Live Debate: Commons Chamber

Commons Chamber

Friday 20th June 2025

(began 14 hours, 11 minutes ago)

Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded

09:34

None

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

private. The question is this house sit in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this house sit in private. I think the nose have it. private. I think the nose have it. Right, the clerk will now proceed to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

read the orders of the day. Terminally El adults end-of-life bill as amended in the Public Bill bill as amended in the Public Bill Committee to be further considered. Now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Now. Before we come to the bill, I would like to say a few words about would like to say a few words about today's proceedings. On 13 June, an today's proceedings. On 13 June, an objection was taken to request a new clause 16 be read a second time. As clause 16 be read a second time. As the objection was taken after 230, proceedings and the bill stopped so we will begin with the question that we will begin with the question that new clause 16 be read a second time.

I will then put the questions on the amendment select decisions. I can amendment select decisions. I can confirm that we have selected all of the items for separate decision. I have also selected the following. Amendment 14, amendment 24, amendment 12 and a moment 21. Once amendment 12 and a moment 21. Once the decisions have in complete, I will then ask the member in charge to name the day for Third Reading. She says now, the Third Reading debate will begin. Many colleagues wish to participate in the debate today.

I hope the divisions which are about to have can take place reasonably quickly in order to maximise the time available for the date. On 13 June, Rebecca moved formally the new clause 16 be read a second time. I now put the question that new clause 16 we read a second time. As many of that opinion, say I've to the contrary, no. Division,

09:37

Division

10:41

Points of Order James Cartlidge MP (South Suffolk, Conservative)

- -

section. On a point of order, James Cartlidge.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There was a serious incident which has been described as vandalism but may be worse. We are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wondering if there will be a statement from the Ministry of Defence later. I have been given no notice of the incident at Brize Norton. I know nothing of the incident. What I nothing of the incident. What I would say, the beds opposite would have heard and I wouldn't want to have heard and I wouldn't want to interrupt today's proceedings, but if it is that serious, we could put something on at the end, but that something on at the end, but that will be for others but not me at this stage.

Right, we now come to this stage. Right, we now come to Third Reading. Consideration completed, Third Reading, what day? completed, Third Reading, what day? Huge number of members have indicated they wish to speak in this indicated they wish to speak in this debate. I hope that members will restrict themselves to a reasonable amount after the first two opening speeches I will advise that five minutes to enable other colleagues minutes to enable other colleagues to participate. We need to ask for shorter speeches to enable all or as shorter speeches to enable all or as many members to contribute.

I shall make it clear that the chair returns the right to impose a formal speech limit but I would rather colleagues help each other. After all, it is an important day and we do want to hear as many views as possible. I called to move that the bill now be read 1/3 time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. It is an honour and a privilege to open the debate for the

10:42

Kim Leadbeater MP (Spen Valley, Labour)

- -

10:57

Rt Hon Sir James Cleverly MP (Braintree, Conservative)

- -

11:14

Rt Hon Diane Abbott MP (Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Labour)

- -

is literally a matter of life or death. I have heard talk today about the injustices of the current situation. What could be more unjust than to lose your life because of poorly drafted legislation? We are hearing about panels. The people talking about panels have presumably not had much to do with them. I would not put my life or anyone dear to me in the hands of a panel of officials. I would stress, right from the beginning, but it is perfectly possible to support assisted dying as I do but not be prepared to vote for this bill.

There is so much that is problematic about this bill. First of all, and I believe this is widely understood, there has not been enough time to there has not been enough time to Second of all, a bill of this seriousness should be given more time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does she find it rather peculiar

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does she find it rather peculiar that the previous Parliament spent 746 hours discussing the death of 746 hours discussing the death of the fox in 98 hours discussing the death of fellow humans?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There has been a lot of talk about there is no evidence of about there is no evidence of coercion. There wouldn't be. Within the family in particular, the most powerful coercion is silence. It is powerful coercion is silence. It is the failure to answer when a the failure to answer when a question is put to you. If police cannot spot coercion in a domestic cannot spot coercion in a domestic violence situation, why can they be expected to spot coercion in an expected to spot coercion in an assisted dying situation? It has assisted dying situation? It has been pointed out by the Royal College pathologists and the former College pathologists and the former Chief Coroner that without a role for a coroner, this bill raises the possibility of foul play.

But when an amendment was brought forward in committee to deal with it, it was opposed. This bill would allow private for profit contractors to run an assisted dying service with no profit cap and no transparency. But when an amendment was brought forward in committee to deal with this point, it was opposed. And we have heard, and we will hear over and over again in this debate about choice. It may be choice, this bill produces, for those of us, like most everybody in this house who has, for the entirety of their adult life been confident in dealing with authority and institutions.

And even then, the bill would need amendment. But what choice does this bill hold for someone who, all their lives, has lacked agency, particularly in a family context which may be particularly the case in certain cultures and communities, and what choice does this bill offer to those that lack access to good palliative care. As the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has put it, outlaws should not focus on the few who wish for assisted dying, but do little to support the majority of those facing their final days who want and deserve access to the best of palliative care.

What choice is it for those who, because their doctor raises it with them at all things, this is a direction that they are being guided in? An amendment that might have addressed this issue was rejected by those bringing the bill forward in committee. It seems to be a possibility they do not take seriously at all. And yet anyone who knows how institutions work should be watchful for that. I came to this house to be a voice for the voiceless.

It has not always been favoured by my own leadership, but that is why I came to the house. And who could be more voiceless than somebody who is in a sickbed and believes they are dying? I ask members in this debate to speak up for the voiceless one more time. Because there is no doubt that if this bill is passed, in its current form, people will lose their lives who do not need to, and they would be amongst the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society.

It is not because I am opposed to assisted dying in principle, but because my concern is for vulnerable and marginalised persons will stop vulnerable and marginalised communities that I implore the House to reject this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order. May I reiterate what the speaker has offered, this what the speaker has offered, this is one of the most far-reaching considerations that the House, even considerations that the House, even those of us who have been there for those of us who have been there for a long time, and it is understandable people on both sides of the house will want to take part. Looking around it is quite clear we Looking around it is quite clear we cannot accommodate everybody.

That means that inevitably it is likely that there will be quite a considerable number of considerable number of interventions. All I would say gently is interventions will be gently is interventions will be taken into account when considering the order of priority in which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

members are called. Thank you Mr Speaker. Can I start

11:22

Mark Garnier MP (Wyre Forest, Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Mr Speaker. Can I start off by saying a huge thank you to the member for Spen Valley all the extraordinary work she has done in extraordinary work she has done in this whole debate. This is the first time I have spoken in this debate. Like many people I come to this through personal experience. I have heard many stories of people who have had relations who have died. In my case it was my mother who died stop in 2012 she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

My father-in-law was a consultant I phoned to and he said she has a 90% chance of dying. I was prepared for it. Eventually you come to the point where you get the telephone call that her health has started to deteriorate. You go down to CO, you take time off work down to CO, you take time off work here, and you watch the start of the decline for something as painful and as difficult as pancreatic cancer which for those who have witnessed it is not a nice memory.

My mother was not frightened of dying. She knew that she was going to die. But she was terrified of the pain. And on many occasions she said to me and Caroline my wife, can't we make the N. Of course we couldn't. She had very good care from the NHS. The nurses came twice a day. And the GB came and saw her. She was looked after well. But as she deteriorated you could see she was in a huge amount of pain. Eventually she died.

It was not one of the happiest moments of my life of course. Contrary to this, I found myself two or three years ago going to the memorial service at one of my constituents who was a truly wonderful person was she also had died of pancreatic cancer. Because she had been in Spain at the time, she had the opportunity to go through the state provided assisted dying program they do there. I spoke to her widower very briefly and he was fascinating to he said it was an extraordinary incredibly sad thing but it was something that made her suffering much less.

It was almost a quiet Sunday afternoon won't happen. And so I saw between those two people, my mother who had the indignity of pain and suffering and she was terrified, and my constituents who had the opportunity to end it in a dignified way. When I came to this debate I was convinced this is the right thing to do. I have spent the last six or seven months engaging as hard as I possibly can with those people who I hoped would be able to persuade me of a different decision.

To try to persuade me that I was wrong in my assumptions. I have spoken to huge number of people, I have joined some of the meetings with campaigners. I have read every email, I have spoken to religious leaders. And I've yet to be persuaded that this is a bad thing to do. There's been a huge amount of debate, we've had over 100 hours and loads of amendments. People have been incredibly thoughtful on both sides. At the end of the day, we are probably trying to find the perfect and getting rid of the good, I don't know.

But having looked at all of this, having seen it first hand, the only way I can possibly end today is by going through the Aye lobby to support the member for Spen Valley. I think the time has come when we need to end suffering, when suffering can be put aside. And not try to do something which is going to be super perfect, and allow more people to suffer in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the future. Thank you. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I first of all start by thanking the honourable before Spen Valley for sponsoring the bill, and all the

11:26

Naz Shah MP (Bradford West, Labour)

- -

sponsoring the bill, and all the audible members who have served alongside the Bill Committee and the whole house, for the approach everyone has taken in response to this bill. One thing I want to make clear is that I came to this bill with an open mind. In principle, I supported it, and at first glance, like many I did. But this debate is no longer about the principle of assisted death. That is not the decision before us today, and nor is it the issue that we will be walking through those lobbies on when we are deciding to vote for or against this bill.

What I can say is that our responsibility in this place is to make sure this bill is safe, workable, and effective. And that is a test upon which we will be voting for or against today. As this bill stands, it is a public safety issue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, and understand her concerns, the same concerns I have, concerns on behalf of those who have concerns on behalf of those who have anorexia, and those who have mental health conditions, troubled people. health conditions, troubled people. Vulnerable at a time. Those with mental health conditions, vulnerable mental health conditions, vulnerable people. Does she think like I do that this bill does not in any way ever address the issue of those who ever address the issue of those who are vulnerable in relation to assisted dying?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assisted dying? I thank him four is interventions will stop I think he might have read my speech. I am going to set up why my speech. I am going to set up why the bill is not safe, with amendment 14 which we nodded through today, 14 which we nodded through today, and Amendment 38 which we won't get the chance to vote on. Amendment 14 the chance to vote on. Amendment 14 dealt with the issue of voluntarily dealt with the issue of voluntarily stopping the eating and drinking.

It has been used in other jurisdictions as a bridge. I'm pleased that the sponsor of the bill accepted that sponsor of the bill accepted that amendment. Let me be very clear, this is not a loophole. This is not the anorexia loophole, that was another amendment. When people stop voluntarily eating and drinking, that is not what happens to people with anorexia. People with anorexia stop eating and drinking because they have a psychiatric illness, they are two categorically different issues. I must make it absolutely clear even though amendment 14 is through today, this amendment does not address concerns about anorexia or close that loophole.

Members in the other place are already raising concerns that this is done through the private members process, but they don't believe that they can protect against all safeguards that it will not be safe to deliver to the public. At least 60 women with anorexia have died with assisted death, and at least hundreds of eating order experts and doctors and lawyers, charities, and people who live with lived experience urged Parliament to close this loophole and support amendment 38.

As a committee, we failed to heed the warning. Now we have learnt that the one remaining amendment that could protect people with eating disorders have not even been voted on. Our responsibility is to make the bill say. We know what happens when politicians think they know better than the experts. Let's make it clear, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal pathologists, Politico doctors, geriatric, or every eating disorder charity, almost every disabled People's Not because I do not believe in the principle, but because they are warning us about the dangers of this bill and getting this wrong.

Our job is not to be activists, to fight until our last breath for the principle in whatever shape or form it is delivered. Of course we believe in it causes and that is why each and every one of us here in Parliament, as are legislators, we must listen to the experts, he the evidence, scrutinise and debate the idea and deliver to our constituencies laws that are safe, workable and effective. Our history prides itself, with the likes of Florence Nightingale, the honourable lady with the lamp, making every barrier possible to heal the wounded.

To provide care for the vulnerable and reduce the chance of death. These are principles of our great NHS was founded upon. If this bill passes, we must ask ourselves, are these fundamental principles still intact? Will they be there to protect for those who face the postcode lottery in health care and palliative care. Those who are the most vulnerable, those who have the greatest hardships through life and feel like a burden. Those who are feeling like giving up, but we could help backup and push them to a better life.

Now we have instead given them away, even if they could have survived. The question for all members is simply this, what is the margin of error, when it comes to something as serious as desk? I urge something as serious as desk? I urge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

members to vote against this bill. Thank you, the mother of the House is absolutely right to stress House is absolutely right to stress the importance of being a voice for the voiceless. And that is a role that many members, in this House take deeply seriously. Proponents of take deeply seriously. Proponents of this bill included. No one is more voiceless in this debate, than those terminally ill adults, who had suffered painful, traumatic and undignified death, under the current

11:32

Josh Babarinde MP (Eastbourne, Liberal Democrat)

- -

undignified death, under the current system. And their families too. So nothing that I could say, personally makes the case for this bill, not just at the principle, this bill, more powerfully than this letter from my constituents, which is from my constituents, which is adapted to protect her anonymity. She says following a diagnosis of an aggressive tumour, my partners are final days were agony. He struggled to breathe and swallow and lost his ability to speak. He was incontinent and developed painful bedsores.

He repeatedly asked for help, to help end his life. I entered his room, to see that he had staffed yards of his topsheet into his mouth, in an attempt to suffocate. It was the most distressing site and one I will never forget. I live with this image and cannot share it with our children. This could have been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

avoided, with an assisted dying law. Thank you to the honourable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you to the honourable member, I agree with him people should be able to seek assisted should be able to seek assisted death. The Bill as it stands allows death. The Bill as it stands allows Doctor, I want to go, because I do not want to be a burden, even if they are not suffering at the they are not suffering at the appointed time to stop it also allows them to safe and want to go now so my family have a large inheritance.

Why should we support a bill that says that, this afternoon?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill that says that, this afternoon? I thank him for his intervention and he will be aware there is a specific criminal offence created, to punish those, who would coerce

**** Possible New Speaker ****

such a relative. There are folks who talk about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are folks who talk about the concept of coercion, but others the concept of coercion, but others would frame such a decision as a would frame such a decision as a choice, a choice. And so, this could have been avoided with assisted dying law, is what my constituent dying law, is what my constituent has said. My partner jurisdiction, where such a law exists. A relative used that law, they are able to gather their family, say a proper goodbye and die in peace and with dignity, before losing all physical and mental capacity.

I won't give way, I will give others a chance to speak Arthur. The procedure to enable this was protracted and had several safeguards, which provides much of the to support this bill. Beyond this principle. And I will do so, as the status quo is completely unacceptable and it must be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reformed. Thank you, as a young doctor I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, as a young doctor I found the measures we are debating today completely unconscionable. Now today completely unconscionable. Now I am an old. I feel that sure this is an essential change. This is is an essential change. This is because when I saw over 45 years in hospitals, it is our patients who are at the centre of my thoughts as are at the centre of my thoughts as we consider this profound change, we consider this profound change, our patients, we must, invest in palliative care, we have some of the very best palliative care in the world in this country to stop some

11:36

Peter Prinsley MP (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, Labour)

- -

world in this country to stop some will say there are no limits to the comfort the palliative care givers, has not been my experience was not particularly I think some of my patients with advanced disfiguring head and neck cancers, this is what people fear and this is why I believe we are right in the choice. A final autonomous choice. I applaud the Bill committee and thank the many witnesses who contributed stuff this is not easy. The House spent hours debating, we cannot cover the legal expert, the psychiatrist ensure every oversight and scrutiny.

I have no doubt this is better than the single judge, no matter how distinguished or wise. The family circumstances free will and mental skill will all be considered. I do not think we will see coercion to undergo assisted dying. Families are more likely to want patients out of this. I call this a bill, to assist people who are dying. This is not for people who are not dying. People who are terminally ill, have been for a long time. This is not yet for for a long time.

This is not yet for them until they are. All of us must make the very best of every day. Whether our lives be long, or short. Of course this is especially true for those with terminal diagnosis. The vulnerable must be protected. I believe the measures and is built will of course protect the vulnerable stop people who are disabled and those who have mental health disorders. Profound sadness, as our lives and is quite normal and clinical depression should be treated.

My observation is that such patients are clearheaded and very rational. The idea that we risk opening a floodgate or some sort of mission creep is quite wrong, in my view. People have a choice, to put arrangements in place, only if needed this will give peace of mind. A final insurance policy. So let me come again to patients were treated over my long career. The wise words of the nurse who has been my compassionate colleague for many years. She said this was an essential change.

And the matron who recorded that her patient as a student many years ago, and should have never left. There is an absolute sanctity of human life, but we are not dealing with life or death. Rather death and death. For there is also a sanctity of human dignity and are fundamental to that initially the choice. Who are we to I know that many members present today who will look forward to the day when it is possible for people in this country to die in peace,

11:40

Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)

- -

dignity and at a time of their choosing. And I think that the opportunity to bring that about is close at hand than ever before. It close at hand than ever before. It can only happen if those members vote against this bill today. The vote against this bill today. The express will of the House as reflected in the second reading vote, momentum generated by this bill and the support of the prime Minister, as we understand it, to Minister, as we understand it, to change the law, create a moment at the cabbie cross to bring an assisted dying legislation.

