Oral Answers to Questions

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

I am not just happy to meet them; I am keen to meet them. If we are going to improve the family justice system, we need to hear from those who have experienced it. We are rolling out child-focused courts, which will help, but we have to improve productivity more generally, and we are getting on with that.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

It was May when I stood here and asked the Minister to intervene in the situation of a paedophile moved to an open prison two years into his 10-year sentence. I was promised an answer then. I raised the matter again in July and again last week, and yet I have still had no answer. When will Sanders’ survivors finally stopped being ignored by this Minister and get an answer on why this man has been put in an open prison?

[Jake Richards]

I understand the force of the hon. Lady’s question. I will look into that immediately the moment this session ends, and I will meet her behind the Speaker’s Chair to confirm how we do that.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lauren Edwards]

No, I will make some progress.

Taking the approach I have outlined respects both the will of this House, as expressed in June 2025, and allows the usual parliamentary processes to continue.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

“Erskine May” gives this House a way to send what are called “suggested amendments” to the Lords as a separate motion alongside the Bill, when it goes to the other place. It has not been used since 2004, but does she recognise that if some Members of this House think certain amendments are crucial to the Bill, they can do so?

[Lauren Edwards]

That is a part of our usual parliamentary process and the hon. Lady is right to raise that point.

By sending the Bill back to the Lords as it stands, we will prevent that same small group of peers who talked it out last time from doing the same thing again. It is my fervent wish that all the peers—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Karen Bradley]

I will not; I really need to make progress.

The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and co-sponsors of the Bill have been clear, including in the debate now, that there will not be amendments made in this place. A deliberate decision has been taken to introduce a near-identical Bill and not to incorporate the 77 amendments from the Lords sponsor, including changes that addressed issues that he himself accepted required attention.

[Alicia Kearns]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Dame Karen Bradley]

I really cannot; I am so sorry to my hon. Friend.

We could have dealt with this over the summer; we had time to work on it. We could have included, for example, a clause that would have given an equal right to palliative care or a simple assessment of unmet need—something, anything, to allow there to be a genuine choice. But that opportunity is now gone.

Let me be absolutely clear about what today’s vote is and what it is not. It is not another vote on the principle of assisted dying as on an ordinary Second Reading debate, and the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood said that herself. It is not a vote to allow this House to improve the Bill. It is not even a vote to allow the other place to improve it, because that is not in this House’s hands. If this Bill is sent to the other place and falls for whatever reason—even if that is because Parliament prorogues early and it receives not a single further hour of debate—it could be forced into law as it is. The Hansard Society put it plainly in saying

“bills proceeding under the Parliament Act have been subject to only minimal amendment.”

The House needs to understand that the proposed approach requires

“preserving an unchanged bill with…defects”.

That is a very different decision.

I know that there will be Members in the House saying to themselves, “Nothing has changed since I voted for this before—why should I change my vote now?” My answer is simple. A great deal has changed, though not, unfortunately, in the Bill itself. We know more now than we did then, and changing one’s conclusion when the evidence changes is what Parliament is supposed to do.

We now have revised estimates from the Government showing that many more people may seek an assisted death than Members previously understood: up to 4,610 may apply in the first year, and up to 10,428 in year 10. That is more than 1,000 times the number going to Dignitas each year. That is not a slow run-up during which we can watch the system develop, identify mistakes and quietly correct them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Palliative and social care need fixing, and that is a concern that unites the House. It is a scandal that how well people die depends on where they live, but to suggest that this Bill should wait until palliative care has been improved is a fallacy for two reasons. First, the Bill gives us an opportunity to improve palliative care. It places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to tell this House what the state of palliative care in this country is, and whether people can even access it. No Government have ever been required to answer that question, and under this Bill, they would be. I would go further and say that this assessment should be in place before the Bill comes into force and should be an annual update to Parliament, but that amendment cannot be made to a Bill that does not exist. If we vote down this Bill today, we will delay and deny the possibility of mandating a genuine assessment of the state of palliative care in this country.

