YouSaid · the spoken record
Danny Kruger
Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking. See the correction.
On the record 2020–2026
hansard
This is everything the corpus holds for Danny Kruger. It is not everything they have said on the record.
Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections
“The Government anticipate that all substances used for assisted dying will have existing licences from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for other indications, but the amendment would require the approved substances to be licensed by the MHRA specifically for the purpose of assisted dying.” –– [ Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Public Bill Committee, 18 March 2025; c. 1224.] That was indeed the purpose of that amendment. If there is anxiety that I am somehow straying from the relevant clause and amendments, which I detect from Members who are clearly looking forward to their dinner, I do insist—[ Interruption. ]”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The regulations are subject to the negative procedure, which means they are highly unlikely to be debated at all or voted upon, for reasons given in my earlier complaints about the use of the negative procedure. Indeed, it is discretionary whether the regulations will be made at all. Last night, the Minister told us that the Government objected to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency approving the drugs or substances in amendment 465, which I had tabled. He said: “The Government’s assessment of amendment 465 is that it would significantly impact the legal and operational delivery of the Bill.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 521, which is in my name, would ensure that the regulations that we arrive at are laid before Parliament, and debated and approved by both Houses of Parliament. Amendment 485 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central would address the same issue. The amendments seek to address the dangerous absence of an adequate regulatory regime in the Bill for the lethal drugs and approved substances. Once again, significant questions are ignored in clause 28. Ministers will be given the power to make regulations for the prescription, dispensing, transportation, storage, handling and disposal of approved substances. The clause is envisaged as sufficient for an entire regulatory regime for approved substances. It is just 87 words. It is as if it is an afterthought—as, it seems, is the role of pharmacists, by the way.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Ashford and for Banbury. I entirely concur with their points, particularly those that derive from the expertise of the hon. Member for Ashford. This is a very important group of amendments, which concern what is in a sense the heart of the Bill—the management of the lethal drugs. The question of what drugs we are talking about remains open, which is a cause of deep concern to me, but whatever they happen to be, we need to make sure that the management— the regime of dispensing, transporting and prescribing —is safe. I will not reprise the details of all the amendments. Their purpose is to ensure a stricter, more transparent and safer regime for the management of the drugs.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As such, any powers that may accrue to Ministers because of a Private Member’s Bill must be acceptable to the Government. It must therefore take a view on the powers and their scrutiny”. Has the sponsor or the Minister consulted with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society on the sufficiency of this power? Has sufficient work been done to look at the workability and operationalisation of this clause? I hope the Committee will join me in supporting these amendments.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This not only strikes at the rule of law values I have already outlined, but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty. In my view, the new Government offers an opportunity for a reset in the way that Government thinks about these issues. This means, in particular, a much sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards.” I conclude with this question to the Minister: has she considered the advice of Lord Hermer in coming to a view on the appropriateness of this clause and the way that these powers have been taken? As the Hansard Society notes, “the Government has an overriding duty of care to the statute book.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It cannot be argued that the negative procedure is needed because the amendments might need to be made quickly and frequently—that cannot be the case, because we have not yet authorised the regime. The negative procedure would allow the Secretary of State quite unjustified ability to change these processes without any requirement for a parliamentary debate or vote. Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, has said that this new Government will take a new approach, considering the “real need to consider the balance between primary and secondary legislation, which in recent years has weighed too heavily in favour of delegated powers.” He criticised the previous Government’s “excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation,” which “upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will not repeat evidence from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society concerning the legal arrangement, but I will refer to evidence submitted by Máire Stapleton, a pharmacist with more than 30 years’ experience in clinical governance, who made this point: “Based upon a preliminary review of current published data, it is difficult to see how the regulatory and professional standards for prescribing and dispensing unlicensed drugs can be met.” There is further evidence to that effect from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, pharmacists and barristers. Given that there is so little on the face of the Bill and no guardrails for the use of the power that will be given to the Secretary of State, why is the negative procedure judged appropriate for something of this significance?”