Image source, ParliamentLive TV

As a reminder, a total of 330 MPs voted in favour of the historic bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales, while 275 voted against it.

This was a free vote - meaning MPs were not pressured to vote along party lines.

The committee that is examining the bill in detail today is made up of 23 MPs.

They include key figures from both sides of the debate, including the architect of the bill, Kim Leadbeater, as well as Tory MP Danny Kruger who is a vocal opponent of assisted dying.

Unusually, the bill's committee includes double the standard number of ministers - with Health Minister Stephen Kinnock and Justice Minister Sarah Sackman both appearing.

• Read more about the committee's members

Today is the start of the committee stage, and is just the first of many evidence and discussion sessions to come.

Over the next weeks, the committee will sit for a few days every week, with experts invited to give evidence before suggesting changes to the bill, just as we are seeing today. It's a chance for experts in healthcare, palliative care and disability - as well as people who work in assisted dying abroad - to give their views.

Those behind the bill hope to have this committee stage finished in time for the bill to return to the House of Commons on 25 April.

It is at that stage when all MPs will have a chance to debate and vote on the changes proposed by the committee.

Image source, Getty Images

Nick Triggle
Health correspondent

Both England’s chief medical officer Prof Chris Whitty and the British Medical Association’s Dr Andrew Green were asked about this earlier.

Green repeated the BMA’s position that there needs to be at the very least a separate service established, distinct from core NHS services like palliative care and cancer care - and this would need funding.

But Whitty said MPs may also want to debate whether the NHS provides the service at all.

On top of that there is staffing, training and other operational matters to consider. This is why it will take some time even if the bill is passed for a service to be up-and-running to allow patients to chose an assisted death.

The bill proposes a two-year timescale - but Whitty suggested even longer may be needed.

As we reported earlier, the BMA's ethics chief, Andrew Green, says it's important that doctors can opt-out of any part of the assisted dying process.

The current version of the bill, external, which is in the process of passing through Parliament, does already have a section on "protection for medical professionals".

"No registered medical practitioner or other health professional is under any duty (whether arising from any contract, statute or otherwise) to participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act", the bill says.

"An employer must not subject an employee to any detriment for exercising their right under subsection not to participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act or for participating in the provision of assistance to a person in accordance with this Act."

MPs scrutinising the assisted dying bill have heard their first few hours of evidence from an array of medical and industry experts. Here's what you need to know from this morning's session:

• England's most senior doctor Chris Whitty said there's a need to keep any and all safeguards in the bill as "simple" as possible - he told MPs he doesn't want people spending their last six months of life "essentially stuck in a bureaucratic thicket"
• Whitty was also asked a few times about whether he felt the bill's timeline was achievable (if the bill becomes law, it gives the government two years to implement it), to which he said two years seemed a "reasonable starting point" - but he added: "My view is this is something which is best not done at speed if we can avoid it"
• A few MPs also asked questions about the possibility that terminally ill people could be coerced into opting for assisted dying - a key concern opposers of the bill have - to which the British Medical Association (BMA)'s Dr Andrew Green, giving evidence, said coercion is "rare" but happens and can be difficult to spot
• Palliative care was also discussed at length, with the Royal College of Nursing's CEO Nicola Ranger rejecting Labour MP Kim Leadbeater's suggestion that such care and assisted dying could form part of a "holistic approach" to end of life care; she said discussions around them are separate and people's opinions on both should be listened to

As a reminder: The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, or the assisted dying bill for short, would make it legal for over-18s who are terminally ill to be given assistance to end their own life in England and Wales. There are a number of requirements someone must meet to be considered eligible, which we ran through a little earlier.

Nick Triggle
Health correspondent

The government’s most senior doctor and nurse were among those giving evidence this morning. But what do rank and file clinicians think about assisted dying?

There is, like there is among the public, a range of views.

The two biggest organisations representing doctors and nurses - the British Medical Association and Royal College of Nursing - have taken a neutral position when it comes assisted dying.

This means they are neither opposed nor in favour of changing the law.

But the BMA has said there needs to be a separate service to oversee assisted dying if it was to be introduced and this would require additional funding.

Perhaps the highest profile medical group opposed to changing the law is the Royal College of GPs, but it is carrying out a fresh consultation of members given the legislation that is being considered.

There's now a break in today's proceedings, until 14:00 GMT.

When MPs resume their positions in London's Portcullis House, they'll hear from a number of other witnesses - including Dr Sarah Cox, president at the Association of Palliative Medicine, and James Sanderson, the CEO of charity Sue Ryder.

For now, we'll bring you a round-up of what we've learnt so far - stay tuned.

Next, Conservative MP Kit Malthouse asks about England's Chief Medical Officer Prof Chris Whitty's earlier remarks to MPs that the last six months of someone's life shouldn't be a "bureaucratic thicket".

