Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I have struggled with this vote perhaps more than any other in Parliament. Had I been asked at any time in my life whether I was for or against assisted dying, I would have said that I am in favour of it. I believe that people have autonomy over their own bodies as a fundamental liberal principle. But we do not vote on principles here; we vote on legislation, and this Bill at this time is not one I can support. I do not believe that it is safe. I do not believe that it addresses the very legitimate concerns raised by disabled voices, and I do not believe that it has come at the right time. In my speech, I will cover the state of palliative care and fears of coercion, but first, I thank my constituents for the role that they have played in this, coming to meetings, speaking to me at surgeries, writing me emails in a respectful way—the way that we should conduct our politics in all things but particularly those that are so serious.

I bring professional and personal experience to this debate. I have been a council cabinet member for social care, sitting on a safeguarding board, I have worked for the General Medical Council and for the past two years I have sat on the Health and Social Care Committee. Like many people, I have also sat with a loved one as they died. Ultimately, my experience means that I do not for one minute believe that this is simple. I know that if we do not pass this Bill, some number of people will die in preventable pain and suffer a painful death. I also know that if we pass any Bill, there will be some number of people who are coerced into taking their own lives. If you have moral certainty—

[Dr Opher]

rose—

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

I will not give way just now. If you have moral certainty on this question, I honestly envy you.

On the state of palliative care, we are told that this Bill is about giving our constituents more options—a choice between good palliative care or an assisted death. But in a world where there are such gaping holes in our health, social care and palliative care system, that is simply not the case.

[Martin Wrigley]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

Not just now. Our Committee asked our independent expert panel to look into the quality and availability of palliative care, and the results should give everyone in this room pause for thought, because we do not have a universal offer of palliative care in this country. The report points to a postcode lottery of provision. Hospices are largely funded through charitable donations, which means that in better-off areas there is better care. The Committee hears constantly about the social determinants of health. Let us not have one of them be that those in wealthy areas have the choice of a comfortable death, while the poor must choose an early one.

Furthermore, there is a workforce crisis in palliative care. There are 700 palliative care doctor posts, but 70 vacancies. Add to that 130 doctors expected to leave the profession in the next five years while, to make matters worse, training bottlenecks mean that there will not be specialist doctors trained to replace them. All that is in a landscape where we expect demand for palliative care to increase by 55% in the current decade.

I want a safe Bill that takes all those things into account. A safe Bill would give some discretion to the Health Secretary on when they implement it. This Bill does not.

[Anna Dixon]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

I am sorry; I will not just now. This Bill has an auto-commencement clause, which means that within four years of the passage of this Bill—whatever the state of our health service, of our social care, or of our palliative care; even if there has been another pandemic—it will come into force.

That brings me to our safeguards. I cannot vote for a Bill that does not sufficiently guard against coercion. That is what my constituents with disabilities say they fear the most and, having been in charge of social care, I know what that looks like. Let me be clear: the safeguards in this Bill are not enough. If the Bill in its current form passes, a patient would be subject to more scrutiny to give up a kidney than to give up their life. The ultimate weakness of this Bill is that the question being asked when a patient goes to the panel is a medical and legal one, not a social and psychological one. The main judgment will be an assessment of whether they are likely to die in the next six months, not of why they have chosen to die or whether there is a risk of coercion.

Coercion is not always committed by the traditional villain; it is not someone who wants money. It is often committed by a loved one at the end of their tether, as support falls away, money drains, options narrow and people’s sense of what choices they have narrow, too. Without improving palliative care, we will put far too many people in that heartbreaking position.

As MPs, we are used to being forthright in our opinions and advocating for ourselves and our constituents. On our Select Committee, we constantly hear from vulnerable patients who say that they are frequently ignored, talked about or talked over by medical professionals. They feel talked at, not talked to. When considering this legislation, I do not ask whether it will work for people like me; I ask whether it will work for the most vulnerable—those whose voices are rarely heard and who are most dependent on the state for protection. They rely on us to be their voice.

The Bill comes from a place of compassion, but it could lead to a place where a disabled person feels that they are less. It could lead to a place where poor social care means that people do not feel that they have a choice between a comfortable life and an early death. That is why I say, with a heavy heart, not this Bill and not at this time.