Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

David Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Lewin]

The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) made it clear that it is because of the actions of a very small number of peers, and he has no faith—and neither do I—that that would not be repeated this time around.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew Lewin]

I am going to make some progress.

This is the first time that I have spoken on this subject, and I want to set out briefly why I have consistently supported choice at the end of life. First, there is the simple principle that, faced with a terminal diagnosis, it should be the right of the individual to choose how they leave this world. If we offer the choice of an assisted death in the circumstances detailed in the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) said in 2024, we will be

“shortening death, not life…This is not life or death; this is death or death.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 1048.]

Our choice is whether we want people to have the choice of a dignified death or to force some people to endure painful and traumatic last moments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) set out in her astonishing speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) and for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), for sharing heartfelt stories, and showing the strength that I would not be able to —my mum passed away in November last year. Their stories, and what they shared with us today, are inspiring.

Like many across this House, I have spent a great deal of time thinking about this debate, reading constituent stories—many of them heartbreaking—and reflecting on what this Bill means to me personally, as well as what it means to the people of North Somerset who sent me here.

At the heart of this debate are autonomy, dignity and humanity. The question of whether someone who is terminally ill can choose the manner of their death is fundamentally one about agency. These people did not choose their illness. They did not choose the suffering that came with it. They did not choose the impact that it has on those who love them. But they might be able to have some say in how their story ends, and that, I believe, restores some measure of the dignity and control that illness has taken from them.

Many hon. Members will know that I practised as a pharmacist for nearly 20 years before my election. That means that I have seen the faces behind this debate. I have watched people collect prescriptions that offer nothing more than a sticking plaster over terminal illness—pain managed, but suffering not ended. A safe and legal route at the end of life would not replace good palliative care; it would sit alongside it, offering the small mercy of choice to those who want it.

There was another element of this debate that I had to consider: as a Muslim, this question sat alongside my faith in a way that I had to think through carefully. I have concluded that, while I personally may not choose to make use of this provision, my faith guides my own life; it is not my place to let it dictate someone else’s final chapter.

This debate is, at its core, about whether people have the right to choose. It is worth remembering that choice is itself central to faith. Belief has meaning only because it is freely chosen. If I were to use religion as a basis for stripping others of their choice, it would turn faith against one of its own foundations. My faith guides me to live my life and make my choices. That right to choose, I believe, should not be denied by any one of our beliefs, however sincerely held.

[David Smith]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

I will not.

Like so many North Somerset residents who have written to me on this issue, I believe that those who are suffering, often for long, unimaginable stretches of time, deserve to be offered a choice.

Jury Trials

David Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

The right hon. Lady is right that there are regional difficulties—the situation for those in the south-east, London and parts of the north-east and the north-west is utterly dire—but let me be absolutely clear and clarify something. She says that we are scrapping jury trials, but we are not. Let us get the facts straight about the way in which the system works now and the way in which things will work once these proposals are implemented.

People talk about a right to a jury trial, and the public could be forgiven for thinking that everybody who graces a criminal court gets a jury trial, but that is not how things work. Some 90% of cases in this country are heard without a jury trial; they are heard robustly and rigorously in our magistrates court, which retains that lay element. I pay tribute to the work of our magistrates, who are drawn from our communities, provide local justice and represent the communities that they serve. The remainder of cases are currently heard by jury trial, and all the most serious crimes, such as homicide, kidnapping, robbery, serious drug offences and possession of a weapon, will continue to be heard by juries under our proposals.

What we are making is in line with expert recommendations, as occurs in other jurisdictions such as Canada and New South Wales, which are comparable with ours. This is a fairly modest reform removing the right to elect so that those cases that can be heard by the magistrates court are retained in the magistrates court and a modest number of cases are heard through a swifter court—the Crown court bench division. In addition, complex fraud and economic crime currently heard with a jury will appropriately be heard by an expert judge. That is a sensible, pragmatic package of reforms informed by an independent review.

I am afraid that asking us simply to ignore the work of the review is not sensible. If we were to leave that review on the shelf gathering dust, people would say, “The Government are failing to pull every lever.” I am not prepared to do that. We have asked people to have a long, hard look at it—not just Sir Brian Leveson, but David Ormerod, a distinguished criminal law academic, and other members of the panel. We will take that and implement it as our blueprint.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

Let me speak to the point about the magistrates. In 2012, I took part in a six-month in-depth application process to become a magistrate, and I was accepted. I was then told that because of a pause by the previous Government, there would be no recruitment. In the following eight years, we lost 10,000 magistrates, to the point that in 2019 the then Justice Committee wrote that the crisis was

“as frustrating as it was foreseeable”

and that

“it has taken a near crisis to prompt the Government into belated action.”

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Opposition cannot have their cake and eat it? They must understand that the system is in a crisis of their making.

[Sarah Sackman]

I could not agree more. As I am someone with responsibility for the recruitment of our magistrates, I know my hon. Friend will have seen in the early headlines this year that we are looking for more magistrates. We want them to be more diverse, younger and from different parts of the country and different backgrounds. As I said, our magistracy has halved in the last 10 years. I want to see us turn that around as we place our confidence in our magistrates to continue handling the vast majority of criminal cases, which they do at the moment.

