🤔 Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting)

• Bill Discussion Focus: The session focused on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, specifically discussing amendments to Clause 23, which deals with no obligation to provide assistance, and Clause 24, which addresses criminal liability for providing assistance.

• Amendments to Clause 23: Proposed amendments aimed to clarify that individuals and institutions are not obligated to participate in assisted dying. This includes not being required to provide information, participate in assessments, or administer substances related to assisted dying. The amendments also sought to protect care homes and hospices from being obligated or penalized for not facilitating assisted dying. However, these amendments were rejected by the Committee.

• Amendments to Clause 24: These focused on ensuring that actions taken under the Bill, such as providing assistance to someone wishing to end their life, do not result in criminal charges, provided they are done in accordance with the Bill. Amendments were made to extend protections to those assisting in the process and to clarify the circumstances under which criminal liability would be avoided, such as acting in good faith.

• Concerns and Discussions: There were debates about the potential for the Bill to lead to coercion or pressure on individuals to choose assisted dying, with some members expressing worries about the implications for family members and healthcare workers. The discussion also touched on the need for clear legal frameworks to prevent misuse of the legislation.

• Civil Liability: Clause 25 amendments were discussed to ensure that providing assistance under the Bill does not lead to civil liability, except in cases of dishonesty, bad faith, or negligence. These amendments were aimed at protecting healthcare professionals while maintaining accountability.

• Offences and Penalties: Clause 26 proposed severe penalties, including a life sentence, for coercing or pressuring someone into assisted dying. Amendments refined the definitions and categories of offences related to dishonesty, coercion, and pressure, aligning them with the seriousness of the acts.

• Prosecution Oversight: An amendment to Clause 26 required that prosecutions under this section be initiated only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, ensuring careful consideration and oversight.

• General Concerns: Some members raised concerns about the potential for the Bill to create redundant or duplicative offences, which could complicate legal proceedings and cause distress to grieving families. There were also worries about the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in handling cases of coercion and pressure, given existing low conviction rates for such offences.

The session exhibited a moderate level of disagreement, reflected through the debates and amendments proposed around the ‘Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill’ during the Public Bill Committee session. While the session involved a structured debate with amendments being proposed and discussed, the disagreements primarily focused on the specifics of clause structures and potential legal ramifications rather than fundamental opposition to the Bill itself.

Here are some examples and detailed explanations of the disagreements noted during the session:

1. Amendment 480 and Institutional Exemptions: There was disagreement on whether care homes and hospices should be obligated to provide assistance in accordance with the Act. Danny Kruger argued for amendments to expand protections, allowing institutions not to provide or facilitate assisted dying, which was opposed, as evidenced by the division vote negating the amendment. This disagreement highlights the tension between personal autonomy and institutional rights.

2. Clarity on Criminal and Civil Liability (Clauses 24 and 25): There were debates around amendments 504, 505, and 506, which aimed to clarify the legal framework surrounding assistance in assisted dying. Members like Danny Kruger and Rebecca Paul raised concerns over the broadening of criminal liability exemptions and the overlap with existing legal frameworks such as the Suicide Act. The essence of these arguments was to avoid redundancy and ensure legal clarity, indicating an intellectual disagreement over legislative strategy and coherence.

3. Scope of Offences and Penalties (Clause 26): Amendments related to Clause 26 increased the maximum penalty for coercing someone into assisted dying to life imprisonment. While this amendment was accepted, debate still ensued about the necessity of creating a new offence when similar actions might already be criminalized under other laws. The disagreement here focused on whether new offences were necessary or potentially complicating existing legal frameworks.

4. Consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP): Amendment 509 proposed that proceedings for offences under Clause 26 should only be initiated with the DPP’s consent. This was debated with concerns raised about whether this requirement was necessary or if it added an unnecessary layer to the process. This issue underscores a disagreement on procedural safeguards and oversight in prosecutions.

While there were clear disagreements, these were largely procedural and legally technical in nature, focusing on refining the Bill’s language and addressing potential legal conflicts. The divisions resulted in votes being relatively decisive, suggesting that while there were disagreements, they did not reach a point of significant contention over the Bill’s passage overall. Considering the nature and impact of these disagreements on the legislative process, a rating of 3 is appropriate as it reflects a moderate level of disagreement without significantly derailing the legislative process.