Legacy of Jo Cox

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Scott Arthur

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) in this fantastic debate. It was great to hear the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). The words were fantastic, but the emotion and the pride in particular she has for her sister is amazing. Ten years on from what happened, which was so awful, it is remarkable to hear so much emotion in what many have been saying. I did not know Jo, but it is great to learn so much more about her—I have to say, the debate has been much better than reading the Wikipedia page last night.

All of us can remember the feeling of shock when it happened. I remember that Kezia Dugdale hastily organised a vigil in Edinburgh, in what has turned out to be my constituency, to which I took along my son and my daughter. Just a few weeks before, my daughter had voted in the Holyrood election, and I think she took the “more in common” message too far: at the vigil she told me that she had voted for the Conservative party in the election.

[Sir Andrew Mitchell]

Hear, hear!

[Dr Arthur]

She has learned since then, and of course she has a fantastic Labour candidate to vote for.

Ten years on, it feels like this is the ideal time to have this debate, because of where the country finds itself. I mean that both in a positive and hopeful way and in quite a depressing way. I find myself getting quite depressed by the situation the country finds itself in.

This debate is about Jo’s legacy, and in my office I am incredibly lucky to have a small part of Jo’s legacy in Evie, an intern who works for us one day per week. She is still a student, but she is also part of the Jo Cox Women in Leadership programme, which is fantastic. She is always telling us about the amazing women she meets on that programme, without realising that she is actually one of them. When she found out about the debate, she was keen to write my speech. This is her speech, though hon. Members will be glad to hear that I will not do a Yorkshire accent.

Today—almost 10 years on from the tragedy in which Jo’s life was senselessly taken—acts as a reminder of the continued fight we face against violence towards women and girls. The testimony of some women Members of the House reminds us of the responsibility we all have to tackle that vile hatred. I have been quite reflective about that as the debate has continued. Further, no man or woman in any public office should ever fear for their safety—and neither should their family—for speaking up for what they believe in.

We are gathered here today, however, to remember much more than that tragic day; we are here to remember the incredible legacy that Jo left behind. As an ardently committed MP, Jo brought an enthusiasm and commitment to public service that we should all aspire to. She was loved by her family, her constituents and all those who had the pleasure of meeting her during her time in Parliament. We have heard that amply: hon. Members’ moving words have been testament to that.

Beyond Jo’s exceptional campaigning inside and outside this place, her unwavering commitment to confronting those who seek to divide us defined so much of her leadership—she was a leader in this place. Whether through her advocacy on the Syrian conflict or her efforts to combat racial hatred, Jo was steadfast in amplifying the voices of those most in need of being heard and, above all, in leading with compassion. I do not really know what she would make of the rhetoric we hear sometimes in this place.

I am really grateful to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for the points he made about overseas aid. When I was reading about Jo last night on Wikipedia, I drew the conclusion that she would be a little bit concerned about the cut. Because I did not know her, I did not want to put words in her mouth, but the right hon. Gentleman did know her, so I am really glad that he made that point.

I was visiting Bonaly primary school last week, and the young people there raised that cut with me. I am guilty of saying to them that I was not happy with it, but there has not been too much of a pushback against it in this place. However, in reflecting on that today, I think that is perhaps because I have not been pushing back enough on it. There is a lesson there.

Both internationally, through her work with Oxfam and Amnesty International, and in Parliament, where she helped to establish the friends of Syria APPG, Jo made a profound impact that continues to resonate today. It is deeply moving that her values of co-operation, justice and humanitarianism live on through the Jo Cox Foundation, which we have heard about. Its vital work carries forward Jo’s vision of a fairer and more united world—one in which there is no place for hatred.

The Jo Cox Women in Leadership programme empowers the next generation of women leaders across the Labour movement, ensuring that Jo’s astounding commitment to public service continues to shape the future of the party. I started off by talking about Evie, who is a real leader in her office. She is a very modest person, but she has shown leadership outside the office, such as in the students’ union at Edinburgh University. She has also just been elected as the vice-chair of Scottish Labour Students, which is fantastic.

