British Citizenship (Northern Ireland) Bill

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Eleanor Laing

2nd reading
Friday 26th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

There is a real and sensitive issue at the heart of this Bill and debate. Although the Bill affects residents of Northern Ireland, the issues of identity and citizenship affect us all.

I begin by acknowledging the case made by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson)—or my hon. Friend, as I always call him and his DUP colleagues because we are so often on the same side of debates in this House, as we are today. I support this Bill and respect the points he makes. He has constituents who identify as British but have an Irish passport, simply because of having been born on the other side of an open border, and their only option is to naturalise, This is sensitive to people who have grown up, and lived for decades, identifying as British. For them, holding a British passport and not an Irish passport, so that their citizenship is consistent with their identity, is of profound and deep importance.

I also recognise that there are specific conditions laid down in law and in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement that shape the administrative landscape of Northern Ireland, with there being an open border with the Republic of Ireland—a border without immigration controls—a common travel area and no restrictions on working or living in the United Kingdom. The Government need to apply their administrative rules on routes to British citizenship fairly for all residents of the UK, whether they live in Coleraine or Congleton.

In discussing this issue, we need to be clear about what we mean by “national identity” and “citizenship.” National identity encompasses the shared values, culture, history and traditions that bind individuals within a nation. This profound sense of belonging and loyalty goes beyond legalities, forming the foundation of our unity as a people.

On the other hand, the administrative and legal status of citizenship is a formal recognition granted by the state. It involves adherence to specific laws, rights and duties, often outlined in a constitution or legal framework. Citizenship is a legal concept that provides individuals with certain rights and responsibilities within the borders of a nation.

Although national identity fosters a deep emotional connection, citizenship is a practical framework that governs our interactions within the state. Therefore, whether or not my hon. Friend’s Bill is successful, it will not change his constituents’ fundamental sense of British identity or the rights and freedoms under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement that give the people of Northern Ireland the freedom to identify as British or Irish, to co-exist and to complement their Britishness.

However, I am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend’s case and acknowledge that a key outworking of being British involves a sense of allegiance that is encapsulated by holding a British passport in one’s hand. Indeed, I travel frequently abroad in my role as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, and I have a great sense of pride every time I hold that passport in my hand, so I understand the importance of others being able to do so.

My hon. Friend is promoting a Bill that makes sense, which always helps. He always speaks sense. Its clauses make it clear that we are not dealing with a situation comparable to, say, residents of Coleraine and Congleton wanting to apply for citizenship having been born outside UK. The requirements of proposed section 4AA would make it specific to a person in Northern Ireland who has been resident pretty much continuously for a preceding period of five years.

To answer my own point regarding the need to satisfy administrative fairness across the UK, the qualifying period of five years’ residency is equivalent to other applications for citizenship that could be made in Congleton. I therefore support the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

As I have no further takers, I call the shadow Minister.

Tributes to Her Late Majesty the Queen

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Eleanor Laing

Saturday 10th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

It is a privilege to pay tribute on behalf of my Congleton constituents to Queen Elizabeth II’s life of dutiful service. How did the holder of such high office, with the rightful adulation of millions across the world, sustain for more than seven decades a life of such dedicated and selfless service to others? I suggest that it was because she recognised, in a very real and personal way, that there is a higher authority even than her own—an authority by whom she was called to her role and to whom ultimately she was accountable. She said:

“To many of us our beliefs are of fundamental importance. For me the teachings of Christ and my own personal accountability before God provide a framework in which I try to lead my life.”

The Queen’s example of servant leadership is unparalleled in our time. In many of her Christmas broadcasts, she spoke publicly, clearly and baldly of her Christian faith, and she was loved and respected for it by many. Christmas broadcasts are the one occasion for which a monarch can write their own speech and convey their innermost thoughts; she spoke of the importance of family and small acts of kindness. In 2011, she said:

“God sent into the world a unique person—neither a philosopher nor a general (important though they are)—but a Saviour, with the power to forgive.

