Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between John Hayes and Paul Waugh

Report stage
Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between John Hayes and Paul Waugh

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

Of course my right hon. Friend is right that change is inevitable and change is constant, in the words of Disraeli, but that change needs to be built on an understanding of what has gone before, exactly as my right hon. Friend says. Evolution in our thinking builds on what we know and adds to it incrementally. For the most part, constitutional change is better when it is incremental and when it is founded on consistent and measured dialogue between people across the House—the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden).

[Paul Waugh]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was an admirer of mine in his previous life. I wonder whether that admiration is constant, too.

[Paul Waugh]

I was indeed. I was going to share with the House the secret that I used one of my references in a report to endorse the right hon. Gentleman as a candidate. He makes the point, in agreement with the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), that incrementalism is a good thing; surely this is an incremental Bill that takes the first step towards a bigger reform.

[Sir John Hayes]

This is why I do not agree with the radicals on the Opposition Benches. This will come as a surprise, but I am not, by temperament or politics, a radical. One of my great political heroes, Joe Chamberlain, began life as a radical, but like most sensible people, he moved to the right over his life, and in the end became a Tory, or at least a supporter and member of a Tory Government. I do not share the view that we can conjure some kind of ideal system by throwing all the balls up in the air and seeing where they land. As the hon. Gentleman implies, incremental change is born of an understanding that gradual alterations to our constitutional settlement are, by and large, better. That is what most Governments have done over time; indeed, the Blair Government, to which the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) referred, took exactly that view when they reformed the House of Lords, retaining the hereditaries on the basis of the very sort of incrementalism for which I argue.