If this assisted dying legislation. If this bill passes, the case assisted dying will be fatally undermined and put back for a generation. I have sat back for a generation. I have sat with the committee and report stages listening to the oral evidence and participated in the debate. This bill, if it passes, will be challenged in court. It will be subjected to endless attempts to amend it in parliament, it will be difficult to effectively implement difficult to effectively implement and ultimately it will lose the confidence of the public.

It was confidence of the public. It was immensely challenging to properly debate the bill in committee stage, because we frequently found ourselves, leading an understanding of practice or point of law, the MPs are not typically expert in. We spent many hours, for example, debating whether or not the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act, was sufficient by someone who is making the decision to die. Of course we consulted experts. Some said it wasn't, I do not believe that this particular decision is one that politicians are best placed to make.

We would, all of us, I'm going to make progress. We would all of us been better served by asking a team of experts to evaluate the evidence, draw on the professional experience and come to a settled consensus, amongst themselves, on this point about mental capacity. Likewise, the questions we had about how best to approach the issue of anorexia, in the context of assisted dying, or whether the bill provides a suitable framework for the provision, in control of drugs designed for the ending of a life.

These are not political decisions. They have however been decided by politicians and we have approached them, in our usual adversarial way. The right answer is not the one that after careful thought and consideration and consultation, but the one that can muster the most votes. We have reached immense unsatisfactory conclusion, this legislation imposes duties and responsibilities are professionals who do not think the are compatible with expert practice. The legislation was amended during committee stage to require a panel to approve an application for assisted dying and that the panel would include a psychiatrist.

But the Royal College of Psychiatrists has stated that they oppose this legislation. I'm not to give way. Assisted dying, under this legislation cannot be implemented when outside a psychiatrist, they would be acting outside the advice of their professional body. -- Without psychiatrist. Will there be sufficient psychiatrist prepared to implement the provisions of this legislation against the advice of their professional body, to ensure that enough panels can be convened for the purpose of facilitating assisted dying? It is hard to see

**** Possible New Speaker ****

how they could be. By contrast there are many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By contrast there are many decisions which are expressly reserved for politicians. The reserved for politicians. The limited resources of the NHS be used to deliver an assisted dying service to deliver an assisted dying service result should be possible to offer it as a profit making a choice? What should be collected and reported, we should oversee and regulate its practitioners? Get members of practitioners? Get members of Parliament are to have no say over any of these matters at all. These any of these matters at all.

These are all powers to be reserved to the Secretary of State. To be decided behind closed doors was upwards again this legislation grant these again this legislation grant these responsibilities to people who do, neither the secretary of health, nor neither the secretary of health, nor the current secretary for justice are supporters of this bill. The House of Commons, after today was shut out of further decision-making shut out of further decision-making on this bill even though many of the decisions are still to be made are rightfully ours to make.

The lack of rightfully ours to make. The lack of professional consensus and acceptance of the requirements of this legislation, coupled with the lack of political scrutiny and many of its more important provisions, create an unstable foundation upon create an unstable foundation upon which to build an assisted dying service. Such a service to succeed, and is professionals willing to deliver it, could he can have confidence that they are acting and will be supported by their professional peers and by society at large.

I do not see how this legislation can deliver that. It is instructive, to compare this piece of legislation, with the abortion act 1967. That he was a Private Members' Bill, brought to this House by David steel. It was preceded by medical advisory committee, chaired by the President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, who approve the bill. The professionals needed to enact the legislation had indicated their support for the bill, before it reached the Commons. The bill only delegated one power to the Secretary of State.

Legislation was hotly debated, then and now, once it was past it came into force within six months. Remarkably, with the exception of amendments required to bring it into line with successive men fertilisation and embryology act, to extend its provisions Northern Ireland, provisions of that the abortion act are brought into law have remained almost entirely unchanged, for 58 years. Until just this week, in fact. The careful consideration of the issues that took place, before the legislation came to the Commons, combined with the fact that all its provisions were included within the primary legislation, to be debated and voted in, in one go, has enabled a settled consensus, to develop around abortion provision in this country in contrast to other jurisdictions.

It has enabled vulnerable women to seek the help they need and given healthcare workers the confidence and support they require. That is what we need, if we want to deliver a successful assisted dying service. And this legislation cannot deliver that. The members want assisted dying, vote against this bill and make the most of the moment to press for a better approach. That can deliver a sustainable framework that accepted and supported by the medical profession and in which the public can have confidence. If people's lives are going to be ended prematurely, as a result of this legislation that we passed, we cannot take risks.

We cannot afford to pass this bill. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, this is my first

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, this is my first beach, in this chamber, since the beach, in this chamber, since the general election. If I were honest I wish I wasn't speaking in this debate. As I wish this legislation debate. As I wish this legislation was being put forward. Having always been opposed to assisted dying, indeed in 2015, I voted in favour of the bill put forward by the MP at the bill put forward by the MP at the time. But that was before I served as a Shadow Minister, to disabled people for four years.

11:45

Vicky Foxcroft MP (Lewisham North, Labour)

- -

disabled people for four years. During that time, I spoke to hundreds of disabled people and the organisations. They were and remain extremely fearful of assisted dying. I took on the role in the Covid pandemic, disabled people were disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Nearly 6 in every 10 pandemic. Nearly 6 in every 10 Many had do not resuscitate notices placed on records, this was done without them being informed, it made them fear for their lives, it made them fear that the authorities thought their lives were less.

It also made them fearful of what would happen if assisted dying was brought forward. This is why disability right UK and other disabled people organisations moved from neutral position they had in 2015, to a position of opposition now. I do not claim that every disabled person opposes assisted dying. But I do claim that the vast majority of disabled people and their organisations oppose it. They need the health and social care system fixing first. They want us, as parliamentarians, to assist them to live, not to die.

Disabled people's voices matter in this debate. And yet, as I have watched the bill progress, the absence of disabled people's voices has been people's voices has been astonishing. They have been wanting to engage, indeed, they have been crying out to be included. Yet the engagement has been negligible. I believe that only one disabled People's organisation was given the opportunity to provide evidence to the committee. Furthermore, throughout the committee stage and at the initial publication stage of the bill, accessible formats were not available.

A large print version of the bill was published several weeks after the original, but no other formats, such as easy read and British Sign Language, have been made available. These are basic things we should be doing, when we are sorting such important pieces of legislation. Making it accessible so everyone's voices and views can be heard. And many of those expected to deliver the legislation also do not want it. They believe it could destroy the doctor-patient relationships. The experts have all relationships.

The experts have all been clear. The Royal College Of Psychiatrists, the Royal College Of Physicians, GPs, disability charities, mental health charities, and domestic abuse charities, have all warned that the safeguards in this bill are insufficient and will put phone the -- And will put vulnerable people in harm. I am not opposed assisted dying, but until we have a system that supports the rights to life, I cannot support it. Until we ensure that all safeguards are in place, I cannot support it.

Until the vast majority of disabled people and their organisations support the legislation that is being brought forward. I cannot support it. We are not voting on principles today. This is real. We have to protect those people who are susceptible to coercion, who already feel like society doesn't value them. You often feel like a burden to the state, society, and their family. I urge anyone in this chamber who has any doubts this bill doesn't protect them who has any worries and concerns, please do not vote for it today.

Let's fix our NHS social care and wider society first, and then consider this topic again in the future, when the time is right.

11:50

Rt Hon Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP (Chingford and Woodford Green, Conservative)

- -

I haven't spoken so far in this debate and I have listened and attended to much all occasions. I moved to speak today, because I am concerned that we get, the point that then and a version just made, what is this debate today about? This debate today is not about principle of when it comes to assisted dying, whether we are opposed to it all in favour of it, we have that debate during second reading. The problem is today, during third reading, as the number of the House has made very clear, in what was an excellent speech, she made it very clear, and others made it to, today is about what we are about to pass on to the House of Lords that will become law and the single question we have to ask ourselves, is this generally workable? The honourable lady who has moved to this, I have high regard for her, she knows that, but I honestly have to say today that I simply cannot see that this House passes this piece of legislation through to the other house, in the vague hope that somehow, they will do better than us and make changes as such it will become a workable piece of legislation.

And that is because this is a private members bill. If the government was to do this, we would see a great deal more input into a bill like this. A huge amount more, checking with all those bodies. If you take, for example, during the committee stage, we were told in the second reading debate that we would somehow have the most robust strongest safeguards and protections in the world. Those ones we were going to send in second reading to the committee. In fact, to the committee, they got weakened, not strengthened.

That is the problem in all of this. I wasn't really going to give way, but if you will forgive me, I understand lots of others want to speak, I will make some progress on this one, if she doesn't mind. The other point I think is important here, when we think of what our vote today is all about, is the behaviour of the professional bodies that have been consulted on this, who have come out, for the most part, very strongly opposed to what this legislation is.

I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the right honourable member for giving way. Every medical College has retained a Every medical College has retained a neutral position. By my count, I am neutral position. By my count, I am about to go on, two or three medical colleges have expressed they welcome a very specific amendment that have a very specific amendment that have been included in the bill, and all MPs in this House will have received the letter from senior psychiatrists which included " We believe that the which included " We believe that the draft legislation is workable, safe, and compassionate." There are a number of safeguards that have been number of safeguards that have been included in the bill, will the right honourable member recognise additional safeguards have been reviewed and welcomed by various

**** Possible New Speaker ****

colleges? I simply don't agree with her,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I simply don't agree with her, and the reading of what... I don't agree with the professional bodies are completely divided, most have are completely divided, most have are completely divided, most have come out in opposition. It is all very well, I hope she gets to speak, because I appreciate her right to say that, but I just do not agree say that, but I just do not agree with it. The reality about this, the whole issue of debate, about mental capacity. Mental capacity is not dealt properly, within the structure dealt properly, within the structure of this bill.

The honourable lady said earlier on, and talked about this. And I think she was absolutely right. Even the amendments themselves proposed were not always accepted the reality for this is we are left now with some areas of this, will be deeply troubling. We simply cannot accept the Lords must make these changes for us. We have to make them first, that is the key. The one big area that I think is important, and where I absolutely fundamentally agree with my neighbour, the Health Secretary, in that we talk a lot about the choice in dying, but the problem is, how is that choice informed? If palliative care here in the UK are simply not care here in the UK are simply not good enough for us, so many people, again, the member of the House spoke about this, the most vulnerable other people further away from institutions and understand the lease how to work the health service or work where local authority, it is mostly nose to try and break through that.

They will be faced with this problem more than almost anybody else. Because they do look inferior to these institutions. As a reality for this is, and I helped set up a children's hospice, I think it was the first in London, there have been many more now, but the children hospices as we know, have been badly treated by the government spending, no matter who is in power, they have less than anybody else but the point I wanted to make was, Haven House, which I helped set up and raise money for, they have been given a very strong protea, which is, I think, represents much of what the hospices have said.

" We would fully agree a change in law would have significant consequences for the delivery of palliative care services and would be challenging, given the existing resource pressures we face. The hospice sector has experienced significant financial pressures and the exceptional palette of care services that we all provide a not financially sustainable. The introduction of assisted dying would create new and demanding requirements for palliative care services and hospices in particular. It is therefore vital. Whether or not the comment legislation is passed that the government would take urgent action to resolve this matter." But that is however the case today.

We cannot just say that is not our problem. Palliative care can be changed. The trouble is we have been unable to make the changes the palliative care necessary, because we take such party pre- positions on this and are unable to make this work. I am going to end, Madame Deputy Speaker, on this. In conclusion, I will simply say this. I am going to vote against this today, mostly because I believe this legislation is fundamentally unworkable and will lead to huge problems.

We have seen what happens in other international areas, Canada, Oregon, various others, where it slides and slides and slides again, as more and more amendments have to be made in due course because these things are made unworkable. I simply say to any of those who have any doubt today, this is the third reading, not the second reading, not a principled debate, that we had. Now we have to decide whether we should send this as an unworkable piece of legislation to another place, which is unelected, to make decisions for us, because we are unable to come to a conclusion.

We cannot let this go through.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I rise to speak in support to the Terminally Ill Adults End-Of-Life Bill at its third reading, because Bill at its third reading, because at the heart of this bill are terminally ill adults, those people who are dying, people who have less who are dying, people who have less than six months to live. People who have tried to stay alive, to beat a terrible disease with expert medical terrible disease with expert medical treatment. But to no avail.

So, now they face the inevitable. That they they face the inevitable. That they will die. In fact, that's the only thing any of us know that we will ever do, really. I am sure, like ever do, really. I am sure, like most of you, we all think and desire, a peaceful pain-free death

11:57

Rachel Hopkins MP (Luton South and South Bedfordshire, Labour)

- -

desire, a peaceful pain-free death where we slip off in our sleep at a ripe old age, having lived a good life. The reality is that all of us, and all our citizens, those of for whom we legislate in this place, can potentially face a painful and dignified death. Which is why, in the 21st-century, like a growing number of other countries, I believe we should change the law to permit choice at the end of life. Or rather, choice towards the end of death.

So that dying people can opt to have a death in the manner of their choosing, to have an element of control over the last days. In a poll published yesterday, it showed poll published yesterday, it showed the public, the citizens we serve, back it as well. 75% of the public support assisted dying in principle. With 73% supporting the Bill as it stands. And as a co-sponsor of the bill and a member of the build bill and a member of the build committee, I am pleased it has had more scrutiny, challenge and debate than almost any other piece of legislation.

Over 100 hours in fact, sorry, for time. The changes that have been made, including many proposed by members who do not support a change in the law, but which has been adopted by the sponsor of the bill, as well as those proposed during the process led by my honourable friend, in response to evidence submitted during the scrutiny process, has led to a better. A bill that has greater safeguards, vulnerable people, with mandatory training requirements, a bill that ensures judicial oversight with decision-making, by a range of experts, including psychiatrists, social workers and senior legal professionals.

A bill that will set out statutory protections for those workers who do not wish to take part in the assisted dying process, on the basis of conscience, and quite right. This bill will provide for one of the tightest, safest assisted dying laws in the world. But importantly, this bill has compassion at its core. By affording dying people choice at the end-of- life. I would like to thank everyone of my constituents who shared their views with me. Both for and against a change in the law.

And I particularly thank all of those who disagreed with me, because good democracy, the right to respectfully disagree is hugely important. And perhaps a debate for another time. May I also thank all of those who have shared personal stories of loved ones deaths, some brutal and painful and traumatic. Which are a stark reminder that the status quo is just unacceptable. As well as others who have shared their experience with loved ones, in other jurisdictions, such as Australia, who were able to have a peaceful death surrounded by loved ones at the time of their choosing.

So, as I come to a close, Madame Deputy Speaker, while not everyone would want to choose an assisted death, I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to choose one if they so wish. It really is time that this House takes the important, compassionate and humane step to making this a reality by voting for the Terminally Ill Adults End-Of- Life Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A four-minute speech, think you

12:01

Rt Hon Sir Edward Leigh MP (Gainsborough, Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A four-minute speech, think you A certain many years with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A certain many years with the honourable lady the lady of Hackney. We have published a few articles on We have published a few articles on this topic. His articles have always started with the fundamental principle of the NHS and some of us and maybe myself have been rather critical of the NHS. At least when you go in there, in the NHS, you know that everybody is really trying their best to preserve life. That is a very fundamental principle. And the reason why I think we are both opposing this, as has been said several times.

We are not talking about just a principle here, we are talking about an actual bill. Now I know some people will criticise me and say, you would oppose, yes, because of your religious views and all the rest of it. Actually I take, I hope, quite sensible and pragmatic approach about this. I have written to all these debates. So many harrowing stories of people's last hours. I think we should treat people on both sides with respect. Understand their point of view and we should respect the dignity of dying people.

I have always taken the view that we should open up this debate and actually I put down a Ten Minute Rule bills which of course will be objected that 2:30 PM at this afternoon. We should have a full study led by the health departments, health professionals. To work out how we can help people in their final hours. I haven't been so many hospices, care homes stop talk to many palliative care specialists who assure me that they have got the resources and the skills nowadays to make those final hours pain-free and bearable.

We've heard testimony from others, saying that is not possible. If you could convince me that there were some extreme cases, where people were dying, in agony, totally lacking in dignity and their final hours. I would listen to those arguments. I do not think that is the bill that we got before us, today. I do urge, we got before us, today. I do urge, when they vote, the voting on a bill and I think the bill is so riddled through with some difficulties and inconsistencies.

I think it will be subject to human rights legislation. I think it is very difficult to argue that you can ask somebody to assist your death, when you are within six months of death. Although there is no universal testimony or acceptance of how you work out six months. Because you might be dying of cancer in six months time. You won't be able to have assisted death. If you are suffering from some appalling degenerative disease or quadriplegic.

