Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Jess Asato Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

As co-sponsor of the Bill once again, I am acutely conscious that there is more at stake today than merely the fate of those who are facing their end, because the conduct of the other place means that our democracy is also on trial today. I sat in the Chamber at the other end of this building on a number of occasions when it was debating the Bill, and I saw more of the debate on television, and I watched with unfolding horror the game that was being played there—a game that was marked in homes across the country with dismay, misery and agony. I contemplated the Lords effectively putting up the pretence of scrutiny, but at the same time tabling 1,000 amendments—

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kit Malthouse]

I will not. The Lords tabled 1,000 amendments, many of which were cruel or absurd; they were effectively designed to be sand in the engine, and to slow up what should have been proper parliamentary process—a process that the dying deserve to see operate correctly.

We have to be aware in this House that expectations are high, and the people who send us here should be able to rely on decisions made in this House proceeding into law. I am afraid that what is at stake today is our democracy. If this Bill falls today, one of the biggest losers will be the standing of this House and this institution as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham Yardley) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove). Mainly because I am a bit lazy, I rarely prepare to speak in debates, and never have copious notes. Her remarks have led where my remarks will go. I will cover the issue of coercion, which hon. Members have mentioned, and, like her, will talk about my mother, who also died when she was 61 years old, unfortunately when I was much younger than my hon. Friend. My mother died when I was 28 years old—many years ago now.

My mother had a leiomyosarcoma, and suffered with it for around three years. The prognosis did change—I hear the arguments that some hon. Members are making—but towards the end of her life, at one point she felt she was going to die. It was coming to the end. She was in a wheelchair. She was completely paralysed. She was doubly incontinent by this point. To give hon. Members an idea of the kind of woman my mother was, she was an absolute titan. She was like Erin Brockovich, but with a bad perm, in the 1980s. She could lay claim to being able to spot talent, because she gave a job to the current Prime Minister, who worked for her for some time. He is often teary-eyed when I talk to him about her.

My brothers live in different parts of the world and country, but I live 20 minutes from where I was born and where my mother lived. When she got to this stage, we all went back to be with her, because we believed that this was it—that she was going to be taken, that she was going to die. She did not die on that occasion, so my brother, who lives in France, went back home. Then, when it came to the point that a doctor made the call and said, “Your mom is about to die,” my brother could not come back—this was about four weeks later. So it was me who was with my mom when she died—not all of her children, and not all of her grandchildren. I am eternally grateful that I was there. This was a woman who had written every part of her funeral. She knew exactly what she wanted us to feel. She had planned, to the nth degree, what would happen after she was gone. The other day, I found a recipe for Christmas puddings and the PIN for her credit card—she was like, “Your dad might not be able to get money.”

My mom had thought about everything, but she was not gifted with the ability to think about this. She would have taken the choice on that day, when my brothers were surrounding her. She did not die in terrible pain—I recognise what my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) is saying. She was not writhing. It was not awful. However, she should have been able to choose to have her family with her. I will vote for this Bill. I went to women’s liberation playgroup, which she set up with a load of women. She raised me to believe in a right to choose—my gosh, more than anything else in life. She would tell me what to do today.

Many people have mentioned coercion. I am a scholar of coercion, and I say this to everybody today: do not rest on your laurels thinking that, if we do nothing, people today will not be coerced to death. That will literally happen today. The idea that if we just do nothing—

[Jess Asato]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Jess Phillips]

I am not going to, because Madam Deputy Speaker has been clear.

The idea that if we do not pass the Bill today, we are going to walk out of here and women in our country will be any safer is an absolute myth. Doing nothing is not the same as acting.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I pay tribute to all the Members who have shared their story; I feel we have learned a bit more today about how the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) became how she is. I am sure we have all heard so many heartbreaking stories from our constituents, and I want to thank all those who have contacted me, whether or not we agree, because sharing these stories is profoundly difficult.

One constituent with incurable cancer contacted me, asking for the freedom to choose when to give up their battle. Her own brother had an incurable melanoma spreading down his neck, which left him barely able to speak to his loved ones. He went out at 2 am in his dressing gown, climbed on to a bridge and jumped on to a motorway below. This was witnessed by two girls who were walking home from a party. My constituent asks:

“how many more need to take their own lives in horrific ways because they simply cannot bear the pain, discomfort and hopelessness any more?”

She wants the right to decide for herself when enough is enough.

Then there is the constituent whose sister went abroad to access assisted dying. The 84-year-old sang to her sister, who ended her life peacefully with her family around her. My constituent said:

“It was a painless, peaceful and dignified death at the time of her own choosing. Together with giving birth to my children, it was one of the most beautiful experiences of my long life.”

I do not believe that only families with means should be able to have that experience; it should be open to everyone.

Let me turn to the issue of palliative care. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), who is a fellow member of the Health and Social Care Committee. Although we wrote the reports together, I have come to a different conclusion, with great respect. It is, frankly, a stain on successive Governments that palliative care is in this state. Our Committee’s findings were stark: commissioning variation creates a postcode lottery, bereavement support is frequently inaccessible, services are fragmented, workforce and skill shortages are widespread, and systemic inequalities persist.