Prof Nicola Ranger, chief executive and general secretary at the Royal College of Nursing (RCN), says she agrees - and that she's worried it could become so bureaucratic that a patient ends up losing out on the autonomy they were seeking.

She says she supports making the process as clear and unbureaucratic as possible.

And the final question in this morning's session comes from Conservative MP Danny Kruger, who voted against the assisted dying bill back in November.

He asks if it could be possible that someone wants assisted dying because of the absence of adequate palliative care. "When you put it in a question like that, it could be possible," Ranger says back.

Prof Nicola Ranger is now talking about the reasons people tend to consider assisted dying - the primary one usually being a lack of autonomy, she says, not pain or a fear of dying.

This is in response to a question from Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who argues that palliative care and assisted dying should not be separated - and there should be a "holistic approach" to end of life care.

While she agrees with Leadbeater that conversations and care around end of life are important, Ranger pushes back slightly, saying conversations around assisted dying are different to palliative care.

Experienced nurses and doctors would be able to gauge those differences, she tells MPs, saying it's important to be clear about them and listen to what people have to say.

Six European countries - Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain and Austria - have some form of legalised assisted dying:

• In 1942, Switzerland was the first country in the world to make assisted dying legal - it is one of the few countries which allows foreigners access to help to die via organisations like Dignitas in Zurich
• The Netherlands and Belgium both legalised assisted dying more than 20 years ago for patients experiencing unbearable suffering from an incurable illness, including mental health issues. It has since been extended to children - the only European countries to allow this
• Spain and Austria have also legalised assisted dying for both terminal illness and intolerable suffering

The practice is also legal in New Zealand and Australia. In NZ, patients must be terminally ill and expected to die within six months, but that is extended to 12 months for those with a neurodegenerative condition in eligible parts of Australia.

A handful of states in the US allow assisted dying and though the rules around who's eligible varies slightly state-to-state, all require the lethal medication to be self-administered.

Canada's assisted dying has been made more widely available since it was first brought in, and is often held up as an example of a "slippery slope" by critics of the practice. Kim Leadbeater - the Labour MP who brought the assisted dying bill to Parliament - says the Canadian system is not what is being debated for England and Wales.

We're continuing to bring you key lines from the first evidence session for the assisted dying bill - during which experts are asked by MPs for their thoughts and advice. Next to answer questions are Glyn Berry, co-chair at the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers, and Professor Nicola Ranger, chief executive and general secretary at the Royal College of Nursing.

The first question is for Berry, who's asked about her statement that there's a risk without a more sustainable model of funding for palliative care: many could choose assisted death as the only way to escape unbearable suffering.

Berry says social workers see the despair and difficulties that people encounter as a result of inequitable care, and that funding around palliative care is a "real issue". She says in other countries where assisted dying is legal, some people feel that they don't have an option other than to apply because they are not aware of other options.

There are massive disparities in terms of access when it comes to palliative care, she adds.

In a quick exchange, Lib Dem MP Sarah Olney asks if there's a danger some doctors could go on to become reluctant to give a prognosis of six months, or less, if they thought it would make their patient eligible for assisted dying treatment.

This is why it's important doctors should be able to opt out of this process at any stage, Dr Andrew Green responds.

"There are doctors that would find it difficult to do that and it's important that their position is respected," he tells MPs.

• For context: The assisted dying bill stipulates that anyone over the age of 18 seeking assisted dying treatment must be expecting to die within the next six months. There are a host of requirements someone must meet to be deemed eligible - read them in our earlier post.

Next up, Conservative MP Danny Kruger asks whether the bill resolutely mandates the NHS to provide assisted dying treatment.

Green, a retired GP who's been answering the last few questions, says a view has not yet been taken as to whether the treatment should happen inside or outside the NHS. He adds that, in his view, this shouldn't be part of a doctor's day job - it should be a separate service.

Kruger then asks if there are concerns about resources and whether it's thought other parts of the NHS will suffer, to which Green says the NHS is "always concerned about resources".

Kruger, who opposes the bill, then goes on to focus on the delivery mechanism and legal implications. He asks whether there should be more specific guidance in the bill in the case of complications - for example, if a death is taking longer than expected, should doctors intervene?

Green says there should be clear guidance in the bill for doctors and that it's important to listen to the views of doctors and patients.

Labour's Sean Woodcock asks how frequently doctors have to deal with patient coercion - a key concern opposers of the bill have.

Responding, Dr Andrew Green reiterates a point made earlier by Chris Whitty - that all medical staff have safeguarding training.

He acknowledges that patients often make important decisions with the influence and help of family members, but he says this influence is usually helpful and comes from a position of love.

