Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Diane Abbott Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) on bringing forward this Bill, which has been the occasion of a very important national conversation. I recall to the House the fact that, in 1969, Parliament voted to abolish the death penalty for murder. Public opinion was actually against that change, but MPs believed, on a point of principle, that the state should not be involved in taking a life. It was a good principle in 1969 and it remains a good principle today.

I am not against legalising assisted dying in any circumstance, but I have many reservations about this Bill. In particular, I do not believe that the safeguards are sufficient. They are supposed to be the strongest in the world because of the involvement of a High Court judge, but the divisional courts have said that

“the intervention of a court would simply interpose an expensive and time-consuming forensic procedure”.

Sir James Munby, the former president of the family division of the High Court, said recently:

“Only those who believe implicitly in judicial omniscience and infallibility—and I do not—can possibly have any confidence in the efficacy of what is proposed.”

Is the judge supposed to second-guess doctors? Will the judge make a decision on the basis of paperwork? Or will there be a hearing in open court? Where will be the capacity in the criminal justice system to deal with all this? Far from being a genuine safeguard, the involvement of a judge could just be a rubber stamp.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

More than two thirds of care proceedings involving the most vulnerable children in our society cannot be completed within six months. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a real concern that the safeguard is not deliverable, or risks being the rubber stamp that I know my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) does not want it to be?

[Ms Abbott]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Robust safeguards for the sick and dying are vital to protect them from predatory relatives, to protect them from the state and, above all, to protect them from themselves. There will be those who say to themselves that they do not want to be a burden; I can imagine myself saying that in particular circumstances. Others will worry about assets they had hoped to leave for their grandchildren being eroded by the cost of care. There will even be a handful who will think they should not be taking up a hospital bed.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend makes her case powerfully. Can I ask her to comment on the current situation whereby people ask themselves the question she just asked today? What safeguards are there for those people? What inquiry is made before those people pass away, often having taken the most drastic and horrific action to do so?

[Ms Abbott]

But if the House passes this legislation, the issue that I have raised will become foremost in people’s minds even more so.

We are told that there is no evidence of coercion in jurisdictions where assisted suicide is possible, but people do not generally write letters to sick relatives urging them to consider assisted suicide and then put those letters on file. Coercion in the family context can be about not what you say but what you do not say—the long, meaningful pause.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

As a medical professional who is surrounded by even more senior medical professionals, I know we can all miss things when there are tangibles in front of us: the shadows on X-rays and the markers on blood tests. As professionals, we miss things that can be seen. What security will we have that we can pick up things that we cannot see, like coercion?

[Ms Abbott]

That is the point: coercion is something that there will be no material evidence of and that we cannot see.

People keep saying that the Bill cannot be amended, but of course any future Government could bring in new clauses. We can see what has happened in Canada, which introduced assisted dying in 2016 for adults with terminal illnesses. In 2021, it was extended to people with no terminal illness and the disabled. In March 2027, anyone with a serious mental health problem will also be eligible. The House should remember that no single organisation representing the disabled supports the Bill.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

My daughter Maria lived her life with severe disabilities and health conditions. Since her birth, we were told many times that she might have only six months to live. She lived for 27 years. Crucially, Maria was non-verbal. I am filled with dread and fear about what might happen to people like Maria who are non-verbal and do not have that capacity, if they are not loved and cared for and do not have somebody speaking out for them.

[Ms Abbott]

I have heard so many stories like that. The arbitrary cut-off of six months does not necessarily meet with the reality of sick people.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The case of Maria, and others, should give us all pause. Does the right hon. Lady agree, with two thirds of the Cabinet apparently supporting this measure in principle, that we should reject the Bill today, but that we should as a House commit not to go another 10 years ignoring this topic, but to come forward in a considered way, ensure it is looked at properly, and do everything possible to have a system that is more robust, more caring and ensures good outcomes for people like Maria?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me also say that we must try to keep to the time limits.

[Ms Abbott]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As I said right at the beginning, I am not against assisting dying in any circumstances. If the Bill passes, we will have the NHS as a 100% funded suicide service, but palliative care will be funded only at 30% at best. The former Member for Dunfermline East, Gordon Brown, has said recently:

“we need to show we can do better at assisted living before deciding whether to legislate on ways to die.”

I represent very many vulnerable people in marginalised communities. I cannot vote for a Bill when I have doubts about whether they will be protected. We can come back, have a commission and craft a better Bill, but I will not be voting for the Bill today.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

This may be the most fateful Bill that we discuss this Parliament. It is literally a matter of life and death. I have heard talk today of the injustices of the current situation. What could be more unjust than someone losing their life because of poorly drafted legislation?

We hear about panels. The people talking about panels presumably have not had much to do with them. I would not put my life, or the life of anyone dear to me, in the hands of a panel of officials. I stress, right from the beginning, that it is perfectly possible to support assisted dying, as I do, but not be prepared to vote for this Bill. There is so much that is problematic about it.

First, as I believe is widely understood, there has not been enough time to debate the Bill. Secondly, a Bill of this seriousness should be given more time.

[Simon Hoare]

Does the right hon. Lady find it rather peculiar that the previous Parliament spent 746 hours discussing the death of a fox and about 98 hours discussing the death of fellow humans?

[Ms Abbott]

There has been a lot of talk about there being no evidence of coercion, but within the family, the most powerful coercion is silence: it is the failure to answer when a question is put. If police cannot spot coercion in domestic violence, how can they be expected to spot coercion in assisted dying?

The Royal College of Pathologists and the former chief coroner have pointed out that without a role for a coroner, the Bill raises the possibility of foul play. When an amendment was tabled in Committee to deal with that, however, it was opposed. The Bill would allow private for-profit contractors to run an assisted dying service with no profit cap and no transparency, but when an amendment was tabled in Committee to deal with that point, it was opposed.

We have heard—and we will hear over and over again in this debate—about choice. This Bill may produce choice for those of us, like almost everybody in this House, who have for the entirety of their adult life been confident in dealing with authority and institutions, but even then, the Bill would need amendments. But what choice does the Bill hold for someone who, all their life, has lacked agency, particularly in a family context, which may be particularly the case in certain cultures and communities? And what choice does the Bill offer to those who lack access to good palliative care?

As the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has put it, our law should not

“focus on the few who wish for assisted dying and do too little to support the majority of those facing their final days who want—and deserve—access to the best of palliative care.”

What choice is it for those who think that, because their doctor raises it with them at all, they are being guided in that direction? An amendment that might have addressed that issue was rejected in Committee. It is a possibility that proponents of the Bill do not take seriously at all, but anyone who knows how institutions work should be watchful of it.

I came to this House to be a voice for the voiceless—that has not always been favoured by my own leadership, but that is why I came to the House. Who could be more voiceless than somebody who is in their sick bed and believes that they are dying? I ask Members in this debate to speak up for the voiceless one more time. There is no doubt that if the Bill is passed in its current form, there will be people among the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society who lose their lives unnecessarily. I therefore implore the House to reject this Bill—not because I am opposed to assisted dying in principle, but because my concern is for vulnerable and marginalised persons and communities.

[Several hon. Members rose—]