Kim Leadbeater
MP for Spen Valley · Labour · United Kingdom
“The right hon. Lady is making a very important point, which I have considered at length during the last two years. Many amendments relating to coercive control were made to the Bill to ensure that all professionals involved have training, and there are multiple checks for coercion throughout the process, which do not currently exist.”
“Q9. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and welcome back. I also welcome the Prime Minister to his role. We have many shared passions—sport, music, and a deep sense of community.”
“The answer must be courage—the courage to listen, the courage to speak responsibly, the courage to reject extremism in all its forms, the courage to defend democratic values even when emotions run high and, most importantly, the courage to remember that we belong to one another.”
“The Brexit referendum was one of the most divisive periods in modern British history. People were encouraged to see each other not as neighbours with differing opinions but as enemies.”
“They are very like Jo in so many ways and they are annoyingly good at everything. They are musical, they are sporty, they are academic and they are really nice human beings. When they come up to Yorkshire, we try to find something that we can beat them at—and we fail every time. They are very much in my thoughts today and every day.”
“Every disagreement becomes moral warfare. We see a growing blame culture in Britain. When the economy struggles, when public services let us down, when communities feel left behind, someone must be blamed— migrants, politicians, the poor, the rich.”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Kim Leadbeater, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 13.
“(4) The delegation of a function under sub-paragraph (3) does not prevent the Commissioner from exercising that function. (5) The functions of the Commissioner are to be carried out by the Deputy Commissioner if— (a) there is a vacancy in the office of the Commissioner, or (b) the Commissioner is for any reason unable or unwilling to act. Appointment and tenure of office 4 (1) A person holds and vacates office as the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner in accordance with the terms and conditions of their appointment as determined by the Secretary of State, subject to the provisions of this paragraph. (2) An appointment as the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner is to be for a term not exceeding five years.”
“(3) The Commissioner’s property is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown. General powers 2 The Commissioner may do anything the Commissioner considers appropriate for the purposes of, or in connection with, the Commissioner’s functions. Deputy Commissioner 3 (1) The Prime Minister must appoint a person to be the Deputy Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner (the ‘Deputy Commissioner’). (2) The person appointed must hold or have held office as a judge of— (a) the Supreme Court, (b) the Court of Appeal, or (c) the High Court. (3) The Commissioner may delegate any of the Commissioner’s functions to the Deputy Commissioner, to the extent and on the terms that the Commissioner determines.”
“But here we are at this hour. I do not think this has been rushed through; I think we have taken an extremely thorough approach. “No amendments will be made” was the charge. We have made lots of amendments, and we will put the Bill back to the House in an even stronger position than it was in on Second Reading. I pay tribute to everybody involved in the process. Question put and agreed to . New clause 35 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. Schedules 1 to 6 disagreed to . New Schedule 1 The Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner “ Status 1 (1) The Commissioner is to be a corporation sole. (2) The Commissioner is not to be regarded as— (a) the servant or agent of the Crown, or (b) as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.”
“I associate myself with the comments made by others, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, about the fantastic work done by my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge and for Bexleyheath and Crayford with regard to this new clause and other amendments. I also associate myself with the comments of the Minister for Care and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire about the fantastic work done throughout this Committee by our Chairs, the Clerks of the House and indeed all the staff of the House, and I pay tribute to colleagues who have served on this Committee; it has been hard work. When I reflect on the criticism—sometimes, sadly, very personal—directed at me when we were putting the Committee together, I remember people saying that it would just be people who all agreed or people who would rush the Bill through.”
“Member for East Wiltshire to consider an alternative amendment that would better achieve the aim of ensuring that no one has an obligation to take part in the assisted dying process.”
“As such, I turn to amendment 480. I agree with the intention behind the amendment—nobody should have a duty to be involved with the provision of assistance in accordance with the legislation—and I think there is consensus across the Committee on that. However, I am concerned about the drafting of the amendment, the lack of clarity around being directly or indirectly in the provision of assistance, and the framing of the selective list of activities. I fear that the amendment could have unintended consequences and an impact on continuity of care, and I take on board the Minister’s comments about the significant legal uncertainty that that would create. I therefore cannot support the amendment as drafted but, as I have said, I am happy to work with the hon.”