The second reason it is a fallacy is that Hospice UK has told us repeatedly that it would be inappropriate to even imply that hospice and palliative care can address pain in all circumstances; we know that it does not, and honestly cannot. When we say that we will fix palliative care first, we are promising something that no palliative care system has ever delivered or will ever be able to deliver, and we are asking people to die in pain waiting for something that cannot be given. If we vote this Bill down, we will be no closer to understanding the state of palliative care.

I would also add that in this country, we already have “do not resuscitate” orders. Doctors suggest them, families agree, and a person who could have been revived dies, often without their voice featuring in any way. I have experienced this in my own personal circumstances—I had to run across to Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospital and tell them to lift a “do not resuscitate” order that they had put in place without consulting me—so let us not pretend that this line is sacred, because no one in this place seems to be saying, “While we’re at it, let’s scrap ‘do not resuscitate’ orders.” Those are on the same continuum.

Let me turn to the other place and the question of procedure. A great many peers were doing precisely their job; others were laying siege to the Bill. If anyone does not want to accept that both those things are true, I ask them to look at their own bias. On some issues—treatable depression, eating disorders and whether a hospice can decline to take part—the Lords were right. When this House passed the Bill, we expected it to be debated and that amendments would come back to us in the ordinary way. “Erskine May” provides that where a Bill proceeds under the Parliament Acts, this House may suggest amendments to the other House without inserting them into the Bill. That power does not sit with the Bill’s promoter; it sits with anyone sat in this Chamber. If the Lords agree to those amendments, they are treated as Lords amendments already accepted by the Commons—they do not even need to come back to us. There is precedent in the Hunting Act 2004 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976, so the choice before us is not between an unamended Bill and no Bill. I am not asking the House to accept the Bill as it stands, and I myself will press amendments through that process, particularly regarding the audit of palliative care and treatable depression. The process can be improved.

As a Conservative, individual freedom, choice and personal responsibility shape my decision making until those freedoms cause harm to others. For years, I have listened to debates on this issue, waiting for the harm in the principle of giving us autonomy over our own bodies and our own deaths to materialise. There is no harm in the principle of assisted dying, and I am yet to hear an argument that exposes it. This Bill applies to those who have six months left to live—no one else—and I am arguing for a freedom that harms no third party, but will relieve a great deal of suffering.

During our last debate, I told the House that my mother’s last words were, “I cannot go on like this.” She died a few days later, and that was a great kindness to her, even if it was a great cruelty to me and my children. However, too many in this country—this great, compassionate country—go to sleep at night desperate for the pain to end. They wake the next morning knowing that they must endure another day of it—a body that betrays them or wracks them, and that no medication will soothe—and another day in which this House has denied them the option of bringing it to an end, with their families and on their own terms.

[Rebecca Smith]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Alicia Kearns]

I am going to keep going. Members have often spoken of unexpected recoveries that have led them to oppose the legislation. That is the news we wish for every person we love and for every loved person we have. Last year, I was told twice that I would die—most likely or potentially—given complications I had that I will not speak about at the moment. I know what it is to want to survive. I know what it is to fight. But for many, that day is not coming—there will be no reprieve of that kind—and we cannot write laws about the dying in the hope of a miracle that will not come for most. As such, I will vote for the Bill, because living in a perpetual state of torture cannot be right, and we cannot allow people to wait longer. I urge hon. Members who are undecided to vote for the Bill. I urge them not to end the argument, but to continue it; I will stand with them in tabling amendments in the other place.

