Danny Kruger MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  That is helpful and makes sense. The only justification for duplication must be that the duplication is only partial, which the Minister has just suggested it is. Not a complete overlap—some cases will fall into one category, but not into the other. I wonder if she could help us to understand with an example that would help the CPS when it makes its decisions about which offence to charge someone under—an example of an offence that would be illegal under this clause and not already illegal under the Suicide Act or the laws of homicide.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Ashford and for Banbury. I entirely concur with their points, particularly those that derive from the expertise of the hon. Member for Ashford. This is a very important group of amendments, which concern what is in a sense the heart of the Bill—the management of the lethal drugs. The question of what drugs we are talking about remains open, which is a cause of deep concern to me, but whatever they happen to be, we need to make sure that the management— the regime of dispensing, transporting and prescribing —is safe. I will not reprise the details of all the amendments. Their purpose is to ensure a stricter, more transparent and safer regime for the management of the drugs. Amendment 521, which is in my name, would ensure that the regulations that we arrive at are laid before Parliament, and debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament. Amendment 485 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central would address the same issue. The amendments seek to address the dangerous absence of an adequate regulatory regime in the Bill for the lethal drugs and approved substances. Once again, significant questions are ignored in clause 28. Ministers will be given the power to make regulations for the prescription, dispensing, transportation, storage, handling and disposal of approved substances. The clause is envisaged as sufficient for an entire regulatory regime for approved substances. It is just 87 words. It is as if it is an afterthought—as, it seems, is the role of pharmacists, by the way. The regulations are subject to the negative procedure, which means they are highly unlikely to be debated at all or voted upon, for reasons given in my earlier complaints about the use of the negative procedure. Indeed, it is discretionary whether the regulations will be made at all. Last night, the Minister told us that the Government objected to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency approving the drugs or substances in amendment 465, which I had tabled. He said: “The Government’s assessment of amendment 465 is that it would significantly impact the legal and operational delivery of the Bill. The Government anticipate that all substances used for assisted dying will have existing licences from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for other indications, but the amendment would require the approved substances to be licensed by the MHRA specifically for the purpose of assisted dying.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Public Bill Committee, 18 March 2025; c. 1224.] That was indeed the purpose of that amendment. If there is anxiety that I am somehow straying from the relevant clause and amendments, which I detect from Members who are clearly looking forward to their dinner, I do insist—[ Interruption. ]

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I acknowledge the point that the Minister is making. To the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, we are talking not about two categories of offence within the same legal framework, namely GBH, but about two different legal frameworks altogether, the law of homicide and the law on assisted dying. Does the Minister agree that the clause as it is to be amended will create the opportunity for a murderer who would otherwise be convicted of or charged with murder to claim that, in fact, he was committing an offence under the assisted suicide law? We are creating a new opportunity for someone who would otherwise, were it not for this law, be legitimately charged with murder to claim that they are committing this offence instead.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I was just concluding my remarks on the amendment. I will quickly finish responding to the hon. Member for Spen Valley and others, who suggested that it would be improper to deny people living in a care home, hospice setting or other communal environment the right and opportunity to request assisted dying. I was suggesting that that right needs to be tempered by an acknowledgment that they do not live there alone, and that there are also rights, properly held, by the occupier of the premises, the individual’s neighbours and others. My concern is that, just as suicide itself is contagious, so the practice of assisted suicide will have social ramifications. We fully recognise that, if the Bill is passed, people will have the absolute right to request the service in their own home, but when someone is living among others, that right needs to be tempered by the consideration that the occupier should ultimately decide whether he or she is prepared to allow the practice to take place on his or her premises. Some hon. Members suggested that, if an institution receives public funding, it would be appropriate for it to be obligated to deliver the service. I am concerned about the implication of that, which might be that institutions that did not wish to provide or facilitate assisted suicide but did receive public money, for instance care homes or hospices, would be at risk of losing that money—essentially being defunded—on the grounds of their conscientious objection to participating in assisted dying. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Spen Valley or Ministers would confirm that it is not their intention to penalise bodies that do not deliver assisted dying by withdrawing public money. On the impact on staff, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for acknowledging that we might need to tighten the Bill to ensure that it is clear that people will not be required to participate in any stage of the process of assisted dying, and not just in the actual provision of assistance towards the final act. Nevertheless, my concern is that if we do not give institutions the right to opt out of provision, there will be an exodus of staff who object to being involved in any way with, or working for an institution that facilitates, assisted dying, as has happened in other jurisdictions where assisted suicide is legal. I point particularly to evidence we heard from Australia. We were told that, in consequence of assisted dying being legalised in Australian states, there was an exodus of workers from the healthcare system—nurses and others—and the social care system. It was therefore no coincidence when one of the Australian witnesses who supports assisted suicide declared breezily that, although there were significant objections among the care workforce to the introduction of assisted dying when the law was first debated, five years later there was overwhelming support for assisted dying among them. Well, that is no surprise, because all the objectors had left, and I am afraid that is what we will see here. A comparison would be the exodus of care workers that we saw after the last Government mandated covid vaccination. Some 40,000 care workers left their jobs rather than accept compulsory vaccination. If they were prepared to do that on those grounds, I fear we might see a similar phenomenon if we mandate that institutions facilitate assisted dying.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will be grateful if the Minister or the hon. Member for Spen Valley can explain the situations in which behaviour criminalised by clause 26(2) would not also amount to an offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act, as amended, or indeed to murder. What behaviour would be criminalised here that is not already criminal? Can the hon. Lady think of any instance in which there would be no crime under section 2 of the Suicide Act, but there would be an offence under clause 26(2)? If there is no such instance—I cannot think of one—it strikes me that, at least in respect of coercion and pressure, the offence being created here is redundant and duplicative. Ministers have rightly stressed the importance of their duty to the statute book. My understanding is that having redundant or duplicative legislation, or indeed duplicative offences, would be inconsistent with our duty to the statute book. One might ask, “What does it matter? Wouldn’t it be helpful to have additional belt-and-braces safeguards in the Bill?” I agree in principle, but I note that when other Members have deployed that argument in relation to adding terms such as “undue influence”, the neutral Ministers have rebuked them by appealing to the duty that we are supposed to have to the statute book. I think the point cuts both ways. Why are we embroidering the statute book with duplicative offences?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mrs Harris. Before I move the next amendment, I wish to correct the record. I do not know if this is the moment to do so, but I wish to correct a mistake I made earlier today.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The point I am making is that we are suggesting that some future Secretary of State, in a different Government of which we know nothing, might decide to issue codes of practice that will determine how this process is delivered, but I will leave that point. We must address the weak status of these codes of practice. I regret that they are being left in this weak form. At a minimum level, we should require that they are properly complied with. This cannot be remedied after the Bill has passed. No matter how strong the language in the codes of practice, that language cannot override or change the nature of a statutory duty. Any enhanced duty has to come from a source external to the document being considered itself—namely, the statute. I ask the hon. Member for Spen Valley, why not insist that practitioners comply with the relevant provisions of the code?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 524, in clause 30, page 18, line 40, leave out from “have regard to” and insert “comply with”. This amendment would require individuals to comply with the Codes of Practice issued by the Secretary of State.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know what those might be, but I would be interested to hear. That might well be the case. I am afraid that no hard-and-fast rules can be clearly applied here; or, rather, we have to apply hard-and-fast rules in the knowledge of the grey areas, the exceptions and the situations in which we might feel that the law is unjust in particular cases. We have heard examples of that, such as the evidence about the lady in Australia cited earlier by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. I can well imagine the distress involved if someone suddenly finds themselves in an institution that does not permit an assisted death, but they want one and are in their last days. The alternative, however, is a different blanket rule. If we were to have a blanket rule that we can do an assisted death anywhere—that is one situation—there would be significant knock-on effects. Serious moral injury would be suffered by other professionals and residents. I recognise that my amendment could lead to someone having to relocate if they want to have an assisted death—I am sorry for that—but I think that we have to draw the line in a way that makes most sense.