Social Media Posts: Penalties for Offences

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for granting time for this extremely important debate, following our successful petition. Most importantly, I thank the more than 190,000 British people who signed the petition that we initiated, which calls for an end to the creeping use of prison as a punishment for what people say online. We would not be here today without their support, which is a credit to the petitions system, one of the better-functioning arms of Parliament.

I welcome Lucy Connolly and her husband, who are here today. She is one of the many ordinary citizens who has been swept up in the chaotic and inconsistent enforcement of our online speech laws. Her courage in speaking openly about her experience has helped to expose a growing problem: namely that the British state is now more willing to imprison somebody for a social media post than for a rape. That is not justice, that is not proportionate and that is certainly not the mark of a free country.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this petition to the House. On what analysis does he base his comment that people are more likely to be in prison for a social media tweet than for rape?

[Rupert Lowe]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard of the Pakistani rape gangs, which are currently the subject of my crowdfunder. When he reads the report that is coming out in March, I am sure he will agree with me.

We are witnessing the steady expansion of what are essentially speech crimes—offences where there is no violence, no real threat of violence and, often, no identifiable victim at all. Yet people face dawn raids, criminal records, ankle tags and even lengthy prison sentences—for words, for arguments, for opinions that somebody somewhere claims to find offensive.

I had my own experience: a late-night police raid, initiated by false allegations from former Reform party colleagues, relating solely to words I had allegedly spoken—the party of free speech, indeed. The Reform leadership’s bitter attempt to see me in prison failed, but too many others do not escape the consequences of such vile misuse of the system. We now have laws being used to punish subjective offence, based on the most fragile interpretation of “harm” and enforced through discretionary and—far too often—politically skewed policing. A post that is deemed sharp criticism one month somehow becomes grossly offensive the next. It is arbitrary, it is inconsistent and it is fundamentally incompatible with a healthy democracy.

I receive multiple death threats, yet the police take no action. To take just one example, online influencer Shola Mos-Shogbamimu recently posted on X:

“I’m against the death penalty but for you @RupertLowe10 I’ll gladly make the exception.”

This post currently has 2 million views. The Met police have said no action will be taken. I do not want people in prison for social media posts; I also do not want such obvious two-tier policing. Shola walks free, yet Lucy Connolly was imprisoned for one foolish social media post, soon deleted. Where is the fairness in that? If these ludicrous laws are to be implemented, it must be done fairly, with no political bias. Evidently, that is not currently happening.

Is our prison system so efficient, so functional and so unoccupied that we have the capacity to put a young mother like Lucy in prison for more than 300 days? I think not. When rapists and murderers are walking free—even being released early—there is zero justification for imprisoning Lucy and the many others like her, particularly when the influence of such questionable legal aid is so heavily involved.

We must be clear: no free society can survive with a people afraid to speak. Democracy depends on robust argument, dissent and the ability to challenge orthodoxy. As George Orwell so presciently stated:

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

Parliament needs to draw a deep line in the sand: in Britain, nobody should ever be sent to prison for an offensive social media post—full stop. That requires legislative reform. We need clearer thresholds in law, a robust statutory requirement that prosecutorial decisions consider freedom of expression, and a prohibition on custodial sentences for pure speech cases.

The poison of two-tier justice must be forensically extracted from our judicial system. This debate is not about whether we are prepared to live in a country where liberty exists only for those who never cause offence—an impossible and undesirable standard. To Lucy and to every other person who has found themselves dragged through the system for a post online: you deserve better from your Government, and I sincerely hope today marks the beginning of a serious rethink in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

What a pleasure it is to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for so ably introducing the debate. Although the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) described her speech as being a little off-piste, I thank her for raising an important subject—she is welcome to raise it in any debate I am part of.

The only two-tier justice system I know of in the UK is between the rich and the poor, and between the powerful and the powerless. That is why I am so pleased we have been able to introduce the Hillsborough law. What we are not talking about here are posts that arise from differences of political opinion: whether rail should be nationalised, or whether we should invest more money in the NHS. What we are talking about are posts that contain elements of racial hatred, which is completely unacceptable and is not a political issue—unless we are arguing that somehow racial hatred is a political philosophy.

Last summer, we saw tragic violence right across the UK. I think Edinburgh was spared only through the hard work over many years of the Edinburgh Interfaith Association. We saw British people attacked because of their faith or the colour of their skin—utterly reprehensible. I spoke to parents who were worried about their children —of all ages—going to school or going to work. It was an horrendous time, and the violence was being amplified and accelerated online.

Many of those who carried out those violent acts argued that their actions were solely in response to the tragic events that occurred in Southport. But it is clear that the fury we witnessed was encouraged by online instigators, who stirred racial tensions and spread false information before the public had a true and complete understanding of what had occurred that awful day—just as we saw a couple of weekends ago after the attack on the London North Eastern Railway train, when people online were quick to link it to immigration and also to Islam, which I found utterly unbelievable. By the time a statement was made to the House of Commons, we knew there was no link to immigration or Islam, so there were no Reform MPs in the Chamber to talk about it—an utter disgrace.

