Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point; he is absolutely right. I have tabled amendment 80, which would bring the Bill back to its original intentions. It would require that in order to be eligible for an assisted death, the pain and discomfort experienced or expected from a person’s terminal illness could not be reasonably relieved to their satisfaction through palliative care. It seeks to limit assisted death to the very small group of people who may benefit from it, not the larger group who just need adequate palliative care to give them the comfortable, dignified death they deserve.

   Hansard source
2. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   The key point is that we need to improve palliative care. We are spending so much time and effort focusing on this Bill rather than doing the thing that would actually help more people. My amendment 80, in combination with amendments 30 and 31 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), would drive significant improvements to palliative and end-of-life care, getting us closer to consistent and universally available care for all.

   Hansard source
3. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   I completely concur.

   Hansard source
4. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   I agree, and I will come to that point in more detail in the second half of my speech.

   Hansard source
5. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I agree. In the interests of time, I will make some progress. The current situation, whereby fully funded palliative and end-of-life care is not available in certain postcodes, means that those unfortunate patients do not have a real choice. We know that 25% of people who die in this country do not get the palliative care they need—that is more than 100,000 people a year—and if the Bill goes through, they will be offered a fully funded assisted death as the only reliable way to end their pain. That is no choice. I urge Members who want to see improvements in palliative and end-of-life care to vote for my amendment 80, and for amendments 30 and 31, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, if they are pushed to a vote.

   Hansard source
6. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   I will not because I do not have much time. I will move on to the lack of a best interests test in the Bill, which my new clause 16 seeks to remedy. Patient autonomy is of course important, but it must be balanced against what is in someone’s best interests. In certain situations, when it is in their best interests, treatment can be given against a patient’s will—for example, force-feeding a young girl with anorexia. It is not an easy balance to get right, but in the absence of any best interests test in the Bill, following the process rigidly would lead to devastating results in some cases. The Bill currently prioritises autonomy of the patient in a specific moment of time, rather than what might be in their best interests in the long run. It makes no allowance for the fact that someone may feel a certain way temporarily due to other considerations. For example, when someone has just received a terminal diagnosis, it can understandably cause a depressive state and suicidal feelings, but those feelings do not necessarily last, so it may be in the best interests of the patient to allow a little time to pass, to give them a little breathing space before considering the assisted death route. New clause 16 essentially tries to provide a best interests test by excluding certain reasons, other than the alleviation of pain, that might be driving a patient’s decision. For example, we have heard a great deal about the internal pressure from patients themselves that is driven by their concern not to be a burden, and we heard clearly in Committee that a patient could tell a doctor that they are want an assisted death only for financial reasons, and that would still be approved. We know from the experience of overseas territories that patients will often opt for an assisted death because of social and welfare issues, such as being homeless.

   Hansard source
7. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   I am sorry, but I do not have much time and I wish to get through my points. How can we be happy with a process that does not exclude such reasons? Instead of providing the support that is actually needed, the state is content to put them on a pathway that leads to their death. I hope that the House will recognise that, whether one supports assisted dying in principle or not, it is morally bankrupt not to have some kind of best interests test to protect those who are not seeking death to alleviate pain from a terminal illness. Another group that is particularly vulnerable is those with eating disorders. In Chelsea Roff’s oral evidence, she set out that “at least 60 people around the world have been euthanised or assisted in suicide” with “anorexia nervosa listed by name as a terminal condition.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 139, Q175.] To paraphrase her, these were young women who were not terminally ill and had decades of life ahead of them. It is important to make the point that someone suffering—

   Hansard source
8. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   I would love to give way, but—

