Bills
Live Bills
Government Bills
Private Members' Bills
Acts of Parliament Created
Departments
Department for Business and Trade
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Department for Education
Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Department of Health and Social Care
Department for Transport
Department for Science, Innovation & Technology
Department for Work and Pensions
Cabinet Office
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Home Office
Leader of the House
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Ministry of Justice
Northern Ireland Office
Scotland Office
HM Treasury
Wales Office
Department for International Development (Defunct)
Department for Exiting the European Union (Defunct)
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Defunct)
Department for International Trade (Defunct)
Reference
User Guide
Stakeholder Targeting
Dataset Downloads
APPGs
Upcoming Events
The Glossary
2024 General Election
Learn the faces of Parliament
Petitions
Tweets
Publications
Written Questions
Parliamentary Debates
Parliamentary Research
Non-Departmental Publications
Secondary Legislation
MPs / Lords
Members of Parliament
Lords
Pricing
About
Login
Home
Live Debate
Commons Chamber
Commons Chamber
Friday 20th June 2025
(began 4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Share Debate
Copy Link
Watch Live
Print Debate (Subscribers only)
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:34
None
-
Copy Link
**** 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
-
Copy Link
Right, Right, the Right, the question Right, the question is Right, the question is that Right, the question is that new
clause 16 be added to the bill. As many of that opinion, say I've the
many of that opinion, say I've the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lock Lock the Lock the doors.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Order. Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Order. The ayes to the right 208. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noes to the left 261. Thank you. The ayes to the right
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. The ayes to the right 208. The noes to the left 261. The noes have it. The noes have it.
noes have it. The noes have it.
noes have it. The noes have it. Unlock. We now come to Amendment 14 which has been selected for separate
which has been selected for separate decision. The court Naz Shah to move
the amendment formally. The question is that Amendment 14 be made. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No".
The ayes
And of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now
come to Amendment 55 the name of Kim Leadbeater which has been selected for separate decision. I call Kim Leadbeater to move the amendment
Leadbeater to move the amendment formally. The question is that Amendment 55 be made. As many are of
Amendment 55 be made. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to
Amendment 24 in the name of Daniel Francis which has been selected for
separate decision.
I caught Daniel Francis to move the amendment
formally. The question is that Amendment 24 be made. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the
contrary, "No". Division, cleared
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Order. The Order. Order. The question Order. Order. The question is that Amendment 24 be made. As many
that Amendment 24 be made. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". Tellers for the ayes Ruth Jones and Rebecca
the ayes Ruth Jones and Rebecca
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lock Lock the Lock the doors.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. Order. The eyes to the right, 213. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The eyes to the right, 213. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
nose to the left, 266. Thank you. The eyes to the right,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. The eyes to the right, 213, the nose to the left, 266. The
213, the nose to the left, 266. The nose have it. Unlock. We now come to
nose have it. Unlock. We now come to amendments 56 to 69, 91, 52 to 54,
amendments 56 to 69, 91, 52 to 54, 70, 71 and 89 which have been selected for separate decisions with
selected for separate decisions with leader of the will put a single question on amendments 56 to 69, 91,
question on amendments 56 to 69, 91, 52 to 54, 70, 71 and 89.
I called to
52 to 54, 70, 71 and 89. I called to move the amendments 56, 50 to 54, 72
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and 71 and 89. Moved formally.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank for you. The question is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank for you. The question is amendments 56 to 69, 91, 52 to 54, 71 and 89 be made. I think the eyes
71 and 89 be made. I think the eyes
71 and 89 be made. I think the eyes have it. We now come to amendment 12 which has been selected for separate
which has been selected for separate decisions. I called to me formally.
decisions. I called to me formally. The question is that amendment 12 be
The question is that amendment 12 be
The questionnaires The questionnaires that The questionnaires that amendment The questionnaires that amendment 12
be made.
As many of that opinion,
Lock the Lock the doors.
Order, Order, order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The eyes to the right, 223, the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The eyes to the right, 223, the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
nose to the left, 269. The eyes to the right, 223, the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The eyes to the right, 223, the nose to the left, 200 and the nose to the left, 269. The nose have it.
to the left, 269. The nose have it. Unlock. We now come to amendments 92
Unlock. We now come to amendments 92 and 93 which have been selected for separate decision. I should put the
separate decision. I should put the questions on amendment 92 and 93. I called Kim Leadbeater to move
called Kim Leadbeater to move formally. The question is that amendments 92 and 93 be made.
I
amendments 92 and 93 be made. I think the eyes have it. We now come
think the eyes have it. We now come to amendment 21 in the name of the near Wilson which has been selected for separate decision. I move
for separate decision. I move formally. The question is that
formally. The question is that amendment 21 be made. As many of that opinion, say aye. The contrary
that opinion, say aye. The contrary no. The aye have it. We now come to
amendments 90, 72 to 76 which have been selected for separate decision.
