Sarah Olney MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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. Similarly, a 2019 BMJ study found that private providers running NHS-funded services had higher rates of complications in procedures such as hip replacements compared with NHS trusts. The focus on cost efficiency can lead to skimping on follow-up care or using less experienced staff. Why does that happen? Profit-seeking behaviour drives cuts to staff, to resources and to time. Now, if we transpose that to assisted dying, let us imagine the pressures on a private provider to trim costs and the pressures on the quality of assessments. How thoroughly are mental health conditions, or the risk that something else might be going on, explored? How great is the depth of attention to medical records? Is what is relevant to the doctor influenced by the ticking clock? Will they tick a box rather than a safeguard?

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

  More

  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—

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  I again refer to what I said earlier: I fear this is another example where, instead of debating and agreeing these points in Committee or elsewhere in Parliament, we are delegating these matters to be decided elsewhere by some other people, not in the legislation that we are debating and voting on. I reiterate that the Senedd has already made its view clear. It may not have been a binding vote. It may not have been voting on this specific piece of legislation. However, I think the will of the Senedd is clear: they do not want an assisted dying Bill imposed upon them, and that is what the evidence of Professor Emyr Lewis told us.

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

  More

  I am sorry that the hon. Lady feels that. The complicating factor here is that the criminal law is not devolved to Wales, but health is, as is safeguarding. One possibility is to seek to respect devolution strictly, by either changing the law or giving the power to the Secretary of State to change the law in respect of what is reserved, while giving to the Welsh Ministers the powers in respect of what is devolved. The problem is that the Bill does not quite do that, even with the amendments that have been tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. Those amendments fail to properly identify what is and what is not devolved; instead, they kick the can down the road. Future litigation might be required to figure out the precise boundaries. For example, regulation of health professionals is a reserved matter, but adult safeguarding is a devolved matter, so is the training of those health professionals on spotting coercive control a reserved or a devolved matter? The Bill does not answer that question. The solution therefore carries a real risk. If Wales decides that it does not want assisted dying and therefore does not provide it on its NHS, and the Welsh Ministers decide not to set up proper training and regulatory programmes in respect of the safeguarding issues raised, the position in Wales will be that it is decriminalised, so the service can be provided by private providers charging a fee and not necessarily properly trained in safeguarding. That is not a sustainable middle ground, so it would naturally pressure Wales to move towards commissioning such services itself. In other words, the Bill either respects devolution at the risk of creating a legal limbo, or it puts pressure on Wales to catch up with England, neither of which are desirable. Another alternative is to take away any choice that Wales might have on the matter entirely, and have the law apply in Wales in exactly the same way it does in England, including when it comes to the actual delivery of services. That would avoid the legal limbo problem, but at the cost of acting in a way that is constitutionally quite wrong. That brings us to the solution that Professor Lewis proposed in his blog: “How then might the Bill be amended to respect the Senedd’s vote on the matter of principle? One straightforward way would be to provide for different commencement provisions in the Bill. As things stand, under clause 42 of the Bill, most of the Bill will not come into force until the Secretary of State has brought it into force, with the approval of the UK Parliament. Why not provide that the Bill will only come into force in Wales when and if the Welsh Ministers bring it into force with the approval of the Senedd?” That is what I seek to do through my amendment. I can foresee three objections. First, it might be said that the criminal law is a reserved matter and therefore Parliament ought not to refrain from legislating for Wales or have different commencement arrangements for the criminal law in England compared with Wales, but Parliament is sovereign and can do what it wants. By the same reasoning, Parliament should never grant a temporary power to a devolved legislature to legislate on matters that are normally reserved, yet Parliament does do that. The second objection might be that England and Wales are