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Absolutely; that is what I am doing. I referenced the debate we had last night, which I hope is within scope, because the suggestion has been either that the Bill insufficiently addresses the need for a regulatory regime for the approval of drugs specifically for the purpose of assisted dying or, as the Government are saying, that the drugs’ existing licences are sufficient for these purposes. Is the Government’s position that there will be no regulator involved and that this will sit entirely with the Minister, as in this clause? If regulators are to be involved, will further legislation be needed?”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Further to the intervention from the hon. Member for Bradford West, I would like to understand whether the Minister envisages an independent regulator of any sort being responsible for overseeing the regime? We currently do not know what that will be—a future Secretary of State will design it—but does he envisage that there will be some sort of regulatory body with that job, and if not the MHRA, who?”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We look forward to the amendments that the Government are working on, but, as part of that process, does the Minister envisage that there will be amendments to NHS legislation itself?”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It might appear a procedural issue, but does the hon. Lady acknowledge that there is a profound difference between the negative and affirmative procedure? Why is she content that the regime for the regulation of these lethal drugs, which are at the absolute core of her Bill, be subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State, without any likelihood or any real possibility of any sort of debate in Parliament? Why should this not be through the affirmative procedure?”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Nevertheless, the hon. Lady is proposing that this passes through Parliament, just through the negative procedure. If she thinks there is an appropriate rubberstamp by Parliament—that Parliament needs to approve this regime—why should it not have the opportunity to debate it?”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Since the coroner’s jurisdiction affords a powerful deterrent against misfeasance, the public may wonder why the Bill proposes to abandon such a robust safeguard. The approval of the High Court is no substitute as it would be given in advance of death and could offer no assurance” —we have scrapped the approval of the High Court, but it would have been no substitute, and it will be the same for the panel system— “that the assistance had been provided in strict compliance with the law or that the circumstances of the case had not changed following the court’s declaration. If the Bill becomes law, who will provide the necessary posthumous judicial scrutiny of these unnatural deaths?” That is a powerful suggestion from the former chief coroner.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 522, in clause 29, page 17, line 14, leave out subsection (1). In a letter to the editor of The Telegraph , the former chief coroner of England and Wales, Thomas Teague KC, wrote that clause 29 “would prohibit a coroner from investigating any death where the duty to do so arises only because the deceased died as a consequence of the provision of assistance in accordance with the Bill. But for that clause, the coroner would be under a statutory duty to investigate such a death and, if satisfied at inquest that the deceased had used an approved lethal substance to end his or her life with the intention of doing so, would be obliged to record a conclusion of suicide.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is remarkable—and worth pointing out in response to the suggestion that terminal diagnoses are always accurate—that one study found, after autopsy, that one in four cases had been misdiagnosed. Doctors might say somebody is dying of a certain condition, but it turns out they were not. I take the point that a coroner would not be prohibited by clause 29(1) from launching an investigation in appropriate cases, but given that we do not know what we do not know, it might be hard to decide when that is required. With a new scheme like this, it would be best to start with an investigation in every case. If, in a few years’ time, it appears that the safeguard is not needed, a future Parliament could change the law to reduce it, but I implore the Committee to consider the idea that we should start with the safest Bill we can.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Some coroner’s inquests can be dealt with in as little as 20 minutes if matters are simple and not in dispute, which they would be in the great majority of the cases we are talking about. The presence of this jurisdiction—the ability of the coroner to investigate—would be a most valuable safeguard. It would help to identify whether matters have gone wrong in the act of self-administration and the process of dying, which could significantly assist whatever regulatory regime—we are yet to discover that—oversees the process. It could assist the continuous improvement of the regime. It would also help to identify issues relating to misdiagnosis, which we know happens often.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The concern is that it should be automatic. I just cite Professor Ahmedzai’s recognition of the frequent necessity, or the distinct possibility, of a referral to the coroner being appropriate. I suggest that it should happen as a matter of course. I would be grateful to understand from the hon. Lady or the Minister under what circumstances they feel it would be appropriate for a coroner to be involved. The difficulty is that we are putting a lot of emphasis on the role of the local medical examiner to decide whether it should be appropriate for the coroner to consider a case; I suggest that they should consider all cases. The obligation on coroners need not be over-burdensome.