Assisted Dying

Matt Hancock Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I think that the sheer number of us in this room today and the power of the testimony from so many is itself the strongest possible case for the motion that Parliament must have an informed, compassionate debate on assisted dying. We know and have heard that the vast majority of people support choice in how they die. Indeed, we know that an even higher proportion of people who live with disabilities support having choice in how they die. And I think we all agree, on both sides of the debate, that the debate should be informed and compassionate.

It is seven years, as many have mentioned, since we last had a substantive vote on this subject. Since then, out of the 650 Members of Parliament, more than 200 have changed. The composition of Parliament has changed. Many Members have not had the opportunity to consider this question and express their view. The issue is not only that changes have been brought in in other countries. The Royal College of Nursing has dropped its opposition to assisted dying. The British Medical Association has removed its opposition. I can speak as a former Health Secretary and say that the medical movement as a whole is also changing its view, and I think it is appropriate that we raise these questions in a votable manner on the Floor of the House proper once again.

I have a few personal reflections. As Health Secretary, I found this area of policy bereft of data. I found that there had been a muddle in the way Government think about it. Because this has been a conscience vote for parliamentarians—and rightly so—the Government felt that they had to step back from the debate as a whole, so I wrote to the Office for National Statistics to ask it to investigate this area, as it does so brilliantly in every other area of life. That is how we now know that twice as many terminally ill people take their own life as people who do not have a terminal diagnosis. That is a striking fact. We should encourage the Office for National Statistics, and every other part of Government, to publish data to inform this debate in exactly the way that it would for any other area—for most of which, of course, there are whipped votes.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

It is really good to hear from my right hon. Friend, given his experience. I know that this is a very difficult debate. I lost both my parents when I was 46. I watched both of them pass away —with dignity, I have to say. Does my right hon. Friend, with whom I served in government at the Department, recognise the problem that, although this debate has moved on and we have seen great progress in survival from the acute episodes that some of our loved ones face, that has not been matched by the development in pain relief? I wonder whether that is why so many people, including myself, who voted against the Marris Bill seven years ago, are on a journey and listening intently today.

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I think there is a lot in that. As Health Secretary, I met people on both sides of the argument. I admire so much those who give palliative care. I took the opportunity to put more funding into palliative care, although I also support the mixed model of funding because I think that the funds raised through voluntary efforts and philanthropy are important—I have raised money for my brilliant local hospice, St Nicholas Hospice in Bury St Edmunds. But the truth is that even the best palliative care in the world cannot stop the deep pain and trauma that comes with some diseases, especially but not only cancers, at the end of life. Medicine simply cannot stop the pain in every case.

As Health Secretary, I also heard from supporters of change. I want briefly to mention two examples. The first is Sir Paul Cosford, the former medical director of Public Health England—my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) will have worked with him—who gave enormous and great service during the pandemic. Everybody in this Chamber will have heard him on Radio 4. What most people will not know is that he was living with cancer for the entirety of the pandemic. The work from home provisions allowed him to keep serving right up until very shortly before his death. A month before his death, he asked for some time with me, one on one, and he explained to me that he was nearing the end. As a doctor, he had seen many, many patients go through what he was about to go through, and he did not want to go through that. He said to me, “The end, when it comes for me, will be brief, but others do not have that choice.” He asked me this question: “Would you want the choice of how to die?” I ask everyone in the Chamber that same question.

As a local MP, I was honoured six weeks ago to meet David Minns, who has terminal myeloma. He told me a heart-rending story about how he saw in recent years his daughter die of a very painful cancer without successful pain mitigation, and he does not want to go through that. Nor does he want to go to Switzerland; he is a proud, patriotic man. He could potentially live longer if he knew that he could be assisted in his death, as we have heard from so many others.

Nine countries now allow assisted dying in a highly specific form. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, so there are constraints in place. We can learn from the experience overseas. There are countries with our common law tradition and parts of this United Kingdom that are considering assisted dying.

[Danny Kruger]

Does my right hon. Friend not acknowledge that in every single country where measures such as assisted dying, assisted suicide or euthanasia have been introduced, there is only one direction of change, which is towards more progressive liberalisation of the law? It always goes towards more liberalisation, including in Canada, where euthanasia is now being proposed.

[Matt Hancock]

I heard that argument, so I looked into it. In Oregon, for instance, which is the originator of the proposals that many people support, that is simply not the case. There was one change made many years ago and the law has now rested. There is essentially agreement about it.

I cannot see how the Minister can argue for anything other than an informed, compassionate debate on the Floor of the House. For 50 years we have had a legal choice over who to love. For a decade we have had a legal choice over who we can marry. Let us have an informed debate about, when the end is inevitable and the pain insufferable, how we die.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will make a bit more progress.

In setting out this view, I am mindful of the stern instruction we all received last week from the National Secular Society, which wrote:

“Dire warnings about the coercion of disabled, elderly, sick or the depressed can mask true motivations for opposing a change in the law…disguising religion objections as secular concerns, rather than seeking ways to mitigate potential risks of legalising assisted dying, opponents can exaggerate the risks, weaponising them to spread fear.”

The National Secular Society will probably regard me as one of the guilty parties here, but I do not think the concerns I am expressing are apparent only to religious people. Disabled people’s organisations have been very clear—in the interests of all the people they represent, and certainly not on any religious grounds—that legalising assisted dying would be a deeply damaging change. I think they are right.

[Matt Hancock]

I have heard that argument made a couple of times, and I respect the associations involved, but how would the right hon. Member reflect on the fact that, according to polls, 86% of people living with a disability are in favour of a change? That figure is greater than in the population as a whole, so I do not understand the point he is making.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I have not seen the polls that the right hon. Member refers to, but I think it is the case that all the major organisations representing disabled people in the UK oppose this change in the interests of their members.

There are good and compassionate arguments—we have heard a number of them—in favour of the change that the petition calls for. I do not agree with those arguments, but let us be clear that they are not the only arguments for the change. In some minds, they are clearly not the decisive arguments either. As we have been told, in some countries where the change has been made, it is explicitly about saving the health service money.

My party introduced the national health service, which is our proudest achievement. It needs to be adequately funded. The fact that it is not being adequately funded at the moment must not become an excuse for giving up and accepting that painful deaths are unavoidable. Instead, as all right hon. and hon. Members have agreed so far in the debate, we need to invest in palliative care, where there have been big advances and where there could be many more, and to ensure that adequate care is provided to everybody who needs it.

I agree with the organisation Care Not Killing that we want

“a funded policy for comprehensive hospice, community and hospital specialist palliative care services across the country with a duty placed on NHS trusts to ensure these services are made available to all who need them.”

I visited my local children’s hospice on Saturday—we have heard from a number of Members who have made such visits—and it had a fête to raise funds, because it is struggling for cash. In my view, it should not have to do that.

“In Place of Fear” was how Nye Bevan summed up what had been achieved in founding the NHS. Let us not give up now and decide that we can no longer afford the relief from fear that he rightly promised.