I think there is actually an argument if we passed this bill, today, we will move in the direction of Canada. We will have a death on demand. I extend on this point. Just before we vote for this point. Just before we vote for this bill, just pause for a moment and think to yourself, wouldn't it be better, as we did and we've heard about the many, many hours on the abortion bill, universality of clinical acceptance on it. Before we vote for this bill, don't you think we should ask the health Department to have a profound and knowledgeable study, working with the Royal colleges, on whether it is possible to have a decent palliative care.

Not just in a wonderful hospices, but in all hospitals. There is no doubt, that in recent years, particularly since Shipman, there has been a fear among many health professionals, in the NHS about providing that degree of palliative care. That degree of morphine, Fenner told, all these hugely effective modern drugs. Just pause, think, we are not voting on a principle, we can come back to this and at a later date we can get consensus and we can have a really good bill, which will allow everybody to die with dignity.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will speak briefly and are just

12:05

Andy Slaughter MP (Hammersmith and Chiswick, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will speak briefly and are just three points. I do not expect to persuade those committed to oppose the bill to change their minds. I hope I don't dissuade those supporting it to change. This is a supporting it to change. This is a time for putting our thoughts on the record before seeking their Lordships opinions. I start with where I finished my speech at second reading with agency. Since at that debate, last November I have continued to meet the Constituents on both sides of the argument and have answered hundreds of letters and emails.

I'm sure other members are done the same. I have met mainly groups, including faith groups, opposing the bill, because they have sought to change my mind. I have not change my mind. I am still driven by the plight of those suffering, unnecessarily, the end of life. I highly respect the decision of those who will not want assisted dying for themselves. I cannot accept their right to deny that choice to those who would, the most profound reasons, if the provisions of this bill and their lives.

The pain, the suffering, the dignity and the degradation of a slow, painful, tortured, is something none of us would wish upon a friend or relative, on anyone. If that suffering, at the end of life, in the narrow circumstances prescribed in this bill can be avoided. Who are we to deny that? The obvious qualification, to what should be a clear personal choice, to leave life, in a manner of choosing. It is at the risk of coercion and that rightly has dominated much of the debate, for the past eight months.

There are two points to be made Effort has been extended and is reflected in amendments to the bill, to make the safeguards as comprehensive and watertight as possible. Learning from and going beyond the practice of other jurisdictions. Compliance with the provisions of the bill is a rigorous process, but also a practical one. It is designed to be transparent and to test the intent of the persons seeking to assist their death. Secondly I say to those who say this is still not enough, with what are they comparing it? The answer at best and in some cases is the status quo.

Which, may involve an investigation post-mortem as to whether that assistance has been given. Putting a Kerry-Anne Love one at risk of prosecution, but doing nothing to prevent those of malign intent. Finally, while I have tried to see both sides of every issue, there is a one. Of which the components of the bill are in my opinion just wrong that is whether it is thus far seen due process. I haven't been here for a month over 20 years and I can think of few bills in this length and scope that have received so much scrutiny, so many hours of committee, so much evidence submitted and comments made.

Members will vote against the bill, for many reasons, even though, by doing so they restrict the choice of others. They should compare the regime pre-and post legislation and I hope to decide the bill gives a great addition protection. I have asked not to vote against because we have lacked the time to make the decision. We have not, all because we do not as a country have the ability to resource this bill. We do. A great trust and a great opportunity has been given to the members of this Parliament.

This is the moment of decision and we should discharge it to the best of our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ability. Thank you for calling me to speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for calling me to speak for the first time, on this bill. I did not vote at second reading, in November. The honourable lady for Spen Valley, in her opening speech, this morning, said that we could choose to vote with head, with our choose to vote with head, with our heart. I am afraid it is that tension, that conflicts that I've tension, that conflicts that I've been grappling with over the last few months. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the honourable cannot agree with the honourable gentleman the chairman of the Justice Select Committee.

That this bill is stronger now than it was at

12:10

Mike Wood MP (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, Conservative)

- -

bill is stronger now than it was at second reading. My sympathy for the principal of assisted dying is as strong as it ever was. The idea of facing a painful death, or worse, watching a loved one in pain, and the end of their life, frightens me. If there was one thing that frightens me more than that, that terrifies me, it is the idea that someone I love might choose to accelerate their death, imagining it to be a one last act of kindness, to those of us who care so deeply for them.

To take away that opportunity, for one last birthday together, one last Christmas shed, or even something as simple as a picnic. , I honourable member see a circumstance where a child turns 18, with anorexia, decides to get assisted dying in the first time the family hear about it is after they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have died? I'm afraid as the father of a 17-year-old daughter, I can identify 17-year-old daughter, I can identify 17-year-old daughter, I can identify with that question. I can identify. Directly I should add she doesn't Directly I should add she doesn't suffer from anorexia. It would terrify any parent that that could terrify any parent that that could ever happen. I continue. The honourable lady has intervened, honourable lady has intervened, multiple times. I think this really is the issue.

The honourable lady is the issue. The honourable lady the sponsor of this bill has done well with some of the safeguards well with some of the safeguards around coercion, but I think the arguments as we normally understand them, from a legal point of view really miss the point. We are really miss the point. We are talking about where someone, with improper aim and a motive is setting out to cause someone to take the course of action that they wouldn't otherwise take.

This is a much more otherwise take. This is a much more subliminal. It may be that wish to avoid being a burden, or it may be, avoid being a burden, or it may be, reading too much into that. Dr suggestions that when they raised perhaps you might wish to consider. A few years ago I was seriously ill and at the time I was, the doctors said I had a 90% chance of dying, within week. At that point. When I regained consciousness, there was nothing that the doctors suggested to me, for whether it was a test, whether it was an angiogram, or any other procedure.

And I do not know, even if my circumstances, if I had been in a position where assisted dying was a possibility and the doctor had raised it entirely neutrally, how I would have interpreted that? There have been some people in this debate who have some people in this debate who have spoken of, of those, high value on live, as though it is some high preoccupation of the religiously obsessed. I am a Christian, I am a very middle-of-the-road Anglican.

And whilst I do not take my faith lightly, my church has never told me how to vote on an issue and it is certainly not going to tell me how to vote on this one. I do appreciate that particularly in my own experience, that life is precious. We do not need to believe in a omnipresent God to hold that view, that life is precious and we should only take measures to shorten it, very, very carefully. As I said, at the start, this Bill, I do not believe has got better.

There are serious concerns about it. I genuinely do not know whether it is possible to put in adequate safeguards, to make sure that assisted dying can be available for the cases where we would all like it. Which would safeguard those difficult cases, the ones that the mother of the House spoke so powerfully about, in her very impressive and meaningful speech. What I do know that if there is a way, this bill doesn't do it, that is what we voting against it this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

afternoon. I want to express concerns I have with this bill, coercion, commercialisation and pressure of commercialisation and pressure of people feeling burdened. Unfortunately there wasn't enough time in that debate. There is much time today either. During that debate the House was repeatedly reassured by some members that the

12:15

David Smith MP (North Northumberland, Labour)

- -

reassured by some members that the bill was about to undergo a rigorous scrutiny in the bill committee. The question at second reading, that we were most employed to consider was, we were told, do we want to keep talking about the bill because back indeed, the right honourable member who is not in its place in it best when he said, "A site about the bill sponsors, that has a number of areas that they think they need to put right, about a dozen entries.

" It seems to me that while the time for talking is running out, this bill remains far from ready. Too many concerns remain partially or wholly an address. These things have not been put right. Let me just highlight three of those issues that was originally concerned about. Firstly, on the issue of coercion. Seven months on from second reading, the bill doesn't still define honesty, coercion or pressure. It honesty, coercion or pressure. It With the exclusion in the bill of deaths in the system, to include investigative oversight that would be most likely to spot coercion, even if it was after the fact of assisted dying.

Indeed, actually, I will move on, the marketisation of assisted dying is something that worries me greatly, I don't think it has been properly addressed in this bill. There is a loophole in an advertising ban, where the Secretary of State could launch public health information campaigns on TV, online, GP services, outlining the option of assisted dying. Even worse, in my view, is the certain involvement of private commercial interest in assisted dying. When we combine the known cost to the state of the impact assessment and the unknown cost, the limited resources currently available within the NHS, the conscientious objection of large swathes of doctors, which is surely inevitable, we can foresee that assisted dying will be largely privatised.

Commercial operators with shareholders and the desire to maximise profit will inevitably be delivering assisted death. In certain circumstances, they will find ways to grow the revenue, including through marketing it however subtly. Thirdly, the issue of feeling a burden. In the second reading debate, my honourable friend, raise the issue of Washington state where 59% of those going through with an assisted death in a similar process to this one did so because " They feared being a burden to family, friends or caregivers." There has been no meaningful response to this argument in my opinion, from those in favour of the bill for sciatic colleagues in favour to consider the scenario if we pass the bill.

An older relative knows that assisted death is now possible. They know the family are struggling to get by in difficult economic circumstances. They have a health condition, with a prognosis of five months to live, even those studies show that most of these prognoses are wrong 50% of the time. What would stop parents or grandparents from deciding to seek assisted dying, purely in order to do the right thing, by their loved ones. I am nearly finished. Or for that matter, what was that -- What would stop relatives from pushing the option of assisted deaths.

To conclude, Madame Deputy Speaker, as legislators, the responsibility falls on us in this place to create outstanding legislation, but provides clarity, certainty, and benefit to our constituents and country at large. All of my concerns from the start of this process still remain, indeed they have only grown. And at this final point, we have repeatedly heard today that there is no alternative to this bill. That the status quo is an alternative. We have agency in his place, the choice we are making today is actually a big change to the status quo, why can't we do other things? It's not simply a choice between this bill or nothing else.

Therefore, I will be voting against it and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Those of us who come here today

12:19

Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP (North West Hampshire, Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Those of us who come here today to support do not come, some have accused us, to speak lightly of life and death. We come here to recognise that this House has a responsibility that this House has a responsibility to draw lines where there are none. And for many of us who campaigned for many years, as the honourable lady said, to give voice to dying people, not because they want to be rescued, but because time and time again, they are begging us for mercy.

And it is worth reiterating that this bit is not about choosing death. It is about choosing how to face it. When death is already at the door. It is about the final chapter of life, that short chapter of life. A chapter that so many of our constituents have told us time and time again that they write in pain, in fear and desperation. And we are here today to ask a simple question, in essence. Which is, is the law in those final often agonising moments, is the law to be a barrier.

Are we to be a barrier? Or are we here to be a companion? To assist those people to fulfil their dying wishes. I believe in autonomy. I believe in dignity. But more than that, I believe in compassion governed by care, not chaos. That is what the current system lacks. Right now, friends, we live with the cruel illusion, as was said, the cruel illusion that doing nothing is neutral. It is not. Those that have objected to this bill are conspicuous in not saying that they accept the status quo, for however long this bill may take to reappear long this bill may take to reappear if it fails.

And we know and we have heard, we have heard again and again, stories of people. Travel abroad, to die in lonely circumstances, we see loving spouses prosecuted for holding the hand of someone I have loved for 50 years, we see lonely suicides, in quiet suburban bedrooms. Lives ended not because of terminal, but because of a lack of legal options. This bill brings order where there is confusion, it brings safeguards where there is silence, and it replaces secrecy with the structure and fear with honesty.

Notwithstanding the claims that have been made today and elsewhere, it has been built with the right way, this house, has, in all forms of legislation tickets duties seriously. The bill has gone through scrutiny and committee, about coercion, training, eligibility and oversight, they having met head-on, dress carefully, considered amendments. The model we have now is shaped because of those concerns, legal oversight, continuous consent checks in place, from beginning to end. This is how Parliament should legislate. Carefully, collaborative Roma collaboratively, and in the face of complexity.

The greatest risk of coercion is under the status quo. Today, there are no checks, no panels, no oversight, we do not know who is choosing freely, because there is no system to ask and no conduct to examine. To those, and we have heard the argument about a slippery slope, I would say this as well, the law is very tightly drawn, there is no constitutional pathway here for expansion by stealth. Any change would require this House, us, to decide again.

It cannot drift, it cannot slide, it's anchored in law, and in the authority of this place. , also this. This bill requires two independent doctors, clear clinical criteria, and a final check at the point of delivery and even then, the person must be still mentally competent and willing, at every step, the answer can be no. But at the last, at last, there will be the possibility of a choice. And those who say, often movingly, what if the patient lives longer than expected, I would say then, good, they lived.

This law does not force a single death. It simply allows a dying person to decide when enough is enough. Madame Deputy Speaker, I will finish with this. I have sat with dying friends, I have sat with bodies that once held humour, vigour and pride, and see families wanting to honour the unspoken wishes of someone too far gone to speak. I would finally say this, we do not honour life by prolonging the suffering, we honour life by giving it meaning and power.

And the one thing that dying people ask for in their agonising final moments is That is destroying them. The status quo, my friends, is completely unacceptable. Whatever you think of this bill, it's indisputable, that there is an improvement on what we have now. I urge you to support it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. And thank you to everyone who has contributed to this debate, inside and outside the House, there has been a great deal of passion in this been a great deal of passion in this debate, sometimes that passion flares up additive skewers the deep and profound levels of compassion that we all have in debating this

12:25

Kevin McKenna MP (Sittingbourne and Sheppey, Labour)

- -

really intense and personal subject. How each of us faces death is deeply personal. The decisions surrounding it must honour every individual's dignity and their choice. Alcohol must be to ensure all patients are protected. While empowering people at the end of their life with greater autonomy and agency to make choices that are right for them. Having spent many, many years as an intensive care nurse in the NHS, I have witnessed the reality of end- of-life care countless times. I have seen patients find peace in their final days, but also patients who have been unconscious or unaware that their death was coming.

And I have seen others endure pain and anxiety that no palliative intervention, none, will alleviate for them. These experiences have deeply influenced my perspective on assisted dying. They have reinforced my belief that individuals should all have the Attorney to make decisions about such personal and profound parts of their lives, the end of their life, and the ability to make these decisions is to meet fundamental dignity at the end of their life. Consent must always be freely given, and revocable at the time, and this is true right now, who is agreeing or deciding not to undertake owners, painful care and treatment, who may be said by medical staff and clinical staff to save and extend their lives, every one of us can deny and refuse that currently.

It's so important to understand this, because we have had lots and lots of discussions about coercion. But I have to lay it in front of colleagues in this House, there is a lot of coercion in the system currently. Families, well- meaning families, clinicians, well- meaning clinicians, actually provide a degree of coercion. And clinicians and clinical teams and multidisciplinary teams are set up to try and protect that, to have those conversations with patients, to really get the noble of what patients real wishes are.

And I have a lot of faith in my clinical colleagues that actually, together and with collective action and a multidisciplinary team and the way healthcare workers today, that that is the case. That is why I am really pleased that in the extensive debate around this bill, particularly at committee stage, we have gone on from not only having a judge making the decision, but moving onto a panel. Because this reflects the best practice in clinical work. That we have multidisciplinary teams, a multidisciplinary approach, really assessing what the patient once, how it can best fit...

I will not give way. After all of this debate, I know people, many colleagues have talked about whether this debate has been too short, long, complicated, not complicated. I have heard comments is that ready to hand on to the House of Lords? I believe it is, typically are. In all of those debates, it's really important to remember it hasn't just been in parliament we have debating this, this has gone on for decades. I remember clearly when I was a student nurse, a really strong advocate for palliative care who was teaching us and he was very dead set against assisted dying.

His argument was that if we bring in assisted dying, it would mean palliative care would never get the funding and resources it needs, something so many people have said now. I have to say, that was nearly 30 years ago. We have not grasped that as a country, and I hope at the end of this debate, the commitment that almost every member of this House has said, to make palliative care work and be accessible for everyone in this country, we can finally bring to fruition.

But it's not a reason to not have assisted dying. Because that's a choice. The choice of many people in Britain. The choice of many people in this country, and I think, you know, I want that to be the choice for me. If that's the case, I get to that point in my life, I want the choice available to me. And I know for some members, that will be true for. Some members don't want to have that choice, it needs to be there. I want people to think about themselves today.

I will not. It is important to think about that as well, because sometimes it is selfish, as mamas of Parliament, to think about what we may need, but in truth, it's fundamental. This is about individuals and about each of us at that moment at the end-of-life, so really, I think this bit is much stronger than it was at the start, I was already convinced it was the right thing to vote for. I really think it is ready to hand on to our colleagues in the other place, I know that many of the public are behind us.

And I really commend this Bill, in its current form, at third

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reading, I will be voting for it. I hope many others will be too. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker, it's a pleasure to follow the honourable gentleman, though I will bring a slightly different conclusion to him. Can I just say, conclusion to him. Can I just say, though she is not in the chamber, can I remark on the principled stand of the honourable lady for Lewisham North, not only today, but her

12:30

Rt Hon Gavin Robinson MP (Belfast East, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

North, not only today, but her decision last night. I think it will stand her in good political stead. My colleagues and I will be voting against third reading today. That should come as no surprise to honourable and right honourable members in this House. We do not do it from a party political perspective, we were not do it as a whip would act out of our common and personal faith. We are equally issuer that our beliefs would be a determining factor today.