Forgiveness lies at the heart of the Christian faith. It can heal broken families, it can restore friendships and it can reconcile divided communities.”

Although the Queen had a deep and enduring Christian faith, she was mindful of the importance of freedom of religion or belief for all. Indeed, she was ahead of many. Speaking in 2020 about the good Samaritan, she said:

“The man who is robbed and left at the roadside is saved by someone who did not share his religion or culture. This wonderful story of kindness is still as relevant today. Good Samaritans have emerged across society showing care and respect for all, regardless of gender, race or background, reminding us that each one of us is special and equal in the eyes of God.”

At Lambeth Palace in 2012, she said that the Church of England

“has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country…an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely.”

In 2014, she spoke about how we need to respect freedom of religion or belief for all faiths, a view shared by her son and successor King Charles III. May she rest in peace. God save the King.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Mr Jim Shannon.

Freedom of Religion or Belief: 40th Anniversary of UN Declaration

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the hon. Lady for her engagement on this issue. She makes an excellent point; indeed, the reception that I hosted just yesterday, on Red Wednesday, was held in the rooms of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I am sure there will be other ways in which we can work collaboratively together.

Let me turn to the third aspect of my mandate on the FCDO website, which is the importance of my working

“with the members of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance to raise awareness of cases of particular concern”

and to advocate

“for the rights of people worldwide who are discriminated against or persecuted for their faith or belief”.

I cannot overestimate the importance and the strengthening of the 33-country International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance over the past year. It was founded only in February 2020, with a handful of countries—one of the founders being the UK—but has now grown to 33 countries. As a founding member, the UK is a member of the steering group, at which I seek opportunities to raise instances of the suppression or threatening of FORB. I have been able to take information from my deep dives there.

Within the past year it has been my privilege to initiate an alliance statement on standing in solidarity with people of all faiths and beliefs in Myanmar who played prominent roles in the anti-coup movement. It has been of great encouragement to people suffering in Myanmar to know that they are not forgotten by the world in their fight for freedom. Following that statement, I was particularly moved by a letter I received from Cardinal Bo, the leader of the Catholic Church in Myanmar, in which he said that the statement

“was a very important message of support for religious leaders in Myanmar”.

It was also my privilege to help to draft the alliance statement on the importance of protection of religious minorities in Afghanistan and, more recently, one to highlight the ongoing plight of Yazidi women, more than 2,700 of whom are still missing.

We need to make sure that such statements lead to action. Encouragingly, that was the case with the alliance statement on Afghanistan. Not only was it well received by the White House, which commended it for “plugging a gap”—at that point, no other international statement had highlighted the risks to religious minorities in Afghanistan—but work on the statement led to action. It helped to trigger the alliance country representatives from Brazil and the US to talk to one another and recognise that one could provide the visas and the other an aircraft to provide refuge to 193 members of religious minority groups fleeing Afghanistan.

I take an active role on the alliance’s advisory council of experts, and on its education working group, along with Robert Rehak, the Czech envoy representative. The working group aims to promote an understanding of FORB among young people, including through school textbooks, university programmes and more informal settings, so that they in turn can inspire the next generation to respect other people’s beliefs in communities around the world. The alliance wants to help to reverse the increase in the abuses of FORB around the world, so the education working group is helping to share ways, tools and best practice, not least from the UK, through the excellent work of the British Council—yet another way in which the UK is showing FORB leadership—on how to teach the next generation on FORB.

Going forward, it will be my continued privilege to work with an increasingly effective and growing alliance. I recently met with our Commonwealth envoy Jo Lomas to discuss how we can work together to encourage more Commonwealth countries to join. To coincide with this week’s anniversary of the statement, we held our virtual 2021 ministerial forum.

