Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Jeevun Sandher Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

Amendment 13, in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), would require the appointment of the new voluntary assisted dying commissioner to be approved by the Health and Social Care Committee. The commissioner, a role created from scratch, will be a high-profile, influential and important position. Adding a second layer of approval would add more rigour to the appointment process, and provide transparency in the event of any problems that arise. It is vital that Members of this House have the opportunity to scrutinise and debate that new role, which was not included in the Bill on Second Reading.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to rise to speak to new clause 6, which proposes a special representative for ethnic minorities. I am not white, as some Members may have noticed. The fact that my presence in this House is unremarkable is in and of itself remarkable. That did not happen by chance; it happened because of those who came before me.

The Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), has spoked powerfully in this debate, and I know that my unremarkable presence here is due to her remarkable achievements. We may not always hold the same opinions, but we have always shared the same Labour values. She will never know how grateful we all are to her. I may be part of the last generation of MPs who can say this to her while she is in the House: thank you.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) has spoken powerfully in this debate, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz) has tabled new clause 6. I know I stand on their shoulders too, and I do not doubt their good intentions, but this Bill has nothing to do with the colour of my skin. New clause 6 proposes a special representative for ethnic minorities. I disagree with the new clause, because the colour of my skin has no bearing here and no special place in this debate. Equalities data will be reported through the Equality and Human Rights Commission, as set out in clause 51, and the Secretary of State can already consult community representatives. For every person of every skin colour, this Bill gives those already dying a choice to end their suffering—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We need to make sure that contributions are tied to the amendments. We are not debating the general points of the Bill—we have gone past that. The hon. Gentleman is making more of a Third Reading speech, which he might want to save.

[Dr Sandher]

It is to the point of where we are—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will make that decision. Please do not challenge the Chair.

[Dr Sandher]

I do apologise, Mr Speaker.

What I meant to say is that new clause 6 would introduce a special representative for ethnic minorities, and I am trying to explore why we do not need one. A duty to consult is already included in clause 51.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

This is a very sensitive issue. There is data to support the fact that people from minoritised ethnic groups are less likely to trust their health professionals—the figure is 18% among the general public, but as high as 30% among those groups. Does my hon. Friend not think it is necessary to make sure there are additional protections for those who face additional barriers, such as people from minoritised ethnic groups?

[Dr Sandher]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and other hon. Members have also spoken powerfully about the impact that the Bill could have on ethnic minorities. Does any hon. Member know how many ethnic minorities access assisted dying in other nations? I will give way on this point; the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) raised it earlier.

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Member calls me to speak. If we do not know, it is probably because those other nations are not collecting the data. My position is that we should be collecting the data, which is why hon. Members should vote for my new clause 19.

[Dr Sandher]

We do know. Ethnic minorities are less likely to access assisted dying in jurisdictions where it is in place. In Oregon, 10% of those accessing assisted dying are ethnic minorities, but they make up 40% of the population. In California, ethnic minorities make up 15% of people accessing the option, but 30% of the population. However, that is not the point. The point of the Bill is to give people the choice to end their life regardless of the colour of their skin. There is no special quality about the colour of my skin that affects my access or the need for a special representative in this case, which is covered by the ECHR and by the Secretary of State.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I am quite perplexed by my hon. Friend’s speech, but I would like to understand whether he has data related to the demographics of those jurisdictions compared with the UK. If he does, could he present it to the House to support his argument?

[Dr Sandher]

I have spent a lot of time around data, but I am not sure that I understand the question.

[Simon Hoare]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Dr Sandher]

I will make a bit more progress.

This has been a heated debate, and hon. Members on both sides of the House feel strongly about it. I am grateful to Members who came before me, who made my place here possible and who have spoken so powerfully and movingly in this debate, but I believe—and the evidence shows—that the colour of my skin does not belong in discussion of the Bill.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I rise to speak to amendment (a) to new clause 15, tabled in my name, which I hope hon. Members will support. Although it may seem technical, it is in fact a simple amendment with a significant impact. It will ensure that there is genuine protection against abuse, proper detection of coercion, and effective scrutiny of how the law works in practice. Simply put, it will ensure that deaths from assisted dying under the Bill will still fall within the coroner’s duty to investigate deaths under section 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. I will explain why that is important.

Like many hon. Members, I have been deeply concerned from the outset about how the Bill is drafted, its workability, and its impact on the NHS and on the lives of vulnerable people up and down the country. To be clear, my view is that one unintended death as a result of the Bill becoming law is one too many. I humbly ask hon. Members who are still considering their position, or who are minded to support the Bill, to consider this point about my amendment carefully: what is an acceptable error rate?