“Thank you for stepping into the breach this morning, Ms McVey. Clause 23 provides that there will be no obligation on medical practitioners and health professionals to provide assistance as set out in the assisted dying process. We know doctors and other health professionals hold a variety of views on assisted dying. A significant number are in support of what this Bill sets out to do, and the experience from other jurisdictions is that that number increases once it is seen to be working safely and effectively in practice. Others, of course, would object to being involved at any stage and I am very respectful of that. The Bill is about giving terminally ill people choice and autonomy, but it is absolutely right that the principle of autonomy is extended to registered medical practitioners, health professionals and others.”
“However, we also know that the reassurance and comfort that the choice of an assisted death provides alongside other treatment and care is really important to them, and I do not believe that reassurance should be denied to some people because of the institution they happen to be in.”
“As many Members will know because of their own work as trustees, the trustees and leadership of a hospice team are required to put personal opinion and interest to one side and always act in the best interest of the charity’s beneficiaries, who are the population.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 195, Q255.] It is also important to remember that international experience shows that up to 30% to 40% of patients who sign up to the assisted dying process ultimately do not access it. Palliative care may meet their needs, or they may simply change their mind.”
“We believe this stance is in the best interests of patients and their families and reflects the wishes of our community.” I welcome that open-minded approach and their commitment “to put care, compassion and dignity at the heart of everything” they do. Contrary to what the hon. Member East Wiltshire has said, the picture is not black and white. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich in that regard. Colleagues may remember the evidence given to the Committee by the CEO of Hospice UK, Toby Porter. He clarified for us that institutions do not function in the same way as individuals when it comes to conscience-influencing decisions. He told us: “There is this idea that your individual opinion guides everything, but with a hospice charity the opposite is true.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I am aware of the Minister’s comments. This will be part of the discussion as we take it forward. That is why this debate is really powerful. In their written evidence, the trustees at Willow Burn hospice, based in the UK, told us: “Our Mission is to deliver hospice care of the highest standard to our patients and those important to them...We also believe that we should support and enable people to make the choices that matter to them.” They said they had not decided their position on assisted dying and remained “open minded about possible future actions.”
“The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The word that we have used a lot—maybe not enough in some respects—is choice. That is important for individuals, but it is important for institutions as well. Putting an institutional opt-out in the Bill would risk creating confusion and distress for patients and their loved ones, and indeed for staff and volunteers.”
“The hon. Lady is absolutely right to acknowledge the wonderful workforce working in end of life care, but there is a range of views within that workforce and there is the individual opt-out. No one has to be involved in this process if they do not want to be. That is clear in the Bill as it stands. I hope that, working together, we can make that even clearer if needed. Under the Bill, doctors and health professionals already have the ability to opt out for any reason, wherever they work.”
“The latest figures from the British social attitudes survey, published just this week by the National Centre for Social Research, show that support at 79%, which is unchanged or slightly up on a decade ago. Although I cannot support these amendments, this is an important debate. I think we have conducted ourselves extremely well over the past 24 hours. I think it is important that we continue the debate respectfully and sensitively.”
“It is a good point. My understanding—the Minister might correct me—is that pharmacists currently are within the definition of health professionals, but if they are not, that is an important point, which would be covered by making the change to ensure that no one is under any duty. However, I will definitely check that. Mr Porter also said: “hospices evolved out of the community. They exist because communities wanted better deaths. In the end, it is the job of institutions to evolve to fit the values and laws of society as they evolve, rather than vice versa.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 202, Q264.] The polling on assisted dying shows significant public support for a change in the law, which is one of the main reasons we are here discussing the issue today.”
“I beg to move amendment 504, in clause 24, page 15, line 11, leave out from second “of” to end of line 12 and insert “— (a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with this Act, or performing any other function under this Act in accordance with this Act, or (b) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with this Act, in connection with the doing of anything under this Act.”. This amendment provides that it is not an offence to perform a function under the Bill, or to assist a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of anything under the Bill.”
“You have the power, the power is yours to be human, to follow Gods wish, to ‘suffer’ choices that other people may make even if its uncomfortable for you. Palliative care I hear you say, My Husband did not want palliative care…Please give others the gift of dignity and a good death in their homes…You have the power to do something amazing, give people the choice.” I commend these amendments, which will help many people. Sadly, it is too late for Louise, but they will help many other families who will potentially go through what she has been through.”