Speaking of the ministerial, I am delighted to have played perhaps some small part in helping to secure the UK’s hosting of the next in-person ministerial conference in July. The Prime Minister announced the principal of the conference in the integrated review earlier this year and will draw on all the UK’s FORB work to build stronger global partnerships and agree common goals on FORB for all. It will be a major international gathering and an opportunity for us as a nation to support FORB as a right for all and to agree concrete action with partners internationally. The conference will be supplemented in June and July by an active FORB fringe of no less than 100 events in and around Parliament and beyond, both in-person and virtual, to be organised by my parliamentary office and the FORB APPG, with the already enthusiastic support of many from civil society. Members should contact my office or the APPG to get involved.

I am also working closely with our US counterparts, who intend to bring international grassroots FORB champions for a follow-up conference on 7 July. It is critical that the alliance membership is fully engaged in and integrated into the official thinking as we plan the UK-hosted 2022 ministerial conference, because the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance and the international FORB conferences, which now go back some four years—next year’s will be the fifth—have the same inspirational roots.

In my role, I am aware that no single individual can possibly address the problem of the scale that FORB entails. We have to work together: faith leaders, academics, grassroots organisations, parliamentarians, officials and, of course, Ministers and the Prime Ministers all have a role to play. Next year, 2022, looks to be an exciting year for the UK to play our part and demonstrate our global leadership on FORB.

It is quite right that I have been overwhelmingly positive about the UK’s work on FORB this year, but before I finish, may I leave the deputy Foreign Secretary—the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly)—whom I thank for kindly attending this debate, along with the Leader of the House, with the following thoughts? Further work is needed to achieve the ambition of embedding FORB in the FCDO. One way that will be illustrated is through clearer advocacy and protection for religious minorities facing persecution in places such as Nigeria and Pakistan.

As the Bishop of Truro’s review says, we still need to see FORB as more

“central to FCO operation and culture”—

of course, it was still the FCO when the review was published in 2019. The review also said that a commitment to it should be enshrined

“in strategic and operational guidelines.”

We also need to demonstrate that with sanctions tailored specifically to target FORB violators. We need to more effectively construct and impact FCDO work upstream to prevent mass atrocities with effective early-warning mechanisms. We need to see the vulnerabilities of religious minorities more clearly applied as a criterion for the distribution of humanitarian aid and relief.

We need to see quicker responses to individual cases of injustice and inhumane treatment raised by MPs and NGOs. In too many cases of individual abuses across the world, including many that I have raised, there has been only a general response, such as that for freedom of religion and belief, which is

“a key human rights priority for our Government”.

Where we provide more tailored responses, we can see real results. I was so encouraged by what happened after I highlighted concerns about four Christians in Somaliland, one of whom was a young woman imprisoned with her tiny baby. I heard that our diplomatic officials attended the court hearing, after which they were released. One will never know for sure what impact our engagement had, but we should not underestimate the UK’s soft power in influencing freedom of religion or belief.

Where we cannot take action on individual cases or in particular countries, it would be helpful to have clearer reasoning as to why. Going forward to 2022, I would welcome a meeting with each FCDO Minister on their individual country responsibilities to help to promote mutual understanding and joint working on FORB. I thank Lord Ahmad, our Minister for Human Rights, for his strong commitment to collaborative working with me and I look forward to that being increasingly effective going forward.

More effective working will see my role as envoy given the support required to fulfil my mandate, which, until recent changes, was limited and in some cases lacking. Too much energy was wasted on internal issues rather than addressing the needs of the vulnerable. Indeed, there needs to be a fundamental discussion about the role of special envoys—indeed, all envoys. We need to examine how this relatively recently enhanced role, certainly in terms of numbers, fits into the mechanisms of Government, and how we can work most effectively alongside Minsters. That would help officials to work more effectively too.