[Jess Asato]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Layla Moran]

No, I shall not.

It is worth noting that the NHS has not been meeting its own standards on palliative care for decades. The then Minister for Care, the right hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), appeared before our Committee in the spring, and he mentioned the importance of workforce. I ask again, where is that workforce plan? We need it, but that will not be the whole answer; we also need better data and early identification, clearer guidance and joined-up working with adult social care and local authorities.

The Government have said that they will publish a modern service framework for palliative and end-of-life care, and it is very positive that the interim MSF has been published, but let me tell the House how I see it as Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. I genuinely do not believe that palliative care would have been included in the early batch of MSFs if it were not for this Bill forcing the Government to do so. Furthermore, given all the issues and competing priorities of the NHS, let alone the competing political priorities of this Government or any other that comes after it in the next four years, I do not believe that palliative care will improve as fast as we want it to without the pressure of a Bill like this. I do not believe that this is an either/or proposition. I want palliative care to improve, therefore I will be voting for this Bill.

I have to end with one more constituent’s story, and it is the story of Robert. His two parents had different views on this issue: his father did not agree with assisted dying, but his mother did. We are lucky in Oxfordshire that we have some of the best palliative care in the country. He described how her care was exemplary—she died without pain and was well looked after—but he felt that her wishes were not respected while his father’s were, and there were consequences to her not being able to access assisted dying, as her brother could not be there at her bedside when she passed. For those constituents who want a real choice at the end of life, I will tirelessly continue to want to improve palliative care, but I will also be supporting the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Asato]

If the primacy of this place is the most important point, why has the Bill’s promoter said that she will not allow amendments in this House at this stage?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I am not going to give way, because we are really pushed for time. I want to say to those people that the Bill is tightly drafted. It specifies that it is for people of sound mind who have a terminal diagnosis of six months or less, and that has to be verified by two clinicians and then a panel to ensure—

[Jess Asato]

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

[Sarah Champion]

I am still not giving way. The two clinicians, followed by the panel, will ensure that the person is of sound mind, and will make sure that this is something that they want to do.

A lot of time has been taken up debating the issue of coercive control. I defer to my amazing hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) on that subject; her entire career has been spent fighting against coercive control. As she said in her powerful speech, there are not robust measures in place for people—generally women—who are suffering domestic violence or coercive control, but in this Bill, there are some measures to try to ensure that there is no coercion of people who take this action.

What is this debate about? It is about choice. It is about giving adults of sound mind choice in the last six months of their life. Currently, the only choices available are these: if people have a lot of money and are physically able, they can go to Dignitas; otherwise, as was so powerfully and emotionally outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove), they can take their own life. It is not acceptable for us to continue with that position.

The issue is not just about pain. However, I know from experience that there is some pain that is unmanageable, and not everybody gets the dignified death that they want. I would like adults who are able to make an informed choice to be able to choose the time. Let us look at what has happened internationally. Many people who go through the process and get to certification do not actually use it. It is a comfort blanket to them, an insurance policy. Let us not be under the illusion that as soon as people get their certificate, they are marched off, and that is it. That is absolute nonsense. The choice is there, all the way through. When hon. Members walk through the Lobby later today, I ask them to think about their constituents and their ability to have an informed choice. I genuinely believe that this legislation provides that.

[Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)]

As Members of this House, our fundamental obligation, above all political considerations, is to protect those who are most exposed, most vulnerable and least able to advocate for themselves. I acknowledge that colleagues from all parties view this Bill as a measure of compassion, but if compassion is to truly serve the public interest, then it must be paired with rigorous scrutiny and an examination of all consequences of the intended legislation.

I voted against this Bill on Second Reading in 2024 and on Third Reading in 2025, and I intend to do so again today. I believe that Government should assist people to live, not to die. Our focus should be on providing hope and support to all those who feel that death is the only way out of a dark situation. That is the purpose of humanity—to preserve life.

We should prioritise the improvement of palliative care and end-of-life care, as opposed to directing taxpayer money away from those services and into assisted suicide. Around 60% of the public agree that we should first fix our NHS before even considering whether to introduce assisted suicide into law. I note that during his tenure as Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) concurred with that majority in June 2025, describing how such a measure would take time and money that is already in short supply.

In addition, our new Prime Minister has outlined his commitment to a new national care service and to implementing reforms to strengthen our existing services. I welcome the fact that this Prime Minister is acting to protect the function of our health and care networks to support our constituents in life, because ultimately the NHS should be saving lives, not taking lives. Our palliative and end-of-life care services are an essential part of our NHS and wider healthcare system.

I pay tribute to LOROS hospice, which provides free and high-quality care to terminally ill and adult patients across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. It cares for around 2,500 people and plays an important role in our community in Leicester East, not only in its direct support for patients, but through its provisions to wider families and friends affected by such situations. In its evidence to the Public Bill Committee, it highlighted that there should be one specialist palliative care bed for every 12,000 people, but, with just 22 beds, it has one bed for every 55,000 people. How can I turn around to my constituents and say that they will have a choice other than assisted death against that backdrop?