As MPs, we have all had our fair share of online abuse and unpleasant comments, although I absolutely recognise the point made earlier about women attracting much more of that abuse than men. We know that the internet is a challenging and complex place, but when posts tip over into threatening communications, inciting violence against specific groups, provisions must be in place for prosecution. Opposition Members argue that prison sentences are given for comments that were maybe mistaken or intended as humorous. But we know that for some of the people who were imprisoned, this was merely one of many racially motivated comments that they had made over a period of time. Opposition Members called these posts foolish, clumsy or misunderstood, yet many of those people actually pled guilty to inciting racial hatred.

Let us be clear: the posts that led to prosecution were an incitement to violence and outright racial hatred, which is why those people pled guilty. The Crown Prosecution Service is clear that the state must act when there is a clear threat to public order and safety—online or in the real world. Employment law applies to online. Thankfully, we have procedures in place to protect children from online harm. Fraud is a crime online, as is defamation of character. So I do not understand why people argue that racially motivated hatred should not be covered by a law online, when it is in the real world. Why should we be able to say something online that we would not say in the pub? It is utterly unbelievable that people put that argument forward —it is unacceptable. It is right that these things apply across our society. The recent case of the man imprisoned for making threats towards the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) shows that our judiciary act when faced with criminal online threats of violence. Does anybody want to say that they oppose that gentleman being jailed for five years? Of course not.

Freedom of speech is central to our democracy. I understand that all our police forces face stretched resources, but those who incite violence on our streets against vulnerable people can never go unchallenged, whether it is online or in person.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate, and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for opening it. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who launched and promoted the petition. Like others, I thought it was the first time I had come across a petition from a Member, and it turns out that it is. The number of signatures that the hon. Member managed to secure shows that this issue is of great interest to our constituents, and it is right that we, as elected representatives in Parliament, debate these matters.

I want to begin by talking about something that was not given sufficient focus in the debate: priorities and choices. Police officers cannot and have never been able to investigate and solve all crimes, all the time. They will never be able to do that, so choices and priorities have always been at the heart of policing since it was introduced in this country. The Opposition would rather that our police officers prioritise catching burglars, car thieves, shoplifters and violent offenders, and it seems clear to me that the public agree.

It also seems clear that this is an issue on which the police, the CPS and the courts do not get it right all the time. As always, we cannot be led entirely by the worst examples, but they inevitably raise public concern. I will not focus overly on individual cases, many of which have been well publicised and often, thankfully, not taken forward in the end, but that begs the question: what would have happened to less high-profile individuals, or in cases that were less well publicised? The outcome may have been different, so this issue clearly needs our attention. That is not to say that there should never be any restriction on what people can put online. We need to find a balance akin to the one that we manage, as a whole—although certainly not perfectly—to keep more consistently in what we might call the real world.

The criminalisation of hate speech and incitement is not new; what has changed is the scale and immediacy of communication in the digital age. Social media allows anyone with a mobile phone to reach potentially millions of people within seconds, and their words are essentially permanent and traceable. It exposes individuals to a constant stream of content, often stripped of context, and sometimes designed to provoke. Social media also strips away the manner in which something is said and the demeanour of the person—details that are often key to the prosecution of these sorts of cases in the real world.

We have a responsibility to ensure that the law keeps pace with technology but remains fair, proportionate and grounded in common sense. Those who use social media to clearly and obviously promote hatred, threaten individuals or genuinely incite violence must not be able to act with impunity. But we must also ensure that sentencing reflects the seriousness of each case, that it distinguishes between genuine threats and offensive opinion, and that it maintains public confidence in both justice and freedom of expression.

The judiciary has discretion to consider the context, harm and intent behind each offence, and proportionality is key. Sentences must be transparent, consistent and seen by the public to be fair. We know that the vast majority of people in this country value free speech deeply, but they also expect accountability for those who cross the line into criminality. The balance is delicate and must be protected. Social media has created new forms of harm, but also new forms of expression, and the justice system must navigate these novel complexities carefully. However, when the response appears to some to exceed what is necessary to deter or rehabilitate, it is right that Parliament examines whether the framework that guides decisions remains appropriate.

There have been increasing anecdotal reports of the police arriving in disproportionate numbers to arrest children, parents and older people who may have said “the wrong thing”—as they might describe it—online. One example, widely reported in the press, was the arrest of Graham Linehan by five armed police officers at Heathrow in September. His alleged offence was a series of social media posts in which it seemed apparent to most dispassionate observers that he joked about punching transgender women in the genitals if they refuse to leave female-only spaces. That is a good example of the sort of joke that would not be welcome, and that many people would think was displeasing or inappropriate, but it should have been carefully considered before it was put forward as a possible crime. It was hardly worthy of the time of five armed police officers.