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady. That is very helpful. That is my concern: we need to ensure all necessary support for the patient at the earliest stage possible.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely; that is what I am doing. I referenced the debate we had last night, which I hope is within scope, because the suggestion has been either that the Bill insufficiently addresses the need for a regulatory regime for the approval of drugs specifically for the purpose of assisted dying or, as the Government are saying, that the drugs’ existing licences are sufficient for these purposes. Is the Government’s position that there will be no regulator involved and that this will sit entirely with the Minister, as in this clause? If regulators are to be involved, will further legislation be needed? I will not repeat evidence from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society concerning the legal arrangement, but I will refer to evidence submitted by Máire Stapleton, a pharmacist with more than 30 years’ experience in clinical governance, who made this point: “Based upon a preliminary review of current published data, it is difficult to see how the regulatory and professional standards for prescribing and dispensing unlicensed drugs can be met.” There is further evidence to that effect from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, pharmacists and barristers. Given that there is so little on the face of the Bill and no guardrails for the use of the power that will be given to the Secretary of State, why is the negative procedure judged appropriate for something of this significance? It cannot be argued that the negative procedure is needed because the amendments might need to be made quickly and frequently—that cannot be the case, because we have not yet authorised the regime. The negative procedure would allow the Secretary of State quite unjustified ability to change these processes without any requirement for a parliamentary debate or vote. Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, has said that this new Government will take a new approach, considering the “real need to consider the balance between primary and secondary legislation, which in recent years has weighed too heavily in favour of delegated powers.” He criticised the previous Government’s “excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation,” which “upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values I have already outlined, but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty. In my view, the new Government offers an opportunity for a reset in the way that Government thinks about these issues. This means, in particular, a much sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards.” I conclude with this question to the Minister: has she considered the advice of Lord Hermer in coming to a view on the appropriateness of this clause and the way that these powers have been taken? As the Hansard Society notes, “the Government has an overriding duty of care to the statute book. As such, any powers that may accrue to Ministers because of a Private Member’s Bill must be acceptable to the Government. It must therefore take a view on the powers and their scrutiny”. Has the sponsor or the Minister consulted with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society on the sufficiency of this power? Has sufficient work been done to look at the workability and operationalisation of this clause? I hope the Committee will join me in supporting these amendments.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It might appear a procedural issue, but does the hon. Lady acknowledge that there is a profound difference between the negative and affirmative procedure? Why is she content that the regime for the regulation of these lethal drugs, which are at the absolute core of her Bill, be subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State, without any likelihood or any real possibility of any sort of debate in Parliament? Why should this not be through the affirmative procedure?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Let me come to the question of investigation by the police in due course, but I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman heard me clearly. I was not talking about offences that I think are rightly criminal; I was talking about offences that are not offences at all. Providing hospice care, helping people to relieve symptoms of pain or suffering and withdrawing life support are all perfectly permitted and legal in our system. The issue is that a significant proportion of the public think that those activities are what assisted dying entails. I do, however, recognise the point and the power of the testimony recited by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, to which I will come on in due course. I understand that in order to make the Bill effective, an exception must be made to section 2 of the Suicide Act. Section 1 says that someone is allowed to commit suicide; section 2 says that one cannot help somebody else to do so. I agree that such an exception is necessary if we are to pass the Bill, but I cannot follow why clause 24(1) is needed. I will be grateful if the hon. Member for Spen Valley or the Minister can explain which other offences would necessarily be committed by a doctor properly carrying out his or her functions under the Bill. What other offences might be caught that require clause 24(1)? Clause 18 will forbid a doctor from engaging in euthanasia. One criminal law from which an exemption is not necessary is the law on murder, yet ostensibly subsection (1) has no such limitation. I would be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that subsection (1) will not afford a defence when the charge is murder. I presume that that is not the intention. What about manslaughter, and particularly gross negligence manslaughter? Under the Bill, a pharmacist performing the function of prescribing or dispensing the legal drugs would be, to use the wording of amendment 504, “performing” a “function under this Act”. If a pharmacist makes a grossly negligent mistake and mislabels a drug, which is then sent to another patient who takes it and dies, that would quite clearly be gross negligence manslaughter. Can the Minister explain why clause 24(1), as amended by amendment 504, would not allow someone to benefit from an immunity in respect of gross negligence manslaughter? To be clear, I agree that if the pharmacist intentionally mislabelled the drug, he could not be described as “performing any other function under this Act”, so he would not have that defence. However, in a case where, in good faith, he had made a fatal and grossly negligent mistake, surely he would have been performing such a function, albeit performing it very badly. Can the Minister clearly set out the reasoning to explain why there is no chance of such a defence under the clause? Of course the hon. Member for Spen Valley does not intend to exempt from criminal liability a pharmacist acting in that grossly negligent way, but I am trying to make sense of the drafting of the amendment. If there is any criminal offence, other than in the Suicide Act, that requires an exemption, it would be best to say so clearly in the Bill rather than relying on a catch-all term, as subsection (1) does. I concur with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate and will not repeat them, but I do find it interesting that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has chosen to retain the offence of assisting and encouraging suicide. This is because two arguments made by proponents of the Bill lead to the logical conclusion that the offence should either be repealed entirely or limited to self-conduct, as is the case in Switzerland. Let us look at the two arguments in turn. The first argument relates to autonomy. If an autonomous individual with capacity decides to end their own life and requests the assistance of another person, why should that other person be criminalised? After all, that person is simply helping another person to do something to their own body that the law has not prohibited since 1961, so surely it is a violation of autonomy to criminalise such conduct of assisting in suicide. Lord Mance, a former justice of the Supreme Court, put the matter as follows on Second Reading of the Meacher Bill in the other place: “Suicide is decriminalised, yet assisting suicide remains criminal—probably a unique exception to the principle that you can only be an accomplice to an act that is itself criminal.” It is bizarre that the act is not itself criminal but being an accomplice to it is. Lord Mance went on to say: “If a person may choose freely to commit suicide, what justifies a refusal to allow them to obtain willing assistance?” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 2021; Vol. 815, c. 408.] I believe in the value of a prohibition on assistance, but the logic of the argument from autonomy—that someone should be allowed to request assistance to help them to die—surely obviates the distinction. I do not see why we have kept section 2 at all, and I would be interested in hearing from the supporters of the Bill what the limiting principle is. Why do they think assisted suicide should remain a crime, despite its being a limitation on autonomy, outside the scheme created by the Bill? Why are we simply creating a scheme within the Bill? The second argument given, which I think relates to the intervention from the hon. Member for Sunderland Central and to the point made by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, is based on the fact that the current law requires people to travel to Switzerland. The argument against the current system comes in three forms. One stresses the toll that it places on families to know that the people who assist have committed a criminal offence and could be investigated by the police, even though the chances of prosecution are remote. I fully recognise and share all the concerns among Members about the terrible distress faced by people who may in any way have assisted their loved one to take their own life. The second objection to the status quo makes the point about the unfairness that the situation creates. The hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) said on Second Reading: “I do not want choice to be available only to those who can afford to pay. That is not just or equitable.” —[ Official Report , 29 November 2024; Vol. 797, c. 1073.] The suggestion is that to have to pay to go to Switzerland is a violation of equality. The third is a constitutional argument. It is said that it is constitutionally improper for the Director of Public Prosecutions to have effectively decriminalised assisted suicide for people who travel to Switzerland. But the point I am trying to make is that under the Bill, anyone helping their relative to travel to Switzerland, or any other country, would still be committing an offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act. Research from My Death, My Decision, a campaign group pushing for a wider Bill than the current one—it supports the Bill but clearly wants it to go further—has found that 50% of cases going to Dignitas would not be eligible under the Bill. It helps to make my point, which is that I am afraid that if the Bill were passed we would still have stories like the very moving testimony read out by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said, there is a significant likelihood that there would be more prosecutions. If the Bill were enacted, the conclusion of the Crown Prosecution Service and the police might well be that, given the existence of an assisted dying regime within the UK, assisting one’s relative to go to Switzerland should be subject to a greater likelihood of prosecution. That is a legitimate concern.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to quickly explain that my amendment 523 is consequential on amendment 447, but there is drafting issue. I will not go into the details but, if amendment 447 is made, as I understand it will be, my amendment 523 is not necessary. I would be grateful for the Minister’s guidance: if he has been advised by parliamentary counsel that the clause as amended by amendment 447 is okay and there is no need for amendment 523, I do not propose to press it to a vote.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 522, in clause 29, page 17, line 14, leave out subsection (1). In a letter to the editor of The Telegraph , the former chief coroner of England and Wales, Thomas Teague KC, wrote that clause 29 “would prohibit a coroner from investigating any death where the duty to do so arises only because the deceased died as a consequence of the provision of assistance in accordance with the Bill. But for that clause, the coroner would be under a statutory duty to investigate such a death and, if satisfied at inquest that the deceased had used an approved lethal substance to end his or her life with the intention of doing so, would be obliged to record a conclusion of suicide. Since the coroner’s jurisdiction affords a powerful deterrent against misfeasance, the public may wonder why the Bill proposes to abandon such a robust safeguard. The approval of the High Court is no substitute as it would be given in advance of death and could offer no assurance” —we have scrapped the approval of the High Court, but it would have been no substitute, and it will be the same for the panel system— “that the assistance had been provided in strict compliance with the law or that the circumstances of the case had not changed following the court’s declaration. If the Bill becomes law, who will provide the necessary posthumous judicial scrutiny of these unnatural deaths?” That is a powerful suggestion from the former chief coroner.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful. With great respect to other members of the Committee, I think the hon. Gentleman is the most honest advocate of assisted dying among us, because he genuinely recognises that autonomy demands the widest possible range of eligibility. It might be that other Members feel that we have the balance exactly right. I recognise the force of his argument that if we are going to introduce a new human right, it is very difficult to circumscribe its boundaries. He himself thinks that there should be some boundaries: he proposed an amendment that specified 12 months, and he thinks that only certain people should be able to ask someone else to perform assisted death to them. Nevertheless, he is acknowledging that if we believe in autonomy, the Bill would not satisfy some people. I think it would be intellectually coherent and more logical for proponents of the Bill to want to repeal section 2 of the Suicide Act, and I do not understand why they are not doing so. We could certainly continue to insist on prohibitions against any form of coercion, persuasion or inducement to take one’s own life, but if somebody is clearly in their right mind and wants to receive assistance to kill themselves, that is the principle of the Bill. It would be neater if we amended the Suicide Act accordingly. The fact that proponents do not want to do so suggests that they see some value in the law and that they consider that that value trumps concerns about autonomy and the impact of the law on family members of someone who wishes to travel to Switzerland to end their life. I agree that there are such principles—namely, the intrinsic value of life and the protection of the vulnerable—but I do not see why proponents of the Bill consider that such principles trump autonomy when it comes to terminally ill adults in England.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The amendment would specify that individuals should comply with the codes of practice issued by the Secretary of State. I am glad that the hon. Member for Spen Valley agreed to accept an earlier amendment requiring the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice. That was a helpful step, but it is not quite sufficient, because it does not address the critical weakness in the Bill. Time and again, we have been told that amendments tabled are not suitable for the face of the Bill and that we should rely on codes of practice and guidance that will be issued subsequently. Now we are at this point, though, and it is clear that under clause 30(6) the code of practice is something that those “performing any function under this Act must”, simply, “have regard to”. We have been told repeatedly by the Minister that the Government’s preference is to leave things until later and not to address issues on the face of the Bill, because additional words, phrases and amendments would increase risk and be counterproductive. That is an argument that we have heard from the Government Front Bench repeatedly. Other Members have dismissed as embroidery suggested amendments to strengthen safeguards; it has been suggested that the more we write, the less safe the Bill will be. I do not think those arguments will survive the other place, if the Bill arrives there. There is a vast difference between something in the Bill that must be “complied with” because it is in legislation, and something that those providing assistance under the Bill must only “have regard to”. It is perplexing that the Bill does not clearly specify that practitioners should “follow” or “act in accordance with” the guidance. These words matter. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel explores the choice of these different phrases in its guidance on common legislative problems. That guidance was produced by the drafter of this Bill, the former First Parliamentary Counsel, Elizabeth Gardiner. It is quite a deliberate policy choice to leave compliance with these codes of practice to the discretion of the individuals rather than to require it. The guide to making the legislation—the Cabinet Office manual, which the drafter would have been very familiar with—states: “A ‘code of practice’ is an authoritative statement of practice to be followed in some field. It typically differs from legislation in that it offers guidance rather than imposing requirements: its prescriptions are not hard and fast rules but guidelines which may allow considerable latitude in their practical application and may be departed from in appropriate circumstances. The provisions of a code are not directly enforceable by legal proceedings… Codes of practice are not to be used to define specific legal obligations. Where specific legal obligations are to be imposed, breach of which leads directly to civil or criminal liability, their content should be spelled out in primary or secondary legislation. A code of practice is not appropriate for this purpose, either to delineate the main obligation or to provide for exceptions or defences.” I do not think it appropriate that so much is being left to ministerial discretion. I find this perplexing. Not to make a party-political point, but we know how much Labour MPs distrust Conservatives, and yet they are seemingly willing—as indeed, Conservative colleagues in support of this are—

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge for the amendments that she tabled and to the work that she has been doing on our Committee. I regret her victory over my friend, the former MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge, but the hon. Lady is bringing a lot to Parliament and to this Committee. I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford in supporting the amendments. I do not know whether the hon. Lady is in a position to respond with a further speech or by intervening, but I have some concerns about their operation. I recognise that the role of the independent advocate exists in our system already, very usefully and importantly: I see its value and appropriateness for an assisted dying regime. But if the amendments are accepted, we will be introducing the role of the independent advocate with the sombre recognition that it is necessary, in consequence of a Bill that will allow doctors to discuss ending the patient’s life as an option with anybody, no matter how well-equipped or ill-equipped that person may be to handle such a conversation on their own, and no matter how old they are—they could even be 18 years old. I support the amendments, but I do so in recognition of the very significant dangers that I think the Bill represents to all potential applicants. I want to ask the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, or perhaps the Minister or the Bill’s promoter, whether they feel that the amendments go to the heart of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. I am pleased to hear that he is satisfied and will support the amendments, although I echo some of the suggestions of concern that he just made. New clause 25 makes it clear that the advocate is there to provide support if the person “is seeking to understand options around end of life care, including the possibility of requesting assistance to end their own life”. Amendment 517 addresses the need for a code of practice when a qualifying person is requesting assistance to end their own life. My question is whether the new clause and the amendment fully cater for a situation in which that individual is not requesting assistance to end their own life—when they are not seeking to explore that particular option. Given that we have retained the right of medical professionals to raise the possibility of assisted dying unprompted with patients, I am concerned about whether, as I think the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford implied, the medical professional initiates the conversation, or the advocate themselves is supportive of assisted dying and they deliberately or inadvertently have the effect of encouraging the patient to consider that option. As I think the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said in her intervention on the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, new clause 25 creates the role of independent advocate to provide support to a patient, to help them to effectively understand and engage with all the provisions in the Bill. It does not specify that the advocate should be obliged, equipped or experienced in supporting the patient to engage with other options.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate; I very much agree with the points that she made, and I hope that Ministers will respond. I will try not to repeat her arguments. The hon. Member for Spen Valley says that clause 24 is, in a sense, the heart of the Bill. I agree. Without the clause the Bill would be ineffective, because the service that we are proposing to legalise would be illegal. We have heard many objections to the term “assisted suicide”, but the necessity of the clause exposes the fact that what is being legalised, at least in part, is assisted suicide. Calling it assisted suicide is therefore not improper; it is simply using the correct terminology, as I believe we should in this place. That is particularly important because the use of the euphemism “assisted dying” masks what this is really about and what the Bill would actually legalise: that somebody could help somebody else to commit suicide. It is no surprise that the euphemism is deployed, because support for what is called assisted dying is driven in part by a failure to realise what it actually is and what the words mean. I cite a 2024 Nuffield Council on Bioethics survey of the public, which found that 39% of people think that assisted dying means withdrawing life support, 19% think that it means providing people who are dying with drugs that relieve symptoms of pain or suffering, and 13% think that it means providing hospice care, all of which is legal currently and is good medical practice.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am conflating the two because they are conflated in reality. A care home where somebody lives is a residence, but it is also a community, a facility and a place where professionals work to support that individual. A clear demarcation between their living arrangements and the support they receive from the institution they live in does not exist in reality. That is why they are living there—because that distinction does not apply in their particular case. They require the support and help of the workers in the place where they live. I am afraid it is not enough simply to say, “This is their home, and they should have exactly the same rights and freedoms as they would have if they were living alone in their own flat or house.” We have to recognise the reality of the situation, which is that they are living in a community, and what happens in the community affects them all. That is the nature of communal living. This is not individualised healthcare in the way that the hon. Gentleman imagines it is, and that is fundamentally our point of difference. This is separate or adjacent to healthcare, and it is delivered, by definition, by somebody else. By virtue of the Bill, it would have a separate regulatory environment to other healthcare treatments. Of necessity, it should have an appropriate legal framework to protect other people who are impacted by assisted death in a communal setting. That is my crucial point: if someone is living in a communal setting, what they do affects their neighbours.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The concern is that it should be automatic. I just cite Professor Ahmedzai’s recognition of the frequent necessity, or the distinct possibility, of a referral to the coroner being appropriate. I suggest that it should happen as a matter of course. I would be grateful to understand from the hon. Lady or the Minister under what circumstances they feel it would be appropriate for a coroner to be involved. The difficulty is that we are putting a lot of emphasis on the role of the local medical examiner to decide whether it should be appropriate for the coroner to consider a case; I suggest that they should consider all cases. The obligation on coroners need not be over-burdensome. Some coroner’s inquests can be dealt with in as little as 20 minutes if matters are simple and not in dispute, which they would be in the great majority of the cases we are talking about. The presence of this jurisdiction—the ability of the coroner to investigate—would be a most valuable safeguard. It would help to identify whether matters have gone wrong in the act of self-administration and the process of dying, which could significantly assist whatever regulatory regime—we are yet to discover that—oversees the process. It could assist the continuous improvement of the regime. It would also help to identify issues relating to misdiagnosis, which we know happens often. It is remarkable—and worth pointing out in response to the suggestion that terminal diagnoses are always accurate—that one study found, after autopsy, that one in four cases had been misdiagnosed. Doctors might say somebody is dying of a certain condition, but it turns out they were not. I take the point that a coroner would not be prohibited by clause 29(1) from launching an investigation in appropriate cases, but given that we do not know what we do not know, it might be hard to decide when that is required. With a new scheme like this, it would be best to start with an investigation in every case. If, in a few years’ time, it appears that the safeguard is not needed, a future Parliament could change the law to reduce it, but I implore the Committee to consider the idea that we should start with the safest Bill we can.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  No, I am afraid I do not concede that. At the moment, it is not apparent from the Bill or the amendments that have been accepted that an organisation would be enabled to decline to facilitate the provision of assisted dying. No organisation will be compelled to do so, but if a resident were to request assisted dying in their care home, my understanding is that the care home would be obliged to facilitate it. It might well not be the intention behind the Bill, because I know that the hon. Member for Spen Valley and Members who agree with her recognise the importance of a conscience exception; they have been very clear on that, and I am grateful to them. Nevertheless, my concern is that on human rights grounds, as we have heard from the Minister, the likelihood is that there would be a claim on behalf of an applicant against the institution they reside in that assisted suicide must be provided to them in that place. I am afraid the Bill at the moment does not give an adequate exemption to institutions.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Nevertheless, the hon. Lady is proposing that this passes through Parliament, just through the negative procedure. If she thinks there is an appropriate rubberstamp by Parliament—that Parliament needs to approve this regime—why should it not have the opportunity to debate it?