[Jess Asato]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Shivani Raja]

Respectfully, I will not take interventions. Many colleagues wish to speak, and I am mindful of time—please forgive me.

I am disappointed and concerned that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) has reintroduced an identical Bill to the House and ignored all the issues revealed, even the ones admitted to by the noble and learned Lord Falconer in the other place. This Bill’s failure is not just a sign of how inadequate the private Member’s Bill process is for a Bill of this magnitude; it is an alarm over the lack of safeguards for vulnerable people—the very demographic that we in this House are supposed to protect and support.

The purpose of this House is to legislate well. We are here to advocate for our constituents, share our differing opinions and use our privileged positions of influence to impact the outcome of legislation, but the methods and attitude of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood completely discount the hours of debate that took place on the assisted suicide legislation in the last Session. The amendments tabled in the other place were not unreasonable; they were legitimate safeguards to protect those in our society who are vulnerable.

Many of those amendments were from external organisations, and 26 amendments were from the Law Society. Those amendments would have ensured the safety of those with eating disorders and Down’s syndrome and increased the chance of catching abusive situations in which an individual is being pressured to end their life. There were amendments from trade unions to protect the compensation rights of families of workers suffering from occupational or industrial diseases who seek an assisted death.

The Leader of the House told MPs before summer that lessons needed to be learned about how we take the public with us and build consensus, rather than just keep ploughing on. He said that Members should consider if the PMB route is really appropriate, but it seems that his words fell on deaf ears. We stand here in the mother of Parliaments as representatives of the millions of British citizens throughout our constituencies, and we have the right to debate issues, because generations before us fought tirelessly to secure that right. The threat of the use of the Parliament Acts to drive through this legislation completely disregards safeguards for vulnerable people. It requires us not to care if no further changes are made to the Bill. I am well aware that this subject of debate is not easy or straightforward, and that it is painful for a lot of our constituents and distressing for Members across the House.

Let me come to my last point. One of my many concerns with the concept of assisted suicide relates to coercion. As we have heard in the House, coercion can come in many forms. Members across this House will know that my constituency of Leicester East has one of the highest concentrations of non-white British and multi-ethnic populations in the country, and I will say again that I am enormously proud of that, but I will not support any Bill that leaves them vulnerable to coercion.

Legal experts gave evidence to the Bill Committee during the previous Session stating that in some cultures,

“decision-making is a collective process involving family and community members.”

We cannot allow the fear and distress of people experiencing palliative care, end of life care or simply struggling with the prospect of living another day to be taken advantage of. It is dangerous that this House would consider creating legislation that would allow space for people to be encouraged and, in some instances, forced to take a decision to end their life when at their most vulnerable.

Let me conclude by reminding the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood that 59% of voters in her own constituency agree that this Bill should not be the priority of this Government. Does she sit here today to truly represent her constituents? If she does, and if she takes into account the situations of those in her constituency who are vulnerable, she will acknowledge that it would be morally void to support this Bill any further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point.

Each year, independent hospices help around 20,000 people spend their final days outside hospital settings, and this saves the NHS an estimated 1.5 million bed days and more than £800 million annually. Our Prime Minister is right to say that we must fix palliative care, and I greatly welcome his commitment to work cross-party to end the decades of political drift on social care, too. Ballooning budgets have hit not just the NHS but local authorities, particularly those in Cornwall—they have hit us really hard. We need to fix the system so that it gives people dignity.

[Jess Asato]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Noah Law]

I will keep going, so that everyone has a chance to speak.

We must give people dignity, security and support when they need it the most. At present, palliative care remains lovingly—but to an embarrassing degree—funded through donations and by supporters who run marathons, charity shops and fundraising events for hospice charities across the UK. The National Audit Office concluded that, in 2023-24, around two thirds of the independent adult hospice sector’s total income was generated from those charitable sources, while around 29% of total income was Government funded, primarily through integrated care boards. I am all for social enterprises and charities using their assets to generate income, but the reliance on this model has to stop. Why not have a system in which the Government provide consistent, centralised support frameworks for hospices, reflecting the consistent and vital services that they provide to our NHS and people at the end of life?

It is in our Government’s gift to fix this. If we believe that high-quality palliative care is a fundamental service at the end of life, but recognise that it currently depends on commissioning decisions from integrated care boards, ad hoc grants and the fundraising of local hospices, is the system really fit for purpose? We must ensure that a consistent national minimum standard of provision is delivered by every integrated care board, to end the end-of-life postcode lottery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) for reintroducing this Bill and giving us another chance to debate the issue—although part of me regrets, as I will explain, that we have that chance. I respect everyone who has taken the responsibility of coming here today to debate this again, and I particularly respect those who have shared their very moving personal stories with us all.

