Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I want to talk about two aspects of the Bill: what it could have done in terms of safeguards but does not; and what it does not do but could never resolve. On the first point, the safeguards—in particular the legal and judicial ones—are grossly inadequate. Bad law on trivial things is bad enough—I have seen a lot of that in my time in the House—but bad law on matters of life and death is unforgivable.

We have spoken about the role of doctors; let us think about the role of judges. The test to be applied is a low one: the civil law threshold, which is a balance of probabilities. This means that a judge could see real risk of coercion and still sign off an individual for assisted death. If the threshold of 50% or more was not reached, the judge would sign off the individual. The next of kin is not informed. There is no right of appeal, which is extremely unusual in English law, and the process is conducted in secrecy. It could be done on papers alone. Transparency is critical to the law. It is one of the oldest principles in our English legal system. As Jeremy Bentham said more than a hundred years ago, evil can arise in secrecy, and publicity is at the heart of justice. This is not a transparent process and that leaves it woefully open to abuse.

Secondly, all of us in this House want to believe that the laws that we pass are final, full stop, the end. That is not the case. I worry—in fact, I am certain—that as night follows day this law, if passed, will change; not as a result of the individuals in this Chamber or the other place, but as a result of judges in other places. We have seen that time and again. It may be on either side of the debate, but it will happen. If passed, the Act will be subject to activist judges in Strasbourg. They will change it fundamentally and we have to be prepared for that. I do not want to see that happen.

My last point is not about how we can improve the Bill; it is about something that we can never resolve as a House. The Bill is not so much a slippery slope as a cliff edge. When we walk out of this Chamber, or out of the gates of this building tonight, we will, in a way, walk into a different country if the Bill passes. There will be different conversations around kitchen tables. There will be different conversations had by couples lying in bed at night, or on quiet country walks where people talk about difficult things. They will not be conversations that make our country a better place.

More important, there will be people who do not speak about these things at all. There will be imperceptible changes in behaviours. There will be the grandmother who worries about her grandchildren’s inheritance if she does not end her life. There will be the widow who relies on the kindness of strangers who worries—it preys on her conscience. There will be people—we all know them in our lives—who are shy, who have low self-esteem, who have demons within them. I know those people. I can see them in my mind’s eye. They are often poor. They are vulnerable. They are the weakest in our society. And they look to us, to Parliament, to represent them, to support them, to protect them. In their interests, I am going to vote against the Bill today. Sometimes we must fetter our freedoms. We the competent, the capable, the informed sometimes must put the most vulnerable in society first.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We welcome the new shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I belatedly congratulate the Government Front-Bench team on their appointments—I have been a little busy over the summer. The only group the Labour Government’s popularity has increased during that time with is criminals. How many domestic abusers and sex offenders released under their early release scheme have gone on to reoffend? Would the Minister like to apologise to the victims?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Well, I was going to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new role, but he seems to have a very short memory. It is he who should be apologising to the country as a whole on behalf of his Government for their woeful abuse of our justice system and our prisons. Under the previous Government’s ECSL scheme, there were zero exemptions to protect the public. This Government put in serious exemptions to prevent sex offenders and serious violent criminals from being released on to our streets. Maybe he should have a bit of humility.

[Robert Jenrick]

There were exemptions in the previous Government’s scheme, but the key thing is that we need to get on and build more prisons. Prison works, and we need to see more prisons being built. The last Conservative Government built more prison places than any prior Labour Government in living memory, but we clearly need to go further. What funding has the Lord Chancellor secured to build prisons over and above those secured by the previous Government? Does the Minister agree with the other junior Minister that fewer people should be sent to prison?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Again, the right hon. Gentleman forgets who was in power for the last 14 years and who failed to build any prison places. Just 500 extra prison places were built under his Government’s watch. The Government have allocated a record £1.2 billion for prison building in the Budget, and we will be going further. We are the party of law and order. He needs to look at his record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Police firearms officer Sergeant Blake was a hero and we all want to see individuals like him, who put themselves in the line of fire, respected. What work is the Lord Chancellor doing, alongside the Home Secretary, to review the threshold for prosecution for individuals such as Sergeant Blake, so that they never find themselves in the invidious position that he did?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question. He will be aware that charging decisions are a matter for the independent Crown Prosecution Service. What the Home Secretary has announced, and what I have been working with her on, is the introduction of a presumption of anonymity for all firearms officers if they find themselves being charged by the CPS. We believe that such a measure could have made a difference in this case. The Home Secretary has also announced measures that resulted from the police accountability review work undertaken by the previous Government, and we are taking those forward.

[Robert Jenrick]

I thank the Lord Chancellor for her answer. Jonathan Hall KC, the reviewer of terrorist laws, has said that the authorities should put as much information as they can in the public domain to maintain public trust in terrorist cases, which have the highest public interest. In the void, misinformation takes hold and that diminishes public trust. While of course respecting the judicial process and not commenting on the individual facts of the case, can the Secretary of State explain the reported two-week delay between the CPS making a charging decision with respect to the alleged Southport attacker and it being announced to the general public?

[Shabana Mahmood]

As the right hon. Member is now the shadow Lord Chancellor, may I remind him that we do not comment on cases that are sub judice? That includes commentary that everyone is aware relates to cases currently going through our legal processes. What I will say is that those are independent decisions for the Crown Prosecution Service, which ultimately decides what charges to bring. In live police investigations into complex cases, it is appropriate that those investigations, the charging decisions and, ultimately, the cases are done by the independent parts of the process and that there is no interference from Government.