Green goes on to say there are moments where influence can become coercion and that it can be difficult to spot. "My experience is that it is rare," he says, recommending that MPs look at what has happened in other parts of the world, which have more experience in this area.

We're continuing to bring you key lines from the first evidence session for the assisted dying bill - during which experts are asked by MPs for their thoughts and advice.

Next up we're hearing from Mark Swindells, assistant director of standards and guidance at the General Medical Council (GMC) and Dr Andrew Green, chair of the BMA Medical Ethics committee.

Conservative MP Neil Shastri-Hurst asks for their views on whether doctors should bring up assisted dying with patients.

Green, a retired GP, whose BMA committee is neutral on the bill, says assisted dying should not just be a "tick box" in discussions patients have with their doctors. But there are some circumstances where doctors should be able to mention this to their patients, he adds.

Green says some patients might find it difficult to bring up sensitive matters and that health workers need to "open the door" so that patients can go into a "safe space" and have those discussions. He also urges MPs to not pass legislation that makes it harder for doctors to understand their patients.

There's a wealth of evidence to support Whitty's palliative care remarkspublished at 10:25 Greenwich Mean Time 28 January

10:25 GMT 28 January

Nick Triggle
Health correspondent

Unsurprisingly, the issue of palliative care has cropped up during this morning's session.

Whitty says changing the law to allow assisted dying should not necessarily on its own make the quality of care currently available better or worse.

But he tells MPs it certainly needs to be improved, saying it's not currently of a high enough standard.

There is a wealth of evidence to support this. Last autumn the Office for Health Economics said more funding was crucial, with the system struggling to meet the needs of an ageing population.

And a report by end of life charity Marie Curie sites data showing more than a fifth of people needing palliative care go without.

Audits also show four in 10 hospitals do not have specialist palliative care services available seven days a week.

While hospices are struggling for money, with a parliamentary report recently describing the funding system, which relies heavily on them raising money themselves, as not fit for purpose.

Opher asks another question now - about medical staff who might want to opt out of making this decision about their patient. He asks if they will have to refer the patient to another doctor, or if they can simply refuse to do it.

Chris Whitty says that for some doctors this is a point of very strong principle - and that for some people a referral would not be a problem but for others it would.

He says in these situations there should be alternative routes, but that this is a matter for Parliament to decide when ironing out the finer detail of the bill.

• As a reminder: One of the conditions of the bill is that two independent doctors must be satisfied that anyone seeking assisted dying is eligible. There's more about the bill's conditions in our earlier post - read that here.

Labour MP Simon Opher now asks about the six-month prognostic period set out in the bill, and whether England's Chief Medical Officer Prof Chris Whitty is happy with it.

He responds that it's generally "very predictable" to say someone is going to die in the "foreseeable future" - but "whether it's five months or seven months is a lot harder".

Six months is "as good as any other" timeframe, but Parliament should realise it could be less than that, and it could be more than that.

"If you're going to choose one [a timeframe] this is a reasonable one," he says.

But he stresses "it's not an exact science", adding that it's not as tight as saying a baby is going to be born on a certain date.

Update 11:35 GMT: This post was updated to remove a reference to Chris Whitty saying it was "very predictable" to say someone is going to die within six months.

Chris Whitty's asked again now whether he thinks the bill's proposed timeline of two years is realistic - Tory MP Rebecca Paul asks whether the NHS will be ready in time to deliver assisted dying safely and equitably.

Whitty responds:

"The central person here is a person, an average citizen, in their last six months of life.

"What we don't want is a system that is very difficult for them to navigate, so they spend their entire last six months of life, if this bill is passed... essentially stuck in a bureaucratic thicket."

He adds that there's a "need to keep this simple and in my view, the best safeguards are simple safeguards".

Pushed on what he considers to be a reasonable timeline, Whitty says there's a big difference between the bill coming into force and "the service being provided". He reiterates that he wants the NHS to be able to move swiftly - but that safety and equity is paramount.

A question now from Labour's Kim Leadbeater who, if you remember, is the person who brought this bill to Parliament for a free vote - meaning MPs weren't pressured to vote along party lines.

Focusing on a key issue opposers of the bill have - coercion - she points to the work doctors and nurses already do to check for this as well as assess the capacity of patients.

She notes that the Mental Capacity Act , external- designed to protect and empower people aged 16 and over who may lack the mental capacity to make their own decisions about their care and treatment - is referenced in the assisted dying bill, but asks if there is anything that can be added to make the bill more robust on this issue.

Burton responds by saying nursing and clinical staff are already trained in safeguarding - but that if the bill is passed they will need to look at how to strengthen this training in relation to spotting signs of coercion.

Whitty adds that he's relieved the bill is sticking with the current Mental Capacity Act because it is used every day by doctors and nurses who understand it, and also because it feels "robust and predictable".