There is a substantial piece of work to be done here, and I would welcome meetings with the Minister to develop thinking on this further. I end as I started—indeed, as I have highlighted throughout almost all of this speech—by thanking my parliamentary colleagues and indeed all I have worked with. So much progress has been made on FORB this year, and there is so much more we can look forward to in 2022, as we continue to exhibit global leadership, championing FORB for the UK, helping to promote countries to become more stable, less prone to insecurity threats and more able to trade freely and to facilitate and release the potential of all their citizens. I close with some words from the Bishop of Truro:

“We cannot just see FoRB as a side-bar or special interest issue. It bears upon some deeply serious issues in today’s world: issues with which governments…should be hugely concerned, issues such as trade, poverty, security, racism, women’s rights and the very right to life itself.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I had hoped to manage without a time limit, but I think that it would be safer if I impose a time limit of six minutes for Back-Bench speeches.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Eleanor Laing

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I should explain that in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s Chair during the Committee stage, in order to comply with social distancing requirements I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee. If Members obey the rules to the letter, the occupant of the Chair at this time should be addressed not as Deputy Speaker but as Chairman of the Committee. Just before we commence, I should inform the Committee that there has been a production error on the amendment paper. The names of Bob Blackman and Nick Fletcher should not have been published in support of new clause 4 and new clause 5.

Clause 1

Divorce: removal of requirement to establish facts etc

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 8, leave out “20” and insert “46”

This amendment would extend the minimum legal period for a divorce from six months to one year (with the additional six weeks between the conditional and final orders).

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, page 2, line 9, at end insert—

‘(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5), “the start of the proceedings” means—

(a) in the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by both parties to the marriage, the date on which both parties apply for an order under subsection (1), or

(b) in the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by one party to the marriage only, the date when the notice of an application for a divorce order has been received by the other party to the marriage.’

This amendment would define the start of divorce proceedings so that it is clear when the 20-week period would start.

Amendment 3, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

‘(8A) In the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by one party to the marriage only, there shall be no commencement of financial provision proceedings until the end of the period of 20 weeks from the start of the proceedings for the divorce order unless—

(a) the other party to the marriage agrees to the commencement of financial provision proceedings, or

(b) there is an application under section 22 for the court to make an order for maintenance pending suit.’

This amendment would ensure that there are no discussions about financial settlement in the 20 week period unless both parties agree or there is an application to the court for interim maintenance and financial injunctions.

Clause stand part.

Clauses 2 and 3 stand part.

Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 4, line 9, at end insert—

‘(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2), “the start of the proceedings” means—

(a) in the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by both civil partners, the date on which those persons apply for an order under section 44(1), or

(b) in the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by one civil partner only, the date when the notice of an application for a dissolution order has been received by the other civil partner.’

This amendment would define the start of dissolution proceedings so that it is clear when the 20-week period would start.

Amendment 5, page 4, line 18, at end insert—

‘(5A) In the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by one civil partner only, there shall be no commencement of financial provision proceedings until the end of the period of 20 weeks from the start of the proceedings for the divorce order unless—

(a) the other civil partner agrees to the commencement of financial provision proceedings, or

(b) there is an application under schedule 5, paragraph 2(1) for maintenance pending suit.’

This amendment would ensure that there are no discussions about financial settlement in the 20-week period for the dissolving of a civil partnership unless both parties agree or there is an application to the court for interim maintenance and financial injunctions.

Clauses 4 to 8 stand part.

Government amendment 6.

Clause 9 stand part.

New clause 1—Increased support for marriage and civil partnerships—

‘(1) Section 22 of the Family Law Act 1996 (Funding for marriage support services) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for “may” substitute “must”.

(3) In subsection (1)(a), at end insert “, both before and during a marriage”.

(4) After subsection (1)(a) insert—

“(aa) marriage counselling for any partners to a marriage where an application has been made to the court to dissolve the marriage under section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.”

(5) After subsection (3) insert—

“(4) Any reference to marriage or marital breakdown in this section also applies to civil partnerships.”’

This new clause would ensure increased support for marriages and new support for couples where an application for divorce has been made to the court.