Based on the figures in the Government’s impact assessment, which I think underestimates the impact, even a 1% error rate would see a minimum of 13 wrongful deaths in year 1, with 45 per year by year 10. A 5% error rate would see 65 deaths in year 1 and 227 in year 10. A 10% error rate would see 131 deaths in year 1 and 455 in year 10. As I say, I think those are low-ball estimates, but they are nevertheless chilling. If this law is passed, it will be exceptionally difficult to say whether there have been errors or instances of abuse; or, at the very least, any errors picked up will be but a fraction of the true picture, as tragically those who would testify to the fact will already be dead. My amendment (a) to new clause 15 directly addresses that issue.

In England and Wales, a coroner will investigate a death when certain legal conditions are met. This duty is primarily governed by section 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Judge Thomas Teague KC, who served until 2024 as the chief coroner of England and Wales, notes:

“any death arising as a consequence of the ingestion or administration of a lethal substance constitutes an unnatural death which the local coroner is under a statutory duty to investigate”.

Clearly, assisted dying meets that definition, and it is right that such deaths be afforded the best possible posthumous judicial scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Even though I am not opposed to the principle of assisted dying, I have a number of deep concerns about the content of the Bill, the process by which we are legislating for such a monumental change and, importantly, the context in which it would be enacted, given the numerous challenges facing our health and care services. That is why I have tabled amendment 21 relating to palliative care and end-of-life needs, which has attracted cross-party support.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for supporting the amendment. I want to pay tribute to her today for kick-starting a debate about dying well and, in particular, about palliative care—a topic that has been neglected by many of us, myself included, for far too long.

Amendment 21 would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament a year after the Act has passed detailing the availability, quality and distribution of health services to those with palliative and end-of-life needs. Marie Curie estimates that one in four people who could benefit from specialist palliative end-of-life care do not receive it. People who are poorer, less educated and, yes, non-white are even less likely to receive it.

I was horrified, if I am honest, by the earlier speech from the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher). All the data shows us that people from minority ethnic communities are less likely to access the healthcare services they deserve, in particular palliative care. There is a deep distrust of health services, and those of us who were in this place during the covid pandemic saw that played out in real time in hospitals and care settings up and down the country, with far more people from minority ethnic communities losing their lives and far more healthcare professionals from ethnic minorities not protected in the way that they should have been. If those people from minority ethnic and disadvantaged communities are less likely to access palliative care as a result of the Bill being passed, contrary to what its supporters say, my fear is that more people—rather than fewer—will die a terrible, horrendous, traumatic and painful death and they will be disproportionately from those communities.

[Dr Sandher]

The hon. Member raises a powerful and excellent point about the people from ethnic minorities who died during covid and their access to healthcare. As she will understand, that is of deep importance to me too. She is right about the need for greater palliative care and I am glad, as she says, that we are having that discussion.

If we look at assisted dying around the world and concern around ethnic minorities being more likely to access it, the stats show that it is the other way around and they are less likely to access it. However, that point is neither here nor there; rather, given that the safeguards are in place, the question is: is the process working well? Those are where the stats are going forward. I believe that the hon. Member raises the matter in good faith, and I thank her for doing so.

[Munira Wilson]

I actually think the stats the hon. Member cited undermine his own argument, because all the data shows us that the members of the communities I am talking about are less likely to access the healthcare services they need and therefore, less likely to end up accessing assisted dying. The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) gave the game away—he is acknowledging it—that wealthier people tend to access assisted dying more because they have the choice, as well as the services to have that meaningful choice. Those inequalities deeply concern me.

My grave concerns about the Bill becoming law are that the people I am talking about do not have the loudest voices or well-funded campaigns to support them. This whole debate about inequalities in access to palliative care should be the topic of a debate on a separate day and I hope there is the chance to have that debate.

Marie Curie also warns that there is

“no realistic national or local plan to address the scale of this challenge”,

and that the whole system is in “a perilous state” due to a

“lack of sustainable funding…and limited prioritisation of…end of life care”.

A 2023 survey of integrated care boards found that half had no plans to invest capital in palliative care services and 40% admitted that their services were inadequate for the needs of their population.

Covid: Fifth Anniversary

Jeevun Sandher Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) for securing this debate. We have rightly spoken about those who died during the pandemic, but covid also did something else: it made it much harder for people to earn a decent living. Those who were already struggling—the low paid, the young and people in places outside London—suffered the most.

First, covid hit low-paid people in jobs such as bartending, which could be done only in person because they required complex manual movements, while those in high-paid jobs could use Zoom to reach the office. The low paid were hit and far more likely to be laid off or placed on furlough.

Secondly, the young fell behind while the wealthy baby boomers continued to pull ahead. In the two decades leading up to covid, house prices went up by 100% while wages grew by only 20%. That is why the young cannot afford homes. During the pandemic, quantitative easing, low interest rates and pensioners not spending cash meant that baby boomers started to buy homes again, and house prices are up 25% since covid began, while some 40% of 18 to 30-year-olds are living at home with mum and dad.