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The purpose behind the amendment is to ensure that there is a statutory duty for the coroner to review the death. It is also a point of principle that it is appropriate to record the death as suicide, because that is what has happened—assisted suicide. Nevertheless, given the state of the debate, and that I suspect I am not in the majority in supporting the amendment, I will not press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will respond quickly. My concern is that, as Thomas Teague said, without clause 29 the coroner would be under a statutory duty to investigate. I recognise that there is an opportunity for an investigation if a family member or the medical practitioner decides to refer it to the coroner. It is unlikely—although they might—that the medical practitioner who has overseen the death would suggest that they themselves had somehow failed in their duty or that there had been a complication they could not have dealt with. The fact is that the only way a coroner would get involved under the Bill as it stands is if they conclude that there is something wrong on the basis of not knowing what has happened, because they have not performed any investigation.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge meant the previous Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government—just to be strictly accurate.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 446, in clause 29, page 18, line 9, at end insert— “(4) The Secretary of State must, by regulation, specify the data sets which must be made available by the Registrar General for England and Wales. (5) Any regulations made under subsection (4) are subject to the affirmative procedure.” This amendment requires the Secretary of State to specify in regulations the data sets which are to be made available by the Registrar General for England and Wales.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope that that would be specified in the data that the Registrar General will provide, but that is not clear at the moment. It is also vital that any complications are properly reported—not just recorded, but reported. I do not propose to push these amendments to a vote; I think that the argument has been sufficiently made. I am grateful to the Committee for supporting the previous amendment. However, I wish that things were otherwise and that we were specifying more clearly what data will be collected. I hope that perhaps this debate will encourage the Registrar General to ensure that the most comprehensive data is presented to Parliament.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 446 would give the Secretary of State the power to specify the datasets that must be made available, and those must be approved by Parliament. MPs would then be able to interrogate what data we are collecting and what questions that enables us to answer. Ensuring that that is determined by regulation places it in law, and ensures ministerial responsibility and parliamentary oversight. Amendment 486 sets out the data that must be included. That includes demographic information, including breakdowns by protected characteristics—and I acknowledge the conversation that has just been had on that topic—and the length of time between the taking of the approved substances and the time of death. It strikes me that that is a very important consideration.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“These amendments were tabled by the hon. Member for York Central. As discussed, clause 29 requires the Registrar General to “prepare and lay before Parliament a report providing a statistical analysis of deaths” arising. We have spoken before about the paucity of data from other jurisdictions and the problems arising when data is not collected from the start; when data is collected only in relation to one thing, such as disability in Canada; when data collection is suddenly discontinued, as in Washington state as I understand it; or when data is insufficiently granular, so that we get only the headlines. I therefore think that this approach is valuable, and I welcome the Committee’s decision to support amendment 273 tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. Amendments 446 and 486 would ensure that we fix those problems from the start.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 30 Codes of practice”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to quickly explain that my amendment 523 is consequential on amendment 447, but there is drafting issue. I will not go into the details but, if amendment 447 is made, as I understand it will be, my amendment 523 is not necessary. I would be grateful for the Minister’s guidance: if he has been advised by parliamentary counsel that the clause as amended by amendment 447 is okay and there is no need for amendment 523, I do not propose to press it to a vote.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It does not specify that the advocate should be obliged, equipped or experienced in supporting the patient to engage with other options.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given that we have retained the right of medical professionals to raise the possibility of assisted dying unprompted with patients, I am concerned about whether, as I think the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford implied, the medical professional initiates the conversation, or the advocate themselves is supportive of assisted dying and they deliberately or inadvertently have the effect of encouraging the patient to consider that option. As I think the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said in her intervention on the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, new clause 25 creates the role of independent advocate to provide support to a patient, to help them to effectively understand and engage with all the provisions in the Bill.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am pleased to hear that he is satisfied and will support the amendments, although I echo some of the suggestions of concern that he just made. New clause 25 makes it clear that the advocate is there to provide support if the person “is seeking to understand options around end of life care, including the possibility of requesting assistance to end their own life”. Amendment 517 addresses the need for a code of practice when a qualifying person is requesting assistance to end their own life. My question is whether the new clause and the amendment fully cater for a situation in which that individual is not requesting assistance to end their own life—when they are not seeking to explore that particular option.