We understand that in parliamentary terms, just because we hold a view doesn't mean everyone in the room will hold the same view and our We are right to know that the We are right to know that the question before us today is not on principle, but on this bill. When we heard honourable right honourable member so very gleefully and very forcefully at second reading that they wish to start the parliamentary process, to see how it evolved. To see how this legislation could be strengthened, to see what safeguards could be put in place, we are assured that this bill is in a worse position today, than it was at second reading.

We heard at 61 honourable and Right Honourable honourable and Right Honourable members specify, specify a judicial involvement, in this process. We had another 20 talk about and articulate their support for this legislation, on the basis of legal safeguards. Yet, they are gone. We have been honourable in listening, but I think we honourably have to reflect that this bill is not where it should be. That the assurances that were offered during second reading have been removed. That the balance that was promised in the bill committee was not there.

That the protections that were offered and suggested have been stripped. I spoke to a constituent, just yesterday, and she told me that when she was diagnosed with cancer, for the first time, she approached it with a level of determination that surprised her. And she survived. And when she was diagnosed the second time as she approached it with the level of despair that had this bill been available to her she would have availed of it. She would have satisfied the conditions on the basis of radical advice, at that time.

And yet, she was telling the story yesterday and that diagnosis was in 2012. The quote that I shared it second reading is as true today as it was said 120 years. Medicine is the science of uncertainty and the art of probability. There is nothing that can be determined, to the point of legal certainty, or for our perspective, moral certainty. So I want to say to colleagues across the House, not those who like me have a fine and determined position, a principal position from which you will not yield, from those who are actively thinking about what to do, today.

I say to the interiors, the parliamentary process has not served us well. Where the letter time of the House of Lords will vote on every amendment, we are not allowed. To the socialist, in this chamber, who speak proudly of the values of the NHS, who speak proudly of the values of welfare and you want to stand up for those principles, so think about what you do today. To the internationalist, it is not in your condition to walk to the other side of the road.

You do not turn your back on the weak and the vulnerable, on the oppressed and the burdened, so please do not do it, today. This bill and your say on it will be final, but the final say that you have today will be final in a much more fundamental way, for our constituents and for our loved ones. Throughout this United Kingdom. I ask you to approach this bill and ask you to approach this bill and your perspective on it.

On the basis of your principles alone, to the trade unionists, what are the trade union sake? Those Royal colleges, College of the college expressing their concerns, expressing their fear, expressing their trepidation fear, expressing their trepidation for how they will not stand over their members, in pursuit of this bill. They have concerns. We do not need to think in the abstract. In this chamber we voted for distal cannabis. How many medicinal practitioners are prescribing it? They are not, because they are trade unions, they do not support them or insure them in that deliver endeavour.

This bill is not what has been outlined, not what has been promised are not as good as this chamber could make it. Those are the principles that I know many of you hold so dear. I hope you reflect honourably, not only on what you said at second reading, but to yourselves, on the basis of the principles of socialism, or internationalism or trade unionism that you have and do what we will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have, vote for light, vote for hope and vote for life. Collies can see how busy the chain is and they will understand

12:36

Dr Beccy Cooper MP (Worthing West, Labour)

- -

12:43

Rt Hon Tom Tugendhat MP (Tonbridge, Conservative)

- -

East, whose powerful speech is summarised, for many of us, the points that we've seen in the words of the honourable member, for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, whose questions have got to the heart of this matter. Because of this bill is about many different things. But actually, fundamentally, it is about two things. It is about power, and it is about trust. It is about the power over life and death, not just over ourselves. Because we already have the power to end our own lives to stop it is called suicide.

It is not a crime, it hasn't been a crime in this country for decades. This is a different power. This is about the power of the state, through its agents, to exercise power over life and death. Yes, agreed, yes approved in advance, state takes a life. Even in advance, state takes a life. Even with consent. That is a huge shift in the relationship between the individual and the state. It is a transformation, in the way in which power lies.

And we should be fully conscious what it is that is being done. So that is why this debate is frankly a little bit more honest. We have heard the warm words of euphemism of assisted dying. The truth is that this isn't assisted dying for supper assisted dying is what a hospice does already today, now. Helping people, caring for people, supporting them. This is a sister killing, or assisted suicide, depending on which word you choose. But honesty in a language is important.

If we are not even willing to be honest with ourselves, in this place. How on earth can we expect the courts, when they had to look at the cases, to consider the questions that we have debated. Because, to all honourable and Right Because, to all honourable and Right Honourable friends, you are all friends. In a debate like this we are all friends, we are all seeking the right answer for our country. The truth is this is the last time are going to talk about it.

This is the last time that we are going to have actual authority over these words. And no matter what interviews you've heard, no matter what assurances you have seen given, in the words, today, over the last few weeks. The truth is the only thing that matters is that the words in black-and-white in that document. Because they are the words that are going to be interpreted by judges for years to come. They are the words that are going to give powers that I won't give way.

Those are the words that are going to give power to investors, to the Secretary of State. To exercise his or her discretion, with the most cursory of oversight, from this place. So let's be absolutely clear. What we are choosing to do. Let's be absolutely clear that it is on us, it is our responsibility to think not just for those who have options, for those who have power, for those who will not be intimidated, but it is for us to think about those who will be.

For the week, for the vulnerable, for the ones that the mother of the House referred to. Those communities and our country who already do not trust the health service, who reject vaccination, who do not choose to come early for cancer diagnosis. For who we already see worse health outcomes. We need to be thinking of them. Because choosing to make that gap greater is not just choosing to enable some to access care. It is actually, actively, rejecting others in our community who should seek care.

But won't because of the fear We do think really hard about that. And I say to those who say, this is it, there can be no further change, the closest legal equivalent to this is the Canadian bill. The closest legal equivalent to us is the Canadian Parliament, the closest National Health Service as the Canadian health system, so I give you, the words... I am not giving way, the honourable lady has spoken for many hours, I'm speaking for five minutes. The experience of Roger Foley, a Canadian living with a degenerative condition warns us, as Canada has expanded its assisted dying law, I have faith neglect, verbal abuse, and denial of essential care.

I have been told my care needs are too much work and my life has been devalued worse still, I have approached and told by healthcare staff to consider opting for medical aid in dying, instead of offering compassionate support to alleviate my suffering, it suggested that I should end my life. Sadly, this is not the only example we've heard. We have heard of veterans with PTSD. We have heard of others with the limited conditions. And today, sadly, we have even said that those that merely feel pressure are allowed to access the service.

Honourable friends have a real choice, but when that first 18-19- year-olds, when that first individual, goes and asks for this, it will be way who made that decision, it will be on our -- It will be us who made that decision, it will be on our consciences, that fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state in a way that can never be reversed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. I rise today to speak in opposition I rise today to speak in opposition I rise today to speak in opposition of this bill. What we are doing today is not voting on the principle of assisted dying, it is voting on a piece of legislation. We do not piece of legislation. We do not exist in a vacuum, Madame Deputy Speaker, what happens in this House has real-world consequences. And I speak from a place that I am all too speak from a place that I am all too aware of how unequal our society, how unequal our medical system, and

12:49

Jen Craft MP (Thurrock, Labour)

- -

how unequal our institutions are in the treatment of disabled people. The honourable member for Lewisham North spoke at length, very movingly, of her own journey towards finding this bill something she could not vote for, due to her experience in prolonged engagement with disabled people and disabled people's organisations. In my personal experience, I know that the value that our medical establishment places on certain lives is less than the evaluate places on others. -- Down at the evaluate places on others.

When I was given a diagnosis of my daughters Down syndrome, the next thing the midwife said to me after, I am so sorry, is I can book you a termination within 48-hour's. This is a choice that so many women make, because they are ignorant of the valuable disabled lives. My daughter, I have had to fight for so many things for her, because the establishment does not see her life establishment does not see her life is valuable. In this country, you can terminate a pregnancy up to 39 weeks and six days, if they have a condition that is so horrific like Down syndrome or cleft palate or limb difference, because of the value we place on different lives.

So, I do support the principle of assisted dying, yes, but I cannot support this bill, because what we are doing, we cannot legislate against discrimination, we cannot legislate out inherent bias, however, what we can do is we can legislate for safeguards. We can legislate for safety, we can legislate that those who are treating the people we love, that those who are offering assisted dying, we can legislate to make sure that the most vulnerable in society, people like my daughter, people who I know that the medical establishment and institutions and society already view a second class in so many ways, are not met when having to face a decision, are Advice, does the honourable member has pointed out to myself as others, we do not have the safeguards in place.

I am afraid I will make progress but I thank her for her interruption. Her intervention, my apologies. We have been told there are panels that will safeguard against this. That they will take into account all the circumstances of someone, whether or not they have capacity. However, these panels make up in exceptional circumstances, which the bill does not set out what these exceptional circumstances are, do not even meet the person to whom they are discussing. And we know that the panels do not allow for family members and carers, those who know that person, if they have limited capacity, if they have a learning disability, if they are unable to make certain decisions themselves, to play a role in that process, or have any right to appeal.

So, my plea to members across this House, if you have not yet decided or if you think I support this in principle, but I am concerned about this, or I have worries about this, or that might be OK, it is not our role to send a bill to the other place, to send a bill out into the world, hoping that others will do our job for us. Hoping that it will all just come out in the wash. That is a dereliction of our duty as Members of Parliament.

If you have any concerns about this. Now is the time to vote against it. You must do that. You must not think someone else will do your job for you, it's our decision, this is what we are voting for today. I urge all members

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of this House to vote against this. Thank you very much, Madame

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much, Madame Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to speak today in this important debate on an issue that exemplifies why I chose to get into politics and come into this price. To be part of big decisions, taken in tune with public decisions, taken in tune with public opinion. Listening to evidence. And with the goal of making our

12:53

Luke Taylor MP (Sutton and Cheam, Liberal Democrat)

- -

with the goal of making our residents better off. But I have no doubt that all Right Honourable and honourable members here today intend to make their residents better off. But in this case, tragically, better off means suffering less and giving off means suffering less and giving them agency in the most painful moment of their lives. This bill before us addresses a situation where the status quo is utterly unacceptable. I hope that we can all agree in this place, the stories we have heard, from the families of those who have watched a loved one die in pain or the fear that someone with a terminal diagnosis facing the prospect of an agonising death are heartbreaking.

The choice we have with this legislation is whether we choose to do something about that status quo or not. Rejecting this bill, imperfect as it may be, will continue the pain of those who are let down by the current laws. Guaranteed victims of a system that is letting them down. I will make some progress, thank you. I start by making a somewhat unusual case, that as we gather here on a Friday, bake sales are not actually the big deal it has been whipped up to be, by both proponents and opponents.

I do not believe we are considering a fundamental change in the relationship between doctor and patient. I do not believe we are changing the relationship between the state and individual or stepping onto a slippery slope, nor unpicking the very purpose of the NHS, as some may have suggested. We are simply here to give those who already face terrible decisions, doctors, patients and their families a real choice on how to face those decisions and protection in the law, for choices that are already being made today.

I will make some further progress. This bill gives choice to those who will die, and those eligible will die soon, the manner and timing of their death, and protects doctors and families from legal repercussions at such a tragic time. This is not a bill about the choice between life and death, it is the choice between how and when we will die, should we want it. This is the ultimate choice. We speak at times of the right to choose and the right and how one might bring life into this world.

The debate in this chamber showed there is a huge majority in favour of the rights of the individual. We have a chance to neatly bookend the week by establishing the existential right of the individual when given a terminal diagnosis, to begin for the right to choose how one might exit this earthly realm. I will make some progress. Today, due to the coverage from the honourable member, who has given us a once in a generation opportunity for this place to catch up with public opinion, and I truly believe we can take one more step forward before regaining public trust and confidence in the system.

When public polling shows overwhelmingly time and time again the public back this change, between 70 and 75% in the latest poll released, I urge those on the fence to listen to public opinion, I will continue, thank you. Nothing is intended to typify this issue, as a palliative care sector is not funded to give choice at the end-of-life, to give a choice to end your own. I welcome, therefore, the inclusion of amendment 21 which matches my priority for the improvement of palliative care.

In conclusion, Madame Deputy Speaker, in the Written in the Times newspaper last week, that I found particularly moving, " Critics of the bill have begun to frame the debate as if leaving the law as it stands does not hurt anyone, it does. Opponents worry about hypothetical victims but the status quo creates indisputable real-life victims." I am closing, sorry. The bill's opponents portray as cruel, heartless and macabre, I wish they could have set out at my honourable friend Charlotte bedside and heard her grown " Let me die" And see what cruel, heartless and macabre actually looks like.

Madame Deputy Speaker, this bill is the right thing to do, it has been scrutinised, amended and debated, this bill is ready, please vote in favour today, to give our residents a choice.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If colleagues do not want me coughing at the end of their speeches, best to keep them under five minutes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. This House has heard many personal stories over the course of this stories over the course of this bill. Seeing a loved one die along

12:58

Maureen Burke MP (Glasgow North East, Labour)

- -

bill. Seeing a loved one die along death is not the experience I would wish on anybody. But once it has happened to you, the memory never

13:00

Luke Taylor MP (Sutton and Cheam, Liberal Democrat)

- -

fades. There are many very important technical legal and medical aspects

13:00

Maureen Burke MP (Glasgow North East, Labour)

- -

technical legal and medical aspects of this bill. That are essential to ensure that it operates in the safest way possible. But supporting safest way possible. But supporting the principle of personal agency over a dignified death comes from the heart and the personal experiences of each and every one of experiences of each and every one of us. I am aware the Scottish Parliament has its own legislation Parliament has its own legislation and progress on this very difficult issue. I wish to share my own story issue.

I wish to share my own story with this House today. To help in the decision that it must take. My the decision that it must take. My brother David was 52 years old when he arrived at work one day and the manager in the shopfloor told him he manager in the shopfloor told him he looked pale. He had worked at a looked pale. He had worked at a physical job for 30 years, and was a strong, full of life manner. His strong, full of life manner.

His manager were so concerned at David Pallash, he took it straight to Pallash, he took it straight to hospital. After two weeks in hospital, he was given a devastating hospital, he was given a devastating diagnosis of pancreas. Over the next 18 months, David tried everything he could to stay alive. However, after an unsuccessful operation, to try and remove the cancer, and taking part in trials for new drugs, he slowly began to lose mobility. The last few months of his life, were left at home.

In a hospital bed. And the strength and resilience of his the strength and resilience of his wife Jackie to take care of him day in, day out, remains an inspiration to me. As Davy's health declined, his painkillers increased further and further. His painkillers became so strong, he could no longer speak. And he did not know if he could hear us, his body became skeletal, and his speech gradually disappear. One of the last times when he still was able to speak, he called out to me from his bed, and told me, if there was a pill he could take to end his life, he would very much like to take that.

He would suffer in silent pain for a further three weeks, he could never have known that I would ever have the opportunity to stand in this place, and ask colleagues to make sure that others do not go through what he went through. I have done right by my brother in speaking David needed was a humane, safe and trusted process, available to him, at home. That would give him agency over his last weeks and months. That is what this bill offers.

That is the choice that this House is finally today in a position to give those suffering, from terminal illness and I commend the bill to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this House. It is a privilege to follow the honourable lady and many others who have given a brave testimony of have given a brave testimony of their own personal experience in this matter. I want to join the tributes to the honourable lady for Spen Valley who I think has conducted herself with decency, dignity and compassion throughout dignity and compassion throughout this process. But I have heard her and others say that the decision we

13:02

Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Wright KC MP (Kenilworth and Southam, Conservative)

- -

and others say that the decision we have to make, today, is whether or not we are in favour of the status quo. And I respectfully disagree. Our job as legislators is to consider rigorously, the proposed legislation before S and those who propose it to bathe the bear the burden of persuading us that this is the right change to make. Not a change that made great problems are bigger than those we are trying to solve. I have spent nearly 30 years, in this place, that makes our laws and practising in the courts that administer them.

I've had ministerial responsibility for sentencing and for the Crown Prosecution Service. I have faith in Prosecution Service. I have faith in our system of laws. But I have also seen the limitations and our ability to avoid the negative consequences of laws we make. However hard we try. Very often, the legislative decisions we take are about the balance of risks. In this case, the risk of not changing the law is that we leave some of our constituents in pain or it could be avoided and exposed their loved ones to the fear of prosecution, for acts of love and nursing.

I acknowledge that risk. And I have felt the anguish and the desperation of those who want this bill to pass for the very best of motives. Madam Deputy Speaker, good people can come to different conclusions on the balance of risks. And I think we take a bigger risk, in changing the law. That is because of the signal we send, in the legislation we passed. Signals are sent by changes in the law matter. When Parliament changes the law, it brings consequences for those who break the new law, but it also break the new law, but it also intends to change.

