Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Andrew George Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is an honour to be called to speak in this debate. Indeed, it is the first time that I have. I am a sponsor of the Bill and a member of the Health and Social Care Committee. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) on how she introduced this debate, and the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) on her outstanding work and championing of this issue over all this time.

If this Bill is defeated today, it will leave us with a significantly unsatisfactory and dangerous status quo. All the legitimate concerns about safeguards and coercion raised by those who oppose the Bill will simply continue, but problems will probably be increasingly driven behind closed doors, as things will, I fear, only get worse. Defeating the Bill would also reward the worst of the reprehensible behaviour of those in the other place who blocked this legislation last time. If the purpose of the shocking behaviour of a small minority of peers towards this Bill earlier this year was simply to make a powerful case for their own abolition, they certainly hit the jackpot. If we reward them with victory today, we weaken the relationship between the two Houses and cede more power and influence over our democracy than is healthy or wise.

A theme that has run through the debate is the implication that the Bill is insufficiently perfect. Indeed, “perfect is the enemy of the good” syndrome runs through this and a lot of our other debates and legislation. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) described it, the concept of a 100% perfect Bill is simply in the minds of those who believe it possible to get to that point. When have we ever had a perfect piece of legislation?

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew George]

I am sorry, but because of time, I will not. If the hon. Member wants, he can send me a postcard with the answer to my question: when have we ever had a perfect piece of legislation? We would be perpetually restrained from making progress if perfect legislation was the aim, because we only produce compromises, not the utopian perfection that we all want. If we were all sent off at the beginning of this process two years ago to look at how best to handle end-of-life considerations, and given a pen and paper and put in a room without a mobile phone to draft a piece of legislation, we would have 650 “perfect” Bills, written according to the opinions of each of us in this Chamber.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andrew George]

I cannot give way, because of the time constraints. All Bills are necessarily a compromise. That does not mean that we simply have to make do with bad legislation, but the Bill that was sent down to the other place was in fact an excellent compromise that actually achieved all of the matters—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Andrew George]

I am sorry to be stirring up Members at this stage of the debate, particularly as time is very short.

Another theme is that people somehow believe that there is a binary choice available to us on palliative care: that we should either have 100% palliative care, or can go down the route of backing the Bill—or rather, that we should not support such a Bill until we have 100% perfect wraparound universal palliative care around the country. The Health Committee, of which I am a member, has produced a report on this issue, and it is clear that it will actually help the case for improvements to palliative care if this option is also available—a point a number of Members have made.

The point about the limitations of palliative care has been made very strongly by others, as have the points around coercion and safeguarding. After all, the current situation regarding coercion and safeguarding is certainly not satisfactory. The Bill provides safeguards where presently there are none. It is irresponsible and scandalous that some people promote scare stories about risks to disabled people, anorexic children, Down’s syndrome children and the vulnerable, when in fact those risks currently exist, and the Bill actually provides the safeguards that I think many people want.

Last time we had a vote on this issue, on Third Reading, I thought it was this Chamber at its very best. There was no choreographing of the response. You could hear a pin drop when the result was announced. It was a very good debate, followed by MPs coming together in silence. People on both sides of debate embraced behind the Chair in tears, because they understood the gravity of the decision. I do not think that was respected by the way the Lords treated the Bill. That is why it is vital that we send the Bill back to the Lords and do not allow them to have the victory that they seek.