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“But if the amendments are accepted, we will be introducing the role of the independent advocate with the sombre recognition that it is necessary, in consequence of a Bill that will allow doctors to discuss ending the patient’s life as an option with anybody, no matter how well-equipped or ill-equipped that person may be to handle such a conversation on their own, and no matter how old they are—they could even be 18 years old. I support the amendments, but I do so in recognition of the very significant dangers that I think the Bill represents to all potential applicants. I want to ask the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, or perhaps the Minister or the Bill’s promoter, whether they feel that the amendments go to the heart of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge for the amendments that she tabled and to the work that she has been doing on our Committee. I regret her victory over my friend, the former MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge, but the hon. Lady is bringing a lot to Parliament and to this Committee. I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford in supporting the amendments. I do not know whether the hon. Lady is in a position to respond with a further speech or by intervening, but I have some concerns about their operation. I recognise that the role of the independent advocate exists in our system already, very usefully and importantly: I see its value and appropriateness for an assisted dying regime.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the hon. Lady. That is very helpful. That is my concern: we need to ensure all necessary support for the patient at the earliest stage possible.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Lady. I worry a little about the magic powers of the training fairy, whom we frequently invoke to resolve all the anxieties. We are putting the resolution of difficult tensions on to future professionals and imagining that through training we can resolve all the difficult challenges. However, given the absolute and obvious value of an independent advocate for the people who need that role in the process and given that the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge has asserted that it is important for the role to be fulfilled at the earliest stage possible, which I entirely agree with, I am happy to support the amendments.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On a point of order, Mrs Harris. Before I move the next amendment, I wish to correct the record. I do not know if this is the moment to do so, but I wish to correct a mistake I made earlier today.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful, Mrs Harris. Earlier, I cited evidence about an exodus of care workers from the Australian care system. Members challenged me on that—fairly. I have been looking since, and I could not find the evidence that was in my mind. I think I was confusing it with evidence about the number of palliative care professionals who said that they would not want to work in the sector if assisted dying were performed by their organisations. The only evidence I have got on Australia was from Robert Clark, the Attorney General, who, rather than referring to statistics, gave his own evidence on how many professionals are leaving the Victorian hospital system in consequence of the introduction of voluntary assisted dying. I thought I had statistical evidence to show an exodus, but I did not.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 524, in clause 30, page 18, line 40, leave out from “have regard to” and insert “comply with”. This amendment would require individuals to comply with the Codes of Practice issued by the Secretary of State.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I find this perplexing. Not to make a party-political point, but we know how much Labour MPs distrust Conservatives, and yet they are seemingly willing—as indeed, Conservative colleagues in support of this are—”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It typically differs from legislation in that it offers guidance rather than imposing requirements: its prescriptions are not hard and fast rules but guidelines which may allow considerable latitude in their practical application and may be departed from in appropriate circumstances. The provisions of a code are not directly enforceable by legal proceedings… Codes of practice are not to be used to define specific legal obligations. Where specific legal obligations are to be imposed, breach of which leads directly to civil or criminal liability, their content should be spelled out in primary or secondary legislation. A code of practice is not appropriate for this purpose, either to delineate the main obligation or to provide for exceptions or defences.” I do not think it appropriate that so much is being left to ministerial discretion.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is perplexing that the Bill does not clearly specify that practitioners should “follow” or “act in accordance with” the guidance. These words matter. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel explores the choice of these different phrases in its guidance on common legislative problems. That guidance was produced by the drafter of this Bill, the former First Parliamentary Counsel, Elizabeth Gardiner. It is quite a deliberate policy choice to leave compliance with these codes of practice to the discretion of the individuals rather than to require it. The guide to making the legislation—the Cabinet Office manual, which the drafter would have been very familiar with—states: “A ‘code of practice’ is an authoritative statement of practice to be followed in some field.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have been told repeatedly by the Minister that the Government’s preference is to leave things until later and not to address issues on the face of the Bill, because additional words, phrases and amendments would increase risk and be counterproductive. That is an argument that we have heard from the Government Front Bench repeatedly. Other Members have dismissed as embroidery suggested amendments to strengthen safeguards; it has been suggested that the more we write, the less safe the Bill will be. I do not think those arguments will survive the other place, if the Bill arrives there. There is a vast difference between something in the Bill that must be “complied with” because it is in legislation, and something that those providing assistance under the Bill must only “have regard to”.