Creating new criminal offences or increasing the maximum sentences or even strengthening regulations, are and we hope everybody will take notice of and behave differently, as a result. Because they recognise that Parliament, on behalf a society, as a whole is signalling its disapproval of certain actions or disapproval of certain actions or practices. So if that is true legislation that makes unlawful what was previously lawful, why shouldn't the same be true the legislation that makes unlawful something that was previously unlawful. We are sending a signal there too.

That society, through parliament, leave the something which we used to think was unacceptable is now acceptable. In this case, and assisting someone to die is now something of which we approve. Now, I believe that is bound to have an impact on those who in great distress, the end of their lives, may already be thinking it would be better if they were out of the way. I do not want to live in a society where anyone, even the terminally ill is encouraged in the belief that there lives are not valuable and valued to their very last moments.

And I fear that this bill, though not its intent brings such a society closer and that is

13:07

Preet Kaur Gill MP (Birmingham Edgbaston, Labour )

- -

As we consider whether to put this

13:07

Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Wright KC MP (Kenilworth and Southam, Conservative)

- -

As we consider whether to put this bill into law, we must reflect on our solemn duty as legislators to protect the well-being of our communities and safeguard them from harmful stop there has been much

13:07

Preet Kaur Gill MP (Birmingham Edgbaston, Labour )

- -

harmful stop there has been much debate about giving people choice, what happens in other jurisdictions and matters of faith and principle and I have heard from nearly 8000 constituents, the vast majority of whom oppose the bill, for a range of reasons. I too opposed the bill at second reading I set up my concerns, second reading I set up my concerns, including those of principle, but also a major concern about safeguarding. As an ex-children's services manager, with over 18 years services manager, with over 18 years of frontline experience, issues of safe guarding being improved in committee, many of the provisions committee, many of the provisions have been weakened.

Similar to the right honourable member for Chingford and Woodford Green, the Chingford and Woodford Green, the High Court God was removed, altering the basis on which members voted at the basis on which members voted at second reading. Both the panels that replaced the court approval and the voluntary assisted dying Commissioner, who will oversee them Commissioner, who will oversee them are a new and untested consequences. are a new and untested consequences. They would not have the powers, or functions of report or tribunal. They would not be required to question witnesses and could not question witnesses and could not compel them to attend and the doctors were intended to assess people's capacity of freedom to choose an assisted death would not choose an assisted death would not give evidence on both.

And there would be nobody to cross-examine them. The new assisted dying Commissioner would run the assisted dying system. At the same time, be responsible for monitoring, investigating and reporting on its work, previously given to the independent chief medical officers. The very definition of terminal illness has proven to be seriously flawed. It would allow people with anorexia to qualify once there condition deteriorates. Amendments tabled to introduce and enhance a test personal capacity to make the choice to die.

Second reading members were assured that existing laws and the Mental Capacity Act were tried and tested. Yet in February the Chief Medical Officer wrote to the committee, to clarify that there is no enhanced test for life-and-death decisions, under this act. The committee also voted to allow future Home Secretary to change the action Parliament which established the principles of our NHS. This language first passed into law in 1946, seeks to establish the physical and mental health of the people of England and to prevent, diagnose and treat mental illness.

Because of this does not include assisting people to take their own lives, the bill, as amended now contains a power that these foundational words to be changed by secondary legislation. Following the committee stage, I chaired a session entitled Committee of the Unheard to hear from experts were not been called to give evidence that committee stage was that we discussed the impact of family and loved ones and of course the committee allowed us to explore issue around disability, people from other jurisdictions, Canada and Mbaye Diagne communities.

-- BAME communities was that it may well come to give different conclusions. One thing the bill is highlighted for me was around the promise of choice. The choice to be real, we must be genuine with options to choose from. What has been highlighted is that palliative care provision is woefully inadequate in the worst served or also the most disadvantaged, from the most deprived communities. Should the bill come into force, the provision of palliative care is likely to be compromised without hospices having a legal right to opt out of assisted dying.

There is no such proposed opt out in the bill. This brings me back to our role as legislatures. The question for us and now is after all the consideration, can we be satisfied that our duties towards people to protect their well-being and safeguard them from harm are fulfilled if we pass this bill to stop from everything I've seen, heard and read, the answer must be Thank you, at second reading I spoke in support of the principle of this bill, because I believe in freedom of choice, especially the end of life should always rest with the individual.

Is the individual best placed to decide when it is time to

13:11

Mr Peter Bedford MP (Mid Leicestershire, Conservative)

- -

sip away crisp the side. We do not sip away crisp the side. We do not talk about death now. There are citizens who must come to terms with terminal diagnosis and medical terminal diagnosis and medical treatment and ultimately their final days. I would like to put on record my thanks to the honourable member for Spen Valley, for the way that she has conducted this debate and I know at times it has been particularly difficult, criticism from outside this place. Voting for the status quo, voting against this bill will not solve the problem.

Indeed, with the advanced medical Indeed, with the advanced medical techniques that prolong life, but not necessarily the quality-of-life, the case for a compassionate ending the case for a compassionate ending to one's life will continue to grow. At least one Brit every week has At least one Brit every week has taken a stressful and too often a lonely journey to Switzerland, for lonely journey to Switzerland, for an assisted death at a cost of £12,000. An option only available to those who have the wealth to enable them to decide the time of their own them to decide the time of their own death.

As supported. I'm not giving way to serve as a supporter of this bill I have listened to the debate bill I have listened to the debate closely and I agree that we need better palliative care, across the UK. My own parents were both superbly supported amazing Macmillan nurses. I recognise that this is not universal across the country and more needs to be done to improve this important service. But the blunt truth of the matter is this. If you are dying from an incurable condition you can have the best palliative care possible but ultimately you are still dying.

In her final weeks, my nana told me that it was her time to go. That she had made peace with her God. She did not want to ensure the few weeks are declining in her physical and mental health. Days before her death she was hallucinating for the high dose , to treat her pain, telling me vividly how she was flying a spaceship. That wasn't how she wanted to spend her final weeks and I know that, because she told me so. She, like so many others have been denied their final wish.

This legislation has received far more scrutiny than much of what we vote on, in this place. And rightly so. Her 28 public bill committee meetings interviewing 40 witnesses, dividing 110 times on proposed amendments. As a country we have been debating the subject of 20 years. I can recall as a 16-year-old law student discussing Diane pretty and her campaign to change the law. I believe the law presented is narrowly designed as a necessary safeguard to ensure those with a terminal condition can freely choose the time of their own passing.

Through religious beliefs or otherwise, there are those that could never support a bill of this kind, that is their right I respect that. That right should not extend to deny the choice to other people. There are those who argue for what they see as even greater safeguards. We should remember that legislation must be balanced and workable in the real world. Beyond this chamber. real world. Beyond this chamber. This bill isn't about shortening life, it is about shortening death. I would ask all honourable members from across the House to support it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. In general, this debate has shown Parliament at its best, informed, Parliament at its best, informed, considered and passionate. I have not spoken before. I have listened and reflected and read and thought and reflected and read and thought to understand the intention and the impact of the bill. Particularly on impact of the bill. Particularly on the most vulnerable. And now I would like to take five minutes to save for things. Firstly, I was brought for things. Firstly, I was brought

13:13

Chi Onwurah MP (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West, Labour)

- -

for things. Firstly, I was brought up on the right to die. My mother who was disabled, often in great pain and a cancer survivor was a member of the voluntary euthanasia Society and exit, as a dignity and dying were previously called. And I can honestly say that Newcastle United, feminism and the right to die work mother's milk to me. So my position is not based on ideological, cultural or religious reasons. I urge colleagues not to vote for the bill, because it is without the rigour, or scrutiny necessary to make assisted dying practice was not a great deal of respect for the members for Spen Valley and for others.

They have said that the bill has received more scrutiny than most government bills. This is not your average bill. It fundamentally the relationship between state and citizen. It allows the state to take the life of a citizen. On request yes, but that is still a huge change. We say that it is the first duty of any government to keep our citizens secure. But now the state will also be able to kill them. Our NHS was set up to secure improvement in physical and mental health and as the Member for Maldon has so powerfully argued, this bill could change the founding principles of the NHS.

Physicians are trained to save lives. Now they will also be able to kill people. Our police, our Armed Forces, their job is to protect life and liberty. Now they will also protect those who take people's lives. Because this marks a fundamental change in the relationship between state and citizen, it requires much more public and parliamentary debate. We have not even begun to interrogate all the social implications of this change. All of human life is here. It will change the ethos of the NHS.

It will enable private companies to It will enable private companies to Everyone will be aware the state is able to kill them. And particularly, this is my third point. I fear the impact on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, those without the social capital of so many arguing for the bill. There seems to be an assumption that those who have been most unequal in life will certainly be rendered equalling death. But there is valued by society are often those who value themselves the least.

And we know the last year of life is so often the most expensive for the NHS, the most distressing for friends and family, why not save everyone the trouble of being a burden. This bill likes the safeguards -- Lacks the safeguards that we must deal with the reality that there are incentives for the state and family members to encourage the vulnerable into taking their own lives. And specifically consider the impact on ethnic communities. We know the prism of racist assumptions through which healthcare has too often been administered.

The huge inequalities in the maternal health and mental health, to name just two examples, there is nothing in this bill to protect the vulnerable and those whose experience of life and death has already been biased. Finally, voting against this bill is not to accept the status quo. It's not our job now, to propose a better bill. That was the report at committee stage. It's our job to judge the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill as it is, that is why I say to you, please do not vote for this bill. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. It's always an honour to follow the It's always an honour to follow the honourable lady. Like many honourable and right honourable members in this House, I have generally agonised over which way to generally agonised over which way to vote, because I have changed my mind vote, because I have changed my mind over the years, largely influenced by constituents coming into surgeries or informing me of their surgeries or informing me of their own deeply personal experiences, ranging from horrific stories of seeing loved ones in their final seeing loved ones in their final days.

But I also recall a lady whose mother did go to Dignitas, it was a mother did go to Dignitas, it was a decision she said that at the time she thought was absolutely right. And yet, since then, she has regretted helping her mother every single day of her life. Anna believes she helped contribute towards her death. -- And believes towards her death. -- And believes she helped contribute towards her she helped contribute towards her death. These are complex issues and I expect there are thousands of I expect there are thousands of constituents who have contacted me over the last few weeks.

I would also like to acknowledge the contributors of two people I greatly contributors of two people I greatly admire. Dame Esther Rantzen and Tanni Grey Thompson, I got to know Dame Esther Rantzen in unusual Dame Esther Rantzen in unusual circumstances when we stood against each other in Newton's in the 2010 general election. Tanni Grey Thompson it didn't end well for either of us, but Telegram Thompson I got to know very well as sports minister. They are on different

13:20

Nigel Huddleston MP (Droitwich and Evesham, Conservative)

- -

sides of this debate. But I appreciate the contribution and it shows as well people can use, productively, their profile and personality, in order to contribute to debates and I appreciate the to debates and I appreciate the contributions, though I'm afraid, contributions, though I'm afraid, Dame Esther Rantzen, I do love you but I respectfully disagree with you on this issue. I know every MP once on this issue. I know every MP once do the right thing today on this issue, no one side has monopoly on compassion.

All of us want to make compassion. All of us want to make the right decision. This is not an easy choice. Every now and again in this place, we have the awesome responsibility of making decisions responsibility of making decisions we know could ease suffering, or could cost or save lives. And this could cost or save lives. And this is one such decision, this is one is one such decision, this is one such vote for and for myself, if I am making such a choice, making the decision that will inevitably lead decision that will inevitably lead to the shortening of life, I want to to the shortening of life, I want to be absolutely confident that I'm doing so for the right reasons, and the risks and unintended consequences are minimised.

I am consequences are minimised. I am afraid, Madame Deputy Speaker, this afraid, Madame Deputy Speaker, this bill does not leave the high confidence bar. At some point in the future... I won't come out of respect of those who wish to speak. A bill with different words, and stronger safeguards, perhaps brought through a different parliamentary route and a more robust assessment, might pass the confidence test. This bill does not. But it may well pass and I have joined others in arguing for an voting for enhancements to safeguards, particularly for the disabled, those with eating disorders, mental health problems, disorders, mental health problems, those who may feel they are a burden, and of course, the vulnerable exposed to the risk of coercion, and I believe some improvements have been made to this bill, but not enough.

I continue to have significant concerns about the potential for assisted dying to be abused and to be extended way beyond the intended scope. I must mention one area of disappointment in what has otherwise been an extremely respectful debate about the tone of some of the discussions at a somewhat dismissive attitude that has been expressed towards those with religious beliefs. As if such beliefs are not valid in this Those who believe in God believe the sensitive life should be respected and not sneered at and it is perfectly legitimate for religious beliefs to influence one's views on assisted dying.

Otherwise, Madame Deputy Speaker, this has been a debate and discussion that has been largely respectful and has shown this House at its best. I would like to thank all my constituents have contacted me, and I hope they recognise I have tried to exercise my judgement carefully and in good faith, as indeed has a colleague in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this House. Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. This is my first time speaking to

13:22

David Burton-Sampson MP (Southend West and Leigh, Labour)

- -

This is my first time speaking to this bill, so I want to start by thanking my honourable friend for Spen Valley for having the courage to bring the significantly important bill forward. And I thank all honourable and right honourable members who have been part of this debate. And who have worked on this bill so far for their thoughtful contributions. Until this week, I've remained open-minded and undecided remained open-minded and undecided on this bill. My starting point in this debate was my own personal views and I am personally against assisted dying, that is because of my Christian faith.

Had also selfish reasons that I am a little bit scared of losing people and being there at the end of people's life. But, with us all, I've received a significant amount of communication on this matter. I also decided to launch my own local survey, which I asked my constituents if they are for, against, or decided on their stance on this bill. What was increasingly clear is people are split on this issue. 55% of people were against, 42% were for, and the remainder unsure.

That figure is not insignificant. I promised my very close friend, Emma, I would share the story of her mum Cheryl. He was diagnosed with terminal stage 4 cancer just over 2.5 years ago. Emma wanted to cherish every last minute of her mum's life and she was outstanding in creating those outstanding in creating those special memories with her in the last year or so. Emma was against assisted dying at the time and wanted to do everything to keep her mum with her as long as possible.

Cheryl sadly died last year. Emma told me, if something like this was legal, it was to people having to go what mum went through over the last what mum went through over the last few weeks of her life. She wanted a pain-free death, instead, her dignity were stripped from her and she was through so much pain, despite the strong pain meds. I will never be able to forget the screams. I hope this does get passed, to give people like among the choice and to be in control.

And I'm sure like everyone I have received similar Relatives fade away in agony... I will not give way because I want other honourable members to speak in this as well, in pain, agony, suffering a lingering death, big in it to stop. -- Begging it to stop. I support this bill at second reading to allow the Debate Mate to move forward and hopefully satisfy my concerns, the name to being definition of mental capacity and how this could be interpreted in reality. As a safeguards that would be in place to ensure an individual is not coerced.

I also wanted assurances the bill is strong enough to avoid that slippery slope scenario we have seen in other countries. I am satisfied after listening in a debate in this place, during report stage, absorbing the fast amount of information I have received from members, from various lobbying organisations on both sides. And after meeting with people on both sides of this debate, including my honourable friend for Spen Valley, that my concerns have been addressed. In my view, this bill is now, has more controls, not less than it has when we looked at it at second reading.

I also reject the suggestion this bill has not received scrutiny, the debate on assisted dying has been going for many years. There is a significant amount of analysis, reports and information available. It's gone through hours of scrutiny committee and report stage and will of course go through the same in the other place. I've spent time looking at that information and I'm sure other members have. I believe in choice. Whilst at this place in my life, I believe assisted dying is not for me, there are many who feel otherwise.

They should be able to make this deeply personal choice, like they can make choices about so many other elements of their life, such as whether to follow a religion, whether to marry, whether to have children, whether to get divorced. These are life choices usually made by somebody of sound mind and considerable thought. Like making those life choices, we should be able to make the save choices about our own death. So after much consideration, I am mighty to support this bill at third reading, I will listen to the rest of the debate, but I must say if this bill does not carry today, we must not allow this debate to disappear for another decade.

The country needs this option, my residents tell me that. We need a way to legislate in an acceptable way as Souness practical.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I assure you, I will keep my comments short and respectful of others, I am also conscious that I don't think any of us in this place underestimates the enormity of the decision that we are facing here today. I don't believe it is about a

13:27

Rt Hon Wendy Morton MP (Aldridge-Brownhills, Conservative)

- -

today. I don't believe it is about a heart or head decision, that oversimplifies a very complex matter. I have no doubt at all on the honourable member for Spen Valley's intentions for bringing forward this bill but I would perhaps just gently say, in this place, sometimes good intentions don't always yield the good results that we may strive for. And as I have monitored the progress of this bill, I've continued to struggle with it and there is nothing in it that has changed my mind.