Most of all, though, I respect and I would like to apologise to those who are again going through the trauma of waiting to find out whether they will have the choice. I have huge sympathy for them, because they believed when we originally passed this Bill and sent it to the other place that, if they needed it, in four years’ time they would have the choice. It would be in their hands. That hope has been snatched away from them—and not by us.

We fulfilled our responsibility to the electorate. We spent hundreds of hours in Committee, in private discussions, in debates and on Report, going over this Bill in minute detail until we could, with confidence, send to the other place the best Bill we thought possible. Of course, we thought that it would amend it and bring things back, but we had fulfilled our role and respected the will of the British public. Unfortunately, when the Bill went to the other place, that was not what happened. A handful of peers blocked it.

[Jess Asato]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Christine Jardine]

Sorry, I will not take interventions.

Those peers did not show the same respect for the repeatedly expressed will of those who face the end of their lives.

Domestic Abuse: Children

Jess Asato Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on securing this important debate.

Domestic abuse does not just claim adult lives; it devastates children. Lybah, a child survivor of domestic abuse and a SafeLives changemaker, said:

“As a child I felt like I was often overlooked and was never really acknowledged as a victim of DA. Rather than helping me process what happened to me I was told by services to write down my thoughts and feelings and draw a picture of what a ‘happy family’ should look like.”

Some 71% of adult survivors are unable to access specialist support for their children, according to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. That is why the work of Foundations in finding what works to support child victims—including piloting Bounce Back 4 Kids, a therapeutic programme supporting child recovery—is so important. Every year, around 200 children in the UK are bereaved by domestic homicide. Shockingly, we still do not know the actual number, because it is not officially recorded. Those children are the hidden victims behind the headlines.

Survivor Debrah prevented her father from murdering her mother by hitting him on the head with a poker. He told her that she “had better kill him” or he would kill her as well. A week and a half later, he succeeded in killing her mother. From prison, her father was able to block Debrah from living with her mother’s sister, instead sending her either to his own family or to live with a grandparent who had previously molested her. Her siblings were forced by social workers to visit him in prison. After just 14 months, her father was released and her younger siblings were made to live with him. They were beaten and starved and, within a year, he attempted to kill a new girlfriend. Debrah is one of the many children behind the shocking headlines we see far too often. I pay tribute to the tireless work of the Joanna Simpson Foundation and Children Heard and Seen, which I was honoured to host in Parliament recently, and do so much to support many of these children and the adults they become.

Many of these children face a double loss: one parent to bereavement and one parent to prison. They do so while carrying the stigma of their parent’s actions and the deeply conflicting emotions that come with it. Professionals working with these children often struggle with the language to explain what has happened. They were simply not trained to approach this subject. As there is no statutory mechanism to identify and support children when a parent goes to prison, schools frequently have no idea what a child is living through. Under current UK law, a parent convicted of killing their partner can retain parental responsibility, allowing them to influence important decisions about their children’s lives, causing deep distress for the families and caregivers who are supporting the children left behind.

Jade’s law was meant to change that, and was passed by Parliament in May 2024, but it has still not been implemented. I urge the Government to fast-track this, as families like that of Kennedi Westcarr-Sabaroche are still facing challenges from convicted murderers who continue to exert coercive control over their children from prison. Furthermore, the support they and their carers receive is patchy, short-term and inconsistent. Carers, often grandparents or extended family, are left to navigate grief, financial strain and complex legal processes with little help. Jodie Edith, the grieving mother of Kennedi Westcarr-Sabaroche, said:

“In April 2024, our world went dark after receiving the knock at the door that no parent could ever imagine, telling me that my beloved daughter Kennedi had been killed by her partner of nine years, leaving a child behind. With limited emotional trauma-informed support from counselling services for me, the caregiver, and my grandchild, it left us unable to grieve.”

That is why I hope the Government, in their VAWG strategy, will consider creating a dedicated, specialist national service providing wraparound support for children bereaved by domestic homicide and their carers, alongside a guarantee for every bereaved child to have an independent advocate to ensure their voice is heard in all decisions about their care and future. We also need specialist training for all professionals in contact with these children. Finally, we need to introduce a statutory duty to commission specialist services for child victims of domestic abuse. I proposed that in a debate on the Victims and Courts Bill, and I hope the Government will look at it again as the Bill moves to the House of Lords. I will finish with the words of child survivor Roann Court, who said:

“I watched my mum being brutally killed when I was 15, and the support was virtually non-existent for me and my family, which has had a lasting impact for us all. Children need support—we are as much victims as our parent who is killed.”

Prisoner Release Checks

Jess Asato Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that Dame Lynne Owens will be speaking to the victims of Kebatu to understand the impact on them, but will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm whether the previous Government made any steps to speak with victims affected by prison release errors that happened on their watch due to the system being starved of funding?

[Mr Lammy]

There were many cases of early prisoner release. As I said before, whether it was William Fernandez in March 2021, Rayon Newby in March 2023 or Lauras Matiusovas in December 2021, there were no independent investigations under the last Government. Very little was said or, it would seem, learned even though 800 prisoners were released early. This story goes back a long way. It is in part because of the scheme set up under the last Government, which was revised four times in the run-up to the general election, and it is why we must take a thorough look and reassure the public.

