Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Tim Farron Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Let me finish my point about doctors’ advice before I move on to the issue of 18-year-olds. Dr Alexandra Mullock, who is a senior lecturer in medical law and co-director of the centre for social ethics and policy at the University of Manchester, said in written evidence to the Bill Committee:

“The freedom for a registered medical practitioner (RMP) to raise/discuss the option of seeking help to die in clause 4(2) is ethically problematic.”

She also highlighted:

“Professional advice regarding treatment will be received by the patient as a recommendation”,

as the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) said. That is a really big concern. The UK coalition for deaf and disabled people is very concerned, and would like this provision removed as well.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. Does she also acknowledge that, given what we are beginning to know about coercive control, the suggestion by a doctor—innocently; maybe neutrally—that this is an option could be latched on to by someone who is coercively controlling the person who may choose assisted dying, and we would never find out that that had been the case until after the person’s death, if at all?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The hon. Gentleman highlights an important point in relation to my amendment and others: in this House, we made coercive control illegal in legislation only in recent years. This is such a big issue, and what is different about the Bill—this is why some positions are particularly challenging—is that we are talking about irreversible decisions.

I want to talk a bit about how the teenage brain works. Children and young people are particularly susceptible to being influenced, including into dangerous and risky behaviour. In a number of countries, assisted dying laws have been expanded to allow children and young people to end their lives. We need to be alert to that very real risk. I am impressed by the work of the Children’s Commissioner, who recently published a report into children’s views on assisted dying. It was heart wrenching to read. Those with illnesses and disabilities were particularly concerned about what the Bill means for them. These children have not really had a voice in the debate so far, and there is talk about whether the Bill may apply to children with life limiting or severe progressive diseases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, since I have been in the Chamber, I have received the truly awful news that three people died last night in a fire in Bicester, including two members of the Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service. The hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) has had to leave the Chamber to liaise with those on the ground and we both want to take this opportunity, if we may, to convey our deep sorrow for and solidarity with the families of those who have died, and our fervent and heartfelt best wishes to the two firefighters who remain in a serious condition. We are grateful for their heroism and that of their colleagues when, as ever, they ran towards danger to serve us all. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

I rise to speak in favour of new clause 16 and amendment 14, and I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak. When the Bill first came before the House, I was a Minister attending Cabinet and therefore unable to speak on the subject. I genuinely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and every single Member who served for so many hours on the Bill Committee for this incredibly important Bill. I also thank the hundreds of my constituents who have contacted me with their views. I genuinely believe that every single one of them was motivated by compassion and a determination to reduce suffering, and in many cases their views were shaped by their experience of death and of suffering in life. I know that that is the case for many of us in the Chamber as well, so I hope that the same spirit of respect that we saw previously will continue throughout the passage of the Bill, whatever our views may be.

New clause 16(1)(a) would exclude from the scope of the Bill those who do not want to be a burden on others or on public services, and paragraph (b) would exclude those experiencing a mental disorder, including depression. On the former, we have discussed this morning whether it is appropriate to mention international analogies. They will, of course, be instrumentalised by those who have different views about this important subject. I have personally found survey evidence from the Oregon example of people expressing that they felt they were a burden to be highly compelling. I do not believe that it indicates that that was the primary reason why they sought assisted dying, but I believe that it is an important piece of evidence that we need to take into account.

I also believe that we need to look at situations where people who are potentially subject to coercion have been evaluated by professionals in our society, and where we might be concerned about the outcomes. I ask for Members’ understanding here.

[Tim Farron]

On the point that the right hon. Lady has just raised, the Oregon example suggests that in 2023, 47 people who opted for assisted dying gave as one of their primary motivations that they felt they were a burden to others. Is that not a great concern for everybody in the Chamber? Does it not undermine the argument about passing the Bill on the grounds of autonomy? That argument is not accurate, because the provisions affect the autonomy of people who will self-coerce.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I personally believe that it does. I have heard countless times the phrase, “I do not want to be a burden.” I know Members will come to different conclusions about whether it is sufficiently excluded by the Bill. I believe it needs to be on the face of the Bill, so that we can ensure that it is out of scope.