Thirdly, London continues to pull ahead. Zooming to work enlarges London’s effective size, while places outside the capital lose out. More and more people and economic activity are sucked into the capital. The people who already could not make ends meet are pulling away not only from mainstream parties but from this House itself. The economically insecure are 50% more likely to have stopped supporting the Labour party, but they are also leaving almost every party in this House.

We can reshape our nation so that everyone can earn enough, but we will do it only if the Government act. For the low paid, we must invest to create good jobs and to get bills down. For the young, we must build far more homes. For the rest of the nation, we must invest outside London. We are at this moment a nation deeply divided, and the pandemic widened those divisions.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

Thousands of self-employed people and business owners were excluded from Government support because of the arbitrary eligibility criteria. They paid their taxes but were left unsupported during the crisis. Does the hon. Member agree that it is disappointing that those people are still struggling five years on?

[Dr Sandher]

Indeed, huge numbers of people were hit so hard during the pandemic. We agree that although support was broad, it certainly was not perfect.

On top of the suffering, the pandemic widened existing inequalities and divisions in our nation. Those who could not earn enough—the low paid, the young and people outside London—were hit the hardest. They were already turning away from us in this House; they are now turning away more quickly. We can bring them back only if we act to ensure that every single person can earn enough for a decent life, if we create a nation in which we recognise that our strength is founded in each of us doing well—a nation of unity, common purpose and connection. It is for us to build that nation, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham and Beckton rightly noted.

NHS Performance: Darzi Investigation

Jeevun Sandher Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I strongly agree with the hon. Member. I will talk about the 10-year plan shortly, but I can guarantee that children and paediatric care will be front and centre of that plan. We can do much more to shine a spotlight on paediatric waiting lists, as well as doing much more in practice. She mentioned children and young people’s mental health, on which our parties strongly agree. We will deliver our manifesto commitment to put mental health support in every primary and secondary school in the country, as well as providing walk-in services in every community, so that young people receive the mental health and wellbeing support that they need and do not get to the crisis point reached by far too many of our children.

The hon. Member’s intervention is an example of why I am looking forward to the debate. I hope to listen to contributions and to challenge from all sides of the House. Before I take any interventions from Conservative Members, I advise them that if they want to get a hearing on the NHS ever again, then the first word that should pass their lips is, “Sorry”. Only last week, at the Conservative party conference, we did not see a single shred of remorse or contrition for their appalling record. Indeed, when it comes to the shadow Secretary of State and her party, it seems that sorry is the hardest word.

The NHS is broken. NHS staff do not want to accept that, but it is. According to YouGov, that is what the vast majority of patients say. It is also what staff tell me every time I am on the frontline, but I understand why some people find the word difficult. In the past few weeks, I have met some of the NHS team who happened to be on duty on Monday 29 July. I have listened to paramedics describe the scene they walked into at the community centre in Southport. Children and adults who had been dancing to Taylor Swift were lying bleeding and, in some cases, tragically dying as a result of an unimaginable, senseless, mindless attack. Those paramedics had to make split-second decisions about who to treat and in what order to give the injured the best chance of survival. Security teams cleared busy hospital corridors to shield as many people as possible from the horror. Lab teams mobilised blood supplies. Receptionists fielded calls from panic-stricken patients. Surgical teams across multiple hospitals worked together, fighting to save those young lives. Even now, months later, mental health staff are picking up the pieces for families who are either grieving or going through the unimaginable challenge of supporting their children through what they witnessed.

On that day, those NHS responders—the whole team involved—were the best of humanity confronting the worst. That is who NHS staff are. That is what they do. Let me be clear: the NHS may be broken, but NHS staff did not break it. I want to be clear about this too: what is broken can be fixed. While the NHS may be in the midst of the worst crisis in its history, the biggest asset that we have is the people who work in it. They are up for the challenge, and up for change. The NHS is broken, but it is not beaten. Together with the 1.5 million people working in the health service, this Government will turn our NHS around, get it back on its feet, and make it fit for the future.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Across my constituency, my constituents are struggling to see the GPs they need; indeed, we see that across the whole nation. On Friday, I visited the Park View surgery, where the GPs do not have the necessary resources and cannot move into the premises that they need to be in to treat their patients. Can the Secretary of State assure me that he will follow Lord Darzi’s recommendations and invest in primary care, so that my constituents get the GPs they need and the Park View surgery can move into the premises that it needs, with the capital expenditure that it requires?

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Of course it is not just in Loughborough that we have a challenge with access to general practice; it is right across the country. I want to be clear, because GPs come in for a lot of criticism: primary care may be broken, and the front door to the NHS may be broken, but GPs did not break it. In fact, there are fewer GPs now than there were in 2015, yet they are providing more appointments. They have worked hard to improve the productivity of general practice, but they are under-resourced. That is why we are committed, as I told the Royal College of GPs just last week, to delivering the shift that we need out of hospitals and into the community—to growing primary care, including general practice, as a proportion of the NHS’s budget, so that we have the GPs needed to treat patients on time.