   Hansard source
9. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

   Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

   I apologise, but I do want to get through my speech. It is important to make the point that someone suffering with anorexia, or indeed any mental condition, is not intended to be eligible for an assisted death. However, in the case of anorexia there are physical manifestations of the illness, such as malnutrition and diabetes, that might mean the patient meets the definition of being terminally ill, and that is the nub of the problem: the Bill does not adequately rule out physical manifestations caused by mental illness. That is why amendment 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), is so important, because it would ensure that anyone who voluntarily stops eating or drinking is ineligible for assisted dying. I support the amendment strongly as it addresses a big risk. Lastly, on eligibility specifically, I want to talk about capacity. There are such problems with the current approach to determining capacity that I barely know where to start. When it comes to ending one’s own life, a higher standard should be applied. The current definition of capacity was not created with such a monumental decision in mind, and if it were being drafted from scratch today, it would look very different. That is one of the reasons why the Royal College of Psychiatrists does not support the Bill. Under the Bill, a person is assumed to have capacity in the first instance. A clinician only needs to be over 50% sure that a person has capacity. If the person is making unwise decisions, that is not taken into account, and a person can be “helped” to make a decision—for example, when a patient has learning disabilities. I ask all Members today whether they are happy with that. Does that sound like a robust approach to assessing whether someone has capacity to make the decision to end their own life? Let us begin with the starting presumption of capacity. That, too, lacks the standard for assisted death decisions. I therefore support amendment 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), which would disapply section 1(2) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for the purposes of assisted dying. One of the biggest issues for me is the fact that the current approach requires an impairment or disturbance of the brain in order for someone to be considered not to have capacity, irrespective of whether they can make a decision. In the real world, that would mean a doctor could assess a patient who gives the impression of being confused, illogical, erratic, inconsistent—everything about them could scream that they are not in a good place to make this decision at that point in time—but they would still be considered to have capacity if there is no identifiable impairment or disturbance of their mind or brain. That could potentially put those with depression, anxiety, learning disabilities or eating disorders, or even those just experiencing physical pain that is driving them to distraction, in danger of being considered to have capacity when they do not. So far I have focused on eligibility. I will now talk about hospices.

   Hansard source
10. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I will therefore speak to my new clauses 17 and 18, which would provide important protections for hospices, which are currently lacking in the Bill. New clause 18 makes it crystal clear that any regulated care home or hospice can decide whether to provide assisted dying on its premises, and new clause 17 makes it clear that they cannot be subject to any detriment for not providing or permitting assisted deaths, and that their public funding cannot be conditional on their providing this service. Whether one is in favour of assisted dying or not, we must preserve the rights of organisations, companies and charities to choose whether to offer it. They must never be forced into it by public funding being conditional on the provision of assisted dying. I note that new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), would expand the protection for individuals not to participate in the assisted dying process if they so wish. It seeks to protect employees from being subjected to any detriment for participating or not participating in the provision of assisted dying. This sensible protection would ensure that if an NHS hospital provides an assisted death service, any member of staff who does not want to participate would not have to do so and would suffer no detriment as a result. However, there needs to be a sensible mechanism balancing that against the employer’s right to set their own policy on assisted dying, and that is what my amendment (a) to new clause 10 seeks to do—we have already talked about that, so I will not go over it again. I did want to talk about process and family, but it looks like I will not have time to do that. I will end there. I thank you for your patience and generosity, Mr Speaker. I am grateful that I have had the chance to speak in support of the amendments, and I look forward to hearing from other Members.

    Hansard source
11. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Hansard source
12. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Hansard source
13. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Hansard source
14. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I am one of those people who is against the Bill, not in principle but for the reasons set out brilliantly by many articulate Labour Members. When my constituents ask what I think about this, I have no way of telling them; there is no way for me to get into the nuance of my position on it, because there has been no time to have a proper debate, and so many Members will now be unable to say a single thing about this totally transformative Bill.

    Hansard source
15. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Kit Malthouse

