.

The purpose of new clause 38 is to allow the sharing of information between the voluntary assisted dying commissioner and certain persons. It would create an information-sharing gateway between the voluntary assisted dying commissioner and the Care Quality Commission, the General Medical Council, the General Pharmaceutical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council. The new clause includes a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State to specify any other person that the commissioner may share information with and vice versa. It also creates an information-sharing gateway between the commissioner and the Secretary of State, to enable the sharing of information for the purpose of any function of the commissioner, or any function of the Secretary of State, relating to the operation of the Bill.

New clause 39 provides that where there is a disclosure of information that is required or authorised under the Bill, it will not amount to a breach of confidence or any other restrictions placed on the disclosure of information. The new clause makes clear that data protection legislation still applies and will need to be complied with. It is essential that any provisions under the Bill that require data to be shared do not undermine the public’s trust, security and privacy in terms of their personal data. I hope that those observations will be helpful to the Committee.

Clause 34 - Monitoring by Chief Medical Officers

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I beg to move amendment 382, in clause 34, page 20, line 26, leave out “relevant Chief Medical Officer” and insert “Commissioner”.

This amendment provides for monitoring, investigation and reporting functions under Clause 34 to be carried out by the Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner (instead of the Chief Medical Officers for England and for Wales).

Carolyn Harris (Labour, Neath and Swansea East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 383, in clause 34, page 20, line 29, leave out “the relevant national authority” and insert “an appropriate national authority”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.

Amendment 384, in clause 34, page 20, line 30, leave out “relevant national” and insert “appropriate national”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.

Amendment 385, in clause 34, page 20, line 31, leave out “relevant Chief Medical Officer” and insert “Commissioner”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.

Amendment 449, in clause 34, page 20, line 32, after “to” insert

“Parliament or Senedd Cymru as appropriate and”.

This amendment requires the relevant Chief Medical Officer to submit an annual report to Parliament or the Senedd Cymru and the relevant national authority.

Amendment 386, in clause 34, page 20, line 32, leave out “the relevant” and insert “each appropriate”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.

Amendment 387, in clause 34, page 20, line 34, leave out “relevant Chief Medical Officer’s” and insert “annual”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.

Amendment 389, in clause 34, page 21, line 1, leave out subsections (3) to (7) and insert—

“(3) An appropriate national authority must—

(a) publish any report received under this section,

(b) prepare and publish a response to any such report, and

(c) lay before Parliament or Senedd Cymru (as the case may be) a copy of the report and response.

(4) In this section “appropriate national authority” means the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 382.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

Amendment 382 and the consequential amendments provide for monitoring, investigation and reporting functions under clause 34 to be carried out by the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. The commissioner will submit an annual report to the appropriate national authority—Parliament or the Senedd—on the operation of the Act, as set out in amendment 389. The appropriate national authority must publish any report received under this section, prepare and publish a response to any such report, and lay before Parliament or Senedd Cymru a copy of the report and the response. I think the Committee is in agreement about the importance of reporting and monitoring under the Act, and I hope it can support these amendments.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I appreciate that the amendments are necessary for the new design of the Bill, but I want to express my concern that they establish an assisted dying regime that is left to monitor itself. When the person who facilitates these profound decisions is also the one who reviews them, it threatens not just the integrity of the system but the safety and trust of those it serves. Without labouring the point, other jurisdictions have significant problems with reporting and the information being the responsibility of those delivering the service. In Oregon, where assisted dying has been legal since 1997, the state relies on doctors to self-report compliance. We are left trusting that every form filled in will tell the whole story.

Robert Clark, the former Attorney-General of Victoria, is very concerned about the operation of the legislation in Australia. He has highlighted how the voluntary assisted dying review board, which is a similar arrangement to the commission proposed here, relies on paperwork from the doctors themselves, with no routine audits or real-time checks. He pointed out that a tiny group of doctors—in fact, only 10—handled 55% of all cases in 2023-24, according to the review board’s data. Many of those doctors were advocates for the legalisation of the programme. I am concerned about the implications of a system that effectively trusts doctors to provide information without any proper review.

Lastly, with all due respect to whoever comes in as commissioner, the replacement of the chief medical officer with the commissioner represents a downgrading of the scrutiny the Bill offers. We know that the commissioner is likely to be a retired judge, which is a very distinguished position, but they will not be somebody with the serious political status of the chief medical officer. The CMO role is equivalent to a permanent secretary. I am sure the hon. Member for Spen Valley acknowledges that our current CMO is probably the best-known public servant in the country. It is very significant that we are proposing to downgrade the role fulfilled by the CMO. I do not think a retired High Court judge will have the same status.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I thought the hon. Gentleman was quite keen on a judge, but now maybe less so. I hope he is reassured by amendment 455, which requires the commissioner to consult the chief medical officer. That shows really clear intent for the post to have judicial and medical expertise and oversight.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I am keen on actual judges who sit in court with the full authority of a judge, not a retired judge sitting at the head of a quango very far away from the decisions made about assisted dying. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I appreciate the fact that there will be a duty to consult. We want to have as much input from the CMO as possible in the administration of the service.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

I rise to speak to amendment 382. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley may argue that some of my criticisms of the amendment relate in particular to two other amendments she has tabled: amendments 455 and 456. Indeed, I took an intervention on the matter earlier. I have read those amendments and they do not answer my concerns about amendment 382. They were grouped with amendment 382 until this morning, when the grouping was changed, so I will address them in my next speech.

This is a good moment to pay tribute to the Committee Clerks for their extremely hard work. I thank them for the way they have coped with the complex groupings and huge numbers of amendments that are unprecedented for a private Member’s Bill in this century.

My hon. Friend’s explanatory statement gives a clear explanation about what amendment 382 does. It provides for the monitoring, investigation and reporting functions under clause 34 to be carried out by the voluntary assisted dying commissioner instead of the chief medical officers for England and Wales. I can think of two possible arguments in support of it. I do not know whether either was behind my hon. Friend’s decision to table the amendment, but they are certainly the best to my mind.

The first argument in favour is that the chief medical officers for England and Wales already have a great many demands on their time. Members might say that we should not risk overloading them and should instead give another official the responsibility of looking at how assisted dying systems work. The second argument in favour is that the amendments to the Bill create a voluntary assisted dying commissioner, and that person and their officials will build up expertise in that field, so it could be argued that the commissioner would be the best person to lead monitoring, investigation and reporting.

Unfortunately I do not think those arguments hold water. On the first, it is true that CMOs have a great deal to do, but if we pass the Bill, it will be one of the biggest changes made to the duties of doctors in this country. For the first time, they will be able to help patients to take lethal drugs solely in order to bring about their death. The chief medical officers for England and Wales are senior doctors who advice Governments on all medical matters; of course they should be centrally involved in seeing whether the system works and whether there are any problems.

The second argument—that the commissioner’s office will become assisted dying subject matter experts—does not stand up either. It is true that the commissioner and the officials they recruit will come to know a great deal about the system they set up, but the very fact that they will set up and run the system means they should not take the lead on monitoring, investigating and reporting. That would mean that the commissioner and their staff would be the first people who decide whether they are doing a good job. Asking people to mark their own homework is a really bad way to check that any system is working properly. It is not how we inspect and report on schools; Ofsted has that job, not headteachers or local councils. It is not how we regulate banks, which are overseen by independent authorities.

Rachel Hopkins (Labour, Luton South and South Bedfordshire)

On my hon. Friend’s point about marking one’s own homework, does she agree that many public bodies do a self-assessment that is then looked at by the regulator? It is as important a part of the process of self-regulations as external inspection.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

As far as I have seen, no regulatory system has been proposed in regard to the Bill. I am happy to be corrected. Yes, in other instances we have regulators, but in this instance no regulator is specified. That is why I will come back to my argument about the amendment, but I value my hon. Friend’s intervention.

