Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Paula Barker Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

No, I will not take any interventions, thank you.

I particularly fear the impact on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged—those without the social capital of so many arguing for the Bill. There seems to be an assumption that those who have been most unequal in life will suddenly be rendered equal in death, but the least valued by society are often those who value themselves the least. We know that the last year of life is so often the most expensive for the NHS and the most distressing for friends and family; why not save everyone the trouble of being a burden? This Bill lacks the safeguards, which we must have, to deal with the reality that there are powerful economic and personal incentives for both the state and family members to encourage the vulnerable into taking their own lives.

We should specifically consider the impact on ethnic communities: we know the prism of racist assumptions through which healthcare has too often been administered —the huge inequalities in maternal health and mental health, to name just two examples. There is nothing in this Bill to protect the vulnerable and those whose experience of life and death has already been biased.

Finally, to vote against this Bill is not to accept the status quo. It is not our job now to propose a better Bill—that was on Report and at Committee stage—it is our job to judge the Bill as it is, and that is why I say to hon. Members, please, do not vote for this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

I am proud to support my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) as a co-sponsor of this Bill. Through her leadership, compassion and dignity, she has been a beacon of hope for so many. I thank the many hundreds of constituents who have written to me or had face-to-face appointments with me to discuss this complex and emotive issue.

There are strongly held beliefs on both sides of the debate both inside and outside the House. I absolutely respect those with views different from mine, and hope that they will respect my views. After all, it is possible for all of us in this place to disagree well. People on both sides of the debate have accepted that we can and must do better for dying people and their loved ones—that has been clear throughout this debate. Too many of us have witnessed the devastation caused when we are denied choice at the end of life. Until the law changes, dying people in Britain will continue to suffer unbearably in their final weeks and days, with many trying to scrape together the funds for an assisted death abroad or taking their own lives behind closed doors. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to keep such experiences in the front of their minds when they go through the Lobby later.

At the heart of it, this Bill is about choice: those who wish to exercise their choice can do so, and those who do not wish to do so simply do not have to. The Bill introduces practical measures to assess eligibility, guard against coercion, and ensure rigorous medical oversight and robust monitoring of the process. Dying people have none of those protections under the current law. The status quo is failing people each and every day.

I pay tribute to colleagues from across the House who served on the Public Bill Committee, regardless of what side of the debate they were on. They strengthened the Bill by accepting key amendments, including the establishment of a judge-led multidisciplinary panel to oversee every application, with oversight from psychiatrists, social workers and lawyers; the requirement that assisted dying can only be discussed with patients in the context of all their end-of-life care and treatment options; mandatory training for doctors and panel members on detecting coercion; and the creation of a disability programme board. The Bill requires that patients be informed about all care options to ensure that everyone has access to the best possible pain relief, emotional support and hospice care. This will ensure that choosing an assisted death is never a result of ignorance or lack of care

I am pleased that the Bill has brought about a long-overdue discussion about palliative care. If we are honest, very few people in this place and outside were shouting about it from the rooftops beforehand. I sincerely hope that after the passage of this Bill, we will continue to discuss how we can improve palliative care, because it should not be an either/or. By having robust palliative care and the option of assisted dying, we will truly have options that will meet individual needs and the values of each patient.

Finally, the momentum for law change is spreading across the British Isles and beyond. Last month, MSPs voted by a clear majority to pass Liam McArthur’s assisted dying Bill. The Isle of Man’s Bill is awaiting Royal Assent, and will potentially be available for terminally ill residents from 2027. The direction of travel is to give dying people true choice at the end of life. We cannot leave dying people in England and Wales behind.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Paula Barker Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We heard fully the commitment from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and the Lord Chancellor that victims are front and centre of our approach to fixing the mess that the Conservatives left us. There is a victims representative on the panel, as the hon. Member well knows. Victims were fully involved and engaged in this. I have sadly met too many victims in this role, and I have encouraged all of them to contribute to the report and committed to them that they will be fully involved in the implementation of the report. Instead of carping from the sidelines trying to get cheap soundbites, it is about time the Conservatives rolled their sleeves up and tried to help us sort out their mess.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

8. What steps her Department plans to take to reduce the backlog of domestic violence cases.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

The judiciary prioritises cases involving vulnerable victims and witnesses, which includes those involving domestic abuse. Most domestic abuse cases are heard in magistrates courts, where cases tend to be heard more quickly. As I have already stated, the Government have taken action to address the outstanding caseload in the Crown court, funding record levels of sitting days in the upcoming financial year.

[Paula Barker]

The backlog in the court system harms efforts to instil confidence in women persisting with domestic violence charges against their abusers. Violence against women and girls is a national scandal, and femicide is ongoing, with countless women losing their lives to male violence. Sadly, my region of Merseyside is now the second highest region in the country for femicide. Does the Department agree that any moves to fast-track cases via the criminal or civil courts to remove abusers from our streets must involve appropriately severe sentences, irrespective of the prison places crisis?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important and timely question. We take all forms of homicide extremely seriously, and our strategy, which will be published later this week, looking at tackling violence against women and girls will cover all forms of violence and abuse that disproportionately impact women, including femicide. We will of course prioritise tackling violence against women and girls, which is why we have funded record numbers of Crown court sitting days. We are extending the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner and strengthening the victims code. We have protected funding for victims services looking at domestic abuse, rape and sexual offences to ensure that victims are listened to and are put at the heart of the criminal justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