Whatever like to say is the importance of these debates are monumental and that is underpinned by literally thousands of comments and emails I have had from my constituents, some have been writing to me on this matter since before the first debate at the end of November. I also struggle with this bill to see how it has been proceeding through the other place. There is much legislation brought to the House, but I would argue, it's very different to that which has gone before in the last few months.

Some honourable members have been correct decide that some of the more Paria nearing the social legislation of the post-war period -- Pioneering, were introduced via a private members bill. Most notably in the 1967 abortion act and the 1967 sexual offences act, which was to decriminalise homosexuality. But it would be remiss of me not to point out the both of those bills have gone through an extensive government led public inquiry, to pay the way for legislation, not least of all for the advisory committee, under the chairmanship of Sir John Peel, to consider the abortion bill, and the commission to consider the laws on homosexuality.

Something which I'm afraid this bill sadly lacks today. Indeed, the government have set a wide range of policy reviews and I would like to have seen, and I do feel, it would have been totally appropriate if such a review had been sought on this particular matter. Much has also been made in this debate, and throughout the progress of it, that it's a slippery slope, and in future, this bill will be extended and extended. The reason is because of what we see in other countries.

I am going to bring my conclusions to a close. I do think as a modern society, we have to come to terms with having a conversation and debate on death. I don't believe that today has to be the end of that conversation for the protection you need do not believe --. But I genuinely believe this bill is to go through to the House of Lords and the other place, I will be voting against it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will be as quick as I can, can I say to those who are saying we are

13:30

Andy McDonald MP (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, Labour)

- -

I say to those who are saying we are somehow treating this debate today as though we are debating the issues but will send it off to the other place to do our job. That is not why I am here for. I believe we are here to debate this bill. In fact, I want to debate this bill. In fact, I want I 10 years ago when this was debated before, I can hear my speech that I agree in principle we haven't got the safeguards available nor the rice, that was my position 10 years ago and that is why today I am supporting the bill because many of the issues I raised in that debate have been built into this debate into this bill.

How the assessments would be done, the panel system actually including psychiatrists and clinicians and others. At that point in time I argued for a judicial review, I haven't got confidence in the judicial review some of you have. I wanted more experts, at that point again the experts outside were split. They have always been spent on this, there will never be unanimity across the professions on this itself. The one area where I have taken careful attention as the point was made by my noble friend from Lewisham North.

Can I sound so proud that she resigned over the issue of the benefit cuts and I know how difficult that was for her. She was my whip, the nicest web I've ever had. -- Whip. She is right in that the majority of the disability organisations campaigning once in particular have been opposed to the legislation, that is why I try to ensure that some of the issues that they have raised have been translated into the bill itself. The one thing I thought was a huge breakthrough for this House in particular was building in the disability advisory group because that will be the group that has representatives, I hope from a whole range of disability groups including I hope disabled People against the cuts, the radical group, that will advise on the implementation of this.

The other issue raised is the NHS being ready for it. That's why what I said 10 years ago, it will take years to build up the capacity. That's why the four-year implementation schedule are so important to me. I also say this, it's not a choice between palliative care and assisted dying. We want the opportunity to have palliative care, and at this point I want to pay tribute to one of my closest friends tribute to one of my closest friends who died two weeks ago in hospital, I want to thank the staff of the palliative care they gave him so wonderfully at the same time I have others who have suffered greatly and wanted to go.

But what have they been forced to do? Hide away the drugs over a period of time. Send their families away then themselves take the drugs and die a lonely death. Others are recent one, starving themselves to death because there is no other option. I cannot stand by and allow that to happen any more. The Member for North West Hampshire what's most important that the end-of-life's control. It's also dignity, and I want by this legislation to provide that dignity for those who have decided the time has come.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Much of the debate on this bill has focused on dignity, on control, has focused on dignity, on control, on choice. Over the past six weeks on choice. Over the past six weeks I've had to confront those concepts head-on while watching a very close head-on while watching a very close family member of mine unexpectedly lose most physical capacity overnight. Watching someone you love deeply who has been a proud, strong, deeply who has been a proud, strong, independent person unable to perform the most basic of human functions without help, and the corresponding mental impact of that physical mental impact of that physical incapacity is utterly devastating for them and for their nearest and

13:34

Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

for them and for their nearest and dearest. That indignity and loss of control has felt unmanageable on the days when the care has been poor. And yet so much more manageable when nurses and healthcare assistants caring for my loved one have not been totally overstretched and coping with outbreaks. When they have been able to ensure that pain is well managed and when the basic personal care which gives us dignity and boosts our well-being can be given.

That brings me to the heart of the conundrum that we face today. Many of us in this place want to give people choice and autonomy over the way they manage how they leave this world. But the reality is, and I have seen it up close and personal these past six weeks, our NHS and care system is nowhere near giving people that choice. It is absolutely creaking at the seams. I am very grateful that my amendment has been accepted today, but a report on its own is not going to improve our palliative and end-of-life care.

We have had no commitment from ministers as yet that they will do so. The result will be either people choosing to end their lives before they want to, or those who already have a huge distrust in the system, particularly from minority and disadvantaged communities, these voices have heard the least in this debate, choosing not to access the care they need, dying and even more traumatic. I do not believe that supporters of this bill want to see either of those things to happen.

As parliamentarians today we have to cast quite possibly one of the most consequential votes of our time in this place. On such a complex and sensitive issue as assisted dying, it is only right that we turn to experts and make evidence-based decisions. So when the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Physicians, who are both officially neutral and assisted dying have said plainly they cannot support this bill, not least on the most fundamental principle of mental capacity which sits at the very heart of this bill, I say to colleagues across the House it is not too late to think again.

The very people who will be tasked with delivering the service we are legislating for today, a service which by the way we still have no idea what it will look like and how it will be funded, they say it is not safe. How many lives taken in are too many? One? One in 10? One in a hundred? This House clearly supports the principle of an assisted death, as does the public. But not at any cost. This bill is not fit for purpose and the experts have told us the safeguards in it will not adequately protect those who most need, indeed expect us as legislators to protect them.

I implore colleagues today to vote it down and I say to ministers on the frontbench, it is your responsibility to go back and do I started this process opposed to the idea of assisted dying having worked in the field of Domestic Abuse Act I found myself increasingly concerned about how this bill would impact on those who are most vulnerable to coercion and abuse. As a Labour MP I reflected on why I joined the Labour Party. Our commitment to protecting the vulnerable, fighting for equality, suspicious of individualism and narrow notions of choice which turn a blind eye to the impact of that choice on others.

If I could legislate to create a bill just for me, I would be tempted. But I believe my role as an MP is to legislate in the best interests of those who have no voice. His choices are often limited by poverty, patriarchal, racism, trauma, ill- health and state and societal failure. We must recognise that if we advance this bill yet further today, there will be unintended and undesirable consequences. It is this bill in front of us that we are

13:41

Jess Asato MP (Lowestoft, Labour)

- -

voting on today, not the principal. Not a distant promise that the other place might fix the holes. But what place might fix the holes. But what we know is in and not in this we know is in and not in this legislation. I would like to illustrate briefly the reasons why believe this bill will create harm to families across our country. Imagine the scenario of your mother. You were there when dad used to You were there when dad used to belittle her.

In public it was jokes putting her down but in the House putting her down but in the House you would hear him say that she was worthless, ugly and we would be better off strike would be better better off strike would be better off dead. You got out of there as sooner you could but she would never leave, she loved him and couldn't see a life for herself outside his control. You could see her health deteriorating but he often stopped her from going to the doctors or her from going to the doctors or reaching out to friends.

One day you get a call from your dad to say she get a call from your dad to say she is dead. She got an assisted death. You worry she took her life not because of her illness, but because because of her illness, but because it was the only way out from the abuse. And you fear that he made her abuse. And you fear that he made her do it. But there was no chance for you to tell anyone about your concerns. And no automatic concerns.

And no automatic requirement for an investigation by a coroner. Would you ever be able to prove his malign control? Now she was gone. Or imagine you have a brother who has struggled with an eating disorder ever since he entered secondary school. He was sexually abused by family friend and never received any real support for what he went through. Court backlogs mean the criminal case is still ongoing. He spent longer and longer watching social media influences, pay by assisted dying companies to advocate for what they called a peaceful end to life.

He had begun to starve and doctors withdrew treatment because they claimed nothing more could be done. You get a call only a few months after his 18th birthday to tell you that your brother opted for an assisted death. No thank you I'm sorry we've got to make time for we know from other jurisdictions that it is older and disabled people who were disproportionately access assisted dying, two of the most vulnerable groups to abuse and coercion particularly from strangers bias of financial abuse and cut going coercion is not just the risk of this legislation it is a certainty.

2.3 million victims of domestic abuse in the UK even if this bill implements a gold standard training which we do not know that it will, professionals will not be able to professionals will not be able to identify everyone. It is sadly inevitable that should this bill pass, it is the most vulnerable people in our society will experience wrongful deaths. A prominent campaigner in favour of this bill has said even if a few grannies get bullied into it isn't that a price worth paying for the people who could die with dignity? Please, we must not settle for this.

In a system designed to end life there can be no room for doubt and no room for human are. Coercion and abuse are real, they happen all around us all the time whether we want to see it or not. As does feeling like a burden. Self perceived burden is a common phenomenon on associated with having a terminal in which often leads to a desire to die. This bill allows that feeling of being a burden, being a burden to those closest to you and society more broadly, to be acted on rather than treated.

The Sirte -- research has found that doctors wrongly predict how long-term Lille have to live in over half of cases for top there is so much life left to live after a terminal diagnosis. We should not link which our bonds, duties and responsibilities towards each other as fellow human beings. I urge colleagues to reject this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in favour of this bill. First I want to thank the bill. First I want to thank the honourable member for Spen Valley honourable member for Spen Valley for the way she has approached this bill and for how she has engaged with members across the House on both sides of the argument on their both sides of the argument on their various amendments. I voted in favour of this at second reading on principle, but also because of something a constituent said to me

13:44

Sarah Green MP (Chesham and Amersham, Liberal Democrat)

- -

something a constituent said to me about the status quo. She said it is cruel and I can't disagree with her. It was definitely cruel for my constituent and -- and. He was interviewed by the police for supporting her husband and going to Dignitas. She faced for weeks afterwards in her grief facing the uncertainty of a police investigation. For me, the current system is unsatisfactory and it was a real privilege to join others on the Bill Committee to scrutinise this bill, and it is my belief that this bill is stronger for having gone through that system and there is one change in particular I would like to speak to.

That is the inclusion of social workers on the inclusion of social workers on the panel. This is a profession that deals with complex, challenging, sometimes dark family dynamics on a daily basis. I believe including them on the panel is the right thing to do. For those reasons I will be supporting this bill today and I supporting this bill today and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I am proud to support my honourable friend as a co-sponsor my honourable friend as a co-sponsor of the spell. Her leadership, compassion and dignity has been a compassion and dignity has been a beacon of hope for so many. I would like to thank the many hundreds of constituents who have written to me and have face-to-face appointments with me to discuss this complex

13:46

Paula Barker MP (Liverpool Wavertree, Labour)

- -

issue. There are strongly held beliefs when this debate. Both inside and outside house. And I absolutely respect those with differing views to myself and hope they will respect my own views was after all, it is possible for all of us in this place to disagree well. We have accepted that we can and must do better for dying people and their loved ones. That has been clear all through this debate. Too many of us have witnessed the devastation caused when we are denied choice at the end-of-life.

Until the law changes, dying people in Britain are suffering unbearably in their final weeks in days. We are trying to scrape together the funds from abroad, or taking their own lives behind doors, and I would urge honourable and right honourable members to keep these experiences in the front of their minds when they go through the lobbies later. Because of the heart of this bill, it is about choice. For those who wish to exercise that choice, they can, or for those who don't, they simply don't have to.

The bill introduces practical measures to assess eligibility, got against coercion, ensuring oral oversight and monitoring of the process. Dying people currently have none of these protections under the current law. The status quo is failing people each and every day. I pay tribute to colleagues from across the house who served in the Bill committee. The matter what side of the debate they were on and strengthen the bill with clear amendments accepted, including the establishment of a disciplinary panel to oversee every application with oversight from psychiatrists, social workers and lawyers.

The requirement that assisted dying could only be discussed with patients within the context of all the end-of-life care and panel members and treatment options on the creation of a disability program board. The bill requires that patients be informed about all care options to ensure everyone has access to the best possible pain relief, emotional support and hospice care. This will ensure that choosing an assisted death is never a result of ignorance or lack of care. And I am pleased that this bill has brought about a long overdue discussion about palliative care.

Because if we are honest, very few people in this place and outside were shouting from the rooftops beforehand. So, I sincerely hope that after this bill, we will continue to discuss palliative care and how we can improve it because it is not an either or. Having robust palliative care and the option of assisted dying, we truly have options that will have individual needs and the values of each patient. Finally, momentum for law changes is spreading across the British Isles and beyond.

S MPs voted by a clear majority to pass Liam MacArthur's assisted dying Bill. The Isle of Man bellies waiting for Royal assent or potentially be available for terminally ill residents from 2027. The direction of travel is to give dying people to choice of the end- of-life. We cannot leave dying

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people behind. Thank you. If we can do for minutes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If we can do for minutes. It is often said that Parliament

13:49

Dr Ben Spencer MP (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is often said that Parliament is the conscience of the nation but I believe it is also its safeguard. There are people who will benefit There are people who will benefit from assisted suicide as implemented in this bill but there are also people who will be harmed. This mental illness, those in care homes, those who feel a burden, those who are made to feel a burden, and those who are abused. The bill safeguards are inadequate. The Royal psychiatrists, physicians, of pathologists, countless doctors, professionals, charities have all been ignored in pursuit of absolutist principle above understanding.

It is a facile interpretation of autonomy to ignore its prerequisite. We must hear these concerns and act accordingly. The who are way if not the champions of the vulnerable, the voice of the voiceless. The question before us today is do we believe this harm to the vulnerable is worth it? I say not. I say go down the spell.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Today we have a final choice, and for months we have debated assisted dying. In some debated assisted dying. In some ways, we will never have enough time and I wish there had been more and I wish there had been more opportunity to debate amendments that have been put forward but I can also say in my time in these debates

13:51

Matthew Patrick MP (Wirral West, Labour)

- -

that honourable members have approached these issues with great dignity and care. The honourable member for spend Valley is a friend of mine who I am very proud of and she has led this debate with characteristic humanity and decency and honour, and I'm sure all of us have found that whenever we have approached her with concerns on behalf of others or ourselves, she has come with their willing ear and open heart and I pay tribute to her. Opponents of the bill have work to understand and voice those concerns, and like the member has voiced concern so that these concerns can be heard today.

More than a thousand approaches from people in Royal West and as others have said, that deserves great respect. I think to a meeting I held on Melrose Hall in Hoylake with more than 50 constituents discussing this matter, and people with candour and respect share their personal stories. They disagreed wholeheartedly but they did so with compassion and dignity. They are the best of us. Standing here, I recognise that however we end up today, we will let people down. Whether this passes and there are people who would not choose otherwise to have an assisted death but go through with that, or whether it falls and people who I believe should have the choice individually to end their illness on their terms and denied that opportunity.

I am conscious of that, yet the boat before us is not on these harrowing stories that we have heard but it is on a system, and it is on system that I worry about the implications that go beyond individual cases. The consequences of getting this wrong are severe, and the risks of getting it wrong with an NHS turn recovery is too high. The member for Twickenham has raised important amendments. If our NHS is not able to deliver the highest, would assisted dying improve that? Or could it end up creating a one-sided choice for people? Honourable members will be concerned that there will never be a good time for the NHS to introduce this, but it won't quite be ready for assisted dying, and I hear that, but I sincerely do not believe that it is ready to bear the weight of the system we are voting on today.

I am not settled on the issue of coercion either. We have heard from experts across the house who have spoken about mental health issues and learning disabilities, the mammoth Lowestoft to talk to about issues of Domestic Abuse Act how that could intercept. The members for voxel and Stoke Newington and Braintree who have talked about ethnic minorities could be impacted by this bill, about the trust and the health system and the dynamics that could lead to someone taking a life.

And I worry about the quiet imperceptible unspoken coercion which can emerge of this system goes ahead. Of those vulnerable people who would see a duty to die, and I'm not satisfied that this bill has enough safeguards against that. It is for that reason that I am voting against and call others to do the same, but I will say to those watching at home, I hope that people can share my confidence that whatever lobby people walk through today, they have reached a decision with great care and great consideration.

To wear out the consequences could and bad of this boat has been a burden and I share that burden with others today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We all come to this place every day determined to improve not just day determined to improve not just our society but the lives of those who live in it of our constituents. who live in it of our constituents. We want to give them more choice, more opportunity, but we also have a responsibility to protect the responsibility to protect the vulnerable and alleviate suffering. And I don't believe that And I don't believe that responsibility has ever weighed heavily with any of us or been more heavily with any of us or been more present in our thoughts and our debates than it is today.

