Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a privilege to be called at this stage in the debate. My principal reason for voting against the Bill on Second Reading was my concern that vulnerable people would be put at risk. I agreed to serve on the Bill Committee to do what I could to allay my concerns about that issue and address some of the issues raised by others. I do not think that the revised version of the Bill properly or completely reflects the concerns expressed on a multitude of different occasions. Consequently, it does not fully mitigate the risks to vulnerable groups.

We all recognise that decision making of any kind does not take place in a vacuum and that, in all parts of life, we live in a particular context. The Equality Act 2010 recognises that many people face discrimination or unfair treatment as a result of particular characteristics and that reasonable steps should be taken to eliminate that. It was very clear from the oral evidence sessions that particular care has to be taken to assess the context within which people are making the decision to seek an assisted death: if they suffer from a mental illness or eating disorder, if they are from a low-income or ethnic minority background, if they suffer from a disability or if they are in an abusive relationship. Those factors are likely to lead to an increased risk that someone will seek an assisted death that they would not have sought if those factors were not present.

In Committee, I and others made the point that it would have been desirable to have received an equality impact assessment before the detailed work of Committee scrutiny had begun, so that Committee members had a sense of how the proposed legislation would impact groups that we know can suffer disproportionate levels of disadvantage.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Olney]

I will not, if that is okay.

We were told that it was not practical to produce such an assessment until after Committee stage, as it would be necessary to assess the impact of amendments made in Committee.

The equality impact assessment was finally published five weeks ago. I have to say that I was pretty astounded. It does not recognise that certain groups in this country may have their lives prematurely shortened as a result of this legislation; instead, it concerns itself with the barriers that vulnerable people may face when trying to access assisted dying. I find that astonishing. Did the people who drafted the assessment not hear the speech of the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on Second Reading? She spoke with passion about how the underlying inequalities in access to healthcare experienced by those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds would be exacerbated if the Bill passed unamended. Did they not listen to the oral evidence that Dr Jamilla Hussain gave to the Bill Committee? She talked about her experience of working with racialised communities in Bradford and their fears of being pushed disproportionately towards an assisted dying pathway. Did they not listen to the testimony of Dr Miro Griffiths on the experience and concerns of disabled people—testimony that has been echoed by Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson and the actress Liz Carr?

I find it inexplicable that the framing of the impact on vulnerable people should be the removal of barriers to accessing assisted dying and not, as it should be, the increased risk to their health and wellbeing that the Bill presents. I am concerned that we are thinking about the impact on vulnerable people solely with reference to those who are suffering a terminal illness with less than six months to live. We are not thinking about the impact on wider society of introducing a concept of lives not being worth living and how that might disproportionately affect our more vulnerable communities.

My new clause 19 and consequential new schedule 2 and amendment 88 seek to ensure that a comprehensive range of statistics are collected about those who seek and receive an assisted death, so that proper and complete monitoring of requests can be carried out. It is imperative that we get the most detailed possible picture of who is requesting an assisted death so that any patterns of disproportionality can be properly detected and addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Waugh]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The dangers of what is happening in America provide a real lesson for us here.

As the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) put it, conversations about assisted dying should happen in person—between the relevant doctor and the patient. They should not be prompted by a TV ad, or something seen on a bus. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) spoke very movingly about the way that IVF services have been commercialised, leaving people who are, as he says, “already on their knees” vulnerable to exploitation, so that someone else can profit.

I am certain that nobody in this House believes that passing this Bill into law should mean the rise of a similarly aggressive market for assisted death, but it is our role—indeed our responsibility—to deal not only in intended consequences, but in unintended ones, too. The real risk in the drafting of new clause 14 is that it allows exceptions that are not specified in the Bill. A future Secretary of State will be empowered not only to make the necessary regulations, but to amend them at any time; and a future Secretary of State, who does not share the concerns of this House, would have the ability to draw the exceptions so widely as to make the ban worthless. There are a number of similar advertising bans already in place on tobacco products, surrogacy and the latest cancer drugs being marketed to the public. In every case, the legislation sets out the exceptions, leaving no room for doubt as to how Parliament intended to protect the public.

Why should the services that this Bill would legalise not be subject to that same legal clarity? Do people who have less time to live not deserve all the protection we have the power to give them from a death they do not truly want? I cannot believe that this Parliament would be content to have that power taken out of its hands, and the rights of our most vulnerable constituents left for someone else to decide on some other day.