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I am grateful to you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful to the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), for putting me on the Bill Committee where, in my view, we did some excellent work. Although we have heard an awful lot of claims about the process, I think anybody objective who reads the Bill that is now being reported to the House will recognise that it is a strong piece of work that is measured and seeks to strike a balance in a difficult area of complexity, humanity, compassion and morality. Before I discuss some of the amendments, I want to bring the House back to what we are trying to deal with: a set of people who have been told that their struggle with disease is over, that they are heading towards an inevitable death and that there is nothing more that medical science can do for them. What we are trying to do is to give them the chance to face death on their own terms. That is the simple mission that the House has been set. The second thing I want Members to contemplate as they look at this slew of amendments is that although it is easy to look at each amendment individually and see its merits or demerits, we must bear in mind the machine we are building as a whole, and the fact that we are putting those people through this process at a time when they are facing the end of that struggle. They are thinking about what the nature of their death will be like and they are talking to their friends and family, putting their affairs in order, and being concerned about when that awful day is going to come. We have to have some compassion in the process as well as compassion in the purpose. When Members consider some of the amendments I will highlight, I ask them please to keep in mind that we will have to put these people through a possible two-month process at a moment when their time is severely limited, very often to less than six months. For example, new clause 7 and amendment 50, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), would restrict the number of patients that doctors can deal with in any 12-month period. That will severely restrict access and may mean that patients who are partway through the process have to change suddenly because their doctor is time limited, pushing them out, notwithstanding the multiple safeguards we already have in the process. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) gave an interesting speech about amendment 47. Again, in that amendment, he would be creating another step, another delay and another set of problems for the dying person to overcome or issues for them to address. In his amendment—I am sure he is a much better lawyer than me—I found it odd that he would effectively be creating an inexhaustive list of individuals who could be called upon in any circumstances who might be “properly interested” in the welfare of that individual. To me, the person who should be the most interested in their future is the person themselves. Any step we take that cuts across their privacy, their autonomy and the alacrity with which they can seek this solution to their impending or perceived agony seems a step too far. I do not understand how, practically, the commission is supposed to ascertain who those individuals are—are they neighbours, friends or just family? What is the definition of family? We need to put that contemplation and how they want to handle their death squarely in the hands of the dying person.

    Hansard source
16. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Kit Malthouse

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    The hon. Lady makes a good point, and it was a compelling point made in Committee and is certainly one that we recognise. That is why the amendments on training that she tabled in Committee were adopted—specifically to ensure that everybody involved in the process is sensitised to detecting those issues and to make clear that any doctor in the process, and indeed the panel, might want to know why family are not being informed. That is specifically why a social worker was put on the panel: to understand the psychosocial environment in which the person is taking that decision. Fundamentally, in the end, if I am facing my death in a matter of weeks and decide in my capacity that I do not want to inform my family, that is my choice. That is my decision. I may have to explain my reasons to the doctors, but—

    Hansard source
17. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Kit Malthouse

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will be swift. That is my choice, and this Bill is rooted in the need to give autonomy to those facing death who have capacity. We should take care to tread carefully upon that right. On the two amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), new clause 16 says that somebody cannot be “substantially motivated” by certain considerations. I do not really understand what “substantially motivated” is meant to mean. To me, this misunderstands the complexity of what it must be like to be told that you are dying. The things that might run through your head—the affairs you might have to deal with, the news you have to break to your family, the impact it will have on your small children—form a cocktail of motivations. But the one thing I have learned over the last 10 years from campaigning for and spending lots of time with dying and bereaved people is that towards the end of their life, they have absolute clarity about what they want, because it becomes clear to them towards the end what their death will be like. At the very least, they want to have this card in their back pocket to play if they require it. Remember: these are people who are facing death, who are struggling with death, and we have to give them the power to advance over it.

    Hansard source
18. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Kit Malthouse

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Sorry, but I am conscious of time. Finally, amendment (a) to new clause 10, which we might divide on this afternoon, is difficult. We debated a similar amendment in Committee. As sponsors of the Bill, we are clear that there should be a conscientious objection clause to allow individuals to opt out, and that is strengthened by new clause 10. But allowing an employer—any employer—to say that any employee in their employment cannot participate if that is what they decide seems to me a step too far, and it could prove to have unintended consequences. First, the board of every healthcare trust in the country will become a battle for control between those who oppose and those who do not. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, people may suddenly find that they have to uproot themselves, after years of living in a care home, and relocate to get the kind of death that they want. In effect, the amendment prioritises the rights of somebody who is providing accommodation over the rights of the dying. As I said on Second Reading, in my view, as they face their end, we should prioritise the rights of the dying.

    Hansard source
19. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Kit Malthouse

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36). Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put. The House proceeded to a Division.