Victims and Courts Bill

Jess Asato Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

When I served in the police force, my work often ended when we put perpetrators behind bars, or sometimes when I stood in court to give evidence, but the victims’ ordeals do not end there. Many reached out to me long after my role was done to tell me they still felt unheard and unprotected, and that justice for them was never truly served.

Too many survivors live in fear, with victims checking over their shoulders and altering their routines, wondering when the person who hurt them might walk free and attack them again. That is no way for anybody to live in society, and that is precisely why I welcome provisions in the Bill such as expanding the victim contact scheme, which will give victims vital reassurances, protecting them from being blindsided by their offender’s release and helping them reclaim a sense of safety.

I am particularly pleased about Government new clause 14—many hon. Members have spoken about it passionately—which would see the presumption of parental access suspended for parents who commit crimes against children, because one child lost due to a criminal parent being granted unsupervised contact is one child too many. No one should ever have to risk their child’s safety because of a system that puts rights before reason.

Ordering offenders to attend their sentences is another critical step in that process and the next process as part of the Bill. Victims deserve the chance to look those responsible in the eye, to be heard and to begin their healing. Perpetrators must face the full weight and impact of their crimes. There must be no more hiding from the consequences of what they have done.

On that point, I must highlight the work of the Justice for Victims group: an organisation of families who have turned their pain into purpose. I have had the privilege of meeting them on several occasions. Sasha Marsden was 16 when she was raped and stabbed more than 100 times by her killer. Tony Hudgell lost his lower legs as a result of child cruelty by his own parents. Sarah Everard was abducted by a serving police officer while walking home, raped and murdered, and her body was disposed of. At just four years old, Violet-Grace Youens was killed by a dangerous driver in a stolen car driving at 80 mph in a 30 mph zone. The perpetrator spent barely more time in prison than Violet was alive. Last, but not least, of this group, Jan Mustafa was killed by a serial sex offender who stored her body in a freezer alongside another murder victim, Henriett.

The families of those victims are just a few of many who have been let down by the justice system’s treatment of victims in one way or another over time. One victim told me that their victim impact statement was so heavily edited by defence lawyers that they barely recognised their own words. How can anyone find closure when their voice is silenced in that way? It is not right. That is why I have spoken about this in depth several times to my hon. Friend the Minister, and why I welcome the outcomes that she has brought forward.

It is also why I have campaigned so much to see real reform of victim personal statements. No family should ever have to water down their grief or pain just to spare the feelings of the person who caused it. Victims deserve to be heard in their own words honestly and fully. Offenders must also be made to hear every word to confront the true devastation they have caused. That principle ties in directly with the provisions of the Bill. Yes, offenders should be compelled to attend their sentencing, but they should also be compelled to listen to how their crimes have impacted victims and their families. There should be no place to hide for perpetrators and no reason for victims to edit or soften their voices to fit the comfort of those who harmed them.

Justice for Victims is also calling for clarity on terminology. Life sentences do not mean life, so we should stop pretending that they do. Justice for Victims is also right to call for clarity in life sentences, with life meaning behind bars for life. Yes, we have whole-life sentences, but it does no favours when life sentences—not whole-life sentences—can be equivalent to, I think, 12 years. The public deserve honesty and victims deserve truth.

Additionally, there must be changes to the time limit for victims’ families to appeal offenders’ sentences. Katie Brett, who is Sasha’s sister, said that victims and families currently have only “28 days to appeal” unduly lenient sentences, normally at a time when they are

“grieving and traumatised. But criminals are allowed to appeal after this in ‘exceptional circumstances.’ Why don’t victims and their families get this right?”

That question cuts to the heart of this debate. Victims and families deserve fairness and they deserve to be heard.

These are not radical reforms. They are small, practical, compassionate steps that will make a profound difference to people’s lives. I wholeheartedly support the Bill and the progress it represents, but I urge the Government to go even further to deliver real justice for victims and survivors, and to ensure that no one who has already suffered once is ever failed by this system ever again.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

I want to start by thanking the Minister for accepting the principle behind amendment 9, which I have now withdrawn, and for introducing a new amendment to restrict parental responsibility for serious child sexual abusers who offend against children who are not their own, building on the Government’s welcome step of restricting it for those who do. This represents a real step forward for child safety, and I pay tribute to the collaborative spirit of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and to the many Members across the House who supported the amendment, alongside Fair Hearing and the many victims who have fought so hard for this change. I also want to put on the record my support for new clauses 1, 2 and 18, and to give my heartfelt love to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and her eloquent bravery.

I would like to speak to new clauses 10 and 11, which stand in my name, although I will not be pushing them to a vote. These twin new clauses seek to place statutory duties on the relevant authorities to commission specialist services for victims of abuse and exploitation and those who care for them. The Government have already committed, in their tackling child sexual abuse progress update earlier this year, to increase access to support for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, and the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which reported three years ago last week, recommended a national guarantee of support for victims of sexual abuse.