As the Lord Chancellor has said, our priority is delivering swifter justice for victims and bearing down on the Crown court backlog. That is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to consider all options, which have to include reclassification of offences and the intermediate court. We have to have a whole-system reform, but I fear that if we were to exclude those options, we would not be gripping the problem.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

T8. A significant proportion of those who experience homelessness are ex-offenders. I have previously raised concerns that the drive to alleviate the prison places crisis must not add to the homelessness emergency. The Deputy Prime Minister is in the process of establishing an inter-ministerial group on tackling homelessness. Will my right hon. Friend’s Department play a full and active role in that inter-ministerial group, and ensure that Ministers and officials from the Ministry of Justice are adequately represented?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and the Ministry of Justice will play a full part in the inter-ministerial group.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Paula Barker Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger]

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. I am afraid that the definition of terminal illness is in a sense the essential flaw in the Bill, but I will come on to that.

Going back to the conversation that the patient has with the medical practitioner, the crucial point is that the conversation does not need to be started by the patient, according to the Bill. It could be started by the medic—any medic—perhaps in hospital, who could make the suggestion of an assisted death to a patient who has never raised the issue themselves, whose family have never suggested it and whose own doctor does not think it is the right thing to do. And so the idea is planted.

Then, for whatever reason—and, by the way, there is no need ever to give a reason—the patient says that they want to proceed with an assisted death. They sign a declaration, or rather somebody else can sign it for them. It could be any professional, someone they do not know—maybe a new medical practitioner. A total stranger can do all the paperwork on their behalf. That is what the clause about the proxy entails. Then these two medical practitioners make their assessment.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

I urge the hon. Member to check the wording of the Bill, because if somebody signs as a proxy, they have to have known the individual for two years, and would simply be signing to say that they agree with the patient who wishes to go forward with assisted dying.

[Danny Kruger]

I do not have time to check the Bill now, but from my memory it refers to someone who has known the patient for two years or someone of good standing in the community, which could be some sort of professional who is not known to them at all. Someone can quickly check the Bill, but my understanding is that it could be a total stranger to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

I am honoured to rise to lend my support to the Bill, and I am proud to support my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) as one of the Bill’s co-sponsors.

Data shows that in my city of Liverpool 74% of people are in favour of assisted dying. I have been privileged to correspond with and meet so many of my constituents who have shared with me their views and personal stories, spanning both sides of this important debate, and I thank them all. As we have heard today, there are strongly held beliefs on both sides of the House. I absolutely respect those with views that differ from my own, and hope that they respect my views, even if we disagree.

Since long before I entered this place, I have been an advocate of assisted dying, with the appropriate safeguards, to alleviate unnecessary suffering. My own mum cared for my dad during his cruel battle with cancer. Sadly, not even the best palliative care could provide him with a good death—and I do believe that there is such a thing as a good death. At its core, the Bill is sensible, safe and compassionate. But above all else it places human dignity at its heart.

In respect of palliative care, the Bill is not an either/or. Along with many other campaigners for assisted dying, I fully support improving palliative care. It has been proven that end of life care has improved in several countries because of assisted dying reform. I hope that, if the Bill passes, the UK will also belong on that list. Palliative experts, including those opposed to law change, admit that some people’s suffering is beyond the reach of even the best palliative care.

I do not believe that if the Bill finally becomes law, it will create a slippery slope. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) eloquently said, terminally ill adults in Oregon have had a legal option for assisted dying for more than 25 years, and not once has it been expanded to include other groups.

[Gideon Amos]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Paula Barker]

No. I am sorry, but I will not.

Every year, around 650 terminally ill people take their own lives, and countless others who are more affluent make the choice of the long, arduous journey to Switzerland, all without any protections in place. I do not want choice to be available only to those who can afford to pay. That is not just or equitable.

Finally, just like with many other private Members’ Bills that have gone before and looked to bring about social reform—such as those on abortion, divorce and the decriminalisation of homosexuality—this is an historic moment and an opportunity, if taken, to give real dignity to those who have reached the end of life and want a choice, while also respecting the views of those who do not want to take that choice.

Prison Capacity

Paula Barker Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Member is right. In the end, individual sentencing decisions are for judges. They have discretion to apply the law as they see fit in the circumstances of the cases in front of them, and nothing that we have decided changes that picture. More broadly, we will have a sentencing review—it is something we committed to in our manifesto, and I will say more about that later in the year—to make sure that all our sentencing is consistent and coherent, and that our sentences do actually work, which is what they are meant to do.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

I welcome the Lord Chancellor to her place. She has certainly hit the ground running in a very difficult backdrop from the previous Government. We know only too well that, often, prisoners are released on Friday afternoon, with little or no access to statutory services, and they become homeless. What assurances can she give the House that this has been thought through, and the unintended consequence of this decision will not be extending the homelessness crisis?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The implementation period that we have put forward in our proposals will allow the probation service time to prepare. As I have said before, that is different from the early release scheme brought forward by the previous Government; it will allow the probation service to do its job and ensure that there is a proper plan for all releases into the community so that they are successful releases. I am sure that my hon. Friend will know about the community accommodation service, which provides transitional accommodation for up to 84 nights for those who are at risk of leaving prison homeless. That will continue. The previous Government scheme released prisoners with little or no warning. This scheme is different. It gives probation time to prepare and should hopefully iron out some of the previous problems.