My amendment therefore sets out that exceptions to the advertising ban should be limited to cases where a person has requested information and where the materials are intended for health professionals and not for their patients. New clause 14 would allow a future Secretary of State to make provisions that would usually have to go through the House in legislation. It is not at all clear to me why that power is needed to introduce a ban on advertising.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I entirely support his argument and his amendment. This is the difference between, in his estimation, accepting a request and promoting a service. Advertising is about the promotion of a service to doubtful, fearful and vulnerable people, and that is precisely what his amendment addresses.

[Paul Waugh]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and there is a wider point here about the Henry VIII powers in the Bill. This would be the third such power added to the Bill since Second Reading. At that stage, it had none. The Attorney General, Lord Hermer, has said that “excessive reliance” on Henry VIII powers

“upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive”,

and he is right.

Away from matters of constitutional principle, I am especially concerned about the practical impact of such a power, which would allow a future Secretary of State to change the law as set out in the Suicide Act 1961. This is the Act that contains the offence of encouraging or assisting a suicide. Ministers have confirmed that the Bill leaves the offence in place in all cases except where a medical practitioner assists a person to die under its provisions. We must surely therefore not hand the power to a future Secretary of State to weaken or even abolish that offence without the need for primary legislation. My amendment specifies that the Suicide Act cannot be amended in that way.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley recognises that my amendment does not seek to undo or undermine her new clause, but rather to build on it and to ensure that the ban she intends to deliver does not collapse around the loophole at its heart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not disagree that drugs are used for different things; that is not the thrust of the argument that I am making. What I am saying—relatively clearly, I hope—is that when the drugs we would potentially use in these situations have been used, there have been unintended consequences and side effects. We must ensure that the drugs we use, if the Bill passes, are absolutely effective in what they are intended to carry out: namely, the end of the life of the individual.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Gregory Stafford]

This is the last intervention that I will take, as I must make progress.

[Sir John Hayes]

The reason why what my hon. Friend has said is so important is that it is yet another important safeguard, particularly given that, as we learn from analysis in the impact assessment, much of this is outsourced to private organisations. Those organisations need to be regulated in precisely the way he has described.

[Gregory Stafford]

My right hon. Friend is entirely correct.

The Royal College of Physicians has said:

“Medicines prescribed and administered in assisted dying must be regulated for safety and efficacy for this use.”

If that is a requirement of the Royal College of Physicians, we in the House should take it seriously and put it into the Bill.

I will now draw my remarks to a close, but I should say that I also support amendment 99, which would require a report on the drug’s effects before Parliament approves the regulation, as well as a number of the other amendments, which hopefully would remove the wide-ranging Henry VIII powers currently in the Bill. In the light of all that I have said, I remain deeply sceptical as to whether the Bill, in its current state, provides the robust, protective and operationally sound framework that such a profound societal change deserves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

[Sir John Hayes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Adam Jogee]

I will take one intervention from the other side of the House, and then I will continue.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is fast becoming one of my favourites on the Government Benches, among many competitors. The point that he makes is fundamental. If we are going to do this right, we have to do it thoroughly and with independent analysis. Had the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) engaged in pre-legislative scrutiny and thorough analysis before introducing the Bill, we may have ironed these matters out in the first place.

[Adam Jogee]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention—it teaches me not to take them. I also thank him for helping my street cred this morning. He raises an important point.

Members of this House have been told that this Bill—it is this Bill we are voting on, not the principle—was rigorously tested and refined in Committee. However, we are now seeing efforts to undermine the decisions of that same Committee. Amendments 94 and 95 serve the singular purpose of undoing amendments introduced in Committee to improve the Bill and make it a safer and more conventional piece of legislation, but their implications go beyond just that: they challenge the basic tenets of our democracy.

One of the key roles at the heart of our democratic system is the role of the or a Minister of the Crown. It is our Ministers who prepare the groundwork for legislation to be enacted successfully, and amendments 94 and 95 would completely do away with that core ministerial function. They would see the responsibility for ensuring the roll-out of assisted dying in Wales—the power that we the people entrust to our Ministers and democracy—taken away from them. [Interruption.]

Conscious of your cough, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall quickly move towards the end of my remarks—I have taken half of them out already. In my view, Ministers should be able to lead the roll-out of assisted dying in Wales, just as they should in England. It is Ministers, not the supporters of the Bill, who will be responsible for delivering these seismic changes to our health and legal systems, so it is only right that they decide when the provisions become law. Amendment 42 would put England back on an even footing with Wales.