    Hansard source
20. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    What concerns me about new clause 11 is that, essentially, people can shop around if one doctor is unwilling. The hon. Lady has given a list of reasons why a doctor might be unwilling, but surely one of the reasons could be that there is a fundamental change in a person’s circumstances and they do not want to do it. Nothing about that is recorded. Is it not a real weakness of new clause 11 that we do not have the passing on of evidence from one doctor to another?

    Hansard source
21. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like your advice. Mr Speaker said that more than 90 people wish to speak in the debate. We have been debating the amendments for an hour and a half and four speeches have been made. If we go to 2 o’clock, that will mean fewer than 20 speakers. I understand that whether a closure motion can be moved is at the discretion of the Chair. If we have not got past, let us say, 20 or 30 Members speaking in the debate, can you give us any indication of whether, if you are still in the Chair, you would accept a closure motion at that point?

    Hansard source
22. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Hansard source
23. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I agree with the shadow Minister that the Second Reading debate was Parliament at its best. Would he say that the length of time that we have had to debate the Bill today, given the number of amendments and the number of people who wanted to speak, showed Parliament at its best?

    Hansard source
24. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Is the Minister saying that, in his view, it is better that someone who should not die does die, than that someone who should die does not?

    Hansard source
25. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Will the hon. Lady give way?

    Hansard source
26. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Graham Stuart

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Has the Minister any sympathy with the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright)? The panel might struggle to get the evidence it needs to make a decision, and there is no mechanism to address a situation in which, in the absence of that evidence, the panel makes a decision, but evidence then comes forward that suggests that its decision was incorrect. Does the Minister have any workable ideas for addressing that issue?

    Hansard source
27. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    This House is now faced with a responsibility as profound as it is complex: to ensure that this Bill remains clear in its purpose, cautious in its application and compassionate in its impact. That purpose is simple, yet solemn: to grant adults of sound mind with a terminal diagnosis the legal right to seek assistance to end their lives in carefully regulated circumstances through a legal framework in which compassion and control co-exist. With that in mind, I rise to speak against new clauses 1, 2 and 9, which, while no doubt well intentioned, threaten to confuse, dilute or duplicate what is already a well-constructed piece of legislation. I begin with new clauses 1 and 2. New clause 1 would prohibit healthcare professionals from raising the topic of assisted dying unless it is first broached by the patient. While that may be appealing superficially as a safeguard, it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctor-patient relationship. We trust our clinicians every day to raise subjects of great complexity and moral weight.

    Hansard source
28. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. I fear there is some rhetoric that engenders a fear around the medical profession, which is misplaced.

    Hansard source
29. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I will give way in a moment, if I may. Those are not my experiences in clinical practice, nor are they those of family members who have worked in it. We must trust our medical professionals, who are highly trained and capable individuals, to have these difficult and complex conversations, which they do every day on issues such as aggressive chemotherapy or the withdrawal of ventilation.

    Hansard source
30. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. These are complex conversations that take place up and down the country every day; we know that they are taking place in St Thomas’ hospital at this moment. We are treating our medical professionals as though they do not take their professional obligations seriously. We must recognise the expertise that they bring and the sensitivities in which they have these conversations.

    Hansard source
31. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I commend those family members who are really powerful advocates for their children, parents and relatives in their engagement with the medical profession. We are at real danger of treating our clinicians as though they have no care for their patients—

    Hansard source
32. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is why it is so important that we have the rigorous training and safeguards that are a fundamental part of this Bill.

    Hansard source
33. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I will make some progress, if I may. The point is that people cannot have a fully informed discussion and weigh up the balance of the decision if they do not know the full options available to them. That is a part of informed consent.

    Hansard source
34. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I will make a little progress, if I may. In respect of new clause 2, those who have had the privilege of meeting a young person living with a terminal illness will know that they often display a maturity and a depth of understanding far beyond their years. To deny them the opportunity of a considered conversation about their future upon reaching adulthood is not an act of compassion, in my view; it is to abandon them. It is to leave them isolated, navigating a complex and deeply personal journey through the filter of online forums, rather than in dialogue with trusted, qualified professionals. We owe them better than that.