This is not how we regulate banks, which are overseen by independent authorities. We have seen what happens when there is light-touch regulation. Banks told us all that they were doing a great job until it turned out that they were not. There is an Independent Police Complaints Commission—I could go on, as the list is very long, but I hope we can all agree on the principle. When we regulate an important system in this country, we should not allow the people who run it to be the only people to tell us whether it is working as it should. Although we respect the highly skilled people who run our schools and police our streets, we have independent people whose job it is to check whether there are any major issues.

The assisted dying system created by the Bill is both complicated and, potentially, very dangerous. If the system gets things wrong, it will mean that people will be given lethal drugs who should not have had them. That is why I would strongly support keeping the chief medical officers as the people who run monitoring, investigating and reporting. Perhaps there could be a dual system in which both the CMOs and the VAD commissioner have some kind of role. That would at least be an improvement on allowing the assisted dying commissioner to say, “There’s nothing to see here.” In my view, the best choice would be to retain the system that the Bill started out with and keep the chief medical officers as the people with the main responsibility for oversight.

Members disagreed with my comparison of assisted dying with the scandal of what happened to the sub-postmasters and mistresses, but we have to think about what we have learned about the causes of that scandal. Under the law, Ministers had responsibility for the Post Office. Even though it was an arm’s length responsibility, they still had it. When complaints about the Horizon IT system, and then complaints about miscarriages of justice, started to come through to MPs, Ministers asked the experts in the field. Who were those experts? The executives who ran the Post Office and the engineers at Fujitsu who had set up and then run the Horizon system. What did those experts say for about 15 years? That there were no serious problems with Horizon, that the sub-postmasters and mistresses who said otherwise were lying and that all their convictions were safe. We know how that turned out.

That surely leads us to a clear lesson: we cannot ask powerful people who have created and are in charge of a system—in this case, the assisted dying system—to be the ones who report on it. I am not saying that we would see a deliberate cover-up, as there seems to have been in the Post Office scandal. What I am saying is that we all have unconscious biases and all of us are biased to think that the work we do is good and that there are no serious problems with it.

Amendment 382 significantly weakens the version of the Bill that was presented to the House on Second Reading. We are being asked to let the commissioner report on their own work. That makes it much less likely that we would be able to spot any problems with the assisted dying system at an early stage. I therefore urge Members to vote against the amendment.

Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I will speak first to lead amendment 382 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and then to consequential amendments 383 to 387 and 389, on which the Government have worked with the Bill’s promoter.

As the Committee will know, the Bill currently requires the relevant chief medical officers to submit an annual report to the relevant national authority. The amendments would require that the monitoring, investigation and reporting functions under clause 34 are carried out by the voluntary assisted dying commissioner, as opposed to the chief medical officers for England and for Wales, as currently drafted. The functions are to

“monitor the operation of the Act, including compliance with its provisions and any regulations or codes of practice”

that are developed; to investigate and report on

“any matter connected with the operation of the Act”,

including those that have been referred to the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers; and to “submit an annual report”. The Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers would be required to lay the commissioner’s annual report before, respectively, Parliament or the Senedd, and issue a formal response.

Amendment 449, which deals with annual report duties, was tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). The amendment would additionally require the relevant chief medical officer in the Bill as drafted—not accounting for the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley—to submit the annual report to Parliament for England and to the Senedd for Wales. The amendment would confer a duty on the chief medical officer for Wales that could encroach on the executive competence of the Senedd. Were the amendment to be agreed, further devolution consideration would be required.

I hope that those observations are helpful to the Committee in its considerations.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

I beg to move amendment 450, in clause 34, page 20, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) The relevant Chief Medical Officer must produce an annual equality impact assessment of access to both palliative care and assisted dying on the basis of—

(a) protected characteristics as set out in the section 4 of the Equality Act 2010,

(b) socioeconomic status,

(c) geographical location.”

This amendment will ensure that a full impact assessment is carried out on the access to both palliative care services and assisted dying services.

Carolyn Harris (Labour, Neath and Swansea East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 451, in clause 34, page 20, line 43, at end insert—

“(e) there were complications in the procedure.

(2A) The Commissioner’s report must include analysis of the following—

(a) information about the patients’ diagnosis/es;

(b) information about the patients’ prognosis;

(c) any instances where concerns were raised about the patients’ capacity;

(d) any instances where concerns raised about the patient being coerced;

(e) any concerns raised by the multi-disciplinary panel;

(f) any concerns raised by family members;

(g) and demographic data on the patients, including socioeconomic data, information on protected characteristics; and

(h) data obtained from the recording of the consultation.”

This amendment would require reporting under section 34 to include various information on diagnoses, complications, concerns about capacity and other matters.

Amendment 455, in clause 34, page 20, line 43, at end insert—

“(2A) An annual report must include information about the application of the Act in relation to—

(a) persons who have protected characteristics, and

(b) any other description of persons specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(2B) When preparing an annual report, the Commissioner must consult—

(a) the Chief Medical Officer for England,

(b) the Chief Medical Officer for Wales, and

(c) such persons appearing to the Commissioner to represent the interests of persons who have protected characteristics as the Commissioner considers appropriate.”

This amendment requires an annual report to include information about the application of the Bill to persons with protected characteristics and other descriptions of persons specified in regulations. It also requires the Commissioner to consult the chief medical officers and persons representing the interests of those with protected characteristics, when preparing an annual report.

Amendment 456, in clause 34, page 21, line 28, at end insert—

“(8) In this section ‘protected characteristics’ has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Equality Act 2010 (see section 4).”

This is consequential to Amendment 455.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

Amendments 450 and 451 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. Let me first set out broadly what the amendments would do. They would mean that the reports of the chief medical officers for England and Wales had to include qualitative as well as quantitative data on assisted deaths.

Subsection (2) of clause 34 says that the chief medical officer’s report “must include information about” when four different events happen: if either of the examining doctors refuses to make a statement saying that the person is qualified for assisted dying, meaning they do not pass the tests set by the Bill; if the panel decides that the person does not pass those tests; or if the co-ordinating doctor decides that the person’s final statement does not pass the tests.

Amendment 451 would add a requirement that the chief medical officers for England or for Wales would have to report on patients’ diagnosis and prognosis, any concerns expressed about capacity or the patient being coerced, and any concerns expressed by the panel or family members. The CMO’s report would also have to include data on the patients, including socioeconomic information and their protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. It would also have to include information that the doctors had gathered during their consultations with people seeking an assisted death.

I anticipate Members objecting to “socioeconomic data” as the term is vague. It is important to note that the chief medical officers’ reports on other matters already make considerable use of socioeconomic data. For example, the CMO for England’s 2024 report on health in cities gave detailed information on urban populations’ socioeconomic categories. The report looked at urban populations by indices of multiple deprivation and ethnicity, and how those factors interacted with their health. The CMOs for England and for Wales are used to working with such data. Indeed, they state in reports that using that type of information is vital to understanding the health needs of different parts of the population.

Carolyn Harris (Labour, Neath and Swansea East)

Order. We think there will be six votes in the House, so we will aim to reconvene at 17.15.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

I was talking about amendments 450 and 451 and explaining why we should take an approach that involves understanding who the people who access assisted dying are, where they live and to which groups they belong.

We have heard frequently from some hon. Members that assisted dying in other countries is disproportionately accessed by people with above-average incomes. They have cited data from those countries as a reason why we should be reassured that the Bill will not have harmful effects on people from ethnic minorities, say, or from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. I am sure that hon. Members would want us to gather the same information in England and Wales to ensure that people with protected characteristics or from disadvantaged communities are not harmed or discriminated against.

Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)

I will now suspend the sitting for about three minutes.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I rise to speak in support of new clause 33 and new schedule 3.