“No funeral that he would have chosen, no mourners, no ceremony, cremated with no Reverend to pray for him, returned to me in a cardboard box. The pain is excruciating beyond any other loss I have experienced”. She then says: “I have been arrested and spent just under three hours being interviewed by two CID officers. Four days after my husband left my world there I was stuck in a Police station being cautioned, questioned, having to relive my trauma, for my crime, a crime made by love, a crime made by adoration, a crime of compassion and respect of my husband’s last wish.” She now faces a prolonged police investigation. She tells us, “My husband was the first British person to go to Dignitas after parliament debated on Friday 29 th Of November 2024.”
“You cannot imagine unless you see and feel this he was looking forward to his peaceful death, looking forward to leaving his pain, suffering…At the end, my husband was able to die on his own terms, pain-free and peaceful, held in my arms as his heart gently slowed and finally stopped, granting him the dignified and serene farewell that he had wished for. But where was I? alone in a strange country alone, scared, bereft, organising an Uber to take me away from the…Dignitas House, I was vulnerable and in utter shock, now having to leave my dead husband alone, leave his body to be cared for by people I had never met…Due to our draconian laws my husband had to be in a foreign country, had to be cremated to be brought back home.”
“Then there is the cost, not just financially but mentally and physically as he had to be able to get to Zurich and someone had to assist him to do this…My husband did not deserve this to be his end nor did I deserve this to be his end, my last memory of him…I accompanied my husband to Switzerland, where we had 4 wonderful days together, my husband’s mood had lifted, he was at peace, it was as if the weight of the world had been lifted from his shoulders. He was not scared, no anxiety, his emotional suffering had ceased.”
“These amendments create clarity and prevent ambiguity around what constitutes a criminal act versus an action legally protected by the new law. I will finish with a very powerful testimony from Louise Shackleton from Scarborough. Louise accompanied her husband to Dignitas last December. I believe she was the first person to make that trip since Second Reading. Louise talks about the trip she made to Switzerland with her husband. She says: “This is not an easy process as some against Assisted Dying might have you believe, might try and convince you. It is a robust and thorough almost an ordeal in itself.”
“What we need is a system that balances compassion with protection, ensuring that people who are at their most vulnerable are supported in a way that is both legal and ethical.” Sir Max Hill’s words emphasise the need for clear, compassionate guidance, which these amendments will provide. They will help to eliminate the legal uncertainty that can cause fear and hesitation in those who act in the best interests of individuals facing terminal illness. The 2010 DPP policy clarified that assisting someone to end their life was not automatically criminal and that each case would be assessed on its individual facts. However, that has not changed the law and many people are still being failed by the law as it stands.”
“He said, “The law must be clear, and it must ensure that those who act with the intention to relieve suffering are not penalised, as long as their actions are in accordance with the law.” That sentiment is echoed in the amendments before us today, which ensure that those who assist individuals under the Bill are protected by law, offering clarity and reassurance to both the public and professionals who may be involved in such decisions. Sir Max Hill, another former Director of Public Prosecutions, remarked in 2019, “The law around assisted dying is often unclear and creates a great deal of uncertainty for both individuals and healthcare professionals.”
“and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the former Director of Public Prosecutions, stated in relation to assisted dying, “The law must reflect the changing moral landscape of society, and in cases such as this, where the individual’s autonomy and suffering are at stake, our legal framework must offer clarity and compassion.” During his tenure as DPP, Sir Keir also emphasised the importance of not criminalising individuals who act out of compassion, particularly in difficult and morally complex situations.”
“Amendment 505 ensures that the provisions of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025 will supersede the Suicide Act 1961, providing clarity that actions taken under the new Act will not be subject to the outdated legal framework established under the 1961 Act. That is a crucial step in modernising our laws to reflect the values of compassion, dignity and personal autonomy. These amendments bring us closer to a legal framework that is clear and safe. Our Prime Minister, my right hon.”
“These amendments relate to criminal liability under the Bill. They get to the heart of why the legislation is needed. Amendment 504 seeks to clarify the language of clause 24 and provide reassurance that it will not be considered an offence to perform a function under the provisions of the Bill or to assist a person seeking to end their own life in connection with anything done under the Bill. It will ensure that those acting within the law, and with compassion, to assist terminally ill individuals who wish to end their suffering and take control at the end of their life are protected under the law.”
