Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Rebecca Smith and Naz Shah

Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend. The statistics I quoted earlier are pretty clear on the point he makes. Let me make some progress.

The work undertaken by the coroner is not a box-ticking exercise or a bureaucratic hurdle. In the context of assisted dying, it is an extremely powerful deterrent against abuse and malpractice. Again, to quote Judge Thomas Teague KC, in a letter to The Times on 7 May this year, he said that the removal of

“any realistic prospect of an effective inquest...would magnify, rather than diminish, the obvious risks of deception and undue influence”.

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member; she is making a very powerful speech. Does she share my concern about the removal of the coroner, as stated clearly by the Royal College of Pathologists, which speaks to her amendment?

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank the hon. Member and I will come to that point very soon. I will now make some progress; I will not take any further interventions.

I struggle to see how removing automatic oversight of assisted deaths squares with a commitment to enact legislation with the “strongest safeguards in the world”. By doing so, the Bill sets a lower bar for scrutiny and review, and creates an information deficit. Put another way, we simply do not know what we do not know. Implementing a novel piece of legislation such as this without ensuring the most robust possible scrutiny of deaths taking place under the Act is astonishing. Under the Bill, assisted deaths would be the outlier, as any other intentionally procured death would automatically be reviewed by a coroner. Why should deaths under this legislation be any different?

Requiring automatic scrutiny from a coroner for assisted deaths should not be viewed as an add-on at the end of the process or perhaps just a safety net, although it is that.