Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting)

Debate between Daniel Francis and Kit Malthouse
Kit Malthouse Portrait Kit Malthouse
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Lady puts it exactly right. These are two separate questions, and we should not conflate them. Certainly, we should not allow the House of Commons to be constrained by those capacity constraints from doing what it thinks is the right thing. We should do the right thing, and then put pressure on the Government to provide the facilities that we think are required.

Daniel Francis Portrait Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

On that point, in our oral evidence we were not able to hear from witnesses about the changes to the clauses, because we did not understand what the repercussions would be at this stage.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting)

Debate between Daniel Francis and Kit Malthouse
Wednesday 12th March 2025

(1 year, 5 months ago)

Public Bill Committees
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kit Malthouse Portrait Kit Malthouse
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The hon. Lady puts it exactly right. These are two separate questions, and we should not conflate them. Certainly, we should not allow the House of Commons to be constrained by those capacity constraints from doing what it thinks is the right thing. We should do the right thing, and then put pressure on the Government to provide the facilities that we think are required.

Daniel Francis Portrait Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

On that point, in our oral evidence we were not able to hear from witnesses about the changes to the clauses, because we did not understand what the repercussions would be at this stage.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Debate between Daniel Francis and Kit Malthouse
Daniel Francis Portrait Daniel Francis
- Hansard - -

That is what I have wrestled with. That conversation will happen, and at the end of it, I accept that the autonomy is with the individual, who may well make a decision that they believe is for the best but with which their loved one does not necessarily agree. I think there are examples from overseas of that having happened.

Kit Malthouse Portrait Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I agree about the primacy of autonomy, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that, given the status quo and the many stories that we have heard about individuals who took their lives but kept it secret from their families, whether by going to Switzerland or by doing it in a horrible way in lonely circumstances, a regulated atmosphere would makes it more likely that people will talk to their family about what their death will be like and, as we have learned from overseas, make arrangements for their family to be around them, or at least to say goodbye, as they move into that process? At the moment, because this area is unregulated, way more people do it in secret than need to.

Daniel Francis Portrait Daniel Francis
- Hansard - -

I am not entirely persuaded. I think there is currently a mixture of cases, and there will potentially be a mixture of cases in future. I hear what the right hon. Member says, but my primary concern is about the way things are. As I say, I am minded not to support the amendments on balance, but I am concerned that we could end up hearing stories about someone’s loved one of 50 years, or their child with a learning disability, having had an assisted death—and the first they knew about it was when it was too late.