Criminal Justice Reform

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

First, I recognise my hon. Friend’s work in the Department, which we are building out from, particularly on the hotline. That is why we have brought it forward. I am pleased that she has given me the chance to talk about restriction zones, because they are world leading and we are introducing them for the first time. I received an email literally as I was about to stand at the Dispatch Box about how they could operate. The commitment I have made to campaigners is that we will bring into the room those who are interested in ensuring that the zones work in order to challenge us on what we are doing and to make sure we are going as far as we can to make them effective. It is going to take time to build up, and it has to be done in the right way, but the zones have high potential. My commitment from the Dispatch Box is that we will have maximum engagement, so that people know what we are doing and can help us do it well.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Mark Sanders was a teacher who raped young girls. His sentence was nine years and nine months, yet in July, after serving just two years, he was moved to an open prison, free to come and go and have overnight stays. I raised his case at Justice questions with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), and also wrote to him. He promised to review the case, but I have had no response. I am sure the Lord Chancellor recognises that for survivors this feels like a form of early release. Mark Sanders should not be in our communities—which he now is—after serving only a quarter of his sentence.

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Lady will have heard what I said about who we have taken out of the scope of the progression model, but I will undertake to look at that specific case and get back to her as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing to champion this issue. She is right that SLAPPs go well beyond journalism and issues of free speech; we have heard harrowing stories of SLAPPs being used to silence sexual abuse survivors, cosmetic surgery patients unhappy with the quality of their treatment, and even tenants who have complained to landlords. The economically related SLAPP measures represent a positive step forward, but there is more to do. We will bring forward legislation, and we are also working across the House to see what more we can do over this next period. We are determined to move in this area before the next general election.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Self-swab rape kits are not admissible in court, yet the company Enough is using SLAPPs to attack rape charities and survivors who dare to speak out against it. This is exactly why we need the sort of legislation that has been mentioned to come forward: to protect the victims and survivors of sexual violence who have been ruthlessly targeted. I implore the Government to please bring forward the legislation at the earliest possible opportunity and to ban Enough from having its illegal equipment in our country.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that very serious issue. We are aware of it, it is hugely concerning and it underlines why we have to legislate. I hope that, by working cross-party, we can move swiftly in this area.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for recognising that we have seen a small reduction because of the increased investment I have put in, and because of the extra sitting days; the modernisation that we have talked about, and enlisting artificial intelligence in particular, will also make a difference. However, given the size of the backlog, if we are serious about bringing it down over the next few years, we will need reform as well.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

7. Whether his Department has a policy on the housing of convicted paedophiles in open prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)]

Prisoners are moved to an open prison as part of the rehabilitation process, but only after they pass a thorough risk assessment. Every prisoner, including those serving a sentence for a sexual offence, is subject to an individual risk assessment. They will not be allowed to move to an open prison unless they are assessed as presenting a low enough risk. A prisoner can be immediately returned from an open prison to closed conditions if their risk increases.

[Alicia Kearns]

Paedophiles should be behind bars, not roaming our communities. I am afraid that the Minister’s words will ring hollow for my constituent who received a call in January and was told that her abuser, the paedophile, who was only two years into a nine-year sentence, had been moved into an open prison, and now had the right to leave the site freely, and even stay out overnight. Will the Government review these moves? Clearly something is not working. Will the Minister also specifically look into this case, which is utterly unacceptable?

[Jake Richards]

As I said, each case is considered on its own circumstances, and the risk is assessed by the professionals. I am very happy to look into that case and make sure that the appropriate officials look into it too.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am not suggesting that jury trials have been abolished. If the hon. Member listens to my speech, she will hear me talk later about jury trials for people who are accused of, for instance, shoplifting.

The freedom of the citizen is not solely determined by the state, but by his or her peers—that is the important point. The senior judge and legal philosopher Lord Devlin captured this perfectly when he wrote:

“Each jury is a little parliament.”

The jury trial is the point at which ordinary citizens participate directly in the administration of the King’s justice. The existence of the jury tells a citizen that the determination of justice ultimately belongs to free people of good character, not to bureaucrats, officials or state-appointed mandarins. That is why the principle has deep historical roots in our constitutional tradition, and why this debate is so fundamental.