a single jurisdiction, and that there should not be a difference in the criminal law between them, but this misunderstands that, as a result of the devolution settlement, there are already differences in the criminal law of England and Wales. For example, in our law there is a defence of reasonable chastisement, which means that parents smacking their children would not be committing a criminal offence. Although the criminal law is not devolved to Wales, child welfare is and, using those powers on child welfare, the Senedd voted to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement in Wales. That means that there is a difference in the criminal law of England and Wales. A position whereby assisting suicide was partially decriminalised in England but fully criminalised in Wales would not be an oddity. There is no principle of our constitution that says that the criminal law must be the same on both sides of the border. The key issue is that the decriminalisation of assisted suicide, which the Bill will bring about, is not a stand-alone measure. What we are introducing is not something like the Swiss criminal code, for example, which does not criminalise assisted suicide when the person acted for non-selfish motives. Rather, it is a decriminalisation of assisted suicide that is contingent with complying with a detailed healthcare regulatory scheme, which is an issue that is devolved to Wales. Finally, it might be objected that this might create difficult cross-border issues. As Professor Lewis put it in his blog, “that would be true also if, for instance, the Scottish Bill did not become law. Far more difficult cross-border issues were successfully accommodated in the context of legislation, also involving profound ethical considerations, when the National Assembly for Wales (as the Senedd was then called) changed the law on organ donations.” I accept that such a situation might require constitutional amendments at subsequent stages, but these could easily be made by the Government on Report. Ultimately, when one looks at it in detail, having a different commencement provision for Wales is the only practical way of respecting the vote of the Senedd while not running the risk of creating a legal limbo. Finally, I draw the Committee’s attention to the supplementary written evidence of Professor Lewis, in which he commends my amendment 535. Regardless of where we stand on assisted dying, we should respect democracy. The people of Wales, through their elected representatives—acting as they should, as representatives—have voted against assisted dying. We should respect that choice and not impose it on them, in whole or in part, without their consent.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  I refer to my earlier comments: there are few enough opportunities for MPs to have any further control over how this legislation is going to be implemented. I do not think that it is asking too much to want a further opportunity to be mandated, and not left—dare I say it—to the vagaries of the Backbench Business Committee. There are Opposition days, but this is cross-party, conscience issue. I can speak only for my own party, but I think there are a number of other issues that the Opposition would want to use those debates to address. Taken together, these amendments would ensure that Parliament is properly informed if the Secretary of State decided to commence the scheme before the four-year auto-commencement deadline. I want to address how the Bill will be implemented in Wales. On 23 October 2024, in anticipation of the Bill being published, Senedd Cymru debated a motion calling on the Welsh Government to “a) support the principles of assisted dying; and b) support Westminster parliament to introduce a compassionate assisted dying law in England and Wales.” The motion was defeated 19 to 26. Among those who voted against were a number of Welsh Government Ministers, including First Minister Eluned Morgan, and I believe that in three political parties—Labour, Plaid and the Conservatives—there was a majority against. In that context—as Professor Emyr Lewis, who gave evidence to the Committee, has stated—it would be constitutionally wrong to pass the Bill without the consent of the Welsh Senedd. He believes that this is different from other instances where legislation has been passed by Westminster against the will of Wales: “This is not the equivalent, for instance, of trying to re-base the UK’s internal markets following the chaos of Brexit. When the UK Parliament passed Acts ignoring refusal of consent from Cardiff or Edinburgh, it did so in what were considered to be the interests of the economic coherence of the UK. This Bill, however, is a different sort of creature. It is a Bill which would bring about a profound change in the law relating to life and death, where there are strongly held (and expressed) moral, religious and cultural views against as well as in favour. How can it be constitutionally appropriate for the UK Parliament to pass such a Bill for Wales, when the Senedd has indicated its opposition by democratic vote after a thorough debate?”

