Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Jeevun Sandher Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point; he is absolutely right.

I have tabled amendment 80, which would bring the Bill back to its original intentions. It would require that in order to be eligible for an assisted death, the pain and discomfort experienced or expected from a person’s terminal illness could not be reasonably relieved to their satisfaction through palliative care. It seeks to limit assisted death to the very small group of people who may benefit from it, not the larger group who just need adequate palliative care to give them the comfortable, dignified death they deserve.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

The hon. Member’s amendment speaks of “severe pain and discomfort”, but there is a reason why the medical profession has not gone for that. How does she propose we assess severe pain and discomfort as opposed to medium pain? Is a fungating wound part of severe pain and discomfort?

[Rebecca Paul]

The key point is that we need to improve palliative care. We are spending so much time and effort focusing on this Bill rather than doing the thing that would actually help more people. My amendment 80, in combination with amendments 30 and 31 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), would drive significant improvements to palliative and end-of-life care, getting us closer to consistent and universally available care for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Rutland]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it allows me to continue making an argument that will address those points. First, substantial motivation is vague, undefined and legally imprecise. This new clause is a blunt instrument and an attempt to shut the door on entire groups of people accessing an assisted death. How would one establish what a substantially motivating factor in any individual case is? No motivation exists in a vacuum, and feeling a burden can co-exist with physical deterioration and untreatable pain. Secondly, if suicidal ideation is to think about dying by taking one’s own life, would that not encompass everyone considering assisted dying?

[Dr Sandher]

I think today of Norman Ward, who in 2020 shot himself while terminally ill because of the terrible pain that he faced. Does my hon. Friend agree that under subsection (f) of new clause 16, Norman Ward would have been unable to access the choice that would have ended his suffering?

[Tom Rutland]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Similarly, I cannot support amendment 102, which would require doctors to ensure that there were no “remediable suicide risk factors” before conducting a preliminary discussion with the patient. There is no clear legal or clinical definition of the term “remediable suicide risk factor”, and the Bill already includes multiple checks on mental capacity and mental illness, including by independent doctors and a specialist panel. The vagueness of this amendment risks wrecking this much-needed Bill.

I emailed Karen again yesterday to ask if I could refer to her in this speech. Her father-in-law had sadly died in the time that had passed between her initial email and our exchange yesterday. The Bill was not passed in time for him and he could not benefit from it. However, Karen hoped that his story could make some small contribution to changing the law. There do not need to be more people in Karen’s father-in-law’s position, or in Aimee’s grandmother’s position—they can have choice at the end of life, and our brilliant palliative care workforce, like Karen, can have choice on the kind of care they provide too.

Ukraine War: London Talks

Jeevun Sandher Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman asks important questions. He has heard what I had to say about the abducted children, and I completely share his passion, and his horror at what has happened. I will not go into the details of what was discussed yesterday, but as I said, I spoke about this issue very recently with our Ukrainian counterparts, and I know that the Foreign Secretary takes a very keen interest in it. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about territory. I will repeat what I said: we do not recognise Russian sovereignty over any territory illegally seized from Ukraine, including Crimea.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

I was also one of the Members sanctioned by Putin yesterday for calling for this House to do everything we can to stop him. The lesson of a century ago is that dictators like Putin cannot and will not stop unless we stop them, and the only way to stop him is through strength—through strong armed forces, a strong NATO and a strong nation. How will we invest in our strength to stop Putin and keep ourselves safe?

[Stephen Doughty]

Again, I condemn the sanction against my hon. Friend. He asks what we are doing to keep our citizens and all our allies safe, and to keep our shared security in place. Again, I am pleased to be joined by the Minister for the Armed Forces. This Government have stepped up resources for defence and security and UK support to Ukraine. We are increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027, and have an ambition to reach 3%, and the UK is committed to providing Ukraine with £3 billion in military assistance this year and every year for as long as it takes. I mentioned the ERA loan, and we also have export finance support, £1.6 billion of which is going on supplying Ukraine with more than 5,000 air defence missiles. That is utterly crucial and makes a tangible difference, not least in the face of the barbaric attacks that we saw overnight.

Ukraine

Jeevun Sandher Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The right hon. Gentleman has reminded the House of the seriousness, and the responsibilities, that we have as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. That seriousness is underpinned by the UN Charter, which Russia breached, and in doing so it has made a serious hole in the way the Security Council works. Let us get beyond that; but if we are to do so, Russia should withdraw and should come to the table with the central issue of peace and making amends at its heart.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Keeping ourselves safe here means showing Putin that we have the resolve and the resources to defeat him, as indeed we have. In European NATO our combined GDP is about $24.5 trillion, and the GDP of the United States is $27 trillion, while Russia’s is just $2 trillion. We have more resources, and converting them into more fighting forces, tanks, guns and drones is key, but we can go further. Russian central bank assets held by ourselves and our allies amount to more than £200 billion, including £170 billion in Belgium and £26 billion here, and Putin could use those reserves in the future to rebuild his armed forces. Can the Foreign Secretary assure me that he is doing everything he can to convince our allies of the need to seize those assets to keep us safe and to fund Ukraine?