New clause 10, which is supported by Women’s Aid, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardo’s, Action for Children, Catch 22, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, SafeLives, Respect and the Independent Domestic Abuse Services, as well as 49 of my colleagues across the parties, seeks to make this a reality by ending the postcode lottery that victims face and ensuring that we have adequately funded specialist services for whoever might need them.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that community-based services supporting the victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, such as Next Chapter, the Centre of Action on Rape and Abuse—CARA—and Restitute in Essex, do vital work that should be backed by multi-year settlements and enhanced commissioning arrangements in the east of England and beyond?

[Jess Asato]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and pay tribute to the services in her local area. We all have many such specialist services, and I am sure that we will want to pay tribute to them this evening.

The Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse estimates that there are 55,000 adults and children in England and Wales on waiting lists for support following child sexual abuse, and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner has found that over a quarter of domestic abuse services are having to turn away children who are victims of abuse. It is a stain on this country that fewer than half of domestic abuse victims are able to access the community-based support that they deserve. I expect that the public would be astonished to know that there is no automatic right to specialist support after a terrible, traumatic crime such as rape or domestic abuse. Even though the victims code specifies that people have a right as a victim to be referred to specialist services, this is not an actionable right. Victims cannot sue anyone if it is not upheld.

The sad reality is that specialist services are on their knees. Twenty-three child sexual abuse support services have closed in the past 18 months due to financial pressures. Just the week before last, Jewish Sexual Abuse Support was forced to close due to cuts, which have had a particular impact on small by-and-for organisations. Its chief executive, Erica Marks, gave the stark warning that we could

“expect to see more community sexual violence organisations fail”.

That is unacceptable if we want to halve violence against women and girls. By-and-for services such as hers are the backbone of our response to victims of abuse. They help to reach some of the most excluded in our society. Losing the vital, lifesaving support provided by organisations such as JSAS and others will not make victims safer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for her fantastic speech. I recently met some kinship carers who with very little support often take on family members who have suffered terrible trauma and abuse. They do not understand the child’s trauma and they do not understand how best to support them. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to get the best results for child victims, we need to think about how we extend support to kinship carers, so that they can support those children who have been through the worst of times?

[Jess Asato]

I absolutely agree that kinship carers, parents and partners are different from those of the primary victim, and they need support in their own right. When we fail those third-party victims, we fail the primary victim, too. We allow them to disengage from the legal process, and we deprive them of the wraparound support they need when they are at their most vulnerable.

New clause 11 is supported by the organisations Restitute, We Stand, Acts Fast and Ivison Trust, and a version of it was first laid by Baroness Sal Brinton in the other place in a Bill last year. It would place a statutory duty on commissioners to ensure that appropriate independent services are available for the parent, guardian or person responsible for the care of a victim who is under 18 at the time of the offence, or who is an adult at risk of harm. Once again, that should already be happening—it is supposedly a right in the victims code. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse recommended that support for non-abusing parents and carers should be statutory. New clause 11 would bring that crucial recommendation to fruition. Families should not have to wait years; they want action now. As with victim services, severe funding shortages fail to make the ambition set out in the code a reality.

Together, new clauses 10 and 11 would ensure that if any one of us here, or someone we cared for, were abused or exploited, we or they would be supported. It is an ambition long supported that must now be met with action. I look forward to working with the Minister and colleagues across the House on saving our specialist services and saving victims and their families, and I will be pleased to vote for the Bill tonight.

Sentencing Bill

Jess Asato Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Blake Stephenson]

I think that the justification for not changing that approach over many years has been an argument about finality of sentence, and giving the offenders that finality. I do not think that stacks up today; we need to afford victims more rights and more sensitivity within the system.

New clause 12 is total common sense, and should be supported by Members on both sides of the Committee. It puts victims at the heart of sentencing, and does not compromise the need for finality in sentencing. It pushes the date back, but it does not change the status of that finality.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

I want to speak about new clause 5 and amendments 22 and 23 in my name.

The Government’s commitment to tackling violence against women and girls was never just a pledge, never just a slogan; it has always been about action—about changing things for women, girls and victims everywhere for the better. We have seen that time and again under this Government. Indeed, just today, they announced that child sexual abuse offenders convicted of serious sex offences against any child will now automatically lose their parental responsibility after being sentenced, rather than victims having to be dragged through the tough and costly family court process.

This Bill moves us forward in our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on perpetrators of domestic abuse, I have always argued that we must focus on tackling perpetrators’ behaviour. Instead of asking, “Why doesn’t she leave?”, we must ask, “Why doesn’t he stop?” I therefore welcome the new restriction zones that the Bill will introduce, which will limit the movement of perpetrators, rather than victims, and the increased use of tagging. I am also pleased to see the new judicial finding of domestic abuse, which will revolutionise our understanding of sentencing for domestic abuse and ensure that we can exclude perpetrators from future measures that put victims at risk.

[Josh Babarinde]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Jess Asato]

No, I will make progress.

