Westminster update: scrutiny of Terminally Ill Adults Bill continues

Renters’ Rights Act levels the playing field

Read our response to the act and call for court investment to create a workable act for tenants and landlords.

Scrutiny of Terminally Ill Adults Bill continues

The Terminally Ill Adults Committee held five sessions to review the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill ahead of the Committee of the Whole House on 14 November.

The session (29 October) with minister for courts and legal services Sarah Sackman KC MP focused on the proposed Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission.

Sackman explained that the panel, chaired by a High Court judge, would function administratively rather than judicially and decide eligibility for assisted dying rather than adjudicate disputes.

Decisions can be challenged only via judicial review, with no legal aid expected.

Committee members pressed on procedural fairness, departmental responsibility and drafting of criminal offences related to coercion.

Sackman noted that statutory definitions were rejected to avoid narrowing the scope of the behaviours covered.

The session also looked at safeguards, including mandatory assessment by two medical practitioners and a multidisciplinary panel, and training requirements on domestic abuse and coercive control.

Members explored the role of family members, emphasising that family input occurs only when doubts remain.

They discussed whether these arrangements were enough to protect patients while aligning with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), addressing concerns raised by critics such as retired judge Sir James Munby.

In a separate session (30 October), Alasdair Henderson KC of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and other disability and human rights experts considered the bill’s implications for disabled and terminally ill patients.

Henderson highlighted that compliance with articles 2, 3 and 14 of the ECHR depends on making robust health, social care and palliative support widely available.

The committee’s discussions highlight the importance of robust safeguards, human rights oversight and equitable palliative care to make sure the bill protects vulnerable groups while respecting patient autonomy.

We will be giving evidence to the committee on 5 November, and we expect the committee’s report to be published on 11 November.

Law Society concerns raised on Border Security Bill

Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat) raised our concerns about inadvertently criminalising victims of modern slavery during report stage debates for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill on Tuesday 28 October.

Baroness Hamwee spoke on her amendment 7, which ensures that the new criminal offence targets smugglers rather than those seeking asylum.

She stated that “the Law Society has pointed out that the clause may criminalise victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, or asylum seekers who are forced to help smugglers.

“It is concerned that the provision risks incompatibility with article 31 of the Refugee Convention, which prohibits penalties being imposed on refugees who enter or are present in a country without authorisation for the purpose of seeking asylum.”

Responding for the government, Lord Hanson stated that a non-exhaustive list of “reasonable excuses” already exists in the clause and attempted to argue that only individuals who are “intending” to use articles for immigration crime will be caught.

Baroness Hamwee withdrew her amendment.

Lord German (Liberal Democrat) raised concerns about the government’s new amendment to criminalise the online advertisement of illegal immigration materials.

He noted the danger of criminalising non-criminal actors, arguing that this creates ambiguity that potentially affects legal practitioners providing legitimate services.

Lord Katz responded that “this is about supplying goods, not services. There is a clear difference between people who want to supply dinghies to get people across the channel and those who are supplying people with legal services to defend an appeal claim for asylum, for instance”.

Baroness Hamwee also raised her amendment 12 to provide further reasonable excuses, including some connected with a person’s occupation. She noted that her primary point concerns legal advice.

Lord Harper responded in support of the government’s new offence, noting that “if someone is providing legal advice about what somebody has done and their legal position, then they are not going to be caught by this offence”.

The minister reassured that clause 16 is designed to target those who collect sensitive information to facilitate immigration crime.

He emphasised that “the clause is not in any way, shape or form aimed at those who want to provide bona fide legal advice who are acting within the law”.

Baroness Hamwee withdrew her amendment 12 as well.

Sentencing Bill debates balance safety and rehabilitation

On Wednesday 29 October, the Commons held a report stage debate on the Sentencing Bill, which aims to reform sentencing practices in England and Wales.

The debate covered a range of proposed amendments and new clauses, many of which addressed concerns about public safety, rehabilitation and the capacity of the justice system.

We briefed MPs across parties, recognising the urgent need to address prison overcrowding and the ineffectiveness of short-term custodial sentences.

We also set out practical concerns around the potential impact of income reduction orders and prison disciplinary procedures on demand for and access to legal aid.

We supported amendments for:

• incorporating safeguarding of victims from further harm
• re-sentencing those with imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences in line with the Justice Committee’s 2022 report
• assessing the potential effects of restriction zone conditions on the ability of ex-offenders to access employment, education or rehabilitation

Opposition MPs proposed a new clause to abolish the Sentencing Council, arguing that the council led to overly lenient sentences and that the secretary of state should set guidelines to better reflect public expectations and government priorities.

These amendments were debated but not adopted.

MPs also debated when and how to apply suspended sentences, weighing the impact of the prison capacity crisis with potential risks to public safety.

The bill had its third reading with no further amendments and has passed to the House of Lords for a second reading on 14 November.

We will brief peers in due course.

Coming up

We are working closely with MPs and peers to influence a number of bills before Parliament:

• Renters’ Rights Act: the bill has received royal assent and is now the Renters’ Rights Act
• Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will continue its report stage in the Lords, which began on 28 October
• Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will begin its report stage in the Lords on a date to be confirmed
• Crime and Policing Bill will begin a committee stage in the Lords on10 November
• Employment Rights Bill will begin a consideration of Lords message on 5 November
• Mental Health Bill will begin a consideration of Commons amendments on a date to be confirmed
• Planning and Infrastructure Bill will continue its report stage in the Lords, which began on 20 October
• Public Office (Accountability) Bill began its second reading in the Commons on 3 November
• Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is being reviewed by a select committee, with its next session on 5 November
• Sentencing Bill will begin its second reading in the Lords on 12 November