HMP Downview: Female Prisoners

David Smith Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the intervention by the right hon. Gentleman. He always tries to be helpful in debates, and I welcome that. Some of the prisoners held on E wing at HMP Downview have had full gender reassignment surgery. Some have not. However, full risk assessments are carried out before anyone is placed at HMP Downview. As I have stated, no prisoner has been placed there under this Government, and no exemptions have been made under this Government.

The allocation criteria rightly set a high bar for transgender women to be held in the general women’s estate. However, failing to meet that high bar does not mean that a transgender prisoner can necessarily be managed safely in a men’s prison. For those who are particularly vulnerable, such as those who have undergone full gender affirming surgery, E wing can, where appropriate, provide an important option.

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

The Minister may or may not be aware that prior to coming to this place, I ran a homelessness and support charity for the general population, including young women. It was always possible in that context, even as a charity, to find support and housing for transgender women, as well as to incorporate sex-segregated spaces for women, who had often gone through difficult experiences at the hands of biological males. Does she agree that it should always be possible, however it is done, to create provision in the prison estate for transgender women and for sex-segregated spaces?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I totally agree with that, and I thank my hon. Friend for his work, both inside and outside this House, to help women in incredibly vulnerable positions. He is correct, and we feel that HMP Downview, with the separate E wing, which is on the estate but not part of the general women’s estate, is the solution. It does work and it is working, as is shown in the data.

There has been no change in the requirement that E wing prisoners must remain under constant supervision at all times, but there has been a change in relation to who provides the supervision. Following that change, a dedicated prison officer now escorts E wing prisoners on and off the wing, and if the risk assessment deems it appropriate, the member of staff running the activities in which they participate must supervise them for the length of the activity. The prison implemented the change on the basis of a stringent local assessment of the risks to prisoners, and no risk concerns have been raised about the regime access of any E wing prisoners since the supervision policy changed. The prison will keep the arrangement under strict review, and we will make an operational decision to revoke that access if it is deemed necessary.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

David Smith Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

On Second Reading in late November, I wanted to express the concerns that I had with the Bill around coercion, commercialisation and the pressure on people who feel that they are a burden. Unfortunately, there was not enough time in that debate, and there is not much time today either.

During that debate, the House was repeatedly reassured by some Members that the Bill was about to undergo a rigorous scrutiny process in Committee. The question on Second Reading that we were most implored to consider was whether we wanted to keep talking about the Bill. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who is not in his place, said it best:

“I say to both the Bill’s sponsors that it has a number of areas that they know I think they have to put right—about a dozen, in truth.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 1053.]

While the time for talking is quickly running out, this Bill remains far from ready. Too many concerns remain partially or wholly unaddressed—these things have not been put right.

Let me highlight three of the issues that I was originally concerned about. First, on the issue of coercion, seven months on from Second Reading, the Bill still does not even define “dishonesty”, “coercion” or “pressure”. Let me say that clearly again—it does not define “coercion”. If we, as legislators, cannot do that, then who will? Further, with the exclusion in the Bill of assisted deaths from the coronial system, a vital opportunity has been missed to include the investigative oversight that would be most likely to spot coercion, even if it was after the fact of assisted dying.

Secondly, the marketisation of assisted dying worries me greatly and I do not believe that it has been properly addressed in the Bill. We already know, from last week’s debate, that there is a loophole in the advertising ban, where future Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care could decide to launch public health information campaigns on television, online or in GP surgeries outlining the options of assisted dying.

Even worse, in my view, is the certain involvement of private commercial interests in assisted dying. When we combine the known costs to the state from the impact assessment and the unknown costs, the limited resources currently available within the NHS and the conscientious objections of large swathes of doctors, which is surely inevitable, we can foresee that assisted dying will be largely privatised. Commercial operators with shareholders and a desire to maximise profit will inevitably be delivering assisted death. In such circumstances, they will find ways to grow their revenue, including through marketing it, however subtly.

Thirdly, on the issue of feeling a burden, on Second Reading my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) raised the issue of Washington state, where 59% of those going through with an assisted death, in a similar process to the one proposed in the Bill, did so because they feared being a

“Burden on family, friends/caregivers.”

There has been no meaningful response to that argument, in my opinion, from those in favour of the Bill.

I ask colleagues in favour of passing the Bill to consider the following scenario. An older relative knows that assisted death is now possible and that their family is struggling to get by, in difficult economic circumstances. They have a health condition, with a prognosis of five months to live, even though studies show that most such prognoses are wrong about 50% of the time. What will stop our parents or grandparents from deciding to seek assisted dying purely to “do the right thing” by their loved ones?

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

[David Smith]

I have nearly finished. For that matter, what will stop relatives anxious to receive their inheritance from subtly pushing the option of assisted death?

To conclude, as legislators the responsibility falls on us, in this place, to create outstanding legislation that provides clarity, certainty and benefits to our constituents and to the country at large, yet all my concerns from the start of the process still remain; indeed, they have only grown. We have repeatedly heard today that there is no alternative to this Bill and that the status quo is the alternative. Well, we have agency in this place—the choice that we are making today is a big change to the status quo, so why can we not do other things? It is not simply a choice between this Bill and nothing else. Therefore, I will be voting against the Bill and encourage colleagues to do the same.