Getting this right is literally a matter of life and death. It makes sense to avoid any possible pressure on decision making and decision makers and, at the very least, allow Ministers to enact legislation with the usual constitutional powers. One death because of a rushed decision would be one too many and should give us all food for thought. I do not want it on my conscience that our collective sticking to an arbitrary deadline led to a death or deaths that may otherwise have not taken place. We must recognise that we can prevent any such situation, and we can prevent that with our vote today. To do so, we must remove the deadline for automatic commencement in England and uphold it in Wales. I urge Members to support my amendment 42 and to vote against amendments 94 and 95.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Grady]

I think everyone in the House debates this issue in good faith, and in the courts there is a general view that one should be reluctant to attack otherwise. I am sure that question was meant on that basis. However, one must not lose sight of the fundamental point that the protections in the Bill will not address the profound societal pressures that people will face. One must not lose sight of the fact that, whatever protections are included in the Bill, it will not protect people against coercion.

[Sir John Hayes]

Edmund Burke said:

“Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”

Over time, I have seen many imperfect measures put before the House—under Governments of all persuasions, by the way—and usually, through scrutiny, they are improved. That is because the parliamentary process works when there is time available, and in particular when there is pre-legislative scrutiny, independent analysis and thorough thinking about the consequences of what we debate here. That could have happened on this important matter, but it has not because it has been shoehorned into a process ill-fitted for its purpose.

The amendments we are debating are a late attempt to improve the Bill. I particularly recommend the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who made an excellent contribution to our debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). I support those amendments because it is critical that the safeguards in the Bill are not only maintained but improved and enhanced, for all the reasons advanced by hon. Members across the House about coercion and vulnerable people.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) said she has never encountered coercion. North Herefordshire must be a wonderful place where people carry harps and drink ambrosia, but in the rest of the kingdom and, I assert, the rest of the world, there are many wicked people doing many bad things. We must never allow those wicked people to have reign and power over those who inevitably, because of their circumstances, will be at risk if the Bill is not improved.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes]

I give way to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire as I cited her.

[Ellie Chowns]

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has misrepresented what I said. I was contributing an observation from somebody who has been deeply involved in palliative care practice, who reports that it is far more frequent that the dying person wishes to die, while it is their family who are pressuring them and encouraging them to stay alive as long as possible. The fears about coercion appear to be worry about something that is not actually the case in these cases of dying people.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am afraid that I disagree. There are numerous cases where people will be encouraged, and perhaps even forced, to take a decision, when they are coping with illness and at their most vulnerable—when they are frightened, doubtful and distressed, and may be unbalanced. Of course we have to protect against that eventuality if the Bill is to be passed.

[Tim Farron]

On that point, evidence from exit interviews shows that 35% of people choosing an assisted death in Canada and 47% in Oregon listed as their reason for doing so that they felt they were a burden to their family.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman anticipated what I was about to say; I have cited exactly that evidence many times during the debate. We need to look at the experience elsewhere to inform what we do here. We always do that when we pass the right laws in this place.

There is worse news than that, because rather than being improved during its passage, the Bill has in many ways got worse, in particular by giving additional powers to Ministers—so-called Henry VIII powers. When the two words “delegated legislation” are mentioned in this place, we should always be fearful; when the words “ministerial discretion” are used, be doubly fearful. I said that looking directly at Government Front-Bench Members, but I could have been looking at the Conservative Front Bench. The Bill gives permissive powers to Government to make all kinds of changes. I want to take some of those to illustrate my point.

The Bill empowers Ministers to amend the Suicide Act, including the offence of encouraging suicide. They can rewrite the principles of the NHS, in section 1 of the National Health Service Act, to read, “secure improvement in the mental health of the people of England and Wales and end the lives of the terminally ill”. They can amend the NHS Act to specify that this service is not free of charge. The Bill points only to the section of the National Health Service Act that says,

“services to be provided free of charge except where charging expressly provided for”.

They can amend the definition of a registered medical practitioner, so it is not a doctor carrying out the assessment. And so on and so forth.

That is why the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) is so vital. The speech she gave was among the best speeches I have heard in this House. The passion she feels for vulnerable people and the difference the NHS makes to them is not only felt on the Labour Benches, as she well knows, regardless of the theatre. We all come to this place to ensure that the least fortunate have a voice; that those with less power are given a little more by our advocacy.

In conclusion, I say to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) that there has never been any doubt about the depth of her piety. Let us now be sure about the breadth of her mind. If she really wants the Bill to be passed in a way that is palatable, then she must surely accept the amendments I have supported and highlighted in this brief—all too brief—contribution.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Members need to be aware that I will start the Front-Bench speeches at 1.30 pm. I call the final Back-Bench speaker, Rachael Maskell.