New clause 2—Report on the impact on divorce applications and marriage support—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the impact of this Act on divorce and dissolution proceedings and marriage and civil partnership with the first report to be published no later than 18 months after the day on which this section comes into force.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include, but is not limited to—

(a) the number of divorce and dissolution applications made under the provisions of this Act by the sex and income of the applicant and respondent, and

(b) the number of children in the relationships subject to the divorce and dissolution applications, and

(c) the number of married couples or civil partners who seek counselling during the divorce process, broken down by geographic location, and

(d) a statement on the support services and marriage counselling available to married couples or civil partners as an alternative to divorce proceedings under this Act, broken down by geographic location.

(3) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.’

New clause 3—Divorce after one year separation with consent—

‘(1) The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 1(2), omit subsection (d) and insert—

“(d) that the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least one year immediately preceding the presentation of the petition (hereafter in this Act referred to as “separation for one year”) and the respondent consents to a decree being granted;”

(3) In section 10(1), substitute “separation for one year” for “two years’ separation”;

(4) In section 10(2)(a), substitute “separation for one year” for “two years’ ”;

(5) In section 10(2)(b), substitute “separation for one year” for “two years’ ”.’

The intention of this new clause is to adopt in England and Wales the approach currently available in Scotland allowing a no-fault divorce to be granted on consent grounds in just one year.

New clause 4—Civil legal aid for divorce, dissolution or separation—

‘(1) Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is amended as follows.

(2) After paragraph 18, insert—

18A Civil legal services provided in relation to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Civil Partnership Act 2004.’

This new clause would add divorce, dissolution and separation proceedings to the list of civil legal services qualifying for legal aid.

New clause 5—Legal aid for divorce proceedings report—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the cost and benefits of providing legal aid for divorce proceedings.

(2) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must take account of the disparity between men and women in their capacity to afford legal advice in matrimonial proceedings.

(3) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for a copy of the report of the review to be laid before both Houses of Parliament no later than six months after the date on which this Act is passed.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review within six months of the impact of extending legal aid for divorce proceedings, taking account of any disproportionate effect on women of lack of access to legal aid.

New clause 6—Financial abuse qualifying condition in legal aid family matters—

‘(1) Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 12 (1) (a) after “violence” insert “or financial abuse”.

(3) In paragraph 12 (1) (b) after “violence” insert “or financial abuse”.

(4) In paragraph 9, at the end insert—

““financial abuse” includes—

(a) having money or other property stolen,

(b) being defrauded,

(c) being put under pressure in relation to money or other property, and

(d) having money or other property misused.”’

This new clause would add financial abuse (as defined in section 42 of the Care Act 2014) to the domestic violence condition under which civil legal aid may be provided in a matter arising out of a family relationship.

New clause 9—Review of Act in relation to children’s financial status—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the financial effects of this Act on families where the marital status (including a current or dissolved civil partnership) of a parent explicitly determines the eligibility for benefits for dependant children.

(2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for a copy of the report of the review to be laid before both Houses of Parliament no later than six months after the date on which this Act is passed.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish by the end of this year a report on how this Act will affect the financial status of children and families where benefit entitlement is linked to the civil partnership or marriage status of one or both parents.

Amendment 7, in the schedule, page 19, line 4, at beginning insert—

‘( ) Section 22 of the Family Law Act 1996 (funding for marriage support services) is amended as follows.

( ) In subsection (1), leave out “may, with the approval of the Treasury,” and insert “must”.

( ) In subsection (1)(a), at the end insert “, both before and during a marriage”.

( ) After subsection (1)(a) insert—

(i) marriage counselling for any partners to a marriage where an application has been made to the court for a divorce order under section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.”

( ) After subsection (3) insert—

“(4) Any reference to marriage or marital breakdown in this section also applies to civil partnerships.”’