As long ago as 1215, Magna Carta declared that

“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned…except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.”

For more than eight centuries, that principle has stood as a reminder that liberty must always be guarded against the power of the state. Today we are told that this safeguard must be weakened because the courts face a serious backlog. A temporary administrative crisis should not lead us to dismantle a permanent constitutional protection; that is the point. It would be the height of folly.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My right hon. Friend is right. There is a reason that judges wear a wig and barristers wear a wig and gown. It provides a shield between the arm of the law and the citizen. To dilute that would fundamentally upset the settlement that has been reached over hundreds and hundreds of years.

[Alicia Kearns]

Drawing on my hon. Friend’s point, we have also heard much argument that somehow reducing down to one judge would be a fairer and less biased system. As a woman, I do not feel that one person—we have to be honest with ourselves, they will likely be a man—who does not share my life experiences is more likely to be less biased than a jury of my peers. If the Government really want to tackle this issue, they need simply to turn to page 67 of their own manifesto, where they promise fast-track rape cases with specialist courts for every Crown court location. Surely that would be a better policy. It would make sure that women, when they give evidence, are hearing from a jury of their peers, who are more likely together to understand life experiences than one individual.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

My hon. Friend is right. First, there is the argument that this is of such constitutional significance that it should have been in a manifesto. Secondly, there is the argument that there was a proposal within the manifesto that the Government are not bringing forward. Thirdly, this is about getting the right settlement for the public, where they are judged by a body of their peers on the evidence before them. That is as opposed to a distant judge, who perhaps at times appears aloof, which fails to achieve that balance. We are being asked today to curtail a constitutional safeguard that has been apparent for so many years, and it goes much further than Sir Brian’s report. There were many good things in that report, but this legislation goes much further than any of his suggestions.

We have to ask what the real issues are. They are plain to see. There are too few judges and too few advocates able to prosecute or defend the cases. There are too few functioning courtrooms. Removing jury trials will not fix any of that. There is a further issue that the Government have failed to address, which is around the recruitment of magistrates. We know that in this country, recruitment cycles of magistrates have often not returned the numbers required. The presumption must be that the reason the Government did not adopt Sir Brian’s recommendation of having two magistrates as wing members was because they knew they could not recruit a sufficient number of magistrates to implement it. There is logic on that front, but if we are pushing more cases down to the magistrates court, who will be able to hear them and listen to them? Who will be able to draw those conclusions?

My final point, which I will make briefly, pertains to parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill will be rushed through this House and through Committee. It will get a mere five days in Committee, but it is of such constitutional importance. There is strong feeling across the House both for and against these proposals. Would it not be wiser in such circumstances to adopt an approach similar to what we do for armed forces Bills, for example, where we have a Select Committee of the House? Members with experience within the law and with experience of being victims could scrutinise the legislation and come back with a report. We could then do Report stage on the Floor of the House. That way, the country can know that we have given this legislation the due regard that it deserves.

There is a reason that jury trials have endured, and it is because they command the trust of the public. They ensure that the law is exercised with public participation. If the Government believe in diluting that right, they must provide the evidence for that change, and thus far they have failed to do so.

Jury Trials

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Jury trials were introduced to bring order and justice to a legal system beset by opportunism, superstition, bias and archaic practices. For eight centuries, they have been the bedrock of English and British liberty, recognised globally as a bulwark against tyranny and oppression. Yet without any modelling, impact assessment or equalities assessment, and not in line with the review done by Sir Brian Leveson, the Government plan to scrap this ancient protection.

[Ayoub Khan]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alicia Kearns]

I have yet to make an argument, but I will shortly.

Who in this place can honestly say that if they were facing incarceration, they would be happy with just one judge and no jury making that decision? Think of the victims who face unconscious bias daily, and who will not get justice if just one person decides that question.