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

  More

  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?

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

  More

  I am grateful for that intervention, but the crucial point is the vote in Parliament, so that MPs get not only an opportunity to consider whether sufficient progress has been made—as per new clause 40—but a vote to confirm that they are content for the legislation to proceed.

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

  More

  I rise to speak to my amendments 531 and 535 and to amendment 490 in the name of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). I welcome what the hon. Member for Spen Valley has just said about needing more time to get this right. As I said earlier, there is still so much that has been left to secondary legislation. I regard that as unsatisfactory in itself, but the fact that we are going to take time to get it right will surely go some way to mitigating some concerns. I have heard raised around the estate on a number of occasions today the concern that the four-year gap between passing the legislation and implementing it will take us right up to the next general election. I have to say that I share those reservations, even though I am not a member of the party of government, about how the general election campaign will intersect with the implementation of this legislation. I share people’s fears that this whole process will get enmeshed in party politics, which we have hitherto been able to avoid in the Committee, but nevertheless could create a real danger for successful implementation. I did think that the auto-commencement of this Bill after two years was a little bit reckless. The extension to four years at least permits some potential improvement in palliative care—to re-ignite the spirit of consensus, as that is something that we all want to see—but an NHS already grappling with long waiting lists and staffing shortages could buckle under the added burden of implementing a complex new framework leading to rushed or inconsistent application. An automatic commencement of the new laws, regardless of the situation in the NHS, could leave patients and healthcare workers unsupported. It is important is that, before the moment comes—whenever that is—Parliament should be fully informed as to how the service will be provided and the strength of other provisions, so that MPs can be confident that those choosing to end their lives through this service are given a fair choice and are not being pushed down a single pathway. We must also have confidence that the medical professionals and panels involved have received adequate training. Amendment 531 would ensure that at least we go into this with our eyes open and that shortcomings are flagged if not addressed. It would provide that the critical provisions of the Bill, without which assisted dying cannot lawfully operate, do not come into force until a report is made setting out the readiness of services to be provided under the legislation and that the training has been provided. Similarly, amendment 488, in the name of the hon. Member for York Central, mandates a statement from both Houses that all necessary regulations are in place. This would prevent a premature roll-out without clear rules. These steps would not halt progress; they would ensure we are ready to proceed. Amendment 490, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, does two important things. First, it requires that if the Secretary of State wants to commence before the auto-commencement deadline, they must publish a report covering the same matters covered by the report under clause 35. This would not be a new requirement, but would instead bring it forward. Crucially, that report would include details about the provision and availability of palliative care services in England and Wales. Secondly, amendment 490—this is it goes further than my amendment 531 and amendment 488—requires that regulations bringing the Act into force prior to the auto-commencement deadline use the affirmative procedure: in other words, that there will be a vote in Parliament. It stands to reason that if the Secretary of State wants to go quicker than the four-year deadline, then Parliament ought to be able to consider whether all necessary preparations have been done and to refuse early commencement if that is not the case. Amendments 488, 490 and 531 would not interfere with the auto-commencement point in four years’ time: when four years is reached the whole scheme will come into force. Those amendments would not prevent that, but they would achieve greater oversight and accountability if the Secretary of State decided to commence early. I hope that even if the hon. Member for Spen Valley is not minded to accept striking out the auto-commencement provisions, she will still accept these amendments.