I am concerned that amendment 455 will be inadequate to maintain trust in the system. Collecting comprehensive data, such as the detailed statistics outlined, in an assisted dying regime serves several critical purposes that revolve around ensuring transparency, accountability, safety, equity and continuous improvement of the system. It is about ensuring from the very start that there is good data and learning from the paucity or the blanks in other regimes and from where they have been criticised.

The Secretary of State would have the power to amend the new schedule, but Parliament’s intent and our expectation that the system will be scrutinised would be crystal clear. We need to collect data for monitoring and oversight and gather detailed information about individuals who request assisted dying, and about the process itself. That would allow regulators to monitor how the system is functioning, which would help to ensure that the law is being applied consistently and fairly, preventing misuse or abuse.

We need to safeguard our vulnerable population. Data on characteristics such as age, ethnicity, disability and mental health conditions and on deprivation indices can reveal whether certain groups are disproportionately seeking or being denied assisted dying. That helps to identify potential coercion, discrimination or gaps in care that might drive requests, ensuring that the system protects vulnerable individuals.

For the purpose of improving healthcare and support services, information about the prior involvement of palliative care or psychiatry teams, and about referrals made after requests, highlights whether patients are receiving adequate support before opting for assisted dying. If data shows low referral rates or unmet needs, it could prompt improvements in healthcare, access or quality, potentially reducing the number of requests driven by untreated suffering.

For the purpose of evaluating the process, tracking timelines—that is to say, from initial discussion to death—and procedural steps such as second opinions and panel decisions ensures that the process is efficient yet thorough. It can reveal bottlenecks, delays or inconsistencies, allowing policymakers to refine the system for both patients and clinicians.

For the purpose of understanding motivations and outcomes, collecting the reasons for requests, refusals and complications such as drug efficacy or adverse reactions provides insight into why people seek assisted dying and how the process unfolds. That can inform public policy, clinician training and patient counselling, ensuring that decisions are well informed and voluntary.

For the purpose of ensuring accountability, data on clinicians, pharmacies and panel decisions creates a transparent record of who is involved and how often. That helps to prevent overreliance on a small group of professionals, ensures that ethical standards are upheld and allows for audits if concerns arise.

For the purpose of public trust and ethical debate, detailed statistics foster transparency, which is essential for maintaining public confidence in a sensitive and controversial practice. They also provide evidence for ongoing ethical and legal debates, enabling society to assess whether assisted dying aligns with its values and goals, and for the purpose of learning and adaptation. By analysing complications, drug effectiveness and reconsideration requests, authorities can refine protocols, such as by adjusting approved substances or dosages, to make the process safer and more humane. Long-term data collection supports evidence-based adjustments to the regime.

Almost all jurisdictions around the world have systems for reporting on people requesting and having assisted deaths. However, there is a high degree of variability in the data reported around the world; very few data items are published consistently in all jurisdictions. We have an opportunity to learn from monitoring and reporting systems elsewhere, and to put the most robust possible system in place.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

I rise to speak to amendments 455 and 456, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. Under the Bill as drafted, an annual report would be issued by the chief medical officers for England and Wales. If the other amendments pass, that report will be issued by the voluntary assisted dying commissioner.

Amendment 455 will do two things, broadly speaking. Proposed new subsection (2A) states that the commissioner’s report

“must include information about the application of the Act in relation to…persons who have protected characteristics”.

Amendment 456 clarifies that the definition of “protected characteristics” is the same as that used in the Equality Act 2010. Proposed new subsection (2A) also provides that the commissioner must report on any other description of persons specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

Proposed new subsection (2B) in amendment 455 states that when the commissioner is preparing their report, they “must consult” the chief medical officers for England and for Wales, and

“such persons appearing to the Commissioner to represent the interests of persons who have protected characteristics as the Commissioner considers appropriate.”

I will come back to the part of the amendment that talks about the need to consult the CMOs, and will first talk about how the amendment deals with reporting on people with protected characteristics.

I welcome that change as far as it goes. Several witnesses who provided oral or written evidence warned that assisted dying could have a harmful impact on women, people from ethnic minorities or the disabled. Others have warned that it could have a harmful impact on people from low-income backgrounds or economically disadvantaged areas. The amendment 455 duty on the commissioner to report on people with protected characteristics would mean officials looking at outcomes for some of those groups.

As hon. Members know, the Equality Act specifies nine protected characteristics, including age, disability, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation and sex. Proposed new subsection (2B) in amendment 455 shows that the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, recognises that assisted dying could have an adverse effect on some of those groups. Unfortunately, her amendments do not impose a duty on the commissioner to report on the Bill’s impact on people with low incomes or from economically disadvantaged areas. I regret that the Committee has rejected several amendments that would have imposed a duty on officials to report on those groups.

I agree with the intention behind proposed new subsection (2B) in amendment 455, which states that the commissioner must consult people representing groups with protected characteristics. Again, it is welcome that my hon. Friend sees that the annual reports will need to take particular account of how assisted dying affects potentially vulnerable people. Like so much in the Bill, however, the amendment gives the commissioner too much leeway to decide who represents such groups. Surely it would surely be better to give the Secretary of State the ability to specify representatives in regulations. That route would allow Parliament to have oversight of which groups the commissioner spoke to.

I understand that a new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge proposes to set up a group that would advise the commissioner on how assisted dying affects disabled people. I welcome that proposal, but I also note that that leaves the commissioner with the power to decide who they will speak to about other groups with protected characteristics. Who the commissioner speaks to in order to hear the interests of women, ethnic minority groups or older people represented would be on their own say-so. The commissioner might choose representatives who will ask difficult, well-informed questions, or they might not.

As I have said before, we all suffer from unconscious bias. One of the biases we all have is to look for evidence that what we have done is right, and that what we believe is correct. Psychologists have named that confirmation bias. We can all remember seeing that in our own lives. I therefore do not think it is a sensible approach to ask an official who runs a system to find people who will tell them whether that system might be going wrong.

Amendment 455 also deals with the chief medical officers for England and Wales. As drafted, clause 34 gives the CMO responsibility for monitoring, investigating and reporting on the assisted dying system. The amendment says only that the commissioner “must consult” the chief medical officers when preparing an annual report. That leaves an awful lot to the commissioner’s discretion. It does not say on what matters, how detailed the consultation should be, or what should happen if the CMO thinks that something is worthy of investigation but the commissioner disagrees.

All in all, the references to the chief medical officers in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley seem to be a box-ticking exercise. The involvement of the CMO might lead to detailed investigations of aspects of the assisted dying system, or they might be a brief consultation. Of course, the CMOs are senior doctors and experienced public servants of very high quality. I am confident that they will always strive to do the right thing, and I am confident that the commissioner will be a senior legal figure with great integrity and knowledge of the law, but the Bill is completely vague about how the CMO should get involved in the commissioner’s report.

I have worked in the NHS, and most employees I met were highly motivated public servants, and most NHS people would always try to do the right thing, but here is an important thing that I have learned: when people are in complex situations, and when they have many tasks and not much time in which to do them, they need clear guidance. Amendment 455 and 456 do not give us that.

I think that CMOs should be the main officials reporting on the assisted dying system—as I have said repeatedly today; it is a very important point—but, since the Bill’s promoter is tabling amendments that mean that only the CMOs should be consulted on the commissioner’s report, we need clarity on what that should mean. These amendments, unfortunately, do not give that. Amendments 455 and 456 would leave us with a much weaker system of monitoring and reporting than is in the Bill as drafted, which is why I do not support them. I hope that other Members will also reject them.

Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I will turn first to the lead amendment, amendment 450, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central.

As clause 34 stands, the chief medical officer must submit an annual report on the operation of the Bill. Under amendments tabled by the promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, that would be the responsibility of the commissioner. Amendment 450 would require the chief medical officer to produce an annual equality impact assessment that assesses access to both assisted dying and palliative care for those with protected characteristics, and by socioeconomic status and geographical location.

