Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the excellent speech of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). In preparation for today I have had a number of discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), and I want to put on record that the measured way she has dealt with the proceedings has been excellent. I do not know whether she has ever had moments of doubting whether this was the right thing to pick as a private Member’s Bill, but she has been an absolute credit to this House in the way she has dealt with these matters so far.

In 2015, in the last Chamber debate on this subject, I wound up for the Opposition Front Bench, but my interest in it goes back much further. Like all Members of this House, I have had hundreds of emails from constituents on both sides of the argument. Many ask me to oppose the Bill; those emails come from people of faith, and I wholly and entirely respect what they say, but they are the first people also to say that this is an individual decision for every individual Member of the House to make.

As I have been at the bottom of the list of speakers to be called for so many years, I have great sympathy for those who find themselves there today, so I will try to keep my remarks to one narrow point: the legal context of the Bill. There is a false dichotomy that the law as it stands is fit for purpose, that we go into the unknown with the Bill before us and that we should somehow keep the safety of the status quo. I think that could not be more wrong. There are no safeguards in the current law. The only sanction against coercion is ex post facto; we are leaving it to individual directors of public prosecutions to make decisions in individual cases after the event.

DPPs take that job extremely seriously, as anyone knows who has heard Sir Max Hill, the last DPP to speak on the subject. They have, at the instigation of the courts, set out guidelines—I think we know that it was an excellent Director of Public Prosecutions who set out the guidelines on this case. They have done everything they can, but it is not their responsibility; it is our responsibility, and the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, have made that clear.

We assign in this Bill a role to the High Court as part of the process, but we are the final decision takers. That has been made clear not only by domestic, but by international courts; the European Court of Human Rights has said in every case in which such matters have come before it that the margin of appreciation should be put into effect and therefore it should not interfere with the law as we decide it. We cannot dodge our responsibilities and I know that we do not want to do that. We have a duty to put in place the best law we can, and that is not the law as it stands.

There are three choices for people who want to end their own lives. They can go to Dignitas alone, if they can afford to do that. They can attempt, and perhaps succeed in, suicide. They risk failing. If they succeed, they will have a lonely death. They may, as others have pointed out, simply have to resort to refusing treatment or food. The third option is that they can embroil their relatives or friends, at the risk of their being investigated or prosecuted. They also risk ending their lives too soon.

On safeguards, I do not follow the view of opponents of the Bill. At some times they seem to say that they are too complex, too expensive and that there are not enough resources. If we want to resource the Bill, we can. I do not think that those are the strongest arguments.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

I really do not want to, because of the time. I am sorry. [Interruption.] Should I? I will give way once.

[Jonathan Davies]

My hon. Friend talks a little about safeguards. I invite him and the House to reflect on the covid pandemic, when a lot of safeguards around a lot of things were relaxed. I worry that if we were to see another pandemic on the scale that we saw in 2020, people might feel that they were doing something patriotic by getting out of the way and freeing up a bed for a younger person. I invite him to reflect on that.

[Andy Slaughter]

In practice, a terminally ill person will need to formally consider their decision at least eight times under the provisions in the Bill. This is a starting point—a number of Members have made that point. I believe the Bill has already had more scrutiny than most public Bills we consider, but we have up to nine months before us to consider it further.

All the practical and legal considerations point towards the Bill. It may well be amended to change the safeguards or the way it operates, but we have the opportunity to do that. In the end, for me, that is not the decision. The decision is about two things: it is about human dignity and it is about agency. I would like to think that even at the end of life—no, especially at the end of life—when someone has their faculties but may be at their weakest ebb, they can still exercise that agency and still make decisions for themselves. They can have the longest life they can and they can end that life in the way that is most beneficial to them, their loved ones and their family. That is simply not happening, and by voting against the Bill today Members ignore those facts.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I will speak briefly and cover just three points. I do not expect to persuade those committed to opposing the Bill to change their minds; I hope that I do not persuade those supporting it to change theirs. This is the time to put our concluded thoughts on the record before seeking their lordships’ opinions.

I start where I finished my speech on Second Reading: agency. Since that debate last November, I have continued to meet constituents on both sides of the argument, and answered hundreds of letters and emails—I am sure that other hon. Members have done the same. I have met mainly with groups that oppose the Bill, including faith groups, because they have sought to change my mind. I have not changed my mind. I am still driven by the plight of those suffering unnecessarily at the end of life.

I wholly respect the decision of those who would not want assisted dying for themselves, but I cannot accept their right to deny that choice to those who would, for the most profound reasons, use the provisions of the Bill to end their lives. The pain, suffering, indignity and degradation of a slow, painful, tortured death is something none of us would wish on a friend or relative—on anyone. If that suffering at the end of life, in the narrow circumstances prescribed by the Bill, can be avoided, who are we to deny that?

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

I am not going to give way.

The obvious qualification to what should be a clear and personal choice to leave life in a matter and at a time of one’s choosing is the risk of coercion, and that has rightly dominated much of the debate for the past eight months. There are two points to be made here.

First, great effort has been expended, and is reflected in amendments to the Bill, to make the safeguards as comprehensive and watertight as possible, learning from and going beyond practice in other jurisdictions. Compliance with the provisions of the Bill is a rigorous process, but it is also a practical one; it is designed to be transparent and to test the intent of the person seeking an assisted death.

Secondly, some say that that is still not enough, but 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 assistance has been given—putting a caring loved one at risk of prosecution, but doing nothing to prevent those of malign intent.

Finally, although I have tried to see both sides on every issue, there is one point on which the opponents of the Bill are, in my opinion, just wrong: whether the Bill has, thus far, seen due process. I have been in Parliament for a month over 20 years, and I can think of few Bills of this length and scope that have received so much scrutiny and so many hours in Committee, or on which so much evidence has been submitted and comment 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, decide that the Bill gives greater protection. But I ask them not to vote against it because we have lacked the time or information to make a decision—we have not—or because we do not as a country have the ability to resource the Bill—we do. A great trust and great opportunity have been given to the Members of this Parliament. This is the moment of decision, and we should discharge it to the best of our ability.