Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Jess Asato Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and he is absolutely right that there are a range of views on this issue, and I am deeply respectful of that. I take all those points into consideration as we embark on this debate again today.

Perhaps most importantly, Mr Speaker, I have spoken to terminally ill people themselves over recent months. It is impossible to know what it must feel like to receive a terminal diagnosis and I have nothing but admiration for people who have bravely spoken about their personal situations, some publicly—including, of course, Dame Esther Rantzen—and others who have done so privately, many by emailing their MP. I know mine is not the only inbox full of such emails.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend distance herself from the correspondence from Dame Esther Rantzen, who accused those of us who have concerns about the Bill of having undeclared religious beliefs? Many colleagues found that distasteful and disrespectful.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have not seen those comments, but it is absolutely right that whatever our views are on this issue, we must remain respectful.

I also want to thank colleagues here in Parliament—MPs and indeed staff—who have shared their personal stories of loss with me over recent months. This is a really important point: these are real people with real stories, and they must always be at the heart of the debate.

Public support for assisted dying in this country has been consistently high for a long time now, and we have seen movement in jurisdictions around the world, including just this week in Scotland. I congratulate colleagues in Holyrood, particularly Liam McArthur MSP, for holding such a compassionate and respectful debate, which I hope we can emulate today.

It is right that we consider this change with great care, as we are doing today. But we should also remember, as with other big social changes such as giving women bodily autonomy on their reproductive rights or allowing gay—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful to the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), for putting me on the Bill Committee where, in my view, we did some excellent work. Although we have heard an awful lot of claims about the process, I think anybody objective who reads the Bill that is now being reported to the House will recognise that it is a strong piece of work that is measured and seeks to strike a balance in a difficult area of complexity, humanity, compassion and morality.

Before I discuss some of the amendments, I want to bring the House back to what we are trying to deal with: a set of people who have been told that their struggle with disease is over, that they are heading towards an inevitable death and that there is nothing more that medical science can do for them. What we are trying to do is to give them the chance to face death on their own terms. That is the simple mission that the House has been set.

The second thing I want Members to contemplate as they look at this slew of amendments is that although it is easy to look at each amendment individually and see its merits or demerits, we must bear in mind the machine we are building as a whole, and the fact that we are putting those people through this process at a time when they are facing the end of that struggle. They are thinking about what the nature of their death will be like and they are talking to their friends and family, putting their affairs in order, and being concerned about when that awful day is going to come. We have to have some compassion in the process as well as compassion in the purpose.

When Members consider some of the amendments I will highlight, I ask them please to keep in mind that we will have to put these people through a possible two-month process at a moment when their time is severely limited, very often to less than six months. For example, new clause 7 and amendment 50, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), would restrict the number of patients that doctors can deal with in any 12-month period. That will severely restrict access and may mean that patients who are partway through the process have to change suddenly because their doctor is time limited, pushing them out, notwithstanding the multiple safeguards we already have in the process.



My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) gave an interesting speech about amendment 47. Again, in that amendment, he would be creating another step, another delay and another set of problems for the dying person to overcome or issues for them to address. In his amendment—I am sure he is a much better lawyer than me—I found it odd that he would effectively be creating an inexhaustive list of individuals who could be called upon in any circumstances who might be “properly interested” in the welfare of that individual. To me, the person who should be the most interested in their future is the person themselves. Any step we take that cuts across their privacy, their autonomy and the alacrity with which they can seek this solution to their impending or perceived agony seems a step too far. I do not understand how, practically, the commission is supposed to ascertain who those individuals are—are they neighbours, friends or just family? What is the definition of family? We need to put that contemplation and how they want to handle their death squarely in the hands of the dying person.

[Jess Asato]

The right hon. Member mentioned that the person is autonomous and should be protected from inquiries about them, but what if they are not autonomous because they are being coercively controlled by a partner? What if that partner has prevented them from reaching out to their family to let them know that they are going to take an assisted death? Would it not be a great safeguard to ensure that the panel and all the doctors around them had ascertained that the family had been told?

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Lady makes a good point, and it was a compelling point made in Committee and is certainly one that we recognise. That is why the amendments on training that she tabled in Committee were adopted—specifically to ensure that everybody involved in the process is sensitised to detecting those issues and to make clear that any doctor in the process, and indeed the panel, might want to know why family are not being informed. That is specifically why a social worker was put on the panel: to understand the psychosocial environment in which the person is taking that decision. Fundamentally, in the end, if I am facing my death in a matter of weeks and decide in my capacity that I do not want to inform my family, that is my choice. That is my decision. I may have to explain my reasons to the doctors, but—

--- Later in debate ---

Even with the very many changes made to the Bill in Committee, today we have been debating further changes. We have focused on the amendments relating to the obligations, duties and protections for medical practitioners, hospices and care homes.

[Jess Asato]

The shadow Minister says that we are debating those amendments today, but we have not actually been able to hear from all those who have tabled those amendments. Nine Members who have tabled amendments have not been called to speak, so how can we call this a debate when we have not even heard why they are proposing their amendments in the first place?

[Dr Mullan]

I will make some remarks about the process. The time allocated today is a matter for the Chair and it would not be appropriate for me to comment, but I accept and understand the concerns raised by the hon. Lady and other hon. Members.

Today we have also looked at the procedure for receiving assistance, including safeguards and protections, and issues related to eligibility and mental capacity. As in Committee, some of the proposed amendments would make significant changes. I want to comment on the correspondence from the relevant Ministers regarding the amendments. Their letter to Members quite properly explained that those amendments laid by the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), were considered workable by the Government, but the same could not be said about other amendments. It is important that the Minister emphasises, in his closing remarks, that that should not be read to mean that those amendments are not workable, which a superficial reading of the letter might imply; it just means that the Government have not given a view.

I have sympathy with the concerns raised by the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and for Bradford West (Naz Shah) about the challenges for Members seeking to lay amendments without Government support. While all the normal conventions may have been followed, this is not a normal Bill, because of its significance and potential impact.