Most sinister of all has been the debate in the Chamber this afternoon. Labour MPs have argued that juries—ordinary people—cannot be trusted and are not up to the job. They have said that it is too complex and too detailed. What next? Will Labour strip their right to vote as well? It is deeply concerning. The Minister has said that this change is not the result of some crisis that Labour MPs want to blame on the Conservatives, and that the Government would be making it anyway. It is ideological. Every time Labour has come into government it has tried to strip jury trials—under Blair when I was a child, and yet again now.

Both the Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary have previously recognised the importance of jury trials; in fact, they opposed their abolition publicly. How will they justify their change of mind? Perhaps when the Justice Secretary is returned to Parliament after the next election, as he almost certainly will be, he will bring in trial by combat. Almost 40 of the Government’s MPs have opposed this change, and they are absolutely right to do so, because there are other options, including using unused sitting days and Sir Brian Leveson’s proposal to have one judge sitting with two magistrates; there would then be an element of a layperson having a say.

Clearly, the Prime Minister can admit it when he gets something wrong and can change course, as we saw—albeit far too late—with the family farm tax, welfare and grooming gangs. Do not leave it too late this time. The Labour manifesto made no mention of curtailing our right to jury trial. This is not a minor shift in policy; it is a worrying trend fundamental to the relationship between the individual and the state. We see this trend in the proposal for digital ID and the stripping of fundamental freedoms. Jury trials recognise the gravity of removing someone’s right to liberty.

[Pam Cox]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Alicia Kearns]

I am just wrapping up, but go on.

[Pam Cox]

I wonder what the hon. Member thinks about the history of jury trials, which shows that the right to trial by jury has not been an inalienable ancient right, but has been flexed over time.

[Alicia Kearns]

If the hon. Lady had listened carefully, she would have heard that I did not say that jury trial was an inalienable right. The law says that one has a right to a fair trial. However, we have established historically that jury trials mean that we do not see unconscious bias. There have been archaic and appalling cases that have shown that one individual making a decision about others is often not fair, transparent or right. As we heard from Sir David Davis, there is a greater number of retrials when an individual made the decision in a trial than when a jury made the decision.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Just to make sure that the hon. Member does not make a further mistake, I remind her not to mention colleagues by their first name.

[Alicia Kearns]

My sincerest apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. A year of maternity leave does leave one with a few cobwebs.

The British people are very clear that they do not want this fundamental change.

[Ayoub Khan]

The hon. Member makes a persuasive point about modelling and impact assessments. Having practised at the criminal Bar for the last two decades, I can tell the House that there will still be opening speeches by defence counsel and prosecution counsel, and there will still be cross-examination of witnesses. Most importantly, there is the questioning of the defendant. Judges understand the procedure, but defendants must also understand the procedure and closing speeches. I cannot see where there will be savings. That is why the modelling is so important. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Alicia Kearns]

I am afraid that we hear again the continual argument that the average layperson cannot understand justice. If a defence lawyer or prosecution lawyer cannot make the argument make sense to the average person, they have no job representing an individual at court. It is their duty to make law transparent and understandable to every individual.

We hear this argument that court cases have become more detailed, but we should be pleased that there are more detailed and complex arguments being made in our courts. It is a sign of a court system that is working, and that does not rely on basics or tropes to get justice, yet the Labour party sees it as the opposite.

This is, unfortunately, yet another disappointing and deeply sinister step toward the Government fundamentally changing our relationship with the Crown and the state. I urge the Government to listen to the legal industry, and to listen to and trust the British people.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Gentleman has made the point for me: within a robust system, we will check for coercion, but we do not have any of that now. At the moment, the person will be definitely be dead. We have to look at the status quo. Putting in layers of safeguarding and checking for coercion must be better than the system that we have now.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Colleagues are right to raise questions around coercion. I hosted a phone-in on LBC where people rang in and said, “I feel like I have to end my life because I recognise how difficult it is for my family to see me suffering.” The limit in the Bill, however, is that someone must have only six months to live according to two doctors and a judge, which I genuinely believe massively reduces the risk of coercion. Are we really saying that people are so desperate to bump off their families that if they were told that they had six months to live, they would escalate the process and do it sooner?