I shall put the single question on
I shall put the single question on
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I call Kim Leadbeater to move them. Move formally. The question is that Amendment 90
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that Amendment 90 and 72 to 76 be made. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". The ayes have it.
contrary, "No". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to Amendment 77 in the name of Kim
Amendment 77 in the name of Kim Leadbeater. To move the amendment
formally. The question is the amendment 77 be made. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the
contrary, "No".
The ayes have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. The Order. The question Order. The question is Order. The question is that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. The question is that Amendment 77 be made. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". Tellers for the ayes
contrary, "No". Tellers for the ayes Sarah Owen. Tellers for the noes
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lock Lock the Lock the doors.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. The ayes to the right 275. The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noes to the left 209. The ayes to the right 275. The noes to the left 209. The ayes have
noes to the left 209. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. We now
it. The ayes have it. Unlock. We now come to amendment 94 in the name of Kim Leadbeater. I call her to move
Kim Leadbeater. I call her to move the amendment formally. The question
the amendment formally. The question is that Amendment 94. As many are of that opinion say, "Aye".
And of the
that opinion say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No". Division, cleared
The The question The question is The question is that The question is that Amendment The question is that Amendment 94 The question is that Amendment 94 be made. As many are of that opinion
say, "Aye". And of the contrary, "No".. Tellers for the ayes. Tellers
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. The eyes to the right, 274. The
nose to the left, 224.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
nose to the left, 224. Thank you. The eyes to the right,
274, the nose to the left, 224. The
274, the nose to the left, 224. The aye habit. Unlock. Amendment 95 is a consequential amendment on 94 which
has just been agreed to.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Move formally. The question is that amendment 95 The question is that amendment 90
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that amendment 90 5B now made. I think the aye have it. We now continue Schedule 1 which
it. We now continue Schedule 1 which has been selected for separate decision.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Move formally. The question is that new Schedule
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that new Schedule 1 be read a second time. The aye
have it. New clause 1 Schedule 1 be added to the bill, as many of that
opinion, say aye. I think the aye have it. We come to amendment 78 to
79 which has been selected for separate decision. I shall put the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
single question on amendment 7879. Move formally.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Move formally. The question is that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the amendment be made. I think the aye
amendment be made. I think the aye have it. Right, that completes that
10:41
Points of Order James Cartlidge MP (South Suffolk, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
privilege to open the debate for the Third Reading of the terminally ill adults end-of-life bill. It has been
a long journey to get here, and I do not underestimate the significance of this day. It is not often we are
asked to wrestle with issues of morality, ethics and humanity. But with great privilege of this job
comes great responsibility and never more so that at a time like this. Benjamin Franklin told us that, in
this world, nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.
In this house, we debate the letter incessantly but here and in the country as a whole, discussing death
is something we tend to shy away from. And yet it will come to us all
and to all those we love. We all have our own experiences of death, loss, and grief. There are good
deaths and there are bad deaths. And I have experienced both. I
appreciate that for some colleagues, the journey to this point has been a
difficult one and I want to pay tribute to the way in which the overwhelming majority of members
have approached the subject.
The second reading back in November was quite rightly seen as an example of Parliament at its best.
Contributions from across the chamber were incredibly powerful. The atmosphere was respectful and people listened with care. I hope
you will see the same today. And I
want to thank you and your team,
along with the fantastic clerks and procedural experts who have insured Parliamentary protocols have been followed and have guided us through
the intricacies of what can be a complex Parliamentary process, which is steeped in tradition but not always easy to follow.
And of
course, process is important, but it is also important to remember that we are not voting on the merits of
Parliamentary procedure. We are voting on an issue that matters deeply to our constituents. Indeed, the issue before us today is very
personal for many people. So many
constituents but many of us as well. It is an issue which transcends party politics and I want to thank
colleagues from across the house who have shared their very personal stories with me. I am grateful to all colleagues who have studied the
bill.
It is essential that we come to a decision based on the content
of what it actually says and I have been pleased to work with members on all sides of the debate to ensure that this legislation is something
that Parliament can be proud of, a cogent and workable bill which has one simple thread running through
it, the need to correct the profound injustices of the status quo which
offers a compassionate safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it. I won't go into the amendment sent details as that is
not the purpose of this debate whether it is adding further safeguards and protections for patients through additional training
around coercive control or the addition of specialist expertise for
the inclusion of multidisciplinary panels, widening the provision for professionals to opt out of the process, providing employment
protections or prohibiting the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful. What level of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful. What level of concern does it give her that since
second reading and today, professionals and independent
professionals and independent provisional bodies have urged great caution about this bill, not on the principal but are opposed to the
principal but are opposed to the details of the bill and believe it should be defeated?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
should be defeated? I thank him. I think what he is saying is people have got different
views, they do have different views. We have different views in this
House and different people in different professions have different views was every Royal College has a neutral position on assisted dying. I have been pleased to work with
I have been pleased to work with members on all sides of the debate to ensure that this legislation is something that Parliament can be proud of. The many safeguards in
proud of.
The many safeguards in this bill ensure only terminally ill patients that are eligible under strict criteria or who want to
strict criteria or who want to access assisted dying can do so.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I felt disturbed by quite a lot of the emails I received from constituents some of whom are my
friends and whom I like, implying that we hear are either too stupid
or careless to care for the most vulnerable. Is it not true that we
all do whatever the decisions we make today? We have to continue to educate people and tell people what
**** Possible New Speaker ****
this bill is about. I thank her for that intervention. She is absurdly right.
intervention. She is absurdly right. Detail does matter. That is why I'm
Detail does matter. That is why I'm grateful to people for engaging the detail. We know there are different views on the public. We have to take
on board the concerns of vulnerable groups and that is what the safeguards are important. I would say there is no one more vulnerable
say there is no one more vulnerable than someone who is dying.
I'm going to make some progress. Patients must have an inevitably progressive illness or disease cannot be
illness or disease cannot be reversed by treatment. A person is
not considered to be terminally ill only because they have a disability or a mental disorder. These clear
strict criteria plus the multiple capacity assessments exclude possible serious mental health
possible serious mental health disorders such as anorexia. I was pleased to support the change
pleased to support the change advocated for by Marie Curie and Hospice UK which ensures an assessment of palliative end-of-life as part of the first report on the
as part of the first report on the act.
We know from other countries in no small part due to the inquiry by the health and social care Select
Committee, that palliative care assisted dying can work side-by-side to give terminally ill patients the
to give terminally ill patients the care and choice they deserve in their final days. It should not be an either or. We need to channel our
**** Possible New Speaker ****
energies into supporting all options will terminally ill people. I'm grateful. As she knows,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful. As she knows, leading experts in palliative care have come out to oppose the bill.
They point to the fact that hospices are underfunded and they do not have
are underfunded and they do not have the same ability to serve patients. I question whether we are in a position today to make a judgement,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
position today to make a judgement, if patients are to truly have a choice end-of-life? I thank him but I would say as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank him but I would say as I've said previously, people working in palliative care have a mixed
in palliative care have a mixed range of views on the subject. I have met with palliative care doctors and some are very supportive
doctors and some are very supportive of the change in the law because of the suffering they have seen. I'm
the suffering they have seen. I'm going to make some progress. It is an either or decision for us today. Either we vote for the safe effective workable reform contained
effective workable reform contained in this bill, or we say the status quo is acceptable.
Over recent months I've heard hundreds of stories from people who have lost
stories from people who have lost loved ones, in a difficult and dramatic circumstances, along with many terminally ill people themselves. I spent some time with
themselves. I spent some time with some of the families yesterday. They are real people with real stories,
are real people with real stories, and they deserve to be heard. I terminally ill father took his own life by buying drugs in the dark
web. It was his third attempt and Adam found in a desperate state.
He and his sister will never get over
that night, all the police
investigation which followed. Katie waved her mum off as she made the lonely and costly journey to Switzerland where she had a peaceful
and dignified death. But the family had no chance to say a proper goodbye and her dad made the journey
home grieving and alone. Others have had to watch their loved ones die harrowing deaths despite receiving excellent end-of-life care. And have
the maximum dose of sedative but it was not enough to stop the choking and suffocation due to cancer, and
she begged her husband to help her put an end to suffering a stop but
he did not want the last memory she had of him to be stood over her with a pillow.
There are many more.
Perhaps most importantly I have spoken to terminally ill people
themselves. we spend a lot of time talking about them but not with
them. Two people have terminal breast cancer and share their stories yesterday for some hamlets a proud Christian who just wants to
have choice when her time comes. And Sophie, who is allergic to opioids,
want to ensure her beautiful daughter has nothing but happy memories of their time together. Not supporting the bill today is not a
neutral act.
It is a vote for the status quo. And it fills me with
despair to think MPs could be here in another 10 years time hearing the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
same stories. I thank my honourable Friend for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my honourable Friend for giving way. I have to say I thought very carefully as someone who came into this house supporting this
into this house supporting this visible before voting against this bill a second reading was the can I just ask honourable members to
explain there are different views. Before MPs put their name not to
Before MPs put their name not to this principle to the specific bill, by the vast majority of palliative
by the vast majority of palliative care doctors, geriatricians and groups representing people with disabilities, eating disorders, and domestic violence, are all in
domestic violence, are all in opposition, not for this principle, but to this bill? It includes people who support the principle of
who support the principle of assisted dying but not the specific bill.
Can the honourable member explain the opposition?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
explain the opposition? I think we have covered that point already. These are not
point already. These are not homogenous groups of people, they have different views and different opinions. If we look at the
inconsistencies of the current law, it does not make sense. If someone with a terminal illness voluntarily
with a terminal illness voluntarily stopped eating and drinking, it is legal for them to starve themselves to death. A competent patient has
to death. A competent patient has the right to refuse food and fluids even if they will die.
The exercise
of this right sometimes is proposed as an alternative to assisted dying. You could argue that starving
yourself to death is one way of taking control of the end of your
life but it is a deeply traumatic experience, for the person and their loved ones. There are people here today who have direct experience of
that. So we have a system where it is legal to starve yourself to
death, it can take days or weeks. But it is not legal to seek assistance from a doctor to take an approved substance yourself to end
your pain or suffering and take back control of your dying days.
It is also legal in this country to
discharge yourself from medical care, refuse life-sustaining treatment such as ventilation, CPR,
or antibiotics. I think you have mental capacity to do so and make
the decision of your own accord without any harassment from anyone else. You might think this is fine,
and I agree. But there is no requirement for two doctors, psychiatrists, and a social worker. No lawyer and no judge. This is
legal. And yet what is being proposed in this bill has so many more safeguards and protections and
it is not.
It does not make sense. I'm not going to take more interventions. Of course there are
the criminal offences which the bill introduces will stop none of which exist now. Including life
imprisonment for anyone who induces another person to take the approved
substance. And 14 years in prison for coercion dishonesty or pressure.
This is a robust process which goes further than any piece of legislation in the world. It is far safer and significant more
compassionate than what we have now. If we look internationally, there are clear well-established safe compassionate assisted dying laws in
existence will stop on Tuesday I joined doctors from Australia who used three keywords repeatedly,
choice, control, and relief.
One
doctor has 26 bits as a GP, 22 years as a palliative care physician and
he spoke about the thorough approach that is taken to individual safety in the of the assisted dying process. The most standout quote
from the session came from Dr Jackie Davies. She said, "By choosing
assisted dying, no more people will die but far fewer people will
suffer. " This is not a choice between living and dying. It is a choice for terminally ill people
about how they die.
I fully appreciate that some colleagues would never vote for any version of
this bill, and I respect that despite disagreeing. But to those colleagues who are supporting a
change in the law that are hesitant about whether now is the time, if we don't vote for change in the law
today, what does that mean? It means we have many more years of heartbreaking stories, terminally ill people and their families. Of
pain and trauma. Of suicide attempts, PTSD, lonely trips to Switzerland, police investigations
and every thing else we have all heard of in recent months.
As the
commission on assisted dying said in 2011, 14 years ago, the current legal status of assisted dying in
the UK is inadequate and incoherent. It outsources a healthcare issue
abroad especially to Dignitas. Instead of that government and Parliament assuming response ability for top that was 14 years ago. We
are in exactly the same position today for the things of God to change. As the government impact
assessment states, the bill will improve equity of choice, ensuring that terminally ill adult from all social economic backgrounds can
access end-of-life options that are regulated and safe.
As I draw my comments to a close, there are
essentially two ways we can look at the situation. We can look through a
legal lens. As legislators we have a duty to change the way it is failing. When the last four
directors of public prosecutions tell us that the law needs to change, surely we have a duty to listen. We need scrutiny for people
die, not after. But most importantly, there is the human lens
which is how I approach most things.
Giving dying people choice about how they die is about compassion, control, dignity, and bodily autonomy. Surely we should all have
the right to decide what happens to our bodies and decide when enough is
enough? Of course giving people the right to choose does not take away
the right not to choose. Today we can vote with either our hearts are with our heads. But either way, we should end up in the same lobby.
Because on a compassionate human level, and as responsible lawmakers, we should support this many needed
reform that is rigourous, practical, and safe.
And is rooted in the printable that should underpin any
legislation, compassion, justice, and human dignity. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that the bill now be read 1/3 time. So James Cleverly.
10:57
Rt Hon Sir James Cleverly MP (Braintree, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be read 1/3 time. So James Cleverly. Thank you Mr Speaker. I have no
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you Mr Speaker. I have no doubt the vast majority, probably every single member and right
honourable Member in this House, is sympathetic with the underlying
motivation of this bill. Which is to
ease suffering in others and to try and avoid suffering where possible.
For the most part, this debate, both
in this chamber and in committee has been good-natured and conducted in a
way that I think we can be proud.
There has been of course more widely questions about the motivations both
of those who are proponents of the bill and those who oppose it.
Whilst
this is not about any individual one of us, I think it is only fair because some questions are asked,
want to put things on the record about my own position on this. I do
not come at this from a religious point of view. I am an atheist, I am a humanist. This is driven by my
concerns about the practicalities of this bill rather than any religious
viewpoint. It has been suggested particularly when people talk about the sprints they have had talking to
people who have lost loved ones or who are themselves terminally ill
that, if you had seen, I have said to be a number of occasions, if you have seen someone suffering you
would agree with this bill.
Mr Speaker, I have seen someone suffering, my closest friend earlier
this year died painfully of
oesophageal cancer. I was with him in the final weeks of his life. So I come at this not from a position of
faith, nor from a position of ignorance. I would hope the House
would take those factors into consideration when I say what I am
about to say.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you for giving way. On the TV last night they did a survey of doctors, GPs, and the relationship
doctors, GPs, and the relationship between the GP and the patient is incredibly close. Your GP is involved. When the GP has to deliver
involved. When the GP has to deliver a diagnosis of terminal illness to the patient, it is not just a fear
the patient, it is not just a fear in the eyes of the patient, it is a fear in the eyes of the GP and the
doctors.
Does the right honourable Member recognise the importance of
Member recognise the importance of this debate today and the vote because it will change forever that
relationship of trust between the GP and the patient, in a negative way that will never change ever again.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that will never change ever again. I will make reference to the broad point is that he makes later
broad point is that he makes later
broad point is that he makes later on in my speech. I will try not to take too many interventions because many people have not had the chance to speak in this debate, I want to
to speak in this debate, I want to give them the chance to do so. At the second reading debate, I made the point that we need to think
the point that we need to think about the detail of this bill.
And
about the detail of this bill. And not just vote in accordance with the broad principles. I made the point that because it was a Private
Members' Bill, the opportunity to fundamentally change the bill is limited. So we have an enhanced duty to get it first time. We were told
at second reading that a lot of the concerns, a lot of the worries, a lot of the detailed questions would
be resolved through the committee
process. We were promised the gold standard of judicially underpinned protections and safeguards.
Those
protections did not make it through People are saying there are still
issues, still concerns, and the Lords will have their work to do,
but I don't think it is right and none of us should think it is right to subcontract our job to the other
place. We are making an incredibly
important, a fundamental change as the honourable member for Strangford
highlights. A fundamental change in
the relationship tween medical professionals and those they serve.
And if we make that change, we will
introduce, perhaps only a small but permanent? In the minds of every patient, particularly a patient
discussing a serious illness or
perhaps a terminal diagnosis.
What is this medical professional
expecting of me? What are they thinking? Where are they? Where is
their head? Rather than the situation we have weather person knows that the medical professional is duty-bound to do no harm to
preserve life, dignity wherever
**** Possible New Speaker ****
possible, and that subtle change. On Tuesday, it is the second anniversary of my sister's death.
anniversary of my sister's death. Three weeks prior to her death, we took her to hospital because she had
took her to hospital because she had a blood infection. And in spite of agreeing to allow her into intensive-care to sort out that
intensive-care to sort out that infection, the consultant decided
infection, the consultant decided that she shouldn't go because she had a brain tumour and she was going
had a brain tumour and she was going to die.
She was going to die but not at that moment. I'm sure Mr Speaker
at that moment. I'm sure Mr Speaker can understand that a very big row Institute. I won that row. She was
Institute. I won that row. She was made well, she came and she died peacefully. What does the honourable
peacefully. What does the honourable gentleman think would happen in identical circumstances if this bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
existed? She asks me to speculate into a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
She asks me to speculate into a set of circumstances which are personal and painful and I suspect you that the outcome could have been
you that the outcome could have been very different and the moments that she had with her sister, just like the moments I had with my dear
the moments I had with my dear friend, those moments might have
been lost so, we have got to recognise that this is an important
moment, and while I respect the honourable lady, I disagree with her
assessment that it is now or never and it is this bill or Nobel, and that a vote against this at Third
Reading is a vote to maintain the status quo.
None of those things are
true. There will be plenty of opportunities, and indeed, we are
duty-bound. Stimulated by this debate which is why I don't criticise her for bringing it
forward. Stimulated by this debate to have a serious conversation about palliative care, a serious conversation about how we get to
that, and I know that many people
will say that these are not conflicting or contradictory positions, but we also know, and I
will come upon this in the speech.
We know that there will be circumstances where assisted dying
will be on a statutory basis and provision of palliative care will not. And so, we also have to address
the point that we can all pray in
aid of individuals to reinforce our
positions on this, but we can't subcontract our decisions, and yes, we can fish around for people to
come up with a perfect quote that reinforces our arguments, but another five minutes on Wikipedia or
on Google or with friends of ours and the medical profession will find another voice that opposes that, so
yes, it is a mixed picture in the
medical profession, but I am struck by virtue.
I'm struck by the number
of professional bodies that are neutral on the topic of assisted dying in general but are opposed to
the provisions with this bill in particular. And we can't just say
that they are neutral on assisted dying and therefore this particular
vehicle has to progress because we
carry responsibility. It is what we are sent here to do, and we need to
take it very seriously, and we must be rigorous on the specific details
in this bill.
I don't have time to go through every single argument that has had through Committee second reading and beyond, but to
ensure that we are rigorous, I think there are three fundamental
questions that we should ask ourselves. We should ensure that we
answer fully and honestly. Firstly,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the gentleman for giving
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the gentleman for giving way on that point. He will remember in 2021 that he and I worked across
party in terms of identifying the inequalities within certain communities and getting them to come forward with the issue around the
forward with the issue around the COVID vaccination. Does he agree
COVID vaccination. Does he agree with me with the question we need to ask ourselves in terms of how is it right that some communities are not
right that some communities are not denied basic healthcare within the current system? How is it right that some communities don't have access
some communities don't have access to palliative care? How is it right that we are not listening to their
**** Possible New Speaker ****
voices. The honourable lady makes an important point. I will touch on
important point. I will touch on that briefly. I will not take more interventions because I will still
interventions because I will still time from others but the questions we need to ask, firstly, are we happy not for this principle but for
happy not for this principle but for
this bill as drafted to become law? And their many elements that I have
And their many elements that I have already discussed concerning within the criteria set out the medical professionals do not need to seek
deeper motivation.
We have said there is not a real choice between
palliative care and assisted dying because one has statutory
underpinning and the other will not. But gold standard of protections
were lost during the process because
a number of professional bodies. A number of professional bodies have said they don't have the capacity or
enough people to fill the slot that this bill demands of them. Secondly,
this bill demands of them. Secondly,
in terms of fundamental changes, our members and right honourable members genuinely happy to write the blank
cheque that this bill demands? Because it is normal for the
Secretary of State of the government department to decide whether a piece
of legislation comes in force, and they make that decision based on the
state's ability to deliver that.
They are not just some arbitrary
date on a piece of paper, and I understand the desire of people to
make sure that this can't be lost down the back of the sofa when it
comes to government work, but when people say they are not ready and
they don't feel they will be ready, they don't have enough people, enough capacity. They will have to take resource from current
provisions to move across to this provision which will be driven by
statutory requirements and locked in commencement dates.
We should
listen. We should listen, and if the
people who are going to make this work as well as we hope it will if it becomes legislation, say that
they are not confident that they can make it happen. We should be very
very careful about demanding that they prioritise this, and that is what this legislation says. They
prioritise this above any other work that they might otherwise do. And
thirdly, the honourable lady hinted
at this, but I mentioned this in the bill.
When it comes to things like
coercion or when it comes to the pressure that individuals put on themselves, when it comes to medical
professionals raising this issue, we know that there are inequalities in
health provision already. None of which will be addressed by this bill. The point I have also made is
that we know there are certain communities and people within those
communities, particularly women who are overly deferential to men and
men in authority. And if we can
genuinely say that we have no fear whatsoever, that a potentially
vulnerable woman will sit in front of a medical professional who raises
assisted dying, and even without implying that it is the right thing
for her to do, the very fact that
they ring it up will have a significant impact on that woman's thinking, so we cannot believe as it
stands at the moment that this will have a completely neutral effect
across all communities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the gentleman for giving way. We have put safeguards into the bill that means there is a panel
bill that means there is a panel that looks at those issues and will ask questions like has your doctor
ask questions like has your doctor persuaded you to do this? Do we honestly think that someone who is a
honestly think that someone who is a social worker or who is a psychiatrist or a lawyer is totally
psychiatrist or a lawyer is totally incapable of finding coercion? That is exactly what that panel is there
is exactly what that panel is there to do, and that is exactly what
**** Possible New Speaker ****
their safeguards will provide. The lady makes an important point but I refer to the question that I
put. Those bodies say they don't have the people to populate those families. And yet they are demanded
families. And yet they are demanded by the commencement date so the fact
by the commencement date so the fact is that the principle of having someone or a group of people protect
someone or a group of people protect against coercion is important. And I'm not just talking about coercion, I'm talking about how people
I'm talking about how people perceive the question of people in authority, but the fact is, Royal
authority, but the fact is, Royal colleges, social workers have told us they don't believe they will be
ready to put those guardrails in place by the commencement date, and we should listen to them.
I will
finish on this point. This is an
important debate. It has stimulated an important conversation and it is
a conversation that demands our full attention, but I do not believe this bill is ready to go to the other
place. And it is interesting that there are both proponents and
opponents of this bill who are hoping that Lloyds will make significant changes to the bill, and that should set off alarm bells
that should set off alarm bells
surely.
And then the final point is that ultimately, because this is
such a fundamental change, we do need to make sure that we have that
enhanced level of scrutiny about the
detail of this bill, and I do not believe, but even though we want to
avoid suffering and alleviate suffering wherever possible, I do not believe we have had the
opportunity to get this bill into the right shape, which is why I will be opposing this third railing and I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
encourage others to do the same. The two opening speeches are too
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The two opening speeches are too long. We now come into the five minute where I hope members will restrict themselves up to 5 minutes
restrict themselves up to 5 minutes and we will have a very good example of this, the mother of the house.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of this, the mother of the house. This may be the most fateful bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This may be the most fateful bill that we discuss this Parliament. It is literally a matter of life or
11:14
Rt Hon Diane Abbott MP (Hackney North and Stoke Newington, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
that not everybody is going to get in. If speeches are longer than five minutes, even if you are colleagues will get in. Dr Becky.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Thank you. Many thanks to my colleagues, across the House who will bring forward sensitivity to
will bring forward sensitivity to On this bill. I often think that this place does not show the best of
this place does not show the best of us. In the passage of this bill I have heard considered debate and I have observed people listen to each other, on both sides of the argument. And as a new MP reflecting
argument. And as a new MP reflecting on how this place currently legislates and how it could evolve and improve, I think that this brings the learnings in and of itself.
Assisted dying was never
itself. Assisted dying was never going to be an issue without controversy and has been much to
controversy and has been much to consider. So my contribution to the debate I would like to take a few minutes to outline why, as a medical doctor, specialising in public
health I am supportive of this bill. Within this, I will also include some brief reflections on the issues of safeguarding and provision of end-of-life care than been raised by
end-of-life care than been raised by my constituents in Worthing West.
In public health, I will, go for it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
public health, I will, go for it. I think my honourable friend are giving way. She speaks of the views
giving way. She speaks of the views of their constituents, her very well attended a public meeting of my constituents in Dartford, just before second reading. One of the
before second reading. One of the key things that they wanted an answer to was how this bill can prevent vulnerable people from being coerced into taking a decision to
end their lives? Would the honourable lady agree, that this
Has to strengthen the safeguards against coercion and that in the words of the impact assessment, on the bill now, says we have the strongest safeguards, in this bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of any jurisdiction in the world. I thank my honourable friend for his intervention and I do agree and I will transfer that into my remarks
I will transfer that into my remarks
was that public health on prevention care for the population. We take the decisions taken the best available evidence, they have the potential to impact the health of thousands, if
impact the health of thousands, if not millions of people. There is almost always a trade-off, with
almost always a trade-off, with these decisions.
Quite often one that sees the nanny state and thrown away. That is because we deal with choice and freedoms, on a population
choice and freedoms, on a population level. With the assisted dying bill, I asked myself the following, which population is of this legislation
population is of this legislation fork? And what are the needs of this population and what freedoms and choices are we being asked to legislate for. In terms of the
legislate for. In terms of the people for whom this bill will be
people for whom this bill will be relevant, it is a narrowly defined population I can very clearly see how the specific needs result that is to say it is people coming to the
is to say it is people coming to the end of their life with a terminal illness.
Again, in public health, at
illness. Again, in public health, at this point in our consideration, we are often met with, as we have already heard, the slippery slope arguments. If you legislate for this group of people, it won't stop
group of people, it won't stop there. But the criteria to be considered for assisted dying are
considered for assisted dying are clear in this bill. I have in fact heard from constituents who think that it is potentially too narrow.
That is not what is in front of us today and any change by future parliaments will have to go through another legislative process.
Looking
at the needs of this population, numerous concerns are being raised in this area, both in the safeguarding perspective and the
provision of end-of-life care. Constituents and fellow parliamentarians have voiced unease
at the thought of coercion, in the space. If a person meets the criteria for this bill, but does not wish to access assisted dying, will
they be coerced into doing so, by a person or persons with a malign intent? Public health, we often refer to this as the precautionary
principle.
We are supportive of people having a particular choice, but need to be satisfied that allowing the choice, the risk of
harm is minimised. In the context of assisted dying, this translates into
taking extra precaution, to ensure legislation does not lead to unintended consequences and abuse. And there has been much debate on
this. These are reasonable and valid concerns and I think they have been
met with reasonable responses, in this bill. Safeguarding measures
have been specified, in terms of clinician awareness and support and training, referral mechanisms, for
any concerns, multidisciplinary board oversight, a specific
disability advisory board, independent advocates and multiple discussions, to ensure all parties, the person who comes to this
decision of their own volition.
The second area, around the needs of this population, end-of-life care, is a profound, professional commitment, for people who provide
it. My heartfelt thanks go to the healthcare team, in my constituency,
who is reach out during this process, to tell the extra ordinary stories of compassion, joy and hope, brought to people, in the final
days. They have also reinforced the fact that excellent end-of-life care
can be a standard offering in our healthcare system and that this is
not currently the case. As with public health, end-of-life care is often seen as a nice to have, rather
**** Possible New Speaker ****
than the essential part of our health system, that it actually is. I thank my honourable friend and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my honourable friend and the health and social care Select
the health and social care Select Committee, I am well aware that palliative care is not as it should
be. That is why voting against the bill today. We know from a public health lens there is social determinants of health. Surely we
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will be leading to a social determinant of an early death. I think my honourable friend for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think my honourable friend for his intervention. This bill is not
about negating end-of-life care. If anything it is a shining a spotlight
on it and it saying that care, dignity and choice, at the end of our lives is what should be afforded
our lives is what should be afforded to us all. Which brings me to my final thoughts, and legislating for choice. Our freedom from and freedom
too. Currently, if you would like to choose assisted dying, this choice is only open to you if you have sufficient financial resources.
sufficient financial resources. Which is an equity issue. If you are financially poor, terminally ill and the end of life, you do not have the
freedom to choose assisted dying stop does not mean of course that you will, but this legislation will
you will, but this legislation will allow an equitable choice of this
So much of public health, Madam Deputy Speaker is determined by legislation and the underpinning premise is that you are creating a safe environment for a population,
within which individuals can make the informed choice.
I think that this bill creates those conditions and therefore as a public health
physician I am confident I can vote for it. Ultimately, good death is something that we all want for ourselves and those we love and care for. My vote, is this bill based on
the others have laid out today, but my broader point and vote and voice will always be for compassion, understanding and continuing
constructive dialogue, to ensure that we do our best, to improve the lives of the people we serve, until
their dying day.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Many point to be made, already, today, so I will not cover them all.
Allow me briefly to associate themselves with the words of the right honourable member for Belfast East, whose powerful speech is
12:43
Rt Hon Tom Tugendhat MP (Tonbridge, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
fades. There are many very important technical legal and medical aspects
13:00
Maureen Burke MP (Glasgow North East, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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 )
-
Copy Link
-
As we consider whether to put this
13:07
Rt Hon Sir Jeremy Wright KC MP (Kenilworth and Southam, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 )
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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)
-
Copy Link
-
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
-
Copy Link
Lock the Lock the doors.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Order. The eyes to the right, 314, the
nose to the left, 291.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
nose to the left, 291. The eyes to the right, 314. The nose to the left, 291. The eyes have
nose to the left, 291. The eyes have it. Unlock. That completes third
it. Unlock. That completes third reading. If people wish to leave
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We We have We have got We have got other We have got other business We have got other business to We have got other business to get
**** Possible New Speaker ****
on with. Clarke. Short-term that accommodation
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill Second Reading. Objection taken. Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday, 11 July.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Friday, 11 July to Health insurance exemption from insurance premium tax bill Second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading. Object. Objection taken Second Reading what day?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday, 4 July. Green Belt Protection Bill Second
Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading. Objection taken Second Reading what day? Friday, 4 July. Domestic abuse safety bill Second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading. Second Reading what day?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Friday, 11 July. Palestine is recognition bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading. Not moved.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Not moved. Green Spaces Bill Adjournment Debate Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading what day? Friday, 4 July.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Fireworks bill Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Fireworks bill Second Reading. Objection meeting -- taken Second Reading what day Friday, 11 July to Football gender and Equality Bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading what day? Friday, 11 July.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday, 11 July. Heritage Public Houses Bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday, 11 July. Short streams protection bill Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading. Not moved. Objection taken Second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading what day? Friday, 11 July. Child exportation number two bill Second Reading. Cannot proceed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Cannot proceed. Exemption from Value Added Tax
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Exemption from Value Added Tax Act public electable -- electric vehicle charging point Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading what day. Friday, 4 July.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Public Sector Exit Payments
**** Possible New Speaker ****
(Limitation) Act Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
what day. Friday, 4 July.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Meet information about method of killing bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading what day stop Friday, 4 July.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day stop Friday, 4 July. Exemption from Value Added Tax Act listed places of worship bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
14:35
Remaining Orders Of The Day
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday, 4 July. Exemption From Value Added Tax (Miscelleaneous Provisions) Bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading. Second Reading what day? Friday,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
4 July. Caravan site exemptions of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
motorhomes bill Second Reading. Second Reading what day? Friday,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
4 July. Arm length body review bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading. Junction taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what day? Friday, 4 July. Public health control of the 1984
**** Possible New Speaker ****
amendment bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what they? Friday, 4 July. Statutory Instruments Acta 1946
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Statutory Instruments Acta 1946 amendment bill, Second Reading. Second Reading what day? Fourth
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of July. Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 amendment
bill Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading fourth of July. Domestic energy value-added
**** Possible New Speaker ****
taxpayer Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fourth of July. BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for Over-75s)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fourth of July. COVID 19 vaccine spell Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fourth of July. Anonymity of Suspects Bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading fourth of July. Children's clothing value-added
**** Possible New Speaker ****
taxpayer Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fourth of July. Highways that 1980 amendment bill Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fourth of July. British Broadcasting Corporation
**** Possible New Speaker ****
privatisation bill Second Reading. Friday, 4 July. Illegal immigration offences bill Second Reading.
Second Reading. fourth of July.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fourth of July. Vaccine Damage Payments Act review bill Second Reading. fourth of July. NHS England alternative treatment bill Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fourth of July. COVID 19 vaccine bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fourth of July. 1983 amendment bill Second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fourth of July. Arm's-length body accountability
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to Parliament bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading fourth of July. Bailiffs warrant of possession
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Bailiffs warrant of possession bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading fourth of July.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fourth of July. National Health Service funding and co-payment bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
fourth of July. Interpersonal abuse and violence against men and boys strategy bill Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading what day?
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Friday, 11 July. Hertz microchips bill Second Reading.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading. Objection taken Second Reading what day? Friday, 4 July. Terminal Illness (Relief of Pain) Bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Objection taken Second Reading what date? Friday, 11 July. Immigration and visas bill Second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Reading. Objection taken Second Reading what day? Friday, 4 July.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Friday, 4 July. British Indian Ocean Territory's sovereignty and constitutional
**** Possible New Speaker ****
arrangements bill Second Reading. Objection taken Second Reading
**** Possible New Speaker ****
what they? Friday, 4 July. I beg to move that this House do now adjourn. The question is this House do now adjourn. Mr Mark Francois.
14:39
Adjournment: Development on the green belt in Rayleigh and Wickford constituency Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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)
-
Copy Link
-
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
-
Copy Link
15:15
Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Greenwich and Woolwich, Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
This debate has concluded