Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Marsha De Cordova Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lauren Edwards]

No, I will make a little bit more progress, please.

Although the Government are neutral on the issue of assisted dying—then, as now—they have a duty to ensure that any legislation that Parliament passes is effective, legally robust and workable. I am confident in saying to this House that the Bill before us today is a well-designed, safe piece of legislation.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a good case for this Bill, but she will know that when the Bill was introduced in 2024, no equality impact assessment was carried out. Recently, the Government have published the assessment, and it highlights the disproportionate impact that the Bill will have on black and ethnic minority communities and on disabled people. There is nothing in the Bill to address that point.

[Lauren Edwards]

I would start by saying that the Bill is explicit that it does not apply to people with a disability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

Rarely do we debate legislation that represents such a seismic shift in the relationships between individuals, the state, health providers and civic society. There is so much at stake. When Members believe strongly that a Bill is flawed and could be abused, resulting in serious harm, we have an absolute duty to implore others not to simply let it pass and hope for the best, but to consider it fully and deeply and to accept that our duty is first and foremost to protect lives. The potential consequences of poorly drafted legislation without robust safeguards are ultimately the responsibility of every single Member in this Chamber.

I come to this debate wearing several hats. I come as the representative for Canterbury, the home of this country’s Christian faith. Rather than removing that aspect from this debate, as others may have chosen to do, I must consider the views of the Church, and the archbishop has made her view clear again this week. There have also been representations from our sizeable mosque and that community. I come as a daughter who, this week last year, was sitting at my father’s bedside as he was dying from early onset Alzheimer’s, which so cruelly began when he was not much older than I am now. I come also as the partner of a filmmaker who directed the BBC documentary “Better Off Dead?”, which was led by Liz Carr and based on her decades of disability rights activism. I was already aware of Liz’s work through her Not Dead Yet campaign, but the opportunity to learn much more by discussing this subject at home in depth for so many months was invaluable.

Lifelong campaigner Baroness Jane Campbell has seen off so many attempts to pass assisted suicide legislation in the other place that she likens it to groundhog day. In the documentary, she says:

“People are decent, kind. They think that they’re doing us a great favour by giving us this choice. But what they don’t realise is how deadly that choice can be.”

It is worth repeating that not a single disabled rights organisation or professional body supports this legislation. If this place were truly representative of the UK’s population, there would be almost 100 physically disabled Members of Parliament, but we are nowhere near that.

[Marsha De Cordova]

I thank my hon. Friend for the very powerful speech she is giving; she truly sets the tone when she talks about disabled people. There was a poll out this morning of thousands of disabled people, and many of them rightly said that they need assistance to live. We have to get our palliative care and social care right, with the right investment, before we can even begin to engage in a debate about assisted death and assisted suicide. Does she agree that those should be our priorities, not trying to push through legislation that is flawed and not fit for purpose?

[Rosie Duffield]

Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution and her considerable experience in this area.

We hear a lot about coercion. Those with learning disabilities are surely extremely vulnerable to that, as well as the elderly and people with dementia. Before my dad lost the ability to speak, he could absolutely have presented as being capable of signing on the dotted line to medical professionals who did not know him like the family did. In reality, he would have forgotten almost immediately what had just taken place, but he retained an ability to be jovial, and to mask his confusion and memory issues, for quite some time.

As for the slippery slope, every single example in other nations proves without a doubt that at the start, the intention may be that assisted dying legislation will apply only to terminal illness—dementia and Alzheimer’s are, of course, terminal—but the scope ends up expanding alarmingly, as it has done in Canada, and in the Netherlands, which is so much closer to home.