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

  More

  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. Research published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care in 2022 examined in depth the data reported in jurisdictions around the world. It identified official data reports from 16 jurisdictions in which assisted suicide or euthanasia is legal. It found that although most jurisdictions report the number of patients who die by assisted dying, only three—New Zealand, Canada and the state of Victoria in Australia—document the number of patients who make a request to die by assisted dying. The research is from 2022, so it is possible that there are now a few more jurisdictions. Unless we know about the applications that are assessed as ineligible, we will not have adequate insight into the functioning of patient safeguards and eligibility criteria. That is a point that Dr Annabel Price made in oral evidence and in an editorial in The BMJ in 2015. We need to understand not just who has an assisted death, but who is ineligible and why, to understand how the safeguards are functioning. The 2022 paper identified Colorado, Hawaii and Maine as reporting the number of patients who received assisted suicide prescriptions, but not the number of persons who actually die by their ingestion. In these jurisdictions, there is no record of how many of the patients ingested the prescribed drugs. This is stipulated in the 2021 data summary for the Colorado End-of-life Options Act, which states that the Act “does not authorize or require the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment to follow up with physicians who prescribe aid-in-dying medication, patients, or their families to obtain information about the use of aid-in-dying medication.” The official statistics reported therefore “reflect all deaths identified among individuals by prescribed aid-in-dying medication…irrespective of whether their death was caused by ingestion of medication, the underlying terminal illness or condition, or some other cause.” These states do not appear to have a mechanism to ascertain the amount of unused assisted suicide drugs circulating within the community. The fate of many therapeutic drugs with the potential for abuse or use for fatal overdose, such as diazepam or morphine, is not monitored, but the doses and combinations of lethal drugs used in assisted suicide and euthanasia may present a heightened risk, so monitoring the fate of those drugs should be considered. Concern about pressure on vulnerable groups warrants the detailed reporting of patient demographics. It is needed to ensure patient safety because it allows researchers and monitoring organisations to monitor trends to determine whether there is disproportionate participation among vulnerable or minority groups and, if so, why. Even basic patient characteristics, including gender, age and ethnicity, are not universally reported in other jurisdictions. Although marital status could be an indicator of at-home support, fewer than half of reports include it. The level of education can be an indicator of socioeconomic position, but is not routinely reported by many jurisdictions. Although we have been told that studies that have analysed routine statistics did not indicate a disproportionate use by lower socioeconomic groups, socioeconomic trends have changed over time and new evidence has emerged. For example, in Oregon, the proportion of assisted dying patients on state health aid has doubled in the past decade; it reached 79% in 2021. That indicates an increase in use over time by those in a lower socioeconomic position. Similarly, an in-depth review by Ontario’s coroner last year showed that those dying by their assisted death legislation, both track 1 and track 2, were more likely to be those with longer prognoses. Given the impossibility of prognostication and the pressure being brought to bear by some campaign groups for the Bill to be wider, socioeconomic data will be very important to ascertain whether there is equity of access to assisted dying and whether financial pressures, including access to benefits, are involved in areas of higher or lower uptake. Knowing whether patients have received care from hospice or palliative care services provides an understanding of whether patients have been provided with alternative end of life care options. That information is included in fewer than one half of the reports from jurisdictions around the world, with none providing information on the duration or scope of hospice or palliative care involvement. For example, while official reports indicate that 80% to 90% of Canadian patients who have assisted deaths receive palliative care, other studies have shown that fewer than half of such patients had seen a specialist palliative care team. It is also essential to have information about the clinicians who participate in assisted dying, because the clinical demand of assisted suicide and euthanasia is highly time-consuming, with evidence from other jurisdictions, such as an Australian study of those participating clinicians, showing that it takes 60-plus hours of work per assisted death. Understanding the number of clinicians participating in assisted dying and their speciality is important in understanding the willingness of clinicians to participate, and how the clinical demand for assisted dying is distributed across specialities and practitioners. Information on the drugs used in assisted deaths is critical to understanding the safety and efficacy of different drugs and drug combinations. The 2022 paper found that just six jurisdictions report the drugs used to bring about patient death. There is no one drug or drug combination that has been shown to be most effective and safe for ending patients’ lives. If that research existed, we would not see such variation in the drugs used. Data on complications following drug ingestion or administration is needed to understand the safety of different drug combinations, but it is rarely reported. Even in jurisdictions where information on safety is included, missing data can be high. For example, in Oregon, data on complications is unknown in up to 70% of cases annually. Reporting the drugs used to bring about patient death, as well as information about the assisted dying process, including the time from drug ingestion or administration to patient unconsciousness and death, and the presence of complications, would enable the safety and efficacy of these drugs to be assessed. As in many jurisdictions around the world, what I am proposing relies on retrospective reporting of data, after the patient has died. I suggest that this is the minimum standard that must be achieved. Ideally, we would also build in processes for prospective scrutiny, before the person has died, as well as formal review processes that scrutinise individual cases in more detail. Analyses from Belgium and the Netherlands, where review processes are established, have shown that 48% of assisted deaths in Belgium, and one in five of such deaths in the Netherlands, are not reported via the official reporting system. In some cases, legal requirements are not followed. Setting up a post-event review panel, such as happens in the Netherlands and Ontario, would improve understanding and safety. In the Netherlands, every case is reviewed by a panel, and many cases, especially the controversial ones, are published to promote education and debate. Controversial or worrying cases will occur in England and Wales if this Bill passes, and it is essential for ongoing patient safety that these are not swept under the carpet, but that there are transparent processes to understand and learn from them. We have heard frequently in Committee that there is no evidence of harm from other jurisdictions, but we have also heard it powerfully argued that other jurisdictions do not collect the data we would need to determine that. In Oregon, information on complications following ingestion of lethal substances is missing in around 70% of cases. Robert Clark, the former Attorney-General for Victoria, has written: “The Victorian oversight and accountability structure can best be described as one of ‘hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil’. In other words, it appears designed for the regulator to find out nothing, investigate nothing and report nothing that could suggest that assisted dying has been anything other than an unblemished success.” Let us not repeat those mistakes. We can lead the way in rigorous, comprehensive data collection and transparent monitoring. Amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley change responsibility for oversight from the Secretary of State and chief medical officers to the commissioner. This brings a danger of bias in reporting, as there could be an element of marking one’s own homework. This means that there is even more reason for complete data reporting and transparency. Ensuring that data collected is comprehensive and reporting is transparent may go some way to assuage that concern. Importantly, strengthening data collection reporting and monitoring will not make the process harder or more lengthy for the person requesting an assisted death. It just makes the system safer and stronger. In this amendment, I am not proposing doing anything new or radical. We are simply taking the strongest aspects of what is done in other jurisdictions and bringing them together to enable the best and most comprehensive reporting in the world. All new laws have risks as well as benefit. We must identify and be open about those risks in order to learn from harms and improve onward safety. New schedule 3 will help us to achieve that.