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend asks a good question. If we are serious about the responsibility of burden sharing across Europe and, indeed, across G7 nations at this time, one of the issues on the table is moving from freezing assets to seizing those assets. It is a live discussion. There are other ways to find the funds, and that was a topic of discussion in Munich and at the G7, but we must now move from discussion to action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeevun Sandher Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being so clear about the challenges around aid coming into Sudan and then being delivered to those who so desperately need it. We will keep pushing on the need for the Adre crossing to remain open. We will also keep pushing on the need for aid workers to be protected within Sudan and for UN staff to be able to access Sudan. Of course, we will work with those on the ground, particularly the emergency response rooms, which are delivering essential mutual aid.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking with international partners to help increase UK economic growth.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

The UK and India’s Prime Ministers have committed to an ambitious refresh of the comprehensive strategic partnership. They announced that the UK-India trade talks will relaunch, which will deliver our joint ambition to take the UK-India relationship to even greater heights, and India is one of a handful of countries that will determine whether we meet the global warming limit of 1.5° C.

[Dr Sandher]

This is indeed an exciting year to help improve our economic growth and our trading relationship with India. We are two nations with an intertwined history and common democratic ideals, and we face the risks of a dangerous world and a warming planet. I co-chair the India all-party parliamentary group, and one of my priorities is to strengthen our economic and strategic relationship. Can the Secretary of State outline what he will do to help get a good UK-India trade deal over the line, including the exchange of green technologies to help prevent and reduce the warming of our planet?

[Mr Lammy]

It was important to get to India just a few weeks into office. I might pray in aid my great-grandmother on my mother’s side, who was from Calcutta. I look forward to inviting Foreign Minister Jaishankar to Britain later in the spring. It is important that we have a strategic partnership going forward. We have relaunched the free trade agreement—we have said that it is a floor, not a ceiling on our ambition—and it was important that a delegation of Indian businessmen met the Chancellor of the Exchequer, me and the Prime Minister just a few weeks before Christmas.

Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine

Jeevun Sandher Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Across the House, we agree that we must show Putin that we have the resolve and resources to defeat him. If we do not, a great power war more terrible that we can imagine will come. A century ago, politicians on these Benches failed, and what followed was the most destructive war in the history of humankind. Stopping that horror being repeated depends on us winning at war economics, as the motion rightly identifies.

War economics is simple: whichever side can command greater resources and convert them into fighting forces will win. Winning a single battle means nothing if the other side can keep throwing in resources to win the next one. Amateurs talk tactics; professionals talk logistics. Winning at war economics means doing three things. First, we must limit Russia’s earnings and output; secondly, we must limit Russia’s ability to convert its earnings into fighting forces; and thirdly, we must gain and convert our own resources into fighting forces. Seizing the $300 billion will help with the third point only if we convert those resources into fighting forces.

First, on limiting Russia’s output and earnings, Russia’s earnings from oil are still far too high: $150 billion a year. Urals oil is trading at $67 above the price cap. Russia is circumventing that by padding out costs for its shadow fleet in attestation documents. Maximilian Hess, the esteemed foreign policy expert, has shown that we can strengthen our price cap by making London insurance for foreign ports dependent on the proper verification of costs in attestation documents. I am pleased that the Office of Financial Sanctions agreed to look into that when it gave evidence to the Treasury Committee.

Secondly, we must stop Russia converting its output into munitions and materials. Too many of our western components are finding their way to Russian frontlines.

Thirdly, we must do more to convert the resources that we need into fighting forces. That is where our industrial defence strategy comes in. Seizing the $300 billion can help with that. As an economist, I should make clear to the House that seizing those assets would not damage our economy or reduce financial stability. However, we must be clear on the how and the why.

On the how, we cannot seize those assets unilaterally. We hold only about 10% of them here, while around two thirds are held in Europe. We must convince our European allies to do as the Canadians and Americans have done in seizing those assets. On the why, seized assets are useful only if we convert them into defence production. The bit-by-bit approach that has characterised support to Ukraine must end; a large and sustained increase is needed.

Putin wants to rebuild a greater Russia and to swallow his neighbours whole. He will attempt to take more of Europe. Defeating him means defeating our own complacency. The history of nations is a history of war. That history changed only when the calculation of peace changed—through military strength, through sacrosanct borders and through democracy. If we do not show that we have the resolve and resources to defeat Putin, we will make the same mistake that Members made from these Benches almost a century ago. One of our nation’s greatest Prime Ministers stands outside this Chamber, his hands atop his hips. He warned Members in this Chamber and lamented the time wasted without preparing. He spoke of the

“years which the locust hath eaten”—[Official Report, 12 November 1936; Vol. 317, c. 1101.]

but he was ignored. Members on these Benches were too complacent; let us not be complacent. Members on these Benches failed; let us not fail. Members on these Benches saw oceans of blood spilled by the youth of this nation; let us not be the generation that sees oceans of blood wash over this continent once more. Let us be the generation that keeps the peace by showing Putin we have the resolve and resources to defeat him.