Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison Hume]

I will make some progress, thank you.

It is still a crime, even when the person is of sound mind and even when it is their deeply considered wish. Anthony wanted a good death—he wanted to die peacefully and with grace, without pain and without profound suffering. He got that in a foreign country, far from home and far from family, because our laws force people like him to make that desperate journey abroad. That is why I support this Bill and, in particular, new clause 15, as there is no need for coroners to investigate an assisted death.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

One of my constituents told me of her mother’s pain in her last few months of suffering. It was so painful that she could not bear to be touched by my constituent or her brother. Now, both my constituent and her brother are facing post-traumatic stress disorder because of the difficult situation they witnessed while their mum was dying. Does my hon. Friend agree that if they had helped her to die in the way that this Bill allows, they should not then be subject to a coroner’s investigation? It is not going to help them, and it is not going to help their mother.

[Alison Hume]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case on behalf of her constituent. New clause 15 is a compassionate and practical clause, ensuring that the Bill works not only for the individual making the choice, but for the families they leave behind. Let us not turn our backs on people like Anthony and Louise; let us not make criminals out of the compassionate. The death of a loved one is always difficult. When someone has gone through the legal and safeguarded process of assisted dying, it is not right that their family should face an unnecessary, potentially lengthy and distressing coroner’s investigation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Giving people a choice when they look on the internet and see how awful their death might be because of the shocking state of palliative care is not a free choice.

This is an extraordinary Bill. It has 55 clauses and 38 regulation-making powers, of which five are Henry VIII powers—in other words, powers to modify primary legislation. As Ruth Fox of the non-partisan Hansard Society, which is absolutely neutral on assisted dying, made clear, there are lots of powers in the Bill conferred on Ministers. Why is that a problem? Lord Hermer KC, the Attorney General, in his Bingham lecture last year, puts the point as follows:

“Henry VIII clauses…upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law…but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.”

I am afraid the Bill is an example of such excessive reliance. That is a major problem because in large part the safeguards are left to be decided by regulations. What level of qualification and training will doctors need to have? How will mental capacity be assessed? Who can be a proxy? What happens if the self-administration of drugs goes wrong and a person suffers complications but does not die? When pressed on the key safeguards and key issues, supporters of the Bill say that they are problems that can be approved later.

The same goes for how the Bill will actually be delivered. Will it be delivered by the NHS, and if so, how? Will private providers be commissioned, and if so, how, by who and on what terms? Will for-profit providers be allowed? All those questions go unanswered by the Bill. I had hoped that they would be answered in Committee, but they were not, and instead we got even more reliance on delegated powers.

First, that means that MPs cannot make a judgment about assisted dying and how it will work in practice. On training, for example, MPs might assume that the training provided will be a robust two-week course on assessing coercive control, but there is no such requirement in the Bill. Indeed, the impact assessment suggests that it would be a short course. Secondly, regulations cannot override statute and are ultimately bound by it. While it might be reassuring that a code of practice must be issued to take into account how depression can impair a person’s decision making, as the Royal College of Psychiatrists recently reminded us, that does not change the fact that impaired judgment does not mean that someone lacks capacity. Thirdly, leaving all those matters to be considered by guidance and regulations places them outside the democratic control of MPs. With limited exceptions, we will not get a vote on those regulations, and will have no input, directly or indirectly, in formulating them.

The case for the defence might be that reliance on such guidance and regulations is inevitable with a Bill of this complexity, but the experience of other common law jurisdictions suggests that that is not the case. In Victoria, the first Australian state to legalise assisted dying, there are only 20 pages of regulations and much more has been included in the Act, which is necessarily longer than the Bill before us. That is a good thing, as it means more parliamentary scrutiny.

I wholly understand why it was not possible for the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) to draft a Bill as detailed as the Australian Act before Second Reading, but I had hoped that with the help of Government resources, those gaps would have been filled in Committee and on Report. Sadly, that is not the case. [Interruption.] I had much more to speak about, but heeding your cough, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say clearly that I will vote against the Bill, but even if Members disagree with me, they should please vote for my amendments.

[Rachel Taylor]

I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) who has exemplified the integrity and transparency that we need in public service.

I will speak about amendments 82 to 86, which were introduced by the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) earlier, because as a former lawyer, they concern me. In Committee, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman) was clear that the panel’s decisions will be subject to public law principles. That will include procedural propriety and an absence of bias, including the appearance of bias. My concern is that the panel is deliberately designed to be inquisitorial. It is intended to collect information; it is not meant to be adversarial like a court.

[Dr Ben Spencer]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Rachel Taylor]

No, I will make some progress. Requiring a judicial oath would be inappropriate because the panel is not performing a judicial function. It is a specialist, administrative panel whose first priority must be focused on safeguarding and the review of evidence.

[Jess Asato]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Rachel Taylor]

No, I will make some progress and expand on my point. Disqualifying retired and deputy judges would only shrink the pool of experienced candidates, and I do not believe that those changes would make the process safer, more effective or better. Instead, they would make it more difficult to appoint experts to allow the panel to function as the necessary safeguard that it needs to be.

Finally, I turn to the most important aspect of the Bill, which is those who are affected directly. Opponents present hypotheticals, but I have heard real stories from my constituents who support the Bill. One constituent told me about her husband who died of metastatic prostate cancer. He wanted to die at home, and despite the efforts of a dedicated palliative care team, his final month was marked by excruciating pain. Our constituents deserve better. They deserve the choice to say goodbye in peace, surrounded by loved ones, without unbearable pain. For me, this debate is about whether the status quo is acceptable. After hearing these stories and listening to lawyers and doctors, I know that it is not. If we vote in favour of the Bill, our constituents must be able to expect that it will be brought into law quickly. I therefore oppose amendment 42.

The British public overwhelmingly support the Bill. They are looking to this House for courage and leadership. That is why I will vote for the Bill, with the amendments that strengthen it. Let us bring dignity, peace and choice to those facing the end of their lives in difficulty and pain.

[Dr Ben Spencer]

Before I come to the substantive part of my speech, I would like to pick up on the comments of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor). I have signed the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen). I support them because I think the panel needs strengthening. It is not the case that courts have to be adversarial. Tribunals are set up to be inquisitive. In fact, the mental health tribunal is set up to be inquisitive. That is why, in Committee, I tabled amendments to use a tribunal panel as the mechanism for scrutinising decision making.

It has been a real pleasure to listen to the debate, particularly in relation to the prohibition of advertising, because the debate started to move to focus on the issue of suicide promotion and prevention. I have been quite concerned from the beginning that that has not been part of what we have been talking about. Duties to prevent suicide—whether they be doctors’ duties under article 2 of the European convention on human rights, the NHS’s clinical duties around suicide prevention, or duties relating to the Mental Health Act 1983—are a blind spot in the Bill.

The reason why the issue has not been focused on until now is that the Bill has been framed as the assisted dying Bill, as opposed to the assisted suicide Bill. I blame myself in part for that, because I started by called it physician-assisted suicide, but then I started using the term “assisted dying” because it was in common parlance and it was what everyone was using. The problem is that it frames it as something else. It frames it as reducing the dying process as opposed to what it is, which is an act to end somebody’s life. That is why the Bill amends the Suicide Act, and it is why I have tabled similar amendments on how it is conceptualised.