Eleven years ago, Jo said in this Chamber that we have

“far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]

Those words are more important than ever, and we must hold Jo’s message close to our hearts. It is fitting that we hold this debate in her honour, but the greatest tribute we can pay is to continue to stand against the hatred and division that tragically took her life. In doing so, we keep faith with Jo’s belief in a kinder and more united society.

One of the most powerful elements of this debate is the fact that we are all so concerned about the tensions, if I can put it that way, in communities right across the UK. We are all united in trying to tackle them. On that positive and hopeful note, I will finish.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Scott Arthur

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I want to make three brief points. First, I have completely changed by mind on this subject since I entered the House during the last century, because I have sat in my advice surgery with tears pouring down my face listening to constituents who have set out so clearly, speaking with such emotion, about how their mother, brother, father or child had died in great pain and great indignity.

I strongly support the Bill, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) on the excellent way in which she has presented it. I believe that we should give our constituents—our fellow citizens—this choice. I want this choice for my constituents; I want it for those whom I love; and I want it, perhaps one day, for myself.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Mitchell]

I will not, I am afraid. The current law forces people to plan their deaths in secret. Their bodies are found by their loved ones. Often, they die in the most horrific circumstances. They have no chance to say goodbye to their loved ones. It is devastating for their families. The former Health Secretary commissioned the Office for National Statistics to try to find out how many people who committed suicide every year were dying people. The figure was between 300 and 650.

Secondly, in our democracy, the Commons must make this decision. Only we, elected by our constituents, have the legitimacy to do this. It is not the DPP, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police, doctors or even unelected Members of the House of Lords—this House of Commons must make this decision. Let us be clear that all of us on both sides of the debate strongly support an increase in the quality and extent of palliative care. For me, the debate is about extending choice, in very narrow and heavily regulated circumstances under the Bill, as the hon. Lady so clearly set out—the choice not to be forced to end your life in pain and indignity. No element in the Bill talks about intolerable suffering. Many believe that the Bill is too narrowly drawn. I stand by the hon. Lady’s drafting. We should remember that in Oregon there has been no serious attempt to change or amend the law.

I had the privilege of speaking to an NHS consultant last year, the day before she headed to Dignitas. She said, “I love my country, but I object very strongly to my country forcing me to make this choice, and to having to travel unaccompanied to a foreign country to die.” The status quo is cruel and dangerous. People caught up in these circumstances have no transparency; there is no regulation, safeguards or oversight. The Bill contains a whole series of safeguards that are not present at the moment.

Thirdly, we are deciding today on a principle. If the Bill is voted down on Second Reading, that will be the end of the matter for many years, and we will do that in the knowledge that Scotland, the Isle of Man, Jersey and many other countries are likely to bring in legislation like this. There are 300 million people in 30 jurisdictions who have secured this ability to choose. There will be numerous safeguards. There will not be a slippery slope unless this Parliament agrees to there being one. If we agree to a Second Reading today it is, in my judgment, inconceivable that the Government Front Bench will not ensure we have the proper time to scrutinise the Bill.

This Bill goes with the grain of our constituents’ views—about 75%, according to the most recent polling. There is an opportunity and a chance, as the hon. Member for Spen Valley has set out, to consider in detail these matters ahead of Third Reading. As drafted, the Bill seems to me a very modest and controlled proposal. Let us not forget this: Oregon shows us that fewer people take these steps once they know they have this choice as a back-up.

I end with something I have never forgotten. Some years ago, I was listening in a debate to a young man who had recently lost his father. He had visited his father and seen him in great pain and indignity. He had seen him three days before he died. In the end his father put a bag over his head and used his dressing-gown cord to hang himself. That young man said to all of us: “If you are ever in this position, let’s hope that God will help you, because they certainly won’t.” Today, this House has the opportunity to ensure that they will.