Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Catherine Fookes Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

This is a very difficult day. No one could fail to be moved by the grief of campaigners and by the deeply personal stories, whether born of their own experience or of those they have lost. Those voices deserve to be heard, and it is important in this place that we respect all views, whether we agree or disagree; but as we deliberate today, I go back to the words of the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) in a past debate, asking us to remember

“the quiet ones, those who may be less organised or not as powerful but who are none the less equally, if not more, important—the voiceless”.—[Official Report, 13 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 11.]

Those words resonated particularly strongly with me, because I had the privilege of serving 10 years ago as the Minister for Preventing Abuse, Exploitation and Crime—the first time that safeguarding brief had been brought under one Minister. It was so often the quiet voices that needed to be heard. It was the time I spent with victims that persuaded me that modern slavery was something we needed to legislate for. It was the time I spent with the victims of domestic violence, some of whom did not even want to admit that they were victims, that persuaded me we needed to do more and that we needed to legislate in this area.

When I took the coercive control offence through Parliament, it was incredibly important. That is a very difficult offence; coercive control is not easy to prove or to find the evidence for, but it was so important that we did that. I remember speaking at an event not long after the legislation had gone through, where I explained that coercive control offence and what we were trying to do in Parliament. Afterwards, a woman came up to me privately, in tears, and told me that what I described had been her life some 30 years earlier. She had recognised eventually that she was a victim; so often victims do not recognise that they are victims, but she did recognise it. She had gone to the police, but because the offences were not violent or physical, they said that there was nothing they could do. They even said, “Lock the door and hope that he beats the door down, because then we could arrest him on criminal violence.” That was all they had. There was nothing they could do to help this woman.

That encounter stayed with me, and it reminds me time and again that abuse is not always a single act. It can be the gradual erosion of somebody’s confidence, independence and sense of what choices are really theirs. Coercion to end one’s life may not come as an explicit threat. It may be the repeated suggestion that someone is becoming a burden.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Dame Karen Bradley]

I will not be giving way much, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will give way to the hon. Lady.

[Catherine Fookes]

I thank the right hon. Lady very much for giving way and for sharing that really difficult story. Does she not agree that the current system has no safeguards at all against coercion, and that is exactly why we need this Bill?

[Dame Karen Bradley]

Coercion is something that we absolutely need to tackle and understand as a society, but I do not think that this Bill has the safeguards that are needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

Before I begin, I declare an interest as a patron of my local hospice, Community hospice. I want to be clear from the outset that I am not opposed to assisted dying in principle; I understand why many people support a change in the law, and I recognise the compassion that motivates those views. However, today I will set out why I remain unable to support this Bill.

This debate evokes deeply held views across the House. I respect my colleagues who have reached a different conclusion, but the question that has troubled me throughout remains the same: can a choice ever be truly free if the support, care and dignity that people deserve are not equally available to all? Through my work with my local hospice, I have seen at first hand what excellent end-of-life care can achieve. I have seen dignity, comfort and compassion, and I have seen how much those final months, weeks and days can mean to individuals and families. That experience leaves me convinced of one thing: dignity at the end of life is possible, and it is our challenge to make it available to everyone.

I have listened carefully to constituents on all sides of this debate. One constituent wrote to me about caring for both her husband and her former partner after they were diagnosed with terminal cancer. Both were told that they had no more than six months to live, but both lived for more than a year beyond that prediction. During that time, they were able to reconnect with family, spend precious time with loved ones and continue to live meaningful lives. Her message was simple: prognosis is not certainty, and diagnosis is not the end of the journey. That does not mean that doctors are wrong, but it does mean that when Parliament considers legislation built around predictions of life expectancy, we must take that uncertainty seriously.

[Catherine Fookes]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I will not.

I believe the concerns raised by organisations such as the Royal College of Physicians and the British Geriatrics Society about the uncertainty of the end of life, safeguarding and the definition of terminal illness deserve careful consideration.

I cannot separate this debate from my own experiences. Members of my family have experienced discrimination in the healthcare system. Those experiences leave a lasting impression; they remind us that trust, access and outcomes in healthcare are not always experienced equally by everyone. Those inequalities do not disappear when people become seriously ill.