That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

[Fiona Bruce]

This Bill is a bad Bill. It sends out the wrong message at the wrong time. No-fault divorce is really state-approved unilateral divorce. Ministers like to say that it is all about the divorce process and not about marriage. They are wrong. The removal of fault sends out the signal that marriage can be unilaterally exited with no available recourse for the party who has been left. The public get it, even if Ministers do not. In the “Finding fault?” national opinion survey, 71% thought that fault should remain in law. That is a survey on which, in other respects, the Government have relied in bringing forward this legislation. Even in the Government’s own consultation, 80% opposed the proposals, and the Bill was not even in our manifesto.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Laing]

I rise to speak to Lords amendment 18, which I thoroughly support, like everyone else who has spoken. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who is something of an expert in these matters, for his measured and helpful approach, to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for all her work on these matters in the Select Committee, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), whose impassioned speech has, I am sure, left its mark on the House, as it should have done. Unsurprisingly, however, I take issue with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) over his patronising remarks about the indulgence of Members speaking in the debate whose seats are not in Scotland—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has just indicated that he was being pleasant in his remarks. If that was the case, I thank him for them.

[Fiona Bruce]

If my hon. Friend was referring to a comment made following my speech, I must tell her that I took it in good part.

[Mrs Laing]

Perhaps I am being cynical about the hon. Gentleman’s motives; I have listened to him speaking in the House over many years.

Assisted Suicide

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Eleanor Laing

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce]

I do, and that is entirely the intent of my amendment.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Fiona Bruce]

I will continue now, if I may, to allow for the many other speakers who want to speak this afternoon.

If encouragement or assistance is given for others to commit suicide, individuals are answerable for their actions, but when appropriate, the law takes a compassionate approach. Patients at the end of life are very vulnerable to influence, particularly from those providing care. Just yesterday a specialist consultant in palliative care told me of his concerns about any change in the law in this area. He told me of an incident which, he said, was not isolated, but typical. He said: “I had a single male patient who was dying of cancer. Life was difficult for him; he had an estranged daughter who confided in me that her father had asked to be taken to Switzerland because his life was not worth living. His daughter had left home quite early in life and they had lost all contact. I talked with him and he told me how proud he was that she had become a head teacher, he himself having been a teacher earlier in his life. I encouraged him to get to know his daughter again, to tell her he loved her, and that he was proud of her. They did so and they spent the last two weeks of his life together in the hospice having these conversations, which meant so much to both of them.” Is not that the approach that we should take towards those at the end of their life?

The consultant continued, “We”—that is, doctors—“have real concerns that it would place us in a very difficult position if the law is changed, since at the heart of what we do is the tenet that we should do no harm to our patients. So for someone to have their life terminated would place our relationship on a very different footing.” Doctors do not want the relationship of trust between doctor and patients fractured. That surely is why the DPP guidelines tend towards prosecution if assistance with suicide is given by a doctor or nurse as part of their clinical relationship with the patient.

Several disability groups have told me that they would be extremely concerned should there be any change in the law—that is, in this relationship—a change which could well occur should doctors, such as the consultant I mentioned, have the “option to kill”—as he put it—their patients as one of their choices.

Unlike Oregon, where assisted suicide was made legal in 1997, we have specialist palliative care in the UK, with a full four-year training programme. Oregon has had a four and a half-fold rise in assisted suicides since it legalised the practice in 1997, a practice that would result in over 1,100 assisted suicides in this country on a population basis. And Oregon’s safeguards are paper-thin. The Royal College of Physicians has stated that physician assisted suicide

“would fundamentally alter the role of the doctor and their relationship with their patient. Medical attendants should be present to preserve and improve life—if they are also involved in the taking of life, this creates a conflict that is potentially very damaging.”

Help the Hospices says:

“It is right that actions by a care professional are treated differently from actions by a friend or family member”.

Baroness Campbell of Surbiton, speaking on behalf of disabled groups, has said that a change in the law

“wouldn’t just apply to the terminally ill, no matter what the campaigners may say. It would affect disabled people too, not to mention the elderly. A change in the law. . . would alter the mindset of the medical and social care professions, persuading more and more people that actually the prospect of an ‘easy’ way out is what people such as me really want. Well, the vast majority of us do not.”

The motion should keep the DPP guidelines as they are, and support improved care at the end of life.