The expansion of specialist domestic abuse courts is also very exciting. I am concerned, however, by the provisions that allow for the automatic re-release of recalled perpetrators after 56 days, and fear that they may place some victims at serious risk of harm. Those who perpetrate crimes such as domestic abuse and stalking know everything about their victims—where they live, where they work, where their children go to school, their regular routines—and we know how fixated such abusers can be.

Although I welcome the exemptions of those managed under MAPPA—multi-agency public protection arrangements—categories 2 and 3, I must note that this will not capture the vast majority of domestic abusers. By the point a perpetrator is sentenced, it is likely that their victim has already been subject to abuse for years. SafeLives, a domestic abuse charity, has found that high-risk victims live with domestic abuse for 2.5 years. They will just be beginning to rebuild their life when their perpetrator is released from prison. If the perpetrator goes on to harass their victim, their probation officer may decide to recall them to prison, but after 56 days they will be released again, potentially to harass or abuse. They may again be recalled, and then released again 56 days later. I can see no provisions in the Bill to prevent this cycle, which could end in serious harm or the death of a victim.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Jess Asato Excerpts

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

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

I did not start this process opposed to the idea of assisted dying, but having worked in the field of domestic abuse, I found myself increasingly concerned about how this Bill would impact on those who are most vulnerable to coercion and abuse. As a Labour MP, I reflected on why I joined the Labour party. It was because of our commitment to protecting the vulnerable and fighting for equality, suspicious of individualism and narrow notions of choice that turn a blind eye to the impact of that choice on others.

If I could legislate to create a Bill just for me, I would be tempted by these measures, but I believe my role as an MP is to legislate in the best interests of those who have no voice, whose choices are often limited by poverty, the patriarchy, racism, trauma, ill health, and state and societal failure. We must recognise that if we advance this Bill yet further today, there will be unintended and undesirable consequences, and it is the Bill in front of us that we are voting on today—not the principle, or a distant promise that the other place might fix the holes, but what we know is in, and not in, this legislation.

I would like to briefly illustrate the reasons why I believe this Bill will create harm for families across our country. Imagine the scenario of your mother. You were there when Dad used to belittle her. In public, it was jokes putting her down, but in the house, you would hear him say that she was worthless and ugly and would be better off dead. You got out of there as soon as you could, but she would never leave—she loved him, and could not see a life for herself outside of his control. You could see her health deteriorating, but he often stopped her from going to the doctor or reaching out to friends. One day, you get a call from your dad to say, “She’s dead. She got an assisted death.” You worry that she took her life, not because of her illness, but because it was the only way out from the abuse. You fear that your dad made her do it, but there was no chance for you to tell anyone about your concerns, and there is no automatic requirement for an investigation by a coroner. Would you ever be able to prove his malign control now that she is gone?

Imagine that you have a brother who has struggled with an eating disorder ever since he entered secondary school. He was sexually abused by a family friend and never received any real support for what he went through, and court backlogs mean that the criminal case is still ongoing. He spends longer and longer watching social media influencers paid by assisted dying companies to advocate for what they call a peaceful end to life. He begins to starve, and doctors withdraw treatment because they claim nothing more can be done. You get a call only a few months after his 18th birthday to tell you that your brother has opted for an assisted death.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Jess Asato]

No, thank you. I am sorry, but we have to make time for others.

We know from other jurisdictions that it is disproportionately older and disabled people who would access assisted dying. These are two of the groups most vulnerable to abuse or coercion, particularly by strangers through financial abuse and cuckooing. Coercion is not just a risk with this legislation, but a certainty. There are 2.3 million victims of domestic abuse in the UK. Even if this Bill implemented gold-standard training—we do not know that it will—professionals will not be able to identify everyone. It is sadly inevitable that if the Bill passes, it is the most vulnerable people in our society who will experience wrongful deaths. A prominent campaigner in favour of this Bill said:

“Even if a few grannies get bullied into it, isn’t that a price worth paying for all the people who could die with dignity?”

Please, we must not settle for this. In a system designed to end life, there can be no room for doubt or human error. Coercion and abuse are real—they happen all around us all the time, whether or not we want to see them, as does feeling like a burden. Perceiving yourself as a burden is a common phenomenon associated with having a terminal illness, one that often leads to a desire to die. This Bill allows that feeling of being a burden—to those closest to you, and to society more broadly—to be acted on, rather than treated.

Research has found that doctors wrongly predict how long terminally ill people have to live in over half of cases. There is so much life left to live after a terminal diagnosis. We should not relinquish our bonds, duties and responsibilities towards each other as fellow human beings. I urge colleagues to reject this Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jess Asato Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Chemical suppression is a mechanism used by other jurisdictions around the world, and it has been shown to work. The previous Government sat on a pilot for years on end and did nothing. I have said that I will pull every lever at our disposal to deal with sex offending once and for all.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

A family court judge who would have made decisions in relation to many abused children was recently found guilty by the High Court of abusing their own adopted children. Does the Minister agree that protecting the anonymity of members of the judiciary who have abused their children, particularly when it relates so intimately to their own work in court, risks undermining public trust in our legal system?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight an absolutely appalling case, and the thoughts of everyone in this House are with the children who were victims of that abuse. The independent judiciary has ruled on this. This Government believe in transparency in our family courts, and that is why we are working to expand the use of transparency orders, but we have to respect the independence of our judiciary, which has ruled in this particular case, not least for the reason of protecting the children in that case.