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening this excellent debate. I also extend my thanks to Mr McMaster for initiating the petition, as well as the 130,000 members of the public who signed it. Their desire for the UK to be once again at the heart of Europe has today brought together Members from across the House. We can see from the number of Liberal Democrat contributions that this subject is very important to our party. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) talked about the impact on defence, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) talked about higher education. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) spoke about youth mobility and the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, while my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) talked about the impact on farmers. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) gave a very personal reflection on her own journey, for which I am grateful, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) talked about fishing. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) spoke eloquently about barriers to trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) gave a polemic, which I really enjoyed, and my hon. Friend the Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) made a particularly interesting contribution about health co-operation, for which I thank him. There were many contributions from Members representing other parties, and I particularly want to thank the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) for her striking speech and metaphors. I have to say that a night out in Walthamstow sounds somewhat messier than a night out in Richmond, but I am very grateful for her contribution. Members from other parties mentioned impacts on tourism, particularly touring musicians, language schools and international aid, and the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) had some very interesting things to say about supply chains. It would have been lovely to have heard from members of the Tory party, although we look forward to the speech from the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden). It seems extraordinary that despite how much time this issue has taken up in the Chamber and across the country over so many years, not a single member of the Conservative party—apart from the poor hon. Member for Fylde, who was not even a Member at the time—is here to defend what it did while in government. The Liberal Democrats are proud to be the country’s most pro-European party, and we have been vocal in our support for the Government’s warm words on a reset and a rebuilding of our relationship with Europe after the disaster of the botched Brexit deal under the last Conservative Government. We are, however, concerned that those warm words are not leading to action. The wholly inadequate deal with the EU that was negotiated by the previous Government has done enormous damage to British businesses. There have been soaring export costs, increased workforce shortages and reams of red tape creating huge barriers to growth. Having spent the past five years grappling with the bureaucracy of Brexit and increased trading costs, many business owners across the country will now be deeply concerned by the additional challenges to businesses that are coming from Washington. The returning Trump Administration have fundamentally changed trading relations globally with the introduction of high tariffs, which we already have on steel and are being threatened in other areas, too. It is vital that the UK leads on the world stage again, standing up for our interests by working closely with other countries. Most importantly, we must work with our European neighbours, which is why I am so glad to be speaking alongside colleagues from all parties to advocate for a constructive rebuilding of our relationship with Europe. The new global security and geopolitical landscape has shifted since the Brexit vote of 2016. With an aggressive Russia, an assertive China and the return of a Trump Administration in the US, the case for closer cross-channel ties with the EU is made far more urgently. The Government are rightly looking to build closer defence and security agreements with Europe, and I am glad that they have embarked on those vital negotiations. However, recent reports suggest that despite our being part of the European “coalition of the willing”, UK arms companies will not be included in a new €150 billion commitment to an increase of defence capabilities, unless the Government agree to defence and security partnerships with Brussels. We know that European officials are insisting that those defence agreements come in tandem with other partnerships, including a youth mobility scheme, and I urge the Government to take the logical step of agreeing to such a scheme, which is a clear win-win for everyone. As the Minister knows, the Liberal Democrats believe that a key and pragmatic step in our rebuilding is the introduction of a youth mobility scheme between the UK and the EU. Despite recent press reports that the Government plan to introduce such a scheme, and the encouraging words from the Prime Minister himself just last week in response to a question about that topic asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), it has been deeply disappointing to hear the Home Secretary and other Ministers rule it out, despite knowing that an agreement on youth mobility would not lead to freedom of movement. A youth mobility deal would be good for our economy, especially our tourism and hospitality sectors, and give young British people the opportunity to work and study abroad. It would be a win-win—and not just that, because it is what the British public want. Polling shows that two thirds of the UK population are in favour of a youth mobility scheme, and the scheduling of today’s debate is further proof of the appetite across the country for closer ties with Europe. Introducing a youth mobility scheme between the EU and UK would send a clear message that this country is serious about supporting our young people and backing British business with the labour force that it needs to grow. The EU is clear that it would welcome a youth mobility scheme. It has signalled that agreeing to such a scheme will be a necessary step before broader partnerships can be established, including on defence. I urge the Government to embark on negotiations so that we expand opportunities for young people across the country, and to acknowledge the broader benefits that the scheme would provide. Will the Minister agree that such a scheme would not cross any of the Government’s red lines regarding a European reset? More broadly, as the Minister will be aware, the previous Government accepted an agreement to allow EU member state nationals visiting the UK to benefit from a six-month visa waiver, although UK nationals are limited to 90-day visa waivers when visiting the Schengen area. That is a further example of the appalling deal that the Conservative Government secured. Has the Minister considered redressing this imbalance and securing a fair, reciprocal and inclusive mobility agreement with the EU that provides a six-month visa waiver in both directions? The EU is our closest neighbour and largest trading partner. I sense that the Minister knows that we have to get on with repairing the trading relationship that was so badly damaged under the former Conservative Government. The botched Brexit deal has been a complete disaster for our country, especially for small businesses, which are held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade that cost our economy billions in lost exports. The dismal picture of the financial impact of our withdrawal from the EU has become increasingly clear. A recent survey of 10,000 UK businesses found that 33.5% of currently trading enterprises experienced extra costs that were directly related to changes in export regulations due to the end of the EU transition period. Since 2019, global British goods exports have increased by just 0.3% a year, compared with an OECD average of 4.2%. Small business exports have suffered even more significantly, dropping by 30%, and 20,000 small firms have stopped all exports to the EU. A recent study found that goods exports had fallen by 6.4% since the trade deal came into force in 2021. I urge the Government to acknowledge the damage that our current trading relationship with Europe continues to do, not just to individual businesses but to the economy as a whole, and to take the sensible step of negotiating a new UK-EU customs union to ease the pressure that so many businesses are under. In the past, the Minister talked of pragmatic negotiations. Surely it would be pragmatic to drop the Government’s red lines and agree to a new UK-EU customs union. That would be the single biggest step that the Government could take to unlock growth. The Liberal Democrats will continue to call on the Government to do the right thing for our businesses. The Government have made it clear that their No. 1 priority is economic growth, yet any proposal that might involve our European neighbours while contributing to boosting growth is dismissed. A new UK-EU customs union is a pragmatic and mutually beneficial proposal that would help the UK economy and labour market in the long term, stimulating the growth that the country so clearly needs. The changes to the immigration system implemented in April 2024, which increased the minimum salary threshold for skilled worker visas, shrank the talent pool that hospitality businesses can recruit from and contributed to greater staff shortages in that sector. Around three quarters of the hospitality workforce is filled by UK citizens, but international talent has always been attracted to working in the UK because of our pedigree for hospitality and developing careers. In a 2024 survey of 1,650 employers from across a range of sectors, including hospitality, adult social care and manufacturing, 49% said that a reduction in the availability of migrant workers was one of the main causes of hard-to-fill vacancies. The Government’s decisions in the Budget added to the overall tax burden on hospitality businesses, many of which are considering whether they remain viable, so we must provide the tools that hospitality needs to help businesses to grow and to boost the wider economy, including access to global talent. I have heard from stakeholders in the hospitality sector, including business owners and supply chain managers, who would welcome proposals that would bring the sector more stability, which would allow them to make longer-term plans within a more predictable and robust regulatory framework. The Government have been clear on their red lines—no single market, customs union or free movement of people—but I am glad to have heard cross-party support for serious negotiations with our European neighbours. Liberal Democrats will continue to advocate for a fundamental reset of our relations with the EU. That means taking steps to fix the trading relationship, in line with our four-stage road map: first, resolving the low-hanging fruit, such as youth mobility; secondly, taking steps such as establishing a veterinary agreement and achieving mutual recognition of professional qualifications; and then establishing a UK-EU customs union, which would set us back on the path to the single market. In the longer term, our ambition remains that of seeing the UK at the heart of the EU once more. Rebuilding our relationship with Europe is a fundamental part of making Britain more secure and prosperous. Given the threat of tariffs from the new Trump Administration, it has never been more important for our Government to break down the barriers to trade that were erected under the previous Conservative Government. By repairing our relationship with the EU, we will be able to deal with that unreliable and unpredictable actor in the White House from a position of strength. Does not the Minister agree that taking decisive steps, such as negotiating a new UK-EU customs union, establishing a youth mobility scheme and reducing red tape for high-street businesses, is the best way to achieve the growth that this Government are so focused on and that our country so desperately needs?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Tourism Industry · Hansard source

  More

  We have! We have had countless debates and I have mentioned it on many occasions at Cabinet Office questions—my more usual home. Indeed, a Petitions Committee debate is scheduled in this very Chamber for Monday afternoon, when we will doubtless raise the issue again. I urge the Government to consider such a scheme and the opportunities it would create for young people. Some of the recruitment pressures the tourism industry faces could be alleviated by considering the merits of a UK-EU youth mobility visa. To summarise, the tourism industry in the UK has been blighted by Britain’s exit from the European Union and the catastrophic deal the previous Government reached with our neighbours. This has impacted the viability of our businesses and the job security of millions of people. I encourage the Government to take the steps outlined in my speech to help to bolster our tourism sector.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Tourism Industry · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing this debate. I am sure my husband, who is a Bedfordshire native, would have very much enjoyed his hymn to Bedfordshire. It has been a real pleasure to be a part of this debate, and to listen to Members from across the United Kingdom speak with such pride about their communities and extol the virtues of a visit. Estimates show that visits to the UK are set to rise to above pre-pandemic levels, but in recent years the growth and prosperity that the tourism sector provides to our economy have been hampered. The pandemic is, of course, the primary explanation of the huge reduction in the number of people visiting the UK, but another key factor is Britain’s exit from the European Union. In response to a survey asking individuals why they would not consider travelling to the UK, around 60% of respondents identified political uncertainty as a deterrent, and around 45% cited potential increases in post-Brexit travel and accommodation costs. The UK tourism sector directly employs approximately 3.1 million people, and businesses reliant on tourism-generating revenue have reduced hiring rates since 2016. That has impacted people’s livelihoods: individuals reliant on the tourism industry have experienced heightened job insecurity due to the uncertainty caused by the pandemic and Brexit. During a cost of living crisis, it is so important that people feel secure in their fields of work. My constituency is home to a number of popular tourist destinations, including Richmond Park, after which my constituency is named. The decline of tourism to the UK has been felt by businesses around my constituency, because the park itself hosts 5.5 million visitors every year. Many of the hospitality businesses in the area rely on the footfall that the park attracts, and I have already received multiple emails from constituents saying how concerned they are about rumoured cuts to the park’s police department, which will detract from the tranquillity and safety of Richmond Park. The park police conduct excellent work in the Royal Parks across London, ensuring that criminal activity and antisocial behaviour are kept to a minimum. The service they provide ensures that Richmond Park remains one of London’s top tourist destinations. The tourism industry is tied to so many different sections of our society, and that is just one example of how insufficient funding for an important department can have a knock-on effect. I am also the proud representative of Kew Gardens which, according to the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, is the 13th most-visited attraction in the UK, with just under 2 million visitors in 2023. If anyone is thinking of something to do this weekend, I recommend a visit to Kew Gardens, particularly to see the blossom and magnolia in their peak season—I swear that it is the best place in the UK to be this weekend. At the moment, they are accompanied by a musical soundscape from students of the Royal College of Music, so it is well worth a visit. If people are looking for something to eat or drink afterwards, I can recommend a visit to the Original Maids of Honour tea room, just over the road. It is named after the dainty little tarts that have been baked since Tudor times. Henry VIII was allegedly so taken with the recipe that he kept it under lock and key at Richmond Palace, which can unfortunately no longer be visited because it burned down in the 15th century. Kew Gardens has been suffering from the continued suspension of rail services. The District line and the Mildmay line have seen repeated cancellations and suspensions of services, particularly over the past year. I have heard directly from the director at Kew Gardens how those have affected visitor numbers, not just to Kew Gardens itself but to all the nearby businesses and services. That goes to show how cuts to transport or railway maintenance impact our tourism sector. Tourism plays a huge role in ensuring the viability of our businesses, and we want the Government to reflect that role by upgrading its status with a dedicated Minister of State for tourism and hospitality. They could provide a holistic view across Government Departments and help to resolve not just some of the issues in my constituency, but issues raised by hon. Members throughout the debate. Promoting our tourism sector should be a focus for the Government. The appointment of a dedicated Minister would provide much-needed oversight and forward thinking to drive tourism and investment in the UK. In addition, the UK’s rich and vibrant cultural heritage is a national treasure, and our creative and tourism industries contribute billions of pounds to our economy and employ millions of people. Our globally renowned creative industries attract visitors to the UK, and we are proud to be home to some of the most visited galleries, theatres and sports venues in Europe. Many of the creative industries intersect with tourism, and the Liberal Democrats support measures that allow creative industries to flourish, which means making tourism more accessible. We want to ensure that people everywhere can enjoy the benefits of sport, music and the arts. One such measure would be to rejoin Creative Europe. The creative industry is one of the many sectors that was severely damaged by the catastrophic Brexit deals patched together by the last Conservative Government. The increased red tape, unnecessary bureaucracy and increased costs associated with travel, trade and hiring have left many creative industries struggling. Will the Minister commit to bolstering our tourism and supporting our cherished creative industries by committing to rejoin Creative Europe? Tourism does not just enrich us economically. The benefits of expanding our horizons would allow for opportunities more broadly. As the Minister will be aware, the previous Government accepted an agreement that allowed EU member state nationals visiting the UK to benefit from a six-month visa waiver, while UK nationals are limited to a 90-day visa waiver when they visit the Schengen zone. That makes tourism challenging for more people—a further example of the appalling deal that the previous Conversative Government secured. By addressing this inequality and bringing forward a more reciprocal agreement, we could encourage more people to travel and explore, broadening opportunities for all British people—that should be central to any Government policy. I take this opportunity to renew Liberal Democrat calls for the Government to consider entering into a UK-EU youth mobility scheme. We have been talking about this a lot in Parliament—

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

  More

  I expect the hon. Lady did, but since none of us in the room was a member of that Government—I think—or indeed Members of Parliament at the time, I do not know how hon. Members want me to respond to that. It remains the case, I believe, that socioeconomic status is not currently a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. If anyone wants to reopen that debate, I am sure there would be an appetite for it.