We have debates than it is today. We have debated this a number of times. The bill has been through the scrutiny of the committee, and I thank the of the committee, and I thank the honourable member for all the work she has done and the work that the committee have done on looking at committee have done on looking at the bill which I firmly believe provide a choice for those people who are suffering at the end-of- who are suffering at the end-of- life. They are calling out for us to life.

They are calling out for us to give them this. I would also like to reassure all of those in the disabled community, those who are disabled community, those who are suffering from an eating disorder or

13:56

Christine Jardine MP (Edinburgh West, Liberal Democrat)

- -

suffering from an eating disorder or a mental-health issue that they are not in anyway put at risk by this spell. The committee has gone to extreme lengths to ensure that there are safeguards and that they will not be eligible for an assisted death because they will not have a terminal illness. It has been difficult for all of us, a difficult road. We have shared personal constituents, and I don't think any of us will go through the lobbies today without having had some doubt.

Without having our own conscious and our own responsibility. But I have to say that I believe that what the committee have done, what the house has done is come up with a bill which does what the people of this country want. It offers choice to adults with a terminal illness with safeguards that we need. And I would ask all members to support the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

terminally ill adults bill. Thank you. The judgement in front

13:57

Lewis Atkinson MP (Sunderland Central, Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. The judgement in front of us today is permitting some terminally ill adults to choose terminally ill adults to choose death, reduce suffering without inadvertently creating undue risks to others. I am clear, having worked in the NHS for 19 years, that my judgement can do this. I know the lengths that the NHS and our hospice movement go to to provide care at the end-of-life. The beloved pet coming in for the last cuddle. The compassionate conversation in the middle of a night that calms fears.

Some had suggested that our health service could not safely introduce assisted dying for patients who are already in regular contact with the health service because, by definition, they are terminally ill. I know not just the professionalism of NHS staff, but I have also seen the thoroughness of which other medical legal groups which are in many ways analogous to the provisions of this bill which they are prevented. The NHS has shown over decades that it can safely implement social and legislative changes passed by this Parliament.

The 19 city seven abortion act implemented safely by the NHS. The regulation and provision of IVF under the human embryology and fertilisation act. This bill has rightly been amended to allow up to 4 years commencement to allow all of the preparations that are needed to take place. The Chief Medical Officer reminded us that the NHS deals with life-and-death decisions every day, and while the processes in this bill are new, crucially, they build on a solid foundation of existing practice.

The mental capacity act. As others have said, a person with a terminal illness receiving critical care can say Dr, I want to die, turn off this machine. And we use a simple test machine. And we use a simple test under the act to permit that. Under this bill, rightly, there are further safeguards, but the decision is essentially the same. Dr, I want to die, give me something to drink. This is absolutely not about the state killing people. These people are dying at the moment.

The CMO also gave evidence to us and he stressed that the secondary regulation power are necessary to permit ongoing safe regulation. Those powers not only require the Secretary of State to ensure that codes of practice and regulation are in place, but they also give him the in place, but they also give him the opportunity to react should there be any cases that were unduly concerning. It is right that we are thorough in our roles as legislators.

I have seen firsthand how the honourable member has sat with officials from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice to ensure the workability and safety of these provisions. That is not the case for the status quo where people die lonely deaths of suicide, where lonely deaths of suicide, where Those people there is no checksum capacity, only trauma. For that I start by saying I fully appreciate and respect the differing views on both sides of this debate and I thank the huge number of my constituents in Epping Forest you have contacted me about this bill.

I have to say this legislation to permit assisted dying or suicide leaves me with many concerns. I fear that some frail and vulnerable

14:02

Dr Neil Hudson MP (Epping Forest, Conservative)

- -

people may start to feel a burden to their families and feel some pressure to proceed down this path. I also worry that this legislation I also worry that this legislation will bring in a fundamental change in the doctor-patient relationship and a foundational change in what our precious NHS is and what it our precious NHS is and what it stands for. I am concerned on the possible pressure it would place on medical practitioners when it comes to diagnosis and prognostication to diagnosis and prognostication which we know is not an exist -- exact science.

Furthermore we have a palliative care sector that provides palliative care sector that provides high quality, compassionate and dignified care at its best, sadly access the palliative care across the country is not as uniform level for people who need it the end of for people who need it the end of their life. We have a palliative care sector that sadly is being left to the charitable sector in terms of the majority of funding and the majority of funding and delivery. That is in no way intended as a criticism of the amazing charities and hospices involved in charities and hospices involved in the delivery of this care.

I think it is not right as a society that the state will fund how someone the state will fund how someone comes into this life with obstetrics, maternal care, neonatal obstetrics, maternal care, neonatal G and paediatrics but not how they leave the slide. I believe our priority should be addressing this palliative care situation before we go anywhere near bringing in assisted dying legislation. Finally I wanted to say some remarks as a veterinary surgeon, I will give way. I preface this by saying that I am in no way equating the passing of an animal with the passing of human.

Which is of a completely different order of magnitude. But the end of an animals life has sometimes been drawn into the discussion of human assisted dying. Many of the protocols and drugs for this are similar to those being discussed for humans. As about their research and I have been involved in countless numbers of cases of helping animals, large and small, passed away for many many reasons. Each decision with the owner is very difficult and often heartbreaking. But what I would say is that the final act isn't always routine.

And it doesn't always go smoothly or according to plan. Apart from a couple of powerful speeches from members last week we have not really addressed this issue of medical procedures and complications in this human debate. I shudder to think of the implications for the patient, the loved ones and the coordinating doctor if things do not go smoothly and peacefully. Surely this must give us all pause for thought. So for these and many many other reasons I again will be voting

14:05

Lola McEvoy MP (Darlington, Labour)

- -

I would like to thank my honourable friend the Member for Spen Valley and to celebrate her courage and kindness throughout this whole kindness throughout this whole process I agree with many in the House that the status quo is unacceptable and that is why most of us are here. I would like to urge colleagues who like me are in favour colleagues who like me are in favour of the principle of choice at the of the principle of choice at the end-of-life to use their vote today not on the principle, but on how this bill will work in practice.

This is not an opinion poll and This is not an opinion poll and there are very real trade-offs. Without palliative care parity across the UK, this new way to die across the UK, this new way to die offers a replacement, not a real choice. I am pleased to have the choice. I am pleased to have the support of the former prime in The Right Honourable Gordon Brown on Right Honourable Gordon Brown on Of medical professionals was I was brought up around death and I'm still smiling, I know about good palliative care because my dad would take me to the hospice to meet his patients that he had grown to love.

As a child I remember him getting promoted to new nurse consultant promoted to new nurse consultant role, there are experts in their field of nursing and were promoted with to fill the gap in those expertise making decisions around crucial palliative care pain relief. My dad's positional and relational My dad's positional and relational power to give confidence around decision-making and support less experienced but more senior staff in a central decisions around life- and-death meant that those decisions could use a lot of people's passing stop when decisions are delayed patient suffers unnecessarily and we've heard this happen through the stories of many of the cases of core palliative care that have shaped the debate today.

In the interest of time I'm going to skip to my final point. The practical reality of what we see today is that without radical improvements to palliative care join a digital system, the clear recorded say tri-state on when and how we talk to patients about the treatment that they are getting and what that means not just the length of their life but for the quality of their life we will continue to have a postcode lottery with a finite number of experts in our NHS this decision to bring in this new way of dying will simply de-prioritise addressing the gaps in provision of good quality palliative care which will affect most of us in favour of offering a new option to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minority of people you will be eligible. That is not in line with my values and that is why can't vote for it. Becomes shadow minister Doctor

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kieran Mullan. Can I begin by first thanking the park for the considerable work

14:07

Dr Kieran Mullan MP (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)

- -

park for the considerable work they've been taking to under take members across the south preparing amendments on such an complexity full stop I know Mr Speaker gave a great deal of thought to those we voted on and they also know you had a difficult balancing exercise given time to this bill that is the limited time available for Friday sittings. I want to say again to the government that I am deeply disappointed that they chose not to assist you and all members by providing further time on the Floor of the House so that every single member that Impey wanted to speak to do so.

Telling members how me hours went into Committee stage when so few members can participate in that little comfort to those members who haven't been able to put their views on the record on the Floor of the House. But we are where we are, can I join others in acknowledging the very hard work and sincerity of the sponsoring member for Spen Valley. Now is the moment when we vote on the bill but we have to assume is its final form. There may be changes made in the other place there may not be.

If you go to the Delta date you must do so happy that this is the version that will come into law. As we conclude I want to return to what I said a second reading. No one on either side of this debate can claim only their side is being motivated by care and compassion for others. We have heard powerful speeches motivated by concern for others those both in favour and against this bill, the Mother of the House, the member for North West Hampshire and Glasgow north-east were some powerful examples.

The member absolutely serve the memory of her brother well. On either side of the debate we should resist the temptation to give ourselves false comfort. Those supporting the bill and I'm sure even the sponsoring member herself will accept there is no such thing as a perfect law. Certainly not in an area like this. No one can be certain that the concerns raised by proponents of the bill will never transpire in any case for top member supporting the bill should vote with an understanding there may be unintended consequences.

Similarly those opposing the bill should do so accepting that they can't rule out that some people of sound mind without undue pressure from others who want to access assisting -- assisted dying we had about the very real suffering people at the end of their life can experience full stop how much of the suffering can be relieved by palliative care has been a point of contention the most powerful medication for relieving pain have equally powerful side- effects and that should weigh heavily with members considering voting against.

Whilst opponents of assisted dying may prefer an improvement to palliative care instead, they can't guarantee it will happen. I don't think it's fair to say that those ultimately vote no to the bill are some have described it actively happy with the status it actively happy with the status quo. I'm sure all of us at some point of putting a problem with human suffering of one former another but opposed a plan to alleviate it because we thought it might make things worse in some other respect.

That doesn't mean you are happy with the problem still remains. Taking all of that into account members have to undertake difficult balancing exercise. I want to end my remarks with words we started the day with, words that are heard in the chamber every time that we set. I'm not religious but the meaning our daily prayers convey I think it's of universal assistance will stop were encouraged to lay aside all private interests and prejudices and keep in mind our Responsibility to seeking to improve the condition of all mankind.

Saying those words is easy, if only was is easy to have the necessary wisdom to always know what exactly it means to improve the conditions just of our constituents let alone all mankind. The daily prayers can't help us with that unfortunately and today we don't even have help of the party line. All of us at one time another have right against the whip and its encouragement for us to vote for something we think is unwise but if we are honest this encouragement can be of great help a lot of the time for top the extent to which the debate cover the views of professionals and organisations I think reflects members trying to find help of another form in place of the whip.

Most of us aren't experts yet we have to make a decision even experts disagree on. Let's welcome the fact that here today as we wrestle with this decision we really are truly doing exactly what we were sent here to do, more than on most other days. Even if you might be uncertain about your vote, you can be absolutely certain about that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much indeed. I stand at the despatch box today alongside my honourable friend the Member for Finchley & Golders Green Member for Finchley & Golders Green not as the MP for my constituency representing their views although I thank each and every one of them he took the time to contact me with their considered opinions. But as the government minister responsible the government minister responsible for ensuring that the bill if past is effective, legally robust and workable. I would like to thank members across the House on both sides of the debate for their sides of the debate for their consideration of this legislation, three parliamentary stages and their thoughtful contributions with particular thanks to the members of particular thanks to the members of the Public Bill Committee for their detailed scrutiny over more than 29 detailed scrutiny over more than 29 sittings and 80 hours.

This bill has received more Parliament time than received more Parliament time than most government and Private Members' bills and the debate has been respectful and well considered throughout. It's worth noting the throughout. It's worth noting the subject has received extensive and detailed consideration over a number of decades both in this House and the other place as well as beyond Parliament. Many members will recall Parliament. Many members will recall Follows many years of examination and analysis including reports such as the enquiry of the health and social care Select Committee in 2023 and the accumulation of evidence from other jurisdictions.

I would like to pay tribute to colleagues and campaigners on both sides of the argument for their contributions to this profound conversation I will make some brief comments around the most significant alterations to the bill since its introduction from the perspective of the alterations to the legal work ability of the legislation. The scheme set out in the bill now includes assisted dying review panels, multidisciplinary panels would grant a certificate of eligibility if they are satisfied that all the relevant requirements have been met. The panel would have to hear from the person seek seeking assistance, at least one of the doctors and any other relevant persons.

They would be responsible for monitoring and reporting on the operation of the act, a role that was previously assigned to the Chief Medical Officer. The commission would also appoint a dedicated board to advise on the impact of the bill on disabled people. The bills commencement clause has been amended so that any provisions not yet come into force would automatically do so for years after the biggest past. Specific training requirements the doctors playing a formal setting role in this bill have been added. There is no provision for independent advocates to support qualifying persons to understand their options for end-of-life care in the process under the bill.

An in terms of employment, reports stages make sure that no one is under any duty to participate in accordance with this bill. There are now employment protections to protect employees and other workers from being subject to any detriment for opting in or out of providing assistance under the bill and to protect them employees from dismissal. It. Me to thank all honourable members once again for their extremely valuable contributions to this sensitive debate, and once again to reiterate that should it be the will of Parliament this legislation to pass,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then the government will ensure the safe and effective implementation of this service. Thank you. Point of order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point of order. Beg to move that the question now be put.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be put. The question is that the question must be now put. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the opinion say, "Aye", and of the opinion say, "Aye", and of the I'm just going to put the question again. The question is that the question be now put. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". The questionnaires that the bill be now read a third time. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, say, "Aye", and of the contrary, say, "Aye", and of the contrary,

14:16

Stephen Kinnock MP, Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care) (Aberafan Maesteg, Labour)

- -

Order, Order, question Order, question is Order, question is that Order, question is that the Order, question is that the bill Order, question is that the bill be Order, question is that the bill be now read a second time. As many of now read a second time. As many of that opinion say aye. To the

14:18

Division

14:35

Remaining Orders Of The Day

14:39

Adjournment: Development on the green belt in Rayleigh and Wickford constituency Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

adjourn. Mr Mark Francois. I'm grateful for the opportunity to raise the very important matter of potential development in the of potential development in the green belt in my constituency. In addition I'm sure the Minister replying to this debate this afternoon has many pressing demands from his constituency diary on Friday so I'm very grateful to him for being here in House of Commons this afternoon to respond on behalf of the government. Thank you. Perhaps I could briefly explain to the Minister bit about the geography of my constituency and how that's particularly pertinent in relation to future development.

In essence south-east Essex something of the peninsula, bordered to the south by the River Thames, to the east by the North Sea and to the north by the River Crouch and the River Roach which run inland from the North Sea as far west as the village of battles bridge. There are two principal east-west arteries that run from London into our six mainly the A1 71 and DA 13 which runs broadly parallel. Further south close to the terms. Both of these roads already extremely busy during roads already extremely busy during the morning and evening peak.

I'm sure the Minister is familiar with the concept of heat maps, whereby the busier the road the darker shade of red they appear on the map. Both these roads during peak periods are effectively glowing bright scarlet because they are already are somewhere between 98 to 99% capacity in the morning and evening rush- hour. In simple English these roads already maxed out despite a number of junctions being upgraded along both roads in recent years. We look at medical infrastructure the theme of the system freaky at the seams has unfortunately repeated both sand then and Basildon hospital are part of the NHS Foundation Trust along with Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford.

The three hospitals were merged some years ago, admittedly under a Conservative government under 30 say the merger has not been a great success. In the case of Southend Hospital according to the senior trust management last autumn prior to so-called winter pressures the hospital was already at 98 to 99% bed capacity, once winter was added in it well went well beyond the hundred% and unfortunately there were frequent incidents of patients on trolleys in corridors. It's a similar situation at Basildon Hospital slightly further west.

The Minister will know I've raised Basildon hospital within before. In addition GP surgeries in South Essex have patient lists above the national average and are under tremendous pressure as well the brevity our education infrastructure is also under considerable pressure especially with regard to place places and special education schools. I tried the Ministers patient by mentioning all this in order to try and explain frankly as I can the very serious infrastructure pressures which residents of my constituency and right across South Essex already experience will stop given this is absolutely critical that any future development should incorporate large-scale infrastructure investment to be provided onto the tens of thousands of extra houses that Labour are seeking to build in South Essex as part of their desire to create an additional 1.5 million homes over the course of the Parliament for the avoidance of doubt, I do accept there does have to be some additional housebuilding, clearly young people can't live at home with their parents driver.

Any And at a pace which the local infrastructure can realistically accommodate and in an environmentally stable way. So as not to adversely damage the natural habitat nor indeed to degrade the quality-of-life people who already live in the area. They have rights as well. When it comes to housing targets I'm afraid the Minister and I have a very basic philosophical difference. I've met -- admit under a previous Conservative government we did at one time have a system of mandatory housing targets where officials in Matt white hawk and set targets reach logical local authority and then left it up to the authority by the Local Plan to decide what that arbitrary number of dwellings should be built.