The amendment seems intended to ensure that monitoring and reporting considers the impact of the Bill on vulnerable groups. Protected characteristics are defined by reference to section 4 of the Equality Act 2010, which means that the report would need to consider the characteristics of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

The term “equality impact assessment” is not defined in the amendment or elsewhere in the Bill. While equality impact assessments are produced routinely by Government and other public bodies in order to discharge the public sector equality duty, it is not clear what type of assessment amendment 450 would require, so, in practice, there may be difficulties for the chief medical officer in understanding whether the duty has been discharged. Impact assessments are not within the purview of a chief medical officer and should be undertaken by those who are appropriately qualified to carry them out.

In addition, “socioeconomic status” and “geographical location” are also undefined in the amendment and are not defined elsewhere in the Bill. Socioeconomic status and geographical location are not of themselves protected characteristics under the Equality Act, so are not required to be considered as part of the public sector equality duty. It is not clear, therefore, what the assessment of those factors is intended to involve.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

While I appreciate that it is not necessarily a duty as defined in law, does the Minister not agree that, given the way our Government operates, we need that data to inform us, in order to improve services elsewhere? We could apply that to this Bill as well.

Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)

It is right that the commissioner, in their role of scrutinising the operation and workability of the assisted dying regime, could, under the powers conferred by the Bill, look at a range of factors, and indeed at whatever they deemed relevant to discharging that exercise. The question is: what is appropriate to be defined within primary legislation? The Government’s position is that, given that all public bodies are governed by the Equality Act, due regard to all those protected characteristics would be included. However, what is not defined within amendment 450 is socioeconomic status or geographic location. If, down the line, the commissioner wanted to look at those things, they could look at them.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

From a public health perspective, we have been having a huge debate for weeks and weeks about whether or not this is a health intervention and whether it should be provided in the NHS or elsewhere. When I was a public health commissioner, we collected socioeconomic data to learn about not just protected characteristics but socioeconomic background. There are concerns that disadvantaged groups are more vulnerable. Would it not be appropriate for the Bill to address those safeguarding issues?

Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)

I suggest that those are ultimately policy choices, first for the promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and then—if the regime is voted on and passed—for the commissioner. In reality, a lot of the data that one will collect when one has due regard to the differential impact on these protected groups will in practice have a large degree of overlap with other aspects of socioeconomic disadvantage, as is so often the case in equality impact assessments.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

I had an interesting exchange with the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge last week about socioeconomic indicators. They are in the Equality Act but have not yet been implemented. I understand that it was in the Labour Government’s manifesto to bring forward the implementation of the socioeconomic factors in the Equality Act. Given that, as I understand it, the implementation of the Bill will probably take us up to the next general election, does the Minister not think that, at some point before it is fully implemented, there will be a way of collecting the relevant socioeconomic statistics?

Sarah Sackman (Labour, Finchley and Golders Green)

The hon. Member is right. Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 refers to taking into account the impact of public administration decisions on socioeconomic disadvantage. The previous Labour Government brought that provision in under that landmark Act, but it was never brought into force. She is right that the Government are looking to do that. The question is: what is appropriate for the Bill that we are considering right here, right now? From the Government’s point of view, the voluntary assisted dying commission will be subject to the Equality Act, as it stands, and it is right that there is no need to specify the carrying out of an equality impact assessment in the Bill. That assessment will, at the appropriate time, contain whatever the Equality Act requires of that public decision maker. I do not think that we need to pre-empt, through this vehicle, things that have not yet happened in other areas of legislation.

The other point is that, leaving over for the regulations and guidance that the voluntary assisted dying commission is anticipated to produce, to take into account what needs to be taken into account in order to fully understand the regime and how it is operating, can all be developed by what will ultimately be an expert body in this field, should Parliament decide to vote for it. The question in the context of the amendments is: what do the Committee and Parliament say needs to go in the Bill right now? The Government’s position is that the amendments are neither necessary nor workable in our current legal regime.

Amendment 451 seeks to further specify what is included in the commissioner’s annual report under the promoter’s amendments to clause 34. Under amendment 451, the report must contain information on where there have been complications in the procedure, and we assume that to mean the procedure relating to the self-administration of the approved substance, as I think was clarified earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, who referred to clause 9 in that regard. The commissioner’s report would also be required to include analysis of a specified list of matters, including the diagnosis and prognosis of persons seeking assistance, concerns raised by family members or the multidisciplinary panel, and demographic data, including socioeconomic data and information on protected characteristics.

The Government have worked with the promoter on her amendments 455 and 456. Under amendment 455, the commissioner’s annual report would be required to include information about the application of the Bill to persons with protected characteristics and any other descriptions of persons specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. That is the point: the regime can evolve as appropriate when we know what it looks like and how it is operating. It can even go further than some of the categories that Members have described. That may include persons from different demographics and socioeconomic backgrounds, as proposed by the amendment. The amendment would also require the commissioner to consult, when preparing an annual report, with the chief medical officers for England and Wales and others who appear to the commissioner to represent the interests of persons who have protected characteristics and who the commissioner deems appropriate.

Amendment 456 flows from amendment 455, and inserts into clause 34 that the term “characteristics” has the same meaning as in section 4 of part 2 of the Equality Act 2010. While some members of the Committee have challenged or criticised the choice of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to substitute the voluntary assisted dying commissioner for the chief medical officer in carrying out this consultation and monitoring, as far as the Government are concerned it is a matter for the Bill’s promoter. However, I would say as a Minister in the Ministry of Justice that when there is a judicial figure as commissioner, even if that person is a retired judge, they are subject to the guidance and the ethical code of judicial conduct—one of impartiality and independence —to conduct themselves appropriately. The Committee would do well not to impugn that impartiality.

Finally, I turn to new clause 33 and new schedule 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, which seek to specify statistics that the voluntary assisted dying commissioner must collect and publish within an annual report. The Secretary of State would have the power to vary the contents of the schedule by regulation. As I stated earlier, amendment 382 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley would require that the functions under clause 34 are carried out by the commissioner as opposed to the chief medical officers for England and Wales. Those functions include submitting an annual report on the operation of the Bill, which could already encompass the information set out in new schedule 3.

Under amendment 455, the report must also include information about the application of the Bill to persons with protected characteristics and other persons specified in the regulations. Therefore, the changed approach from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley seems to, from the Government’s point of view, accomplish much of what the hon. Member for Richmond Park is seeking to do. That is all I propose to say, but I hope that it has been of assistance to the Committee.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. At the risk of repeating what has already been said before by various members of the Committee, amendments 455 and 456 are important amendments that further strengthen the oversight, transparency and implementation of the Bill, particularly in relation to protected characteristics.

Clause 34(1) already establishes the requirement of an annual report to be produced, but amendment 455 goes further by mandating that this report must also include detailed information about how the Bill applies to individuals with protected characteristics. Those are the groups identified in the Equality Act 2010, such as by age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion and others. Furthermore, the amendment ensures that the report will not only cover those protected characteristics, but any other group that may be specified in regulations set by the Secretary of State, which provides the ability to adapt and to ensure that the Bill is applied fairly to all groups as societal needs and considerations evolve.

Amendment 455 also ensures that the commissioner consults relevant stakeholders when preparing the annual report, specifically, the chief medical officers for both England and Wales, along with representatives of groups advocating for those with protected characteristics. This collaborative approach ensures that the report is as comprehensive as possible. Of course, the report will also be supported by additional details and regulations, the doctors’ reports, and the review of the Bill as set out in clause 35. As such, I am confident that the reporting mechanisms set up under these provisions provide a thorough oversight for the assisted dying process.

Clause 35 - Review of this Act

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

I beg to move amendment 452, in clause 35, page 21, line 30, leave out from “must” to end of line 31 and insert

“every 12 months after the passing of this Act—”

This amendment will replace the review conducting after five years of the passing of the Act with an annual review starting 12 months after the passing of the Act.

Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 493, in clause 35, page 21, line 31, leave out “5-year” and insert “3-year”.

Amendment 453, in clause 35, page 21, line 36, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 452.

Amendment 494, in clause 35, page 21, line 36, leave out “5-year” and insert “3-year”.

Amendment 495, in clause 35, page 21, line 36, leave out “5 years” and insert “3 years”.

Amendment 526, in clause 35, page 22, line 10, at end insert—

“(4) A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for—

(a) a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the report, to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of 14 Commons sitting days beginning with the day after the report is laid before Parliament, and

(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the report to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of 14 Lords sitting days beginning with the day after the review is laid before Parliament.”

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

Under the Bill as presented on Second Reading, the Secretary of State would have to report to Parliament on how the assisted dying system was functioning, but they would do so only after the system had been in operation for five years. Under amendment 452, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, the Secretary of State would be required to report annually on how the system was working.

The Bill’s original provision for a five-yearly report was extremely surprising. The requirement on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament is a major safeguard that will prompt them and their officials to probe all the available data on the system. It will also allow Members of this House and the other place to go over that information and look for problems, should they arise, and ways to resolve them. It could be one way to identify failings in the system early. Given that we are discussing a system to allow people to take lethal drugs, that is surely what we should aim for. We cannot afford to wait through years of media reports and complaints before then having to investigate alleged problems.

If the amendment is accepted, it will not be certain that the Secretary of State’s report and the scrutiny of Parliament will identify problems in a timely way, but that possibility will be increased. If we have to wait five years for a report, it is much less likely that we will spot any problems before they have had terrible consequences. I urge Members to vote for the amendment to replace the five-yearly report.

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I concur with the points made by the hon. Member for Bradford West. I very much appreciate the presence of clause 35 in the Bill—it is helpful that we ensure a proper review—but, as the hon. Lady said, five years feels too long to wait, so I support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for York Central, as well as amendments 493 to 495, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, who has suggested a three-year review period.

My simple further point is that we are potentially creating threshold legislation: once we take the step down this road, there is no going back. The Bill leaves so much open for further expansion, I suggest, but certainly for the modification and clarification of the operation of the legislation. There is a lot left for ministerial discretion, guidance and codes of practice, as we have debated, and indeed new powers have been added, including a widening of the Henry VIII power. I think, then, that it is important to bring forward the review period.

As my amendment 526 suggests, I also think it is not sufficient simply to undertake a review, even one that is annual or every three years. There must be a guaranteed right to a debate and to hold Ministers to account at the Dispatch Box, which my amendment would insist on.

Lastly, on the inherent potential for expansion due to the wide discretion that the Bill still gives future Ministers, my concern is that the review itself might become a Trojan horse for further expansion, because that is what we see in other countries. It is held out as a safeguard, and that is exactly how we should regard it—I hope it will be that. Having a proper debate and proper ministerial accountability will allow us to check the operation of the Bill thoroughly and enable Parliament to keep it under very close scrutiny.

There is a danger, though. As we have heard from Australian and American practitioners, the reviews undertaken in other jurisdictions are actually used to unpick safeguards, which become reframed as barriers to access. That is indeed implicit in a Bill that creates a new human right. The safeguards that are created discriminate against certain groups of people: most obviously, those who have a diagnosis of more than six months, those who have to go through the hoops—the number of assessments—set by the Bill, or those to whom the doctor was not able to make the suggestion directly, although we do cover that in the Bill. So the safeguards in the Bill, weak as they are in my view, nevertheless might be challenged in the course of the review. If that is what happens, that is what happens, but that is all the more reason why it is important that we insist on regular and short-term reviews, and why Parliament should have a meaningful debate with Ministers answering for the operation of the legislation.

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. This has been a long process, and we are nearly at the end of it now. Members will recall that at the start of the process, I was very insistent that Mencap should give oral evidence. When it did so, Dan Scorer said:

“Clause 35 is about the review of the Act. The lived experience of people is absolutely vital to that. The Bill says that it will be five years until we have that review. Our view is that that is far too long. If the Bill becomes law and if there are really serious issues and discrimination taking place against people, we will want to know that a lot earlier than in five years’ time, and we will want action to be taken. Our suggestion is that review should be earlier. We would want to see strong representation from patient groups across that, as well as from people who have been involved in the process, such as family members, advocates and clinicians to make sure that if serious issues are being raised, they can be picked up early and addressed.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 280, Q367.]

Jake Richards (Labour, Rother Valley)

My hon. Friend is, as ever, making really important points. Is he reassured by the fact that the commissioner will be reporting annually, as per the previous clause, and that the panel will give reasons, which will likely be public?

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

The annual reporting does give us some reassurance, but when we accepted some of Mencap’s recommendations last week, I said that I would welcome it if the entirety of its recommendations were accepted—and it wanted an overall review at an early stage in the process.

Amendment 493 to 495, in my name, address those concerns. A consistent concern of mine is how we address issues that come to light from specific communities, particularly those with learning difficulties, and amend the legislation at a reasonable stage in the process.

Lewis Atkinson (Labour, Sunderland Central)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will be brief.

I am in favour of retaining the Bill as it stands. The key thing is the interplay between this clause and clause 42, on commencement. I would have been minded to support changes to the reporting period had the Bill been commencing within two years, as clause 42 as drafted sets out, but my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has tabled an amendment that will change the backstop of the commencement period to four years. The timescales set out in this clause are from the day on which the Bill is passed. It makes no sense to carry out a formal review of the operation of the legislation before the services have come into being. We will have a four-year timetable, potentially, for the backstop of the commencement. Throughout that time, the annual reporting requirement of the commissioner, who will undoubtedly have been appointed in advance, will kick in.

I also draw the Committee’s attention to new clause 35, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, which speaks to some of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. I strongly support the new clause, and the establishment of a disability advisory board to report annually on the effect on disabled people of not just the Act but the implementation. Picking up any concerns or views about its effect on people with disabilities would happen in a timely manner under new clause 35.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

My hon. Friend makes a really important point, which I will come to in due course, but the thing that we need to analyse is the operation of the Bill. That will not start with the passing of the Bill; it will start with its commencement. It is important that we join the dots between the relevant clauses.

Lewis Atkinson (Labour, Sunderland Central)

That is exactly right. For those reasons, I think we need to retain the full five-year review period. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley outlined, the review of the Act by the Secretary of State will be in addition to the annual reporting from the commissioner and, if we accept new clause 35, in addition to annual reports from the disability advisory board. Clearly, over the course of multiple amendments, we will have strengthened the reporting requirements both in advance of and post implementation.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. Amendments 452 and 453 would amend the review provisions in clause 35. As the Bill stands, clause 35(1) provides that the Secretary of State must undertake a review of the operation of the Bill and lay a report before Parliament. This is a one-off obligation that must take place after a period of five years, beginning from the date the Bill is passed. Amendment 452 would amend that requirement, and instead require the Secretary of State to undertake a review, and prepare and publish a report every 12 months after the passing of the Bill. Amendment 453 would remove the definition of the initial five-year period and is consequential on amendment 452.

That increased frequency of reporting would naturally increase the administrative burden and cost of the Bill. It is also noted that there will be an implementation period following Royal Assent. It is unclear if the intention is to require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the operation of the Bill and prepare a report during this implementation period.

Naseem Shah (Labour, Bradford West)

I am surprised by what the Minister says on the cost of the Bill. My understanding from our debates on cost is that, if the Bill is passed, its cost will be footed. Why is there a cost implication to this amendment and not to other provisions?

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

I make these comments without a value judgment; it is simply a statement of fact that an increase in the amount of reporting, and the time and resource that that would take, would inevitably lead to a cost. I make no value judgment on that; I am merely here to point out to the Committee the Government’s view on all aspects of the Bill’s technical implementation, and the consequences of any changes that the Committee may wish to make to it.

Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)

Order. The sitting is suspended until 7.20 pm.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

Amendment 526 would impose a duty on a Minister to arrange for the report on the review of the operation of the Act to be debated by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords within 14 sitting days, beginning with the day after the laying of the report. That goes further than laying the report before Parliament as currently required under clause 35. I hope those observations were helpful.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I will speak briefly to this clause, because some of what I say will be covered in our debate on other clauses. The title of the clause is “Review of this Act”, so it is important to be clear about what we are reviewing. I am sure members of the Committee agree that it is the operation of the Act that needs to be considered. As such, it is important to join the dots between the relevant clauses of the Bill and differentiate between the passing of this legislation and the commencement of its provisions.

I have tabled amendment 548 to clause 42, “Commencement”, which provides that the commencement of the provisions of the Act could be up to four years beginning with the day on which the Bill is passed. I sincerely hope it is sooner than that, but I have tabled the amendment none the less. New clause 40 provides that, until the Act is implemented, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the first anniversary of the Act being passed, with subsequent reports being laid every six months up to full implementation. It is a comprehensive reporting system, and it is really important to look at what we are reporting on. The reality is that the commencement of the Act could be between two and four years, so a five-year review makes sense.

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

I beg to move amendment 491, in clause 35, page 22, line 2, after “health” insert “and care”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 492, would broaden the scope of the assessment criteria for the Review of this Act, by referring to “health and care services to persons with palliative and end of life care needs” to provide a more holistic consideration of palliative and end of life care needs, reflecting current clinical best practice.

Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 492, in clause 35, page 22, line 2, after “palliative” insert “and end of life”.

See Amendment 491.

Amendment 397, in clause 35, page 22, line 5, at end insert—

“(ba) an assessment of the impact of this Act on persons with learning disabilities, including any concerns about the operation of this Act in relation to such persons;”.

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

I will be brief. Amendments 491, 492 and new clause 28, which will be discussed when we come to the next group, have all been suggested by Marie Curie, the UK’s leading end-of-life charity. Amendments 491 and 492 are minor amendments that would broaden the scope of the required assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of palliative care services to be undertaken as part of the five-year review of the Act, by referring to

“health and care services to persons with palliative and end of life care needs”.

That provides a more holistic consideration of end-of-life care than the current drafting of

“health services to persons with palliative care needs”

and would reflect the current clinical best practice of palliative care multidisciplinary teams, incorporating both health and social care professionals. It is in line with current clinical best practice and with the written evidence that Marie Curie has supplied to us. In addition, amendment 397 is in line with many other amendments I have tabled during this process and seeks

“an assessment of the impact of this Act on persons with learning disabilities, including any concerns about the operation of this Act in relation to such persons”.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

This group of amendments relates to clause 35, which sets out requirements for review of the Act. Amendments 491 and 492 aim to broaden the scope of the assessment criteria for the review.

Amendment 491 would expand the scope of the report that the Secretary of State must prepare at the end of the initial five-year period to include an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of appropriate care services, as well as health services, to persons with palliative care needs. Care services play an important role in supporting terminally ill individuals with care needs in settings such as care homes and in the community. However, it is not clear what the term “care services” would cover. It could include, for example, unpaid care, private or local authority-funded care, or non-statutory care services such as befriending.

Amendment 492 would extend the people the assessment will cover to include those receiving end-of-life care as well as those with palliative care needs. The Committee may find it helpful to note that, while palliative care focuses on improving quality of life for individuals with life-limiting illnesses at any stage, end-of-life care specifically addresses the needs of an individual in their final year. The Committee may also find it helpful to note that, under clause 2(1) as amended by the Committee, a person is considered terminally ill if their death, in consequence of an inevitably progressive illness or disease that cannot be reversed by treatment, can reasonably be expected within six months.

Clause 35(1) requires the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the operation of the Act, prepare a report on that review, and publish and lay the report before Parliament. The Secretary of State is required to do that during a period of 12 months beginning after the period of five years from the day on which the Bill is passed. Clause 35(3) provides a non-exhaustive list of what the report must set out. Amendment 397 would require that the report includes an assessment of the impact of the legislation on people with learning disabilities, including any concerns about the operation of the Act in relation to them. The amendment does not include a definition of “learning disabilities” and so may introduce legal uncertainty as to what must be included in the report. However, I note that there is an existing definition of “learning disability” in section 1(4) of the Mental Health Act 1983, which could be considered to mitigate this uncertainty if the amendment were agreed to.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

Amendments 491 and 492 would expand the scope of the report that the Secretary of State must prepare at the end of the initial five-year period to include an assessment of the availability, quality and distribution of appropriate services by including care services and end-of-life care. It is not clear what “care services” would cover, and I am concerned about the broadness of that term and the lack of a clear definition, so I am not minded to support amendment 491.

Amendment 492 would expand the population that the assessment will cover to include persons with end-of-life care needs alongside those with palliative care needs. That makes sense and, given the purpose of the Bill, the amendment seems sensible, so I am happy to support it.

On amendment 397, which would require consideration of the impact on people with learning disabilities, we have had this conversation several times with my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. As I have said previously, he makes a very valid point with reference to this cohort of people, and as such I am minded to support the amendment.

Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 546, in clause 42, page 24, line 18, after “Sections” insert:

“(Reporting on implementation of Act),”.

This amendment is consequential on NC40.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I will speak to my new clause 40 and my amendment 546. The purpose of new clause 40 is to establish a requirement for regular reports on the implementation of the Act until all its provisions are fully implemented. This will ensure continuous oversight and transparency regarding the progress of the Act’s implementation.

The new clause will mandate the Secretary of State to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a report on the implementation and progress of the Act as soon as reasonably practicable after each reporting period. The reports must include the progress made on implementing the Act during the reporting period, and the Secretary of State’s plans for implementing the Act in future periods, including an expected timetable for further implementation. The first report must be issued one year after the Act is passed, and subsequent reports are due every six months. The sixth and final report marks the conclusion of the reporting period.

The new clause is linked to amendment 546, which will ensure that new clause 40 will be brought into force immediately upon the passing of the Bill, making the reporting requirements active right from the start. This provision is crucial for maintaining accountability and for ensuring that Parliament is regularly updated on the progress of the Act’s implementation and that any necessary adjustments or future plans are communicated effectively. It provides a structured timeline to track the implementation of the Act until all provisions are fully operational.

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

I wish to speak to my new clause 28, which was suggested by Marie Curie, the UK’s leading end-of-life charity. The new clause is more substantive than my two amendments in the previous group. It would require an additional assessment within 12 months of the Bill being passed, with the Secretary of State required to undertake an assessment of

“the extent to which the Act is on course to meet its aim of allowing adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own lives”.

Crucially, the assessment would incorporate an assessment of the current state of health and care services to persons with palliative and end-of-life care needs, and the implications of the Act for those services, including for the quality and distribution of palliative and end-of-life care services. The new clause seeks to mirror the requirement in clause 35 for an assessment after five years of the Bill passing, only within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, in order to provide a benchmark against which the later assessment can be measured.

There has been much discussion about the relationship between the Bill and palliative and end-of-life care services. Above all, the intention behind this new clause is to ensure that, outside the proceedings of the Committee and the progress of the Bill, that relationship is properly and thoughtfully considered by Government. We have heard a range of expert evidence throughout the Committee that, despite the very high quality of palliative and end-of-life care in this country and the phenomenal efforts of the clinicians and organisations delivering it, access to that vital care is all too often inequitable and subject to a postcode lottery.

As Marie Curie stated in its written evidence, if the fundamental aim of the Bill is to offer terminally ill people choice at the end of life,

“genuine choice…cannot exist unless dying people are able to choose to receive high quality palliative and end of life care”.

