In this sixth instalment of our special mini-podcast series, we continue to track the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which seeks to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. This episode looks into developments in the Bill Committee this week, where scrutiny of the legislation has intensified. And we speak with Professor Colin Gavaghan about how New Zealand legislated for assisted dying.
In this episode, we track the latest developments in the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Committee, where scrutiny has intensified. We discuss the pace of the Committee’s progress, the dynamics between supporters and opponents of the Bill, and a key upcoming vote on the clause which proposes shifting oversight from High Court judges to an expert panel. Could this amendment sway MPs who previously supported the Bill?
Later, we turn to New Zealand, where assisted dying has been legal for over three years. Professor Colin Gavaghan, from the University of Bristol, shares insights into New Zealand’s experience, exploring eligibility criteria, operational challenges, and the emotional toll on medical professionals. What lessons can the UK learn from their legislative approach and the assisted dying system itself.
Professor Colin Gavaghan
Colin Gavaghan is a Professor at Bristol Digital Futures Institute and at the Law School at the University of Bristol. His research interests include the analysis of legal, ethical and policy issues around new technologies, as well as medical and criminal law. He has published widely on end-of-life issues and was an expert witness in Seales v Attorney General, the leading New Zealand case on assisted dying. Formerly the first Director of the New Zealand Law Foundation Centre for Law and Policy in Emerging Technologies at the University of Otago, he was also Deputy Chair of the New Zealand’s statutory Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology.
Colin Gavaghan
‘Capacity and Assisted Dying’, chapter in Cholbi, M. J. (2017), Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Global Views on Choosing to End Life (Santa Barbara, California: Praeger), p. 299.
Written evidence to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Public Bill Committee (with Isabella Lewis), 14 February 2025
‘Assisted Dying Bill: Why the challenge for MPs is not a lack of information’, University of Bristol Law School blog, 28 November 2024
Hansard Society
Parliament
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Bill documents
Please note, this transcript is automatically generated. There may consequently be minor errors and the text is not formatted according to our style guide. If you wish to reference or cite the transcript copy below, please first check against the audio version above.
[00:00:00] Speaker: You are listening to Parliament Matters, a Hansard Society production, supported by the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust. Learn more at hansardsociety.org.uk.
[00:00:17] Ruth Fox: Welcome to Parliament Matters, the podcast about the institution at the heart of our democracy, Parliament itself. I'm Ruth Fox.
[00:00:24] Mark D'Arcy: And I'm Mark D'Arcy and welcome to the latest in our special series of mini podcasts tracing the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the bill that aims to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales.
[00:00:37] In a moment we'll be looking at events in a jurisdiction that's had an assisted dying system for three years, New Zealand, and the lessons it might have for the system in this country. But first Ruth, there's been quite a lot of interesting action in the bill committee that's ploughing through the details of the bill at the moment.
[00:00:52] Ruth Fox: Yes, I mean the pace has quickened a bit. Notably, there have been various comments at different stages from Kim Leadbeater and others keeping an eye on the clock, almost, you know, noting that we need to make progress and so on. And I think they have made a little bit more progress than previous weeks.
[00:01:09] They're getting through things a little bit quicker, partly because it does appear as if some of the MPs who are supportive of the bill are making fewer interventions or shorter interventions. possibly to keep things moving along at a quicker pace.
[00:01:22] Mark D'Arcy: And that's a fairly classic kind of thing that happens when time is running short.
[00:01:27] The supporters of a proposition often almost disengage, let the other side make its debating points, but don't fire back at anything like the normal rate, just so that they don't take up time. It's something you often see, for example, in debates in the Commons Chamber on Private Members Bills.
[00:01:44] Ruth Fox: Yeah, I mean, it's important to stress this bill is getting more scrutiny than any recent Private Member's Bill, I can recall. And actually more scrutiny than quite a lot of Government bills, I can recall as well. So when we talk about the pressure of time and running short of time and so on, that has to be set in context. There's nothing that unusual about where we are in terms of the amount of time.
[00:02:04] But there is this pressure, obviously, of needing to meet the Friday of 25th of April to get into the next stage, Report Stage. put the bill back into the Chamber. They're mindful of that.
[00:02:16] Mark D'Arcy: And that might, for example, entail them sitting rather later than usual in the committee. Some very long sittings, 8pm or 9pm finishes to their afternoon sittings, for example.
[00:02:26] Which can get pretty gruelling for members of the committee who can be there, you know, 4, 5, 6 hours.
Use the links below to subscribe to the Hansard Society's Parliament Matters podcast on your preferred app, or search for 'Parliament Matters' on whichever podcasting service you use. If you are unable to find our podcast, please email us here.
The UK Spending Review outlines how Government funds will be allocated over several years. Unlike the Budget, which raises revenue, the Review decides how it is spent. But how is it approved? What role does Parliament play if it doesn’t vote on the Review itself? This blog explores how the Spending Review works, how it differs from the Budget, and how Parliament holds the Government to account through the Estimates process.
On Friday 13 June, the House of Commons will once again debate the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. Specifically, it will hold a second day of Report Stage, during which the whole House will debate and vote on amendments. This briefing explains the structure of Report Stage, what happened on the first day of Report Stage, how amendments are selected and grouped, on which amendments a decision can still be taken, and the likely sequence of events this Friday, including whether a final vote will take place.
The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves MP, will deliver a statement on the Spending Review. MPs will resume Report Stage of the assisted dying bill and debate key legislation on football governance, mental health, and planning and infrastructure. Peers and MPs are expected to resolve their standoff over AI and copyright in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. The Commons Defence Committee will hear from the lead reviewers of the Strategic Defence Review, while a Lords Committee will examine the Chagos Archipelago sovereignty issue. The Hansard Society’s Director will give evidence to the Modernisation Committee about access to the House of Commons and its procedures.
In this episode, we explore why ministers keep bypassing Parliament to make major announcements to the media — and whether returning to the Despatch Box might help clarify their message. We unpack the Lords' uphill battle to protect creators’ rights in the Data Use and Access Bill, challenge claims that the Assisted Dying Bill lacks scrutiny, and examine early findings from a Speaker’s Conference on improving security for MPs, as threats and intimidation against politicians continue to rise. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.
Our evidence on treaty scrutiny has been published by the House of Lords International Agreements Committee. Our submission outlines the problems with the existing framework for treaty scrutiny and why legislative and cultural change are needed to improve Parliament's scrutiny role. Our evidence joins calls for a parliamentary consent vote for the most significant agreements, a stronger role for Parliament in shaping negotiating mandates and monitoring progress, and a sifting committee tasked with determining which agreements warrant the greatest scrutiny.