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The amendment would specify that individuals should comply with the codes of practice issued by the Secretary of State. I am glad that the hon. Member for Spen Valley agreed to accept an earlier amendment requiring the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice. That was a helpful step, but it is not quite sufficient, because it does not address the critical weakness in the Bill. Time and again, we have been told that amendments tabled are not suitable for the face of the Bill and that we should rely on codes of practice and guidance that will be issued subsequently. Now we are at this point, though, and it is clear that under clause 30(6) the code of practice is something that those “performing any function under this Act must”, simply, “have regard to”.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The point I am making is that we are suggesting that some future Secretary of State, in a different Government of which we know nothing, might decide to issue codes of practice that will determine how this process is delivered, but I will leave that point. We must address the weak status of these codes of practice. I regret that they are being left in this weak form. At a minimum level, we should require that they are properly complied with. This cannot be remedied after the Bill has passed. No matter how strong the language in the codes of practice, that language cannot override or change the nature of a statutory duty. Any enhanced duty has to come from a source external to the document being considered itself—namely, the statute. I ask the hon.”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q9. Having had 14 years to get ready, Labour came into power with no plan to reform welfare. Now, in a panic because of their economic mismanagement, the Government are cutting benefits for disabled people without consulting them at all. It probably says in the Prime Minister’s folder that the High Court ruled that the Conservatives’ consultation was too short, but at least we consulted. The Government are not consulting at all. Will the Prime Minister explain why he is doing things to disabled people and not with them?”
House of Commons19 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is important that we specify to everybody in the system that an assisted death is not a way of avoiding the expense of proper end-of-life care. I hope that Members will recognise that amendment 316 is consistent with the arguments that have been made consistently by advocates of the Bill, which is that there is not an either/or between palliative care and assisted death, and that, in fact, it is appropriate for patients to be on both tracks simultaneously.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It really has to be very plain to healthcare commissioners and managers that there is to be no cost saving as a result of an assisted death referral. I very much doubt that a single commissioner or manager would have that at the forefront of their mind; nevertheless, incentives apply in healthcare decisions. Ultimately, we have a ration system, and resource allocation necessarily is the job of commissioners. If, as we are saying, a decision to proceed with an assisted death will be in parallel with palliative care, let us make that plain, so that if indeed it is the case that the patient requires the investment of palliative care services—hospice treatment or otherwise, even though, as we know, hospice care is inadequately funded through public money—nevertheless, there is a resource requirement.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It will obviously be the case that the patient is not required to take up the referral, and if the referral already exists, that case is dealt with, but let us be absolutely clear that the decision to take an assisted death is not a fork in the road, as would be my concern. If that is not the case and that, in fact, palliative care and the assisted death process go hand in hand and will be seen as part of an integrated package of support for patients, my view is that we should specify clearly that in the event of a decision to proceed down the road to an assisted death, a palliative care referral should be made. Bluntly, I want to make this as clear as we can, although I am not sure that we will ever be able to do that fully.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will speak briefly to amendment 316 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). She has tabled a sensible suggestion that if a patient makes a statement after the second period of reflection, there should be an automatic referral to palliative care. We have heard how expected and usual that is anyway, and the hon. Member for Spen Valley has frequently made the point that people who are having an assisted death, or going through the process, are likely to be in palliative care anyway—it is not an either/or. It is important that we clarify that expectation.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My concern—I am unaware of any other point when we could appropriately discuss this question—is what happens in the event of a cancellation. What duty of care do doctors have to patients who have decided not to proceed with an assisted death? The Bill does not currently address that question: it imposes no obligation on doctors to follow up in any way after a declaration has been cancelled.”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady is quite right that there is nothing to object to in these amendments or the clause. It is worth stating at this point, though, that in the context of the debate we are having in this Committee, we are moving at some pace. The likelihood is that there will be opportunity for only a five-hour debate on Report—maybe more, but possibly not. This Committee is the time we have to consider in detail the content of the Bill. My concern is that moving too quickly and trying to do too much too soon means that we will miss the opportunity to debate very important aspects of the Bill. The hon. Lady says that these are “nice, simple” amendments, as if the only thing being discussed here is the paperwork around the declaration. What should we say to patients who decide to cancel their declaration?”
House of Commons18 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