“I have nothing further to add. Amendment 504 agreed to. Amendment made: 505, in clause 24, page 15, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert “— (a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act 2025, or performing any other function under that Act in accordance with that Act, or (b) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with that Act, in connection with the doing of anything under that Act.”. —(Kim Leadbeater.) This amendment ensures that it is not an offence under the Suicide Act 1961 to perform a function under the Bill, or to assist a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of anything under the Bill. Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 25 Civil liability for providing assistance”
“This amendment ensures that the exclusion from civil liability applies in relation to persons performing functions under the Bill, and persons assisting a person seeking to end their own life, in connection with the doing of things under the Bill. It also excepts, from the exclusion from civil liability, things done dishonestly or not in good faith, and any liability arising out of negligence.”
“I beg to move amendment 501, in clause 25, page 15, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert— “(1) The doing of any of the following does not, of itself, give rise to any civil liability— (a) providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with this Act; (b) performing any other function under this Act in accordance with this Act; (c) assisting a person seeking to end their own life in accordance with this Act, in connection with the doing of anything under this Act. (1A) Subsection (1) does not apply— (a) in relation to an act done dishonestly, or in some other way done otherwise than in good faith, or (b) to any liability in tort arising from a breach of a duty of care owed to a person.”.”
“It ensures that, although we provide legal protection for those acting with compassion and integrity, we also prevent exploitation or irresponsible actions, by making it clear that there is no immunity for actions that are dishonest or negligent. That strikes the right balance between compassionate assistance and legal accountability. The amendment particularly reassures doctors, nurses, and healthcare workers—those who are most likely to be involved in the process. Often, they are deeply committed to palliative care and to supporting patients through their end of life journey, and the amendment ensures that they will not face legal risk if they provide assistance to eligible individuals under the Bill.”
“That is crucial in offering clarity and confidence for healthcare professionals, family members or others who might otherwise hesitate due to fear of being sued for assisting a loved one or patient who wishes to end their life as a result of their terminal illness. However, although we are providing protection, amendment 501 does not allow for unfettered actions without any accountability. Proposed new subsection (1A) ensures that any actions that are dishonest or done in bad faith are not protected from civil liability. Additionally, it states that breaches of a duty of care, such as negligence, are also not exempt from liability. This provision is a critical safeguard.”
“The amendments ensure that the exclusion from civil liability applies in relation to persons performing functions under the Bill and persons assisting a person seeking to end their own life in connection with the doing of things under the Bill. Importantly, they also rightly exempt from the exclusion from civil liability things done dishonestly or not in good faith, and any liability arising from negligence. Proposed new subsection (1) in amendment 501 makes it clear that anyone providing assistance to a person to end their own life in accordance with the Bill will not face civil liability simply for doing so.”
“I will speak briefly on this issue. An important point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley about the protections that clause 25 and these amendments provide for medical practitioners. I think the clause strikes the right balance, but it is important to remove the blanket immunity. My hon. Friend referred to codes of practice and codes of conduct. We have talked a lot about good medical practice from the General Medical Council, and we have a clause in the Bill on codes of practice. I feel confident in the clause, but I am still having regular meetings with officials about the legal implications of the Bill. I will continue those conversations, but I am happy that the clause as it stands serves the correct purpose.”
“That would be my understanding as well, but I am not a lawyer. Fortunately, a lawyer just tried to intervene on me, so he might want to step in.”
“I beg to move amendment 506, in clause 26, page 16, line 7, leave out “in accordance with” and insert “under”. This amendment provides that the offence under subsection (2) applies in relation to an approved substance provided under the Bill.”
“That actually comes under new clause 24, which will be discussed in relation to clause 27, but I think it is important to look at the offences in the round. This is the third type of offence. It is a new offence, and it covers cases where a person helps another person to obtain assistance under the Act by falsifying documents to get that assistance or to prevent it from being removed. This is still very serious, and attracts a maximum sentence of 14 years. It will most often be applied where the person seeking the assistance wishes to get round the safeguards. The safeguards must be rigorously enforced, hence the same maximum as for the second category of offence.”
“The second category of offences includes “by dishonesty, coercion or pressure,” inducing “another person to make a first or second declaration, or not to cancel such a declaration.” This is in clause 26(1). It is where the criminal conduct has coerced or pressured someone to execute or not cancel the declarations—a step in the process, but not actually ending their own life. It is the second most serious offence, and attracts a maximum of 14 years in prison. The third category of offences involves making or using a false instrument—first declaration, second declaration, medical report or within-six-months-or-less diagnosis—or failing to notify the cancellation of a relevant declaration, with the intention of facilitating the provision of assistance under the Act.”