[Kim Leadbeater]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point—she is absolutely right. The very strict criteria in the Bill add extra layers of safeguarding, which, again, we just do not have at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

To discuss matters of life and death is to recognise the gravity of one’s role as a Member of Parliament. The Bill before us seeks to shorten the suffering of the terminally ill—those with just six months to live—and no one else. For too many, death is not a singular moment but an excruciating journey of terror and agony as your body turns on you.

Arguments that we must wait for palliative care to improve in our country are a logical fallacy. The Bill does not prevent us from improving our palliative care system, contrary to what has been said today in the Chamber. In evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee, Hospice UK said that:

“it would be totally inappropriate for us to suggest or even imply that hospice and palliative care services can somehow address…pain in all circumstances.”

Imagine you have cancer that day by day is breaking every individual vertebra in your body, one by one, and there is nothing that can take away the pain—that is how my mother lost her life. Her last words were, “I cannot go on like this,” and, thankfully for her, there were only a few more days of pain; however, for others, there will be months more. Before they get to that six-month period, people will have suffered years of excruciating agony that palliative care cannot resolve. Yes, we must improve palliative care, and I will fight for that.

Arguments that this legislation would be the beginning of a slippery slope are not reflected by the majority of legislators, such as Australia and across multiple states in the USA, where such policies have not been expanded. Again, the Health and Social Care Committee has told us that where terminal illness was the basis—not suffering—as for this Bill, the law has not changed.

As a Conservative, freedom, choice and personal responsibility shape my decision making—until those freedoms cause harm to others. I do not see the role of legislation as imposing moral convictions. It is our job to protect choice. I say to those whose religious beliefs drive their arguments today that I will always defend their right to practise their faith and protect their own life choices. However, supporting the choice of others does not diminish the principle of compassion; it recognises respect for individual autonomy. To deny choice to others—especially those with only six months to live, where their personal choice does others no harm—is wrong.

To those concerned about the state mandating powers to decide who can and cannot live, I say that judges already exercise this power. They end lives in far more complicated cases, such as those of children on life support.

On arguments around procedure, we all have to be honest with ourselves: this Bill has been read far more vociferously than most Bills that go through this House. Most Bills over the past 20 years have come to Parliament with far fewer than 14 days to consider them: for the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we had six days to consider 59 pages; for the Illegal Migration Bill, we had six days to consider far more. We have had sight of this Bill for longer than many others. The idea that a private Member’s Bill is not appropriate is also wrong. Social reform comes through private Members’ Bills: the abolition of the death penalty, the legalisation of abortion and the decriminalisation of homosexuality—all things I hope this House would unite on.

This is the start of the process of debate, and it would be a tragedy if the Bill were defeated today. Members should trust me when I say that I learned early in my career that when we hear promises that things will come later, that is a promise that no action will come at all. The High Court made it clear to my constituent Phil Newby, who has motor neurone disease, that we must make this decision. To those considering abstaining because this is so difficult—and I recognise that it is difficult—I say that we must not shy away from it. I ask colleagues to vote for the Bill in order to allow a long legislative process to proceed and, together, to commit to shortening the suffering of those who are terminally ill in our society, because they deserve that choice.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I am very pleased to be responding to a fellow Swindon Member, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to mention our home town during my first ministerial outing. I should add that I am also grateful to local judiciary court staff and justice stakeholders for their work in maintaining justice during that incident in Swindon. As the Lord Chancellor said earlier, ensuring that buildings are maintained effectively is critical to the delivery of justice.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

My constituent was brave enough to report her husband for the abuse that he put her through. He has just been released from prison on two conditions: he would be tagged and he was not allowed to go into her village. He has not been tagged because the Probation Service says that it does not have enough tags and there is a technical fault, and he entered her village on his first day out of prison, staying overnight. He was on her street, and his family knocked on her door. Will the Secretary of State please respond to my letter about my constituent, who feels extremely vulnerable? Will she also confirm that there are enough tags, and that in cases such as this there will be not just a verbal warning—which is all that her husband received for his actions—but remedial repercussions?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am not aware of the correspondence to which the hon. Lady has referred, but I will chase it up and ensure that she receives a comprehensive response.