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I support the principle of insisting that inducing people by dishonesty, coercion or pressure to kill themselves should be illegal, but my understanding is that it already is. If it is not illegal, or if there are circumstances in which we need this additional offence that are not already captured by the Suicide Act or the law on murder, I would like to understand what they are. As I say, while it might be helpful to duplicate the offence, I understand that the very sensible convention in our law is that it is not helpful to have two offences relating to the same act because of the opportunity for offenders to play off one offence against the other. Having duplicative criminal offences can make prosecuting cases harder because the defendant can raise abuse-of-process arguments about whether they have been charged with the most appropriate offence. I understand that the Attorney General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice are therefore usually very keen to avoid duplicative offences. Let me give an example of the difference in the treatment of the offence. It is proposed that this offence would be subject to a life sentence, which requires the consent of the DPP. But at least in the one case where it overlaps with murder, this would provide a more favourable treatment for the accused than the other obvious charge. Can that be justified? Duplicating criminal liability by introducing new offences has far-reaching implications that can disturb the coherence and certainty of criminal law. If one introduces a law that gives prosecutors two criminal offences to choose from to cover one act, some prosecutors will choose one and some will choose the other. This is generally undesirable; indeed, it is unprecedented in the case of homicide, where there is every reason to suspect that it could cause chaos for grieving families in search of justice. Such chaos is all too predictable, for a number of reasons. Let me give an example. A defendant proven to have procured a suicide by deception will be well advised to plead guilty to the offence contrary to section 26(2) and then contest any attempt to introduce murder proceedings. This matters profoundly. A decision to prosecute is an administrative decision and is subject to judicial review. This is not an academic point; it could cause real distress for bereaved families in deep turmoil seeking justice. Let us imagine that a person, A, is a new coercive and controlling partner of person B and procures by deception their suicide in order to profit from a will. The family of person B grow suspicious and provide the police with a convincing case for a murder prosecution. The CPS agrees and charges A with murder. A accepts that he procured the suicide by deception. On that basis, he appeals, seeking a remedy in judicial review, saying that the CPS should have charged him with a clause 26(2) offence, not murder. The JR is backed by wealthy pressure groups and is beset with administrative adjournments and so on. From the filing of the claim form to the final judgment of the administrative court within the High Court, the case takes 24 gruelling, painful, awful months for the bereaved family. Throughout this time, the lawyers for A, the defendant, tell him to stay the course and continue to offer the plea to section 26(2), because the family will be exhausted by the reality of litigation. The family have no legal aid, no support, no charity backing and no one interested in their case. The war of attrition in litigation finally defeats them. They advise the CPS that they will accept a plea under the section 26(2) offence, and not the murder that actually occurred. That is the reality of duplicating criminal liability. In that example, A has got away with murder by judicial review. We must be clear about what we are being asked to do. It is not simple. We are being asked to innovate in the law of murder. We are being asked to do so without the assistance of the Law Commission, without the careful eye of legal or judicial bodies alive to the difficulties of duplicating liability and without the input of any bodies that represent the victims of crime on how this might affect them. There are no Government consultations with such bodies before us. There is no expert assistance from judicial or legal figures on how the good intentions around clause 26(2) might unintentionally lead to serious and undesirable consequences such as those that I have described.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend seems hung up on this suggestion that there needs to be a plebiscite or communal decision making—some kind of citizens’ jury. I am not suggesting that for one moment. In fact, I am sure that I have said explicitly that what I want, and what the amendment would enable, is that the owner or occupier, who would probably be an individual or a board of directors, would decide what happens. If they are a decent, compassionate organisation, they might well consult residents—in fact, I would very much expect that to happen if they are doing their job properly—but I am talking about the importance of communal living; and the fact is that a communal living arrangement has leadership. The residents have signed terms and conditions, in a contract, under which they have agreed to abide by certain rules of the house. My suggestion is that if the charity, company or organisation that is managing a care home wants to stipulate that there shall be no provision of assisted dying in that care home, they should have the right to do so. I hope my right hon. Friend would acknowledge that that is consistent with English property rights. On my right hon. Friend’s second point, I am grateful to him and he might well be right. I am happy to consult my evidence pack, which I do not have at my fingertips, about the effect on the Australian workforce in consequence of the introduction of assisted dying. My memory is that we heard such evidence, or had it submitted to us in written form—his knowledge of the 500 submissions might be better than mine. Let us check and we will have it out, perhaps on social media; I know how much he enjoys those forums. Question put, That the amendment be made.