    Hansard source
35. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. That is a very powerful personal story from Noah, who I think reflects the maturity of many young people when dealing with these challenging issues. By imposing, in effect, a statutory gag in this one area, new clauses 1 and 2 risk infantilising terminally ill patients, creating a chilling effect on communication at the very moment when clarity and compassion are most needed. If anything, new clauses 1 and 2 may result in harm to patients, forcing them to suffer in silence, unaware of lawful options simply because they do not know how to ask. Finally, I turn to new clause 9, which presents a number of issues. In the first instance, subsection (1) would permit there to be, in effect, two different standards of proof. That must be legal nonsense. The boundaries of any legal test or hurdle must be clear. A failure to do so creates a great deal of uncertainty. Furthermore, the proposal to shift the standard of proof from the civil to the criminal, requiring panels to operate on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt, is deeply inappropriate. The balance of probabilities is the cornerstone of medical and civil decision making. To adopt a criminal threshold risks freezing the entire process, creating a very risk-averse system.

    Hansard source
36. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. These are individuals who are making this ultimate choice for themselves. My fear is that this well-intentioned new clause would make the Bill so unusable as to become ineffective. We are not prosecuting a crime here; we are enabling a choice under tightly prescribed circumstances. While I accept that each of these new clauses in their own way seeks to improve the Bill, we must be cautious about layering protections to the point of paralysis. The Bill as drafted is not a blank cheque—it contains safeguards, panel oversight and rigorous eligibility criteria. Let us not bury its moral clarity under legal clutter. In defending this legislation, we are not abandoning care; we are affirming dignity. Let us do so with confidence and reject these amendments.

    Hansard source
37. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    With regard to these amendments, we are so blessed to have our precious NHS. At vital stages, the NHS quite rightly delivers care in obstetrics, gynaecology, neonatology and paediatrics, but at the end of life about 70% of care is delivered outside the NHS, largely by charities, and that figure is even higher for children’s palliative and hospice care—so the state pays for how we enter this life, but not for how we depart it. There is something deeply wrong about that for our society. Does my hon. Friend agree that surely we must address that, and the delivery of universal palliative and hospice care, before we go anywhere near the measures in this assisted dying Bill?

    Hansard source
38. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    As has been the case throughout the Bill’s consideration, His Majesty’s Opposition have not taken a position on the principle of the Bill, and nor do we take a position on any of the amendments before the House. It is not for me to justify or argue against particular amendments. The arguments for and against have been well ventilated by hon. Members today. As we might expect—I know this from my own email inbox—many constituents are considerably more interested in our proceedings than might ordinarily be the case for a Bill’s Report. It might also be the case that there is not a complete understanding of the nature of today’s proceedings, so I hope that I might usefully reiterate what we are and are not doing. I then want to make some remarks focused on the public and campaigners, about how they should reflect carefully on their own obligations to respect the sincerity and freedom of choice of Members. I have come to consider that issue to be important, given some public interventions by high-profile campaigners, experiences with my own constituents and experiences that I know other hon. Members have had when they have been lobbied on the topic and on the way in which they will be voting today.

    Hansard source
39. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    I will make some remarks about the process. The time allocated today is a matter for the Chair and it would not be appropriate for me to comment, but I accept and understand the concerns raised by the hon. Lady and other hon. Members. Today we have also looked at the procedure for receiving assistance, including safeguards and protections, and issues related to eligibility and mental capacity. As in Committee, some of the proposed amendments would make significant changes. I want to comment on the correspondence from the relevant Ministers regarding the amendments. Their letter to Members quite properly explained that those amendments laid by the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), were considered workable by the Government, but the same could not be said about other amendments. It is important that the Minister emphasises, in his closing remarks, that that should not be read to mean that those amendments are not workable, which a superficial reading of the letter might imply; it just means that the Government have not given a view. I have sympathy with the concerns raised by the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and for Bradford West (Naz Shah) about the challenges for Members seeking to lay amendments without Government support. While all the normal conventions may have been followed, this is not a normal Bill, because of its significance and potential impact.

    Hansard source
40. 16 May 2025·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    As I said, I recognise that the Bill is of greater significance than a typical private Member’s Bill, but it has been delivered through the normal procedures of the House, and it is for the House as a whole to make those changes.

    Hansard source