I was one of a number of Conservative backbenchers who lobbied very hard to have this procedure changed to a system of advisory targets whereby Whitehall could set a benchmark, the local authorities with special circumstances for instance a larger of the proportion of the green belt were at least given an opportunity to argue back and make a case for reducing such targets if they threatened to be realistically undeliverable in practice. I regret that the incoming Labour government immediately reverted to a system of mandatory targets made worse by their overreliance on a computer algorithm in order to calculate the number supposedly required in each local council area.

The prospect of so-called devolution and local government reform about which I'm afraid I'm already deeply sceptical has only threatened to make this already complete situation even more confused. In short I believe it's highly unlikely that Labour will achieve their 1.5 million target, not least because it now incorporates a policy of making 50% of all new dwellings affordable which was exactly the same policy operated for years by the Labour Mayor of London. It's a matter of record that Mr Carr never got anywhere near the housing targets and indeed they have now been reduced at the expense of increasing targets in the Home Counties including in my home county of Essex.

The 50% affordable policy deterred many housebuilders from building anything at all and whereas it failed in London I believe it will now fail elsewhere across the country one example Philip Barnes group brand director at the £5 billion a year to raise concerns about the policy in a blog in August 2024, he want existing sites within the green belt and draft applications to housing were I quote not be able to provide 50% affordable. He went on to say since the draft NPPF as it then was, Barrett has already pulled for in- flight planning applications and draft allocated sites because the spectre of 50% renders the scheme unviable due to the unacceptability reduced or removed land value.

Nevertheless Labour's doctrine narrowly 1.5 million figure means they are giving local authorities targets which iso- is to be realistically completely undeliverable. Certainly short of massive infrastructure investment which the government is clearly not in financial position to provide. I think borrowing last month was £17 think borrowing last month was £17 billion alone. So, I would like to turn to raise with the Ministers specific examples of where his government policy is already beginning to threaten unsustainable development in the green belt.

Labour led Basildon Bor Council some months ago published their regulation 18 draft Local Plan. These proposals anticipate building an incredible 27,000 dwellings across the Basildon Bor Council area during the planning period to around 2043, 4,200 of which are anticipated to be built in and around the town of Whitford in my constituency. The reasons I've articulated there is absolutely no way that the infrastructure in and around Basildon & Billericay in brick field can possibly cope with massive housebuilding on the scale not least housebuilding on the scale not least Basildon Borough Council have published a number of documents but these are incredibly thin in terms of actual content.

For instance, the supplement to document that relates to health and medical infrastructure says absolutely nothing in detail about the expansion of capacity for Basildon hospital at the heart of the borough. Despite the fact that, according to the NHS own metric, each new dwelling could represent an additional 2.4 patients for hospital thus producing an overall total of just shy of 60,000 new patients, and a hospital where they metaphorically already coming out of the windows as it is. All Basildon is extremely limp documents as in this document is that this will be sorted out by the integrated model.

Having double checked this with the leadership of the ICB, itself a reorganisation into a countywide ICB, I was recently assured that there had been absolutely no discussions between Basildon Borough Council and the integrated home about the expansion of the hospital. Basildon is reggae plans should be found in sound on these grounds alone. Moving onto the Rochford district council side of my constituency, we could already see how the government's targets are having an adverse effect there as well. As one example Taylor Wimpey began a consultation on plans to build up 350 houses in the metropolitan greenbelt, an area of ground in Hawk.

The local community are up in arms about this and if the Minister had time to drive down Maine Road in Horfield, he would see protest posters at almost every window against this completely unsustainable development in the environmentally sensitive valley. The site wholly inappropriate for development and it excluded within the local council plan. Policy states that the core statutory states that the upper valley will be protected from development which would undermine the areas role as a green space providing informal recreational opportunities.

Moreover, policy relating specifically to the upper valley, and I quote it, policy seeks to protect the upper valley from development so that it can become a vast area for informal recreation opportunities. The policy goes on to say that the council will strive to see the upper valley becomes a vast green lung providing informal recreation opportunities for local residents. The council protects the area from development which would undermine the saying that we create this to flourish with the minimum of interference. I should explain to the Minister that I'm fairly opposed to this proposed Taylor Wimpey development which is contrary to 2 very specific policies in the district council local plan as I have just emphasised.

There absolutely no very special circumstances which would justify housebuilding on this scale and this part of the greenbelt which is extremely popular with my constituent for leisure purposes, jogging and dog walking, all of which contribute to their well- being. However, this is by no means the only example where develop and is now being proposed in my constituency. When I was seeking the election last year, my final leaflet was headed give me a mandate to fight the farm. In short, this is another site in the metropolitan greenbelt slap bang between the two largest towns in my constituency.

I warned, during the 2024 election campaign that we have a reputation as a highly aggressive development, treating my former constituents appallingly in a proposed development on the eastern fringe of my constituency with the development of some 660 homes. This was quite rightly opposed by the council and subsequently wore an appeal among other things. District councils hired transport consultant mysteriously changed sides. The night before the public enquiry commenced. As part of their proposals, we offer a number of credits include the new doctors surgery on the site and some two years later, not one grip has been laid to this end.

Despite the attempt to raise this with the Integrated Care Board on several occasions, prior to the changes, there is absolutely no sign whatsoever of undertaking any proactive identity to keep their word about the GP surgery. To me, this sounds a powerful warning for their proposals. In essence, we are building 1300 dwellings on the farm site. The proposals for the farm are Trojan horse, Minister for the site firmly within the metropolitan greenbelt represent completely inappropriate urban sprawl. If I might remind the Minister, the National Planning Policy Framework, the so-called planning Bible states the fundamental aim of greenbelt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.

To allow development at Telemann's farm would be appellee contrary to this fundamental tenet of the NPPF. The 1300 homes initially proposed take up only a fraction of the land on the whole farm site as confirmed in a recent public consultation exercise which the company held and which I attended full stop you only need to take one glance at the proposed site plan to see that this is a Trojan horse, and if the 1300 are approved, then no doubt further applications for thousands more on the same site will follow.

We simply don't possess the transport, medical or infrastructure to deal with urban sprawl on the scale, about half a mile from the wet. As the local MP, I intend to fight these unsustainable proposals to thumbnail. Because of so-called devolution, the Labour government have cancelled the local elections in Essex. However, there is a by- election in the ward on Thursday the 26th in the ward on Thursday, 26 June. Those residents who are lucky enough to have a vote can use it on Thursday to protest against the unsustainable proposals to build so many homes in such an inappropriate location.

I urge my constituents whatever their personal politics might be to vote for the Conservative candidate Luis Hooper on Thursday in order to demonstrate to Bloor homes that we really mean business and we don't want them at Donovan's farm. Perhaps the most egregious example of the attempts to over develop my constituency relate to the new town on the borders between South and Rochford in the area around one screen. The proposal is for around 10,000 dwellings, 5000 on either side of the Rochford South border.

In a question to the deputy minister on Monday, 7 April In a question to the deputy minister on Monday, 7 April 2025, she confirmed to me that, in the Commons, that those dwellings would be above and beyond the housing target of already over 10,000 dwellings which residents are being threatened with by this current Labour government. For the record, I'm completely composed to these as well, but however, I wish to draw to the Minister's attention the fact they do appear to have been some serious irregularities and how all of this is proposed, and I would be grateful for his close attention.

When this was sent in some months ago, Rochford District Council was something of a rainbow coalition, led by the Liberal Democrat group. It transpires that the expression of interest which was sent to the Department was never approved by any committee of the council, let alone the full council itself. There is even some confusion as to whether or not the leader of the council actively endorsed the proposal either. In short, the whole initiative appears to have been effectively officer led and dominated.

Since that time, the leadership of Rochford District Council has changed hands because, in short, the LibDem group effectively collapsed and it has separated into factions. I shan't try the Ministers patients all the twists and turns of this process but nonetheless, suffice to say, it has been something out of like Gilbert and Sullivan. The new Conservative administration, working with the district residents and several others were attempting to bring stability to the council, and at their meeting which took place on 11 June, the council formally decided to withdraw its support for the expression of interest as submitted to the Newtown's task force.

In other words, Rochford has withdrawn from the new town, a decision I support. We just don't have the infrastructure to cope with it. Moreover, in her speech to that committee, the redoubtable councillor said the following about how it was submitted in the first place, and if I may, I quote from her speech that night. This is about transparency and doing right by the communities we serve, so finally, I should add that as the leader of the council, I am very concerned about what appears to have happened, but I think it is important to establish the facts and learn from them.

So, for that purpose, I will shortly be establishing an independent externally led investigation to get to the bottom of this and how exactly the submission came to be sent in the first place. We will then report the findings of that investigation for full council in due course. Given that an external investigation has now been initiated, I'm sure the Minister would agree that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further in detail. Suffice to say, at this stage, something does appear to have gone very seriously wrong with regards to how this expression of interest was submitted and was even more reason for the council to withdraw from the whole process.

Before leaving this topic, I should perhaps add in passing that there are emerging rumours that Renfrew Council shares the same Chief Executive. We have submitted an yellow for a town, but for far larger numbers that were envisaged for the Rochford Southend equivalent. I merely observe that there appears to be a bit of a pattern here. But I will leave that for my right honourable friend, the member for Brentwood who is in his place in the chamber listening to this news about his constituency to pursue with Brentwood Borough Council and no doubt eventually with the Minister on a separate occasion.

So, to summarise, 24 years experiences as a constituency MP has taught me that there is such a thing as good development, but that only works if it is something that is done with people rather than two people. My genuine fear, and I hope the Minister will appreciate what I'm saying, is that Labour's top- down approach from both central government and Labour led Basildon Council are very much the version of doing it to people, rather than with them.

I was elected to Parliament to represent my constituents, and I can assure the Minister that Essex people are not slow in putting across their point of view. As my email inbox regularly testifies, I can see the member from Brentwood who is not in consent. So, we do accept that there has to be some new housebuilding in our county, but not on a scale that the government proposes in order to meet an idea logical target of 1 1/2 million homes, even at the risk from materially undermining the quality- of-life of the people who live in Essex already.

So finally, even if the message doesn't agree with me today, having known him for some time, I hope you will at least respect and take some notice of the points I have made this afternoon on behalf of the constituents who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recently, kindly re-elected me. Thank you. Thank you. Let me begin by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Let me begin by congratulating the gentleman on congratulating the gentleman on securing this debate today. While I may disagree with a number of the arguments he makes for reasons I arguments he makes for reasons I will expand upon in due course, he speaks with genuine conviction on behalf of those he represents and no behalf of those he represents and no one can doubt his commitment to his constituency. In the time available to me I intend to touch upon all of to me I intend to touch upon all of the issues that The Right Honourable gentleman has raised although I won't go into individual planning won't go into individual planning applications, but I want to start by reminding the house about the problem that the government is working to resolve.

It is not in doubt that England is in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis. To ensure we have a plan in system that is geared towards meeting housing needs in full, the government did introduce a new government did introduce a new standard method for assessing local housing need as part of the policy framework we published in December, framework we published in December, and we did make that standard method and we did make that standard method and we did make that standard method Set is vantage of existing housing stock levels to better reflect housing pressures across the country and uses a stronger affordability multiplier to focus additional growth in those places facing the biggest affordability challenges, south-east Essex would be one of those.

It will mean and we've been entirely open about that fact, that all parts of the country including Essex must play their part. I appreciate that some members simply don't want to see housing growth in their constituency, I don't blame the honourable gentleman in this respect, some may even question that housing needs to exist on the scale it does and the governance is clear it does. The government is clear we must have ambitious targets to begin fixing the housing crisis afflicting our country and that decisions made locally about how to meet -- meet housing needs should be about that and not whether to do so at all.

I want to turn briefly to local plans, the plan led approach is and must remain the cornerstone of our planning system. I know the honourable gentleman knows that due to the Secretary of State's quasi- judicial role in the system I'm unable to comment on the details of his or any other specific Local Plan, but I do want to underline that the best way of allowing communities to shape develop into an area is to have an up-to-date Local Plan that ensures that provision of supporting infrastructure is there so that develop and proceeds in a sustainable manner.

In the absence of an up-to-date plan there is a high likelihood that development will come forward on a piecemeal and speculative basis with reduced public engagement and fewer guarantees that will make the most of an area's potential. Having failed to adopt a plan since 1998, Basildon now has one of the oldest Basildon now has one of the oldest And I put this as diplomatically as I possibly can, detrimental to the residents of Rayleigh & Wickford. I'm pleased that the new leadership of Basildon Council are seeking to address the failures of its predecessors by bringing forward a new Local Plan premised on meeting housing need.

I want to take the opportunity to make clear that I expect their neighbours are Rochford to also progress their Local Plan and consult later this year in line with the updated plan timetable. To support local planning authorities in their efforts to Government is awarding £28 million worth of new funding. As part of this Rochford and Basildon councils were each awarded approximately £228,000 Local Plan delivery and £70,000 to support with the costs of undertaking a green belt review. It is now each authorities responsivity to ensure their plans are not growth and secure housing and jobs...

In regard to some of the issues The Right Honourable meant gentlemen make mention. Planning authority is clear to inform the preparation of their local plans. Once local housing need has been assessed should make an assessment of a number of new homes that can be provided in the area. This should be justified on the basis of evidence of land availability and constraints on development such as national landscapes and any other relevant matters. Planning inspectors will consider those if they're raised when plans are solicitude am.

We expect local authorities to explore all options to deliver the homes the community needs including maximising the use of brownfield land, working with neighbouring authorities and where necessary reviewing greenbelt land. When allocating land the first port of call must be previously is a simple and straightforward yes just last month we published a working paper exploring ways we can speed up the buildout of consented sites including consented brownfield sites so they are delivered as quickly as possible. To his point about existing developer contribution systems we are committed to strengthening that to ensure that councils are able to negotiate properly in terms of what public gain could come through that the Parliament contribution system and to hold developer's account to commitment they make on that basis.

But we know there are simply not enough brownfield land in the country to deliver the volume of homes working people need to come eat let alone enough sites that are

15:06

Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)

- -

viable and in the right location which brings me to the green belt. The government is committed to preserving green belts which have served England slap towns and cities served England slap towns and cities well over many decades, not least in terms of checking unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another. We not merging into one another. We not change the purposes of the green change the purposes of the green belt for 143 of the NPPF and we don't propose to alter its general don't propose to alter its general extent.

Instead our reforms place what was a haphazard approach with a strategic and targeted approach to greenbelt land designation in and greenbelt land designation in and release. As a result of changes national policy 90 is a clear direction the web element is necessary it should be develop necessary it should be develop towards the least valuable part of the green belt grievously developed although policy grey belt land. The although policy grey belt land. The sustainability of sites must also be prioritised, local authorities must prioritised, local authorities must pay particularly attention to transport connections when considering if grey belt is sustainably located and because we sustainably located and because we recognise the value that the public place on greenbelt we are taking steps to ensure that any development on land released from it must develop like deliver high levels of affordable in, the new two existing affordable in, the new two existing green places accessible to the prop green places accessible to the prop public and making necessary infrastructure improvements locally to ensure that residents benefit.

Those new golden rules which are the mechanism by which you will deliver that public gain will apply where housing element is proposed on greenbelt land but I should be clear those higher requirements are through the golden boot rules for greenbelt land specifically. Whether that is subject to a planning application. To bring things to a close...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Am I right that he describes sustainability particularly for greenbelt developments is a golden rule? I understand the Planning Inspectorate are beginning to take that approach as well. Quickly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that approach as well. Quickly confirmed that I heard that correctly? In judging particular

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In judging particular applications and in particular when local authorities seek to release land as grey belt land that you have to have sustainability as a concern. When cases for example on appeal go When cases for example on appeal go to the Planning Inspectorate all to the Planning Inspectorate all these will be considered. The definition of what needs to be considered he can find in the NPPF I'm more than happy to point into I'm more than happy to point into that.

Very briefly on nature because the honourable gentleman did mention the environment, our reforms will help to deliver the homes and help to deliver the homes and develop meant we need but we can clear this must not come at the expense of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act we are and Rural Communities Act we are clear that policies should recognise the intrinsic character of the countryside where maintaining the existing strong protections best and most versatile agricultural land, we preserved protections for high- quality land and land safeguarded quality land and land safeguarded for environmental needs such as for environmental needs such as national landscapes and we are ensuring that major new developers and the green belt deliver more accessible Greenspace and support for nature recovery.

To conclude I'd like to thank the honourable gentleman once again for sharing his concerns on this matter with the House. While I appreciate there is a principled and strongly felt difference of opinion tween he and I on these matters I trust I clearly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

laid out the governance position but as ever I'd be more than happy to speak to him outside the chamber to discuss any issues of local concern. Question is this House do now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is this House do now adjourn. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye", and of the contrary, "No". The "Ayes" have it. Order,

15:15

Private Members' Bills: Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill: Further consideration of the Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

15:15

Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)

- -

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page