The sad reality is that in too many cases today people are not able to make that choice. There will most likely be consensus among us that action is needed to fix end-of-life care to ensure that all dying people can have choice and dignity, even if we disagree on whether that is most appropriately achieved on the face of the Bill or through other mechanisms.

There has also been a great deal of debate and discussion about what the impact of introducing assisted dying might be on palliative care services and reference to what might have happened in other jurisdictions. We should not leave this to chance and fool ourselves that improved access to palliative and end-of-life care would be an inevitability as a result of the debate or level of public interest in the Bill. By requiring an immediate assessment of the state of health and care services available to persons with palliative and end-of-life care needs through new clause 28, we can create a framework for accountability within this legislation and a firmer basis on which future policy and spending decisions on palliative care can be made.

It may be useful to recall that we have not had a national strategy for palliative and end-of-life care since 2008. While I appreciate that there are major policy milestones approaching, such as the 10-year health plan, that could help to address that gap, my hope is that an assessment of the quality and availability of palliative and end-of-life care services undertaken as part of the Bill can sit helpfully alongside other plans and strategies.

When introducing the Bill on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley chose to highlight that she had

“included in the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to report to the House on the availability, quality and distribution of palliative care.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 1013.]

At this point, the Bill requires such an assessment only after five years. I hope that she and other hon. Members will agree that it would be beneficial to support this new clause so that such an assessment may be undertaken within 12 months, in support of the ambition of seeing improvements in palliative and end-of-life care.

Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)

For the avoidance of confusion, these new clauses will not be voted upon now. You will have the opportunity to move them formally later, when we reach them at the appropriate time in the course of consideration.

Simon Opher (Labour, Stroud)

I find the delay of four years that new clause 40 would introduce excessive in terms of the time taken and needed to deliver the requirements to implement the Bill in legal terms. I urge the Committee to reduce that at least to three years. That would mean four six-month checks, rather than six. The reason is that we have created a thorough Bill that is ready to implement. I understand that there are some pressures on the Department of Health and Social Care, so I accept a year’s delay. My worry is that a four-year delay might well take us past the next election and that the Bill will become an issue in the election.

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

That new clause was tabled within the last week. Has my hon. Friend sought advice from the Clerks? The only way that we could amend this now is through a manuscript amendment, and I presume that now, at the eleventh hour, that would not be allowable. I just want to clarify the position.

Simon Opher (Labour, Stroud)

I am afraid I do not understand how we could change this. I just wanted to put on record that I feel that a four-year delay is excessive. I have nothing further to add to that, but I would be interested in the legal opinion on whether we can change it.

Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)

Again, for the avoidance of doubt, a manuscript amendment at this stage would not be accepted.

Lewis Atkinson (Labour, Sunderland Central)

I rise to speak in support of new clause 40. Given the implementation period that we are talking about, the repeated and routine reporting to Parliament on progress is essential, especially for those who want to see this Bill implemented safely and properly. Nevertheless, there are people—some of whom have joined us in the Public Gallery in recent weeks—for whom that needs to be done with deliberate speed, but without any compromise on the safety and thoroughness of implementation. New clause 40 achieves that, and I commend it.

In a different world there would have been a way of us compositing new clause 28 with new clause 40, and I regret that the two are not compatible. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford makes good points around the earlier assessment of palliative care; I do not think that is something that divides the Committee. There have been amendments tabled by many Members over the course of the Committee that have sought to improve and strengthen palliative care as part of a holistic package at the end of life. I wonder if that is something that I could work on with my hon. Friend on Report, even if it is not possible to agree to new clause 28 tonight.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

The Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on amendment 546 and new clause 40, which are consequential and linked to other amendments to clause 42, relating to the commencement of the legislation.

New clause 40 would require the Secretary of State to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a report about progress made towards implementing the Bill, and the Secretary of State’s plans for implementation in subsequent reporting periods. The reporting periods are one year after Royal Assent, and every six months thereafter, until the sixth and final reporting period. Amendment 546 provides that new clause 40 will come into force on the day the Bill is passed.

Kit Malthouse (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

I wonder whether the Minister would entertain a suggestion. I think the extension to four years is going to cause some concern and questions in the House on Report and Third Reading. Given that the Minister is committing to reporting on a six-monthly basis, it would be helpful if the House had a broad plan against which the Government were reporting on implementation. Does the Minister think it is a good idea, on Report or Third Reading, to come forward with an outline timetable, worked up as part of the general assessment of the project?

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

That sounds like a sensible approach. New clause 40 sets out the report about progress made towards implementing the Bill. If I have correctly understood what he is saying, the right hon. Gentleman is looking for more flesh on the bones of what that plan should be and look like.

Kit Malthouse (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

Essentially, I was trying to point out that four years is obviously a backstop. It may well be that the Government are able to deliver the service in advance of the four-year deadline. It might be helpful at later stages of the Bill’s progress—certainly in the Lords—if the Government are able to give an indication of what they think the likely timeline might be. Admittedly, there will be flexibility in there, but that might assuage some of the concern raised by the hon. Member for Stroud that four years is quite a long time. The commissioner is going to be appointed at the 12-month mark, and that might accelerate some of the work, but I think having an indication may be helpful for Members.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

I get what the right hon. Gentleman is saying now: in essence, there will be different parts of the implementation period that will be done at different times. Data may take so long, training may take so long, and so on. I think what the right hon. Gentleman is asking for is a breakdown of which parts of the Bill could be implemented—

Kit Malthouse (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

An indicative timeline.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

Yes. I am very happy to take that up with officials and I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman in short order.

New clause 20 would introduce a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay an annual report in both Houses of Parliament on the impact of the Bill. The report would include the effect of an assisted dying service on access to healthcare, palliative care and assisted dying, and an analysis in relation to people’s socioeconomic status and protected characteristics. That report would sit alongside the existing requirement in clause 35 for a report five years after the Bill is passed. The new clause would require that the first annual report be laid before each House on its first sitting day after one calendar year from the passing of the Bill. The Committee may wish to note that, given the 12-month timeframe, the reporting requirement may start before implementation is complete.

Protected characteristics are defined in section 4 of the Equality Act 2010; however, socioeconomic status is undefined in the new clause, and is not defined elsewhere in the Bill. It is therefore not clear what the assessment of those factors is intended to involve, and it may be difficult in practice for the Secretary of State to determine whether they have fulfilled this duty.

New clause 28 would introduce a legal requirement on the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the Bill within 12 months of it being passed, and to publish and lay a report of that assessment in both Houses of Parliament. The Committee may wish to note that, given the 12-month timeframe, the reporting requirement may start before implementation is complete.

Under the new clause, the assessment must cover the extent to which the Bill is on course to meet its aims; the state of health and care services for persons receiving palliative and end-of-life care; the implications of the Bill on those services; any emerging concerns relating to the operation of the Bill; and any steps the Secretary of State proposes to take in response to those concerns. That requirement is in addition to clause 35, which requires a review by the Secretary of State at the end of the initial five-year period after the Bill is passed. That new requirement is wider in scope, and would be required after one year.

Palliative and end-of-life care services are broad, holistic services, provided by a range of professionals and providers—generalist and specialist—across the NHS, social care and voluntary sector organisations. Therefore, measuring the provision is difficult, as relevant consultations and tasks are not always coded as palliative or end-of-life care. Commissioning and contracting processes do not consistently support data collection, with block contracts and grants commonplace. It is also practically difficult to identify the Bill as the catalyst of the implications on those services over the specific period, as they are affected by multiple factors.

Clause 36 - Disqualification from being witness or proxy

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

I beg to move amendment 454, in clause 36, page 22, line 26, at end insert—

“(e) any person who would not have capacity to request assistance to end their own life under this Act.”

Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)

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

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

Amendment 454 stands in my name, in relation to the clause on disqualification from being witness or proxy. Clause 36(2) outlines the reasons why an individual cannot be a witness or proxy: if they are a relative of the person; if it is believed they are a beneficiary of the will; if they may otherwise benefit financially; if they are a health professional who has provided treatment or care for the person; or if they have not yet attained the age of 18.

Clearly—particularly on clause 3—we have had long debates about mental capacity, and it does not state in clause 36 as is currently stands that the person who is over 18 has to have mental capacity. Therefore, as the Bill stands, someone could bring their grandmother with Alzheimer’s or dementia along and get her to sign their paperwork. My amendment simply seeks to ensure that the person who is the proxy has mental capacity. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

As drafted, clause 36 sets out individuals who are disqualified from acting as a witness or proxy. Amendment 454 would add to that list and exclude anyone from acting as a witness or proxy who would not themselves have capacity to request to end to their own life under the Bill. This would require there to be an assessment of the capacity of potential witnesses and proxies. There is no corresponding obligation placed on medical practitioners in the Bill to assess the capacity of potential witnesses and proxies, so it is not clear how a person would request, and be provided with, the required capacity assessment.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

It is right that there are some exclusions for witnesses and proxies, as set out in the Bill, but although I have no doubt that amendment 454 comes from a good place, it seems both excessive and impractical to conduct a capacity assessment on witnesses and proxies. They are not the patient who is seeking assistance under the Bill, and the role they have is functional and will be overseen by the co-ordinating doctor. The panel can also ask to hear from them if they wish. As such, I cannot support the amendment.

Daniel Francis (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford)

I wish to press the amendment to a vote.

Clause 38 - Power to make consequential and transitional provision etc

Danny Kruger (Conservative, East Wiltshire)

I do not want to take the Committee’s time, but I invite the Bill’s promoter or the Minister to make an observation about the implications of clause 38, because the power to make

“such supplementary, incidental or consequential provision…as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purposes or in consequence of any provision made by this Act.”

reads to me as extremely broad. Not to repeat the point ad nauseam, but I am concerned, as ever, about the degree of discretion given to Ministers—most of it under the negative procedure. I invite the promoter or the Minister to lay out, in as much detail as they are able, the purpose of this clause and what sorts of provisions it might enable.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that invitation. Clause 38 is a form of insurance policy that enables the Secretary of State to respond to the evolving landscape and changes that may take place, including in the implementation period—for example, to respond to issues relating to data, substances, training or the setting up of the system. It ensures that there is a safety net or fall-back position to enable the Government to make changes that might be required.

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

Am I correct in thinking that this is a standard procedure, and it relates to very minor amendments, such as consequential and transitional provisions? It would be used not for any big changes to the Bill but for small amendments, and it would be burdensome to put such small changes before Parliament every time they needed to be made.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

That is indeed my understanding. These would be minor changes, rather than major, fundamental changes to the Bill.

Kit Malthouse (Conservative, North West Hampshire)

I have seen these clauses in standard legislation before. As I understand it, they are often put in place where new organisations are being established and there may be knock-on effects—for example, where an organisation decides to give itself a particular name or changes its name from the one that is in the Act. It tends to be those small things where powers are vested in the Minister effectively to tinker and sandpaper at the end, to get the organisational structure correct.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

That is a good description of it. The wording used in the clause is “consequential and transitional provision”, which is another way of saying exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has described.

Clause 39 - Regulations

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

I beg to move amendment 223, in clause 39, page 23, line 4, after “purposes” insert “, and

(b) incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provision.”

This is a standard power for regulations to include the power to make incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provision.

Roger Gale (Conservative, Herne Bay and Sandwich)

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

Kim Leadbeater (Labour, Spen Valley)

This is a standard power for regulations to include the power to make incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provision. This is a minor amendment, and it is a standard but vital measure to ensure the legislation works effectively and cohesively.

Sarah Olney (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park)

The clause, when amended by amendment 545, which we will vote on shortly, brings into stark relief how much of the Bill is to be left to regulations and how little say MPs will eventually get over it. When it comes to voting on Third Reading, MPs will have little certainty on how the Bill will actually operate—so much is to be taken on trust. If, through the gaps and grey areas, people come to harm, that will be on Parliament for failing to address these issues while we had the chance.

Let us consider all the powers that the Bill creates. Clause 5 creates a power to determine what goes into the first declaration, subject to the requirements of amendment 418. Clauses 5, 8 and 19 create powers to determine the training, qualifications and experience of the medical practitioners, with no minimum floor, and we do not even know who will ultimately decide the training—that, too, is to be left to regulations under amendment 186. Clause 6 creates powers to determine the forms of proof of identity, with no requirement for those to be photographic or to prove residency.

Clauses 7, 13 and 21 create powers to determine the statements, declarations and reports required from the doctors and the applicant. Clause 11 creates powers to make regulations for the replacement of the co-ordinating doctor if they have died, are ill or are otherwise unable or unwilling. Clause 15 creates a new power to determine who can be a proxy. Clause 20 creates a power for the approval of drugs and substances to end people’s lives. Clause 28 creates a power to determine the prescribing, dispensing and transporting of approved lethal substances —the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire has called this purely administrative. Clause 29 creates a power to make regulations relating to the registration, certification and recording of deaths. Clause 30 creates a power to issue codes of practice that practitioners must simply “have regard to”.

Clause 32 will create an extraordinarily broad Henry VIII power, as we are completely in the dark as to how the assistance will actually be provided. Clause 33 creates a power to determine which events should be notified to the commissioner and how to enable the exchange of information. That is all to be decided by the Secretary of State, with the detail removed from the Bill.

All those things are to be subject to the negative procedure, except the training and qualification requirement for the first and second doctor, the codes of conduct, and the power for the Secretary of State to arrange for delivery of assisted dying. When a statutory instrument is made through the negative procedure, there is no need for a vote. The only exception, by convention, is when the Leader of the Opposition asks for one, but they understandably would not do so on a conscience issue. In practice, Parliament will never get a say on these matters. Is the Committee content with that?

Even on affirmative statutory instruments, Parliament’s say is limited to a 90-minute debate on a motion that cannot be amended. Suppose that the Secretary of State published a code of practice on the assessment of capacity that MPs felt did not take sufficient account of mental health conditions. They would be faced with the option to vote for it despite its inadequacy, or to vote against it and risk creating a position where there are no codes of practice at all. That is an impossible position to place parliamentarians in, yet that is what the Bill does. It is a massive blank cheque to the Executive.

I say to Government Members, who I know have great faith in the Health Secretary, that according to the Interpretation Act 1978, “Secretary of State” means any Secretary of State. The powers will not necessarily be exercised by the Health Secretary; they could be exercised by another Secretary of State. Indeed, under the doctrine of ministerial delegation, they could be delegated to another Minister who is not a Secretary of State.

I make these points to illustrate that there is an issue of principle that cannot be waved away on the basis that we think someone sensible will exercise the powers. Parliamentary scrutiny matters, and I very much regret that the Bill avoids it through these wide regulation-making powers.

Stephen Kinnock (Labour, Aberafan Maesteg)

The Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on amendment 223, which would broaden the regulation-making power using standard legal wording so that any regulations made under the Bill can ensure that it works effectively with other legislation.

Clause 40 - Interpretation

Marie Tidball (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge)

I beg to move amendment 518, in clause 40, page 23, line 24, at end insert—

“‘coercion’ means behaviour of a controlling or threatening character, including but not limited to emotional or financial control, or improper interference with another person’s decision-making autonomy, which is exerted by a person or organisation, with the intention of inducing that other person to make the relevant declarations or to self-administer an approved substance under this Act against that other person’s will (and ‘coerced’ is to be read accordingly);”.

This amendment provides a definition of coercion for the purposes of the Act. The terminology of “person” and “another person” reflects that used in clause 26.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.