Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I urge the few remaining Members who will get in to keep their remarks brief, please.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

As I thought about today’s debate, I asked myself, “What more can I say than I said in the previous debate?” Yet there is much more, because as the Bill made progress through Committee, its intentions were exposed over and over again. Commitments, safeguards and kind words championed in this place have been set aside. On Second Reading, we were told that the Committee considering the Bill would be balanced and representative, yet its make-up did not reflect that intention: 55% of MPs voted for the Bill on Second Reading, but 61% of the Committee supported it.

The mask has slipped time and again. One of the biggest blows to the Bill, which the public listening today need to know about, relates to the need for approval via High Court judges. On Second Reading, that was laboured as the strongest safeguard, but that safeguard has been removed at a stroke. What is now being legislated for is a panel of psychiatrists—and a voluntary panel, at that. Impartial judges have been replaced by a voluntary panel, which could well be made up of enthusiasts for assisted dying, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists has now said that there are not even sufficient psychiatrists for such panels.

I want to be absolutely clear: this Bill is immoral. If it is passed at a future date, it will create a publicly funded, gold-plated assisted suicide service. That means that the state will have the ability to give a legal drug to end a life. It is immoral, and it goes against my strong Christian faith, and that of many of my constituents in Upper Bann and people across the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Barker]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Lockhart]

No, I will not give way because of time.

The new clause would not affect any duty relating to a requirement to provide information. That concern over conscience was raised earlier this week by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in its press release, which announced its opposition to the Bill and set out its concerns that clinicians are still required to signpost patients to information on assisted suicide. It noted:

“For some psychiatrists who wish to conscientiously object, this would constitute being involved”

in the assisted suicide process. New clause 10 will not allay such concerns. When those representing clinicians express such concerns, we ought to listen to them—listen to the professionals. I encourage Members to listen to the royal college and the 250 GPs opposed to the Bill.

Turning to amendment 101, I have a word for our Down’s syndrome community. In a statement published on 9 May, the Down’s Syndrome Research Foundation said:

“We are deeply concerned about the risks of coercion and undue influence. In particular, people with Down’s syndrome and intellectual disabilities are at significant risk of coercion and undue influence, in part because of their need to trust and rely upon caregivers and medical professionals.”

I cannot comprehend why the hon. Member for Spen Valley declined to accept an amendment in Committee that would have provided explicit protections for people with Down’s syndrome. Again, that highlights the flaws and the risk of coercion. The reality is that vulnerable people who are more prone to coercion—for example, people with learning difficulties or a history of depression—have not been explicitly protected in the Bill.

This Bill is not safe and cannot be fixed. It is weaker than it was before the Committee began, and I encourage all concerned Members to recognise that it is flawed and that no amendments or tightening up will ever make it right to legislate to end one’s life with a legal drug.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many people have put in to speak today, and we appreciate the huge challenge to you, chairing this debate, and for the Speaker’s Office. It is normal for private Members’ Bills that the debate continues in an orderly and proper fashion so that everyone can have their say. We appreciate that that is much more challenging in these circumstances, but we have heard many times that we are running out of time, Members are not taking interventions because of concerns about time, and the informal time limit has dropped to five minutes. I am aware that the Front Benchers still need to speak. It is in the power of the Chair, of course, to refuse any suggestion of a closure motion. I would like to ask you whether there is any thinking going on about whether this debate can continue. Many of those who have tabled amendments have not yet been called to speak, and I, for one, would like to hear their points of view.