Independent Sentencing Review

Jess Asato Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman may have seen that just last week, when the Home Secretary set out the immigration White Paper, we announced that we are reviewing the use of article 8 in relation to immigration cases, and we will bring forward our proposals on that in due course. We will not allow the misuse of our courts and the use of article 8 to enable people who have no right to be in this country to stay in this country. That will require changes to the immigration rules, which the Home Secretary is working on.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

Does the Lord Chancellor agree that the voluntary and community sector can play a vital role in supporting offenders to rehabilitate and gain vital employment and housing? Organisations such as Pathways Care Farm and Access Community Trust in my constituency have helped to prevent t reoffending.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I pay tribute to the organisations in my hon. Friend’s constituency; such voluntary organisations play a hugely important role in helping the justice system to succeed in rehabilitating offenders. We will continue to work closely and build on the review’s recommendations in this area.

Victims and Courts Bill

Jess Asato Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), and to Cheryl and her family for their fight for justice.

Having worked with both adult and child victims of traumatic abuse, I was glad to stand last year on a manifesto that committed to reforming the system to put the needs of victims first, and to ensure they get the support they need and deserve. This Bill is part of that mission. I am pleased that it strengthens victims’ rights, forces offenders to attend sentencing hearings, and empowers the Victims’ Commissioner to do more to stand up for victims and hold public bodies to account where there are failings. Nevertheless, there are three areas in which I believe we should go further and faster.

First, we know that victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence are faced with a postcode lottery when it comes to accessing specialist support. They are left at the mercy of the various budgetary decisions made by each area’s police and crime commissioner, local authority and health bodies.

[Emily Darlington]

What does my hon. Friend say to a police and crime commissioner, such as the one for Thames valley, who does not fund sexual abuse support services in Milton Keynes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Asato]

I believe that all police and crime commissioners ought to fund those services—hopefully the Minister can respond to that point. It is clearly outrageous that any victim of sexual violence should be left without any service at all.

Where specialist domestic abuse services do exist, they are faced with a deeply precarious financial situation that is severely hampering the ability of victims to access the support they need. Fewer than half of victims and survivors are able to access the community-based support they want. Without that support, some victims may be unable to leave domestic abuse perpetrators, or may return to them when they find it too difficult to escape their controlling behaviour. In 2022, only 7% of victims who wanted their perpetrator to receive support to change their behaviour and stop reoffending were able to get that, and recent research undertaken by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner has found that 27% of services are having to turn away child victims from vital support due to a lack of capacity.

For those reasons, I believe this legislation needs to include a statutory duty to commission specialist domestic abuse and sexual violence services based in the community for both adult and child victims. It is a stain on our nation that victims of the most unimaginable trauma do not have a right to support after abuse. A new statutory duty would also allow us to create parity with the accommodation-based services that were introduced by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, so that community-based services are given the same legislative protection.

Secondly, I believe that the parents and carers of victims of serious sexual and violent crimes also require support as third-party victims. A campaign on this issue has been led by Cath Pickles, the chief executive officer of Restitute, an amazing local charity that supports third-party victims. These crimes fracture families and support networks, and those who are left to care for primary victims often develop their own mental health issues and may even have to give up work. There are mothers who must face picking up the pieces after the sexual abuse of their child, and families who have to support domestic abuse victims as they fight for justice. We should look to include them in the scope of the support available to victims, because the impact of abuse does not just harm the primary victim, but can destroy the victim’s family too.

Finally, I recognise that we must not risk a very welcome step forward with potential legal challenges, but I believe we ought to look again having at a stricter definition for the purpose of depriving people of parental responsibility, especially where there is a risk to the child. Many will simply not comprehend how the serious sexual abuse of a child is compatible with the right to family life. What about the child’s right to live a life free from harm? I hope that the Government are willing to work with me, and with others, to tighten that aspect, among others that I have mentioned, as the Bill progresses through the House.

Child Arrangements: Presumption of Parental Involvement

Jess Asato Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Tidball]

I absolutely do. Furthermore, in response to my hon. Friend’s important point, the report specifically stated:

“To the extent that the courts’ pro-contact culture operates as a barrier to addressing domestic abuse, it serves to reinforce that culture.”

Indeed, section 6 of the report laid bare that children’s voices are being “muted or unheard” in domestic abuse cases because of the pro-contact culture.

[Jess Asato]

One of my constituents, a domestic abuse survivor, has had all contact with her children removed, as well as her domestic abuse claim rejected without evidence. She has now had to pay not just for contact visits but monthly drug tests, when her drug use was not proven at all, making it completely unaffordable for her to see her children. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is past time that we stopped our family courts from being used as a tool of abuse against survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence?