Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Rachel Taylor Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is a privilege to open this debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—a Bill that will give dying adults, under very stringent criteria, choice, autonomy and dignity at the end of their lives.

What is being asked of MPs today? It is a fair question, given that this House already voted to send the near identical Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) back to the House of Lords in June last year. On Second Reading, we vote on the principle of a Bill, but we did that in November 2024. It is a broader principle that the House must consider today: who ultimately decides the laws that govern our nation?

Many Members would no doubt prefer to be working in their constituencies today. They are not because a small number of peers in the other place chose to prevent any votes from taking place on the substance of the Bill in the last Session.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Lauren Edwards]

I will once I have concluded my opening remarks.

That decision by those peers means that one of the most significant national conversations that we have been having as legislators was brought to an abrupt halt. Who suffers detriment as a result? Clearly, the terminally ill and their families, who had a fair assumption that the will of the people they elected to represent them in this Chamber would be respected, but also those who must navigate our current, unclear laws. They are laws that do not protect or guide those who work in our health system, laws that do not contain safeguards against the risks of coercion, laws that criminalise and traumatise families who simply want to be with their loved one at the moment of their death, and laws that four Directors of Public Prosecutions have urged need to change. If we do not vote today to allow this Bill to continue its passage through Parliament, we accept those outcomes as the cost of maintaining the status quo, and who knows how long it will be before we get the opportunity to consider the introduction of assisted dying laws again, despite consistent polling showing that it receives majority public support?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lauren Edwards]

It is not quite the exact same Bill; it incorporates two amendments that were agreed without a vote in the House of Lords last time. We have had our conversation in this Chamber about this Bill in 2025, and we have had an interrupted conversation as a nation. I am asking Members of this House to send the Bill back to the House of Lords so that they can continue their important work of amending and scrutinising legislation.

[Rachel Taylor]

Does my hon. Friend agree that unless this House makes it absolutely clear that it is outrageous and unacceptable for a very small number of unelected peers to block legislation, supported by the elected Chamber, then the same tactic could be used again with any private Member’s Bill that comes forward in this House?

[Lauren Edwards]

Absolutely—it would set a dangerous precedent. Those Members who want to come in on the specifics of the Parliament Acts will have ample opportunity to do so later in my speech, and I will be willing to take interventions on that matter.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley for the courage, courtesy and openness she showed during the passage of her Bill. Her engagement with those from all sides of the debate, particularly in Committee, delivered a stronger Bill that this House voted for on Report and Third Reading. One strengthening factor was the introduction of a requirement for the Health Secretary to report regularly on the availability, quality and distribution of palliative care. In asking parliamentarians to consider assisted dying, my hon. Friend also prompted a national conversation about how we improve and fund palliative care. We saw more funding for hospices, as well as Government action to develop a new framework to improve palliative care and end-of-life care.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Understandably, we have heard some passionate and courageous contributions, such as the one from the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who is no longer in her place. She made a remarkable contribution to the debate.

In this House, we discuss a whole range of issues week in, week out. Many of them are rather mundane, but nothing is more important than issues of life and death. To be honest, I would have thought that the mountain of briefings, reports and individual letters, particularly from a number of clinicians, would have been sufficient to persuade most people that this is an unsafe Bill, but I want to speak about the wider implications. Other Members have mentioned the impact on society. I claim no particular insight; indeed, I see through a glass darkly.

Some of us believe that life is God-given, and others do not, but I am sure we can all agree that it is uniquely precious and that we should do all we can to preserve it. I do not in any way question the motives of hon. Members or members of the public who take a different view. As we have heard today, many will have reached their conclusions having witnessed the slow and sometimes painful death of a loved one. I am of the firm view that if assisted dying is legalised, we will be poorer as a society. We will have crossed a line. We will have accepted that, to adapt the phrase I used earlier, life is not uniquely precious and, importantly, we will have changed the relationship between doctor and patient. That relationship is crucial, and it could be compromised if a patient was anything other than 100% certain that their doctor or clinician was striving to maintain life. When we are old, weak and seriously ill, we need compassion and support, not the nagging doubt that the treatment that we are receiving is not entirely—

[Rachel Taylor]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Martin Vickers]

No, I cannot give way. There is no time for interventions.

As society has evolved and civilisation has advanced, care of the vulnerable, those who are sick and those who need comfort as they near the end of their lives has become a higher priority, and rightly so. In preparation for this debate, I re-read an article that the former Supreme Court Justice, Lord Sumption, published in the Sunday Times in November 2024. We cannot produce legislation that meets every circumstance. Lord Sumption stated that

“the decision to allow doctors to help bring about the death of a human being crosses a major moral threshold.”

I think that is sufficient warning that we should be very confident that the Bill has the necessary safeguards, and I do not believe it does. As I say, we cannot produce legislation for every individual circumstance, so we are left with the alternative: to include sufficient safeguards. Even for those who support the Bill in principle, it does not have those safeguards. If one is old, frail, weak and seriously ill, one needs help, support and compassion, not the added worry and the nagging doubt over whether everything possible is being done to preserve one’s life.

Both of my parents died of cancer and suffered in their final months. I well remember the telephone call from the consultant after the tests on my father, when he said, “We must hope that God is merciful and does not allow him to suffer for too long.” Although he did suffer, he lived for a further six months after I received that fateful call, and in that six months I saw him enjoying life and sharing time with his then four-year-old granddaughter. In his final weeks, he spent time in St Andrew’s hospice in Grimsby. I saw then what comfort could be offered through palliative care. No longer did he suffer the periods of pain that he had had in earlier weeks. That happened as long ago as 1988, and things have improved dramatically since that time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine]

I do, but they are each one individual, and each of the professional organisations is neutral, and believe me, I envy them on that.

We have the responsibility to make the decision. The majority of us have already said that this is the best Bill we can produce. We—the majority of us—have made that decision once already, and we sent it to the other place. If we do that again today, I hope that those in the other place listen and take that on board and that the handful of peers who blocked it—

[Rachel Taylor]

The hon. Lady speaks with great passion. Does she agree that members in the other place bringing forward amendments such as suggesting that women who had been through the menopause, or men, needed to have a pregnancy test before they could be eligible for an assisted death, was a deliberate attempt to wreck the Bill, as opposed to undertaking their important role of scrutiny?

[Christine Jardine]

I completely agree, and it did the other place no credit at all that they did that.

There is something interesting and noticeable about all the experiences we have heard today. I have personal experience, which I admit influences my view. I saw my mother go through a very painful death and wished that she had had the choice. I do not know what she would have done, but I wished that she had had the choice. What is interesting is that we have all taken different things from those experiences. Some of us have said that we cannot do it because of that experience, and others have said that we must do it because of that experience, because we have all made decisions. We all have the right to make decisions for ourselves, and that can surely be no more important than when we face the final decision that we will face. It is for that reason—to respect that choice, to respect a decision that has already been made in this place, to respect the will of the British people—that I ask the House to send this Bill back to the Lords for approval.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

This week, death has felt rather too close to home for me. My dad, John—my constituent, my great political hero and, indeed, my hero in life—had surgery for lung cancer, followed by a cardiac arrest the next day. Thanks to our wonderful NHS and its outstanding care, the CPR and treatment performed on him were successful. He is now in the process of recovery, to such an extent that I was able to have a detailed conversation with him at his bedside, in which he insisted that I come here to this place to speak and vote in this debate. My dad is determined to live. Nevertheless, he told me that if circumstances were different—if his condition was terminal, if he had six months left to live and if he had capacity to make that choice—he would want to have the option to choose an assisted death to give him dignity.

Access to the choice of assisted dying, as tightly drawn in the Bill, enables the terminally ill adult who chooses it to live a good death. On Second Reading of the Bill previously brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), I said that my support was conditional on further safeguards being embedded in it, because too often control is taken away from disabled people.

[Rachel Taylor]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Dr Tidball]

I will continue, if my hon. Friend does not mind.

Clause 2(4) of the Bill before us today says:

“For the avoidance of doubt, a person is not to be considered to be terminally ill only because they are a person with a disability or mental disorder (or both).”

As a member of the previous Bill Committee, I worked for over 90 hours to ensure that all the changes that I requested were made, and they are now on the face of the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards). My amendments, including two new clauses, were unanimously supported by that Committee. The first, clause 48, establishes a disability advisory board made up of disabled people and our organisations in order to embed a long-term and iterative structure in law to report on the Bill’s implementation and its impact on disabled people. The second, clause 22, sets out provisions to put in place independent advocates for people with autism and mental health conditions, enabling them to effectively understand their options around end-of-life care.

Further, I ensured that clause 8 provides for specific, up-to-date training for registered practitioners on reasonable adjustments and safeguards for autistic people and people with learning disabilities. I also secured an expanded duty in clause 28 to collect additional information about whether, immediately before death, the person seeking assistance has a disability—as defined under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010—other than a disability amounting to terminal illness, as defined in this Bill. Together, these measures create a solid foundation to enable disabled people to have a strong voice when advocating for themselves about their choices on end-of-life care and, importantly, to have a seat at the table so that they can scrutinise and monitor the implementation of this Bill.

Spending nearly two years thinking about death in relation to this Bill has been life-changing for me, because the thing about considering choice in death, understanding what dignity in dying involves and what living a good death really means, is that it makes you think deeply about the meaning of living a good life, too: to love ferociously and to live passionately, experiencing every single moment as if suspended like a vignette woven from “Charlotte’s Web”. As E. B. White’s eponymous character points out:

“After all, what’s a life, anyway? We’re born, we live a little while, we die.”

Each of these stages of human life requires us to treat ourselves and fellow humans with dignity and to value ourselves, to enable us to feel and to perceive our own worth. This Bill not only anchors that dignity at the final stage but, in doing so, compels us to embed dignity in each and every other stage of our lives as well. This Bill lays a counterweight alongside the Government’s plans to improve the quality of and access to palliative care, to drive urgent reform on social care, and to build a new system that gives people the dignity, security and support they deserve. Driving quality in these areas together can and must be done contemporaneously.

My friend, the incredible assisted dying campaigner Nathaniel Dye, passed away this year. He squeezed every single drop of joy out of life and taught me so much about why living a good death matters. In setting the bar high for dignity in death, we set the bar even higher for dignity in life.