Assisted Dying

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. He is right that palliative care is important for everybody. We must have a conversation about death. Dying will happen to us all and we must talk about it. Palliative care is something we need to improve.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is right that dying is not about ending life. It is about shortening death. She makes a point about the importance of Parliament. My constituent Phil Newby, who was diagnosed with motor neurone disease—a disease that has blighted my family very cruelly—went to the High Court and asked it to make a judgment about assisted dying. It said that it would not and that it was a matter for Parliament. Would the hon. Lady support my belief that it is vital we move past Westminster Hall and have a meaningful debate and vote on the Floor of the House, which will allow the people of Britain to have their say on this, since the judiciary will not?

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

The hon. Member makes a very valid point. It is one of the points I will make in this debate. We have not had a debate on this issue on the Floor of the House for a very long time, and the vote was seven years ago. I concur that that needs to happen.

Liz talked about Daniel James, a rugby player who was paralysed from the chest down in a rugby accident. Liz is disabled and a well-known actress and campaigner. She explained that, without exception, the press coverage said that Daniel had been brave, stressing how tragic it was that this man had been cut down in the prime of his life. Liz wanted to make the point that there was another side to the story that had not been told. People with a disability are seen as something to be pitied and as people who will never live a full life. I want to make clear today that I do not believe that. There are people with disabilities who make invaluable contributions to British life, and we should listen to them and their concerns.

Being disabled does not mean living a second-class life. I cannot even begin to understand how being considered in that way would make somebody feel. There are bigger problems in the health service, however, including dehumanising treatment—such as when someone waits hours for a carer to visit to take them to the toilet—and insufficient pain relief because the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has made an economic decision about someone’s worth versus the cost. That is what we faced as a family—I have experienced it.

Liz also raised concerns about trust in the healthcare system. She said:

“The NHS has both saved my life, and destroyed my life.”

If we want to have a grown-up conversation about death, we need absolute commitment to properly funding end-of-life care and hospices. Some on the Government side will say that they are campaigning for “dying well”. They are in a position to make that happen, so I say to them: please do so. The palliative care system has been underfunded; rather than talking about dying well, please do something about that. As Liz said, it is outrageous that hospices are mainly charity funded. If we want people to be able to die well, let us fund palliative care, give people options and make everyone feel valued at the end of their life.

One word that I have not yet used in my speech is “autonomy”—deliberately so, because I had it explained to me in a way that I had never previously considered. I have always been a great believer in the idea that it is my body and I will do I want with it, thank you very much, but Liz said that disabled people can embody what most people are afraid of: a lack of autonomy and a loss of dignity. That understandably frightens many disabled people. When you think society does not value you, or that it considers you a burden, you must fear that society will find a way to rid itself of that burden.

I thank everyone who has spoken to me. It is amazing to see Westminster Hall packed with people who care about their death and the deaths of their loved ones, however they wish for it to end. The petition is very important to me and many others. We need a calm and clear conversation. Will the Minister find a way for the Select Committee to hold an inquiry on it, and will he take the time to meet some of the campaigners who took the time to speak to me? Their voices have to be heard, and the least we can do is hear them and make informed choices about where we go from here. Most importantly, it is for parliamentarians to debate and discuss future legislative opportunities.

In conclusion, I thank everyone. I understand the strength of feeling that this issue evokes, and I look forward to listening to a meaningful discussion this afternoon.