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

  More

  I want to make a couple of further points in response to some of the those raised by Members. First, I have looked at amendment 500, which the hon. Member for Spen Valley directed me to, and I thank the hon. Member for Reigate for showing it to me—her record keeping is much better than mine. I was going to say that amendment 500 does not cover a lot of the areas that I have raised, but the hon. Member for Spen Valley has just referred me to amendment 455. However, it is important to say that amendment 455 refers only to “protected characteristics” under the Equality Act 2010. I specified particular characteristics in amendment 273 in response to some of the evidence that we received. In particular, I included the person’s age in response to evidence that we received from Together for Short Lives, which represents children’s hospices including Shooting Star in Richmond. It had specific concerns about the issue of assisted death being raised with young people under 18, and that is why I specified that. I also included gender and ethnicity, which I mentioned earlier, and that came through very strongly in a lot of the oral evidence that we received. To address the point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland Central, I did not hear sexuality being raised as a risk factor at any point. Obviously, members of the LGBTQ+ community experience a great deal of discrimination, but I have not heard it raised as a specific risk factor for assisted dying, which is why it is not on the list. I have included the person’s postcode because I do not know a better way of assessing whether someone is from a low-income background. I particularly draw the attention of hon. Member for Spen Valley to that characteristic, because it is obviously not protected under the Equality Act, so I remain really concerned.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. We have discussed throughout the course of the Committee the importance of collecting good information on the operation of assisted dying, and I know that hon. Members will agree that understanding the impact of legislation on society, for better or ill, helps us to improve its operation and respond to any urgent issues that arise. To this end, my amendments and new clause specify that a few more pieces of information must be recorded by the doctor who facilitates an assisted death. Recording the method, the time taken and noting any complications is not overtly onerous on the co-ordinating doctor, and these three pieces of information could be crucial to uncovering which drugs are most appropriate. It will also enable us to understand more broadly whether those who have assisted deaths are having good deaths. It would be deeply unfortunate if we were to introduce a mechanism intended to help those likely to die in great pain or with indignity, only for that mechanism to offer some patients an alternative kind of painful death. One of the ways we can learn which methods of assisted death are the most humane is to make careful notes of any complications and the time taken to die. It is also critical that we understand the wider social picture of this significant social change, in particular with regards to equality considerations. Are there groups who are excluded from assisted dying? Are there groups who are over-represented? Should we treat one group’s over-representation as a demonstration of good access to the service, or should we see it as a failure elsewhere in the system? We can understand how those who face discrimination in our society are impacted by the Bill only if we collect this data, which is what my amendment proposes. Dr Jamilla Hussain said that “racism is also a specific issue within palliative care. We did a survey, post-covid, of staff across the nation working in palliative care. More than 1,400 people responded. The vast majority—more than 80%—were white British, but 40% said that they had witnessed or experienced racism within the end-of-life care sector. For ethnic minority groups, that is much higher. That leads to mistrust. I work in Bradford. We have lots of patients who are ethnically diverse in the hospital. Almost every week, one of the first things I have to reassure patients about is that I cannot legally do anything to shorten their life. This is front and centre of the fear for those patients and we see it all the time.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 190, Q247.] As Dr Hussain highlighted there and at other points, racism exists in the palliative care sector. If we want to tackle discrimination, recording ethnicity and requiring the voluntary assisted dying commissioner to analyse the data would help. Dr Sarah Cox told us: “We need to make sure that there is not inequity in palliative care, so that you do not have to be white and rich and have cancer to get good palliative care.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 78, Q101.] The consequence of failing on palliative care provision will lead to more people feeling they have no choice but to end their life early. Collecting data would also help us to understand the legislation’s impact on women. I am pleased that the Committee agreed to the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Lowestoft concerning training on coercive control and domestic abuse. The amendment also highlights the intersection between misogyny and the abuse of assisted dying, about which the hon. Member for Bradford West has spoken so compellingly at different points. Understanding how the law affects and interacts with women in particular seems to me to be relevant and necessary. If we are to ensure that the law operates in a way that is good for women, we need to collect this data from patients.

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

  More

  I know: the Barnes ward in my constituency is one of the most unequal wards in the country, so I fully appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s point. As I say, that is the socioeconomic indicator that I have for now, thanks to the failings of our predecessors to include it in the Equality Act, but I am open to amendments on Report if anybody has something more compelling. I do think that it really matters that we look at the socioeconomic status of people who are seeking an assisted death, and I welcome feedback—and, as I say, further amendments—on how that particular part of clause 29 could be improved. Lastly, I included whether someone has a disability, which obviously has come up many times in the written and oral evidence. That is why I specified those characteristics in response to the evidence that we received, and why I am keen to press amendment 273 to a vote. Amendment 273 agreed to.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 273, in clause 29, page 17, line 33, at end insert— “(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify that the following information is collected for each assisted death— (a) the person’s age, (b) the person’s gender, (c) the person’s ethnicity, (d) the postcode of the person’s address at the time of their death, (e) whether the person had a disability for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 (Disability), and (f) any illness, disease or medical condition the person had that was deemed terminal for the purposes of section 2.”

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for that useful intervention. As I say, socioeconomic status is not currently a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.