“These amendments to clause 26—and clause 27 to some degree, which I will come on to shortly—are intended to clarify offences under the law. The changes refine the language to ensure that offences relating to dishonesty, coercion and pressure are more clearly defined. The amendments serve to clarify the details of four categories of offences, and I will provide a summary of the four categories. The first category is when someone “by dishonesty, coercion or pressure, induces another person to self-administer an approved substance”. This offence, in clause 26(2), is the most serious offence. It is coercing or pressuring someone to take their own life; it includes coercive control and pressure, and it attracts as the maximum a life sentence—the most severe punishment that the law can impose.”
“The hon. Lady is making a point that we have already covered several times in the debate. It is an important point, but I hope that she is reassured by the offences to be included in the Bill, which create sentences that do not currently exist.”
“I would have thought, given the hon. Gentleman’s views on the Bill, that he would welcome having an actual offence for the purposes of the Bill. Surely that is something that we should all support.”
“That is the point I would like to make: the penalty is the same, but it is important that the offence is specific, hence why I have put it in the Bill. The outcome for the criminal involved, however, would be the same.”
“I beg to move amendment 510, in clause 27, page 16, line 18, leave out “wilfully” and insert “intentionally or recklessly”. This is a drafting change, aligning the wording used here with wording used elsewhere in the clause.”
“These amendments relate to the falsification or destruction of documentation and are very straightforward. Amendment 510 makes a drafting change to align the wording of subsection (1)(b) with wording used elsewhere in the clause. Amendments 511 and 512 clarify that the offence under subsection (2) relates only to an opinion about a matter relating to a function under the Bill rather than to the person. Amendment 513 clarifies the scope of the offence under subsection (3) by providing that the offence occurs where a doctor fails to comply with a notification or recording obligation in relation to the cancelling of a first or second declaration. The amendments significantly improve the clarity, scope and precision of the offences in clause 27, align it with the language used in the rest of the Bill and ensure that it is more consistent.”
“I made some comments about that previously, so I will leave it there for now, but I hope the Committee will join me in supporting the amendments and new clause.”
“In combination, amendments 514 to 516 and new clause 24 refine and strengthen the legal framework surrounding assisted dying, shifting the focus towards serious fraudulent misconduct and the falsification of documents, and ensuring that prosecutions are conducted with careful oversight by the Director of Public Prosecutions. These changes mark a clear departure from the original drafting, which focused clause 27 more generally on non-compliance with administrative duties, and introduce more severe consequences for deliberate wrongdoing related to the assisted dying process. New clause 24 is an important addition to the Bill. It creates an offence in respect of certain conduct, where the person engaging in the conduct does so with the intention of enabling another person to obtain assistance under the Act.”
“My hon. Friend is making some interesting points, but I think they are probably more relevant to the debate we had the other day on clause 18. Clause 28 is about the prescribing, dispensing and transporting of approved substances, rather than the substances themselves.”
“I will speak briefly about amendments 485 and 521, on which I will respectfully disagree—not for the first time—with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. I believe the negative procedure is perfectly adequate in matters of this kind. We had a similar debate the other day. I will also speak to amendments 442 and 445 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. Although I take on board the comments of the Minister about time pressures, I am minded to support both these amendments. Regulations are important and I have no problem with placing the duty on the Secretary of State in those two instances.”
“I am not aware of any situation in which we debate the drugs for any other type of medical provision or healthcare. I appreciate the gravity of the situation but, with all due respect to colleagues, we are not best placed to make those kinds of decisions and it is unnecessary for us to have that debate. Clinicians and experts in pharmacology and medicines are best placed to do that, under the guidance of the Secretary of State.”
“As I have said, I think the negative procedure is the correct level of parliamentary involvement in that process. Amendment 442 agreed to. Amendment proposed : 443, in clause 28, page 17, line 4, after “substances” insert “as approved through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and either the National Institute for Clinical Excellence or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group processes”.— (Sean Woodcock.) This amendment requires any regulations made about the prescribing and dispensing of approved substances to be on substances approved through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and either the National Institute for Clinical Excellence or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group processes . Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“I will be very brief. My understanding is—I think the Minister said this—that the attending practitioner, the medical examiner or anybody else, including family members, could refer to the coroner if they felt it was necessary or suspected anything untoward. If that is the case, I am content that the Bill is fit for purpose as it stands.”