Such use of police time and resources was completely disproportionate when officers’ efforts could be focused on dealing with the crimes that our constituents care more about—such as knife crime, shoplifting and burglary—that regularly go unsolved and do not have the same level of attention in all circumstances. I welcome the fact that in response—and in clear support of the fact that there is an issue—the Metropolitan police announced that they will no longer investigate non-crime hate incidents. I direct those who think there is no issue to the decision by an independent police force to make a major change in how it polices these sorts of things and to

“focus on matters that meet the threshold for criminal investigations”.

We need to see that approach applied across the whole country. The Conservatives put that idea to a vote in the Crime and Policing Bill Committee earlier this year, but sadly the Government voted it down.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council, supported by the College of Policing, has reviewed the use and effectiveness of non-crime hate incidents. Subsequently, in September, the NPCC and the college wrote to the Policing Minister urging her to immediately scrap non-crime hate incidents in their current form, but the Government have not acted. They have ignored the authors of the review that they commissioned, and kicked the issue into the long grass. Will the Minister work with the Home Office to implement the recommendations of the NPCC and the College of Policing?

More broadly, the Government are not being transparent about this issue. They do not collect data on non-crime hate incidents and they do not publish data on the number of arrests made for online malicious communications offences. Accurate quantitative data on arrests and prosecutions for offences on social media are therefore hard to come by. Does the Minister agree that the Government should do more to assuage concerns by collecting and publishing data that might help to illuminate the issue?

We do have some data. In April, The Times published an article using data collated from freedom of information requests, setting out the number of arrests made in recent years under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. The newspaper reported that police officers are making more than 12,000 arrests a year under the legislation, equating to more than 30 a day. I remind hon. Members about the issue of priorities: police officers are going out and making 12,000 arrests a year for these sorts of offences. The paper also claims that the number of arrests in 2023 represented an almost 58% increase from before the pandemic, and that forces recorded 7,734 arrests in 2019.

[Dr Arthur]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s summing up; he is doing a great job. Those numbers invite some further investigation. Thirty per day does sound like quite a lot of arrests, but in how many cases was the communication the sole reason for the arrest? Was it just a matter of there being many other factors combined, and that was just one point in the arrest schedule?

[Dr Mullan]

That is a good example of the sort of question we cannot answer. We have had to rely on a media organisation putting forward FOIs to get some information. If the Government took ownership of the issue and published proper data, which might be able to pick out the nuances, we could have a more realistic debate. The hon. Gentleman is right that that could be the explanation, but we are none the wiser.

We cannot simply blame this spike on rank-and-file officers. They are often only following orders from their superiors, who point to guidance from the NPCC and the College of Policing. Another key issue is that many people I have spoken to who perhaps thought that people such as Lucy Connolly had done the wrong thing and should be punished, but were concerned about the length of the prison sentence. At the same time as the Government will not budge on this issue, they are passing legislation that will let thousands of violent sexual offenders out of prison early. Very many thousands of them will serve only a third of their sentences. The Government say that there is not enough prison space, yet their proportionate response is to say that we have plenty of prison space to arrest other people.

Sentencing Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Pochin]

I will make some progress, please. It allows for the even earlier release of dangerous criminals into the community on licence, reducing the time served from 50% of a sentence to a mere third. The implications for public safety in general, and for the safety of women from repeat offender domestic violence perpetrators in particular, are concerning. Prisoners recalled to prison for breaking licence conditions would receive a reduced sentence of, I believe, 56 days—it was 28 in the Gauke review—as opposed to serving the full term of their sentences. That would apply to criminals convicted of serious offences, which is a betrayal of justice for victims and for brave women who have gone through the harrowing experience of a trial.

What of the Bill’s intention to eradicate custodial sentences of less than 12 months? That in effect removes the ability of the magistrates court to give out a custodial sentence, leaving only community orders available as a means of rehabilitation and punishment. By the time a streetwise defendant has pleaded mental health problems and declared they are on universal credit, there are very few options available to the sentencing bench, and without custody there are even fewer.

These elements of the Bill are designed to free up prison spaces as opposed to administering the justice that the British people want convicted criminals to face in return for the crimes committed. There are no concrete plans to increase prison capacity, and there is no policy on deportation. This Bill is all about leniency, not about the reality of the dangerous places that prisons currently are.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is speaking with great authority from her experience as a magistrate, but she criticises the Bill for having no concrete plans to expand prison capacity. Could she talk about her party’s plans to increase prison capacity, how much they would cost and when that capacity would come on line?

[Sarah Pochin]

I thank the hon. Member—I was going to call him an hon. Friend, but I am not sure that is appropriate—and, yes, I could do that, but I think all Members know Reform’s policies on building prisons. [Hon. Members: “No, we do not.”] Let me finish my speech.

The Bill proposes increased powers for the Probation Service such that it could shorten the length of a community order. It is entirely inappropriate for the Probation Service to be able to alter the sentence given by a magistrate or a judge. All this is open to abuse, and it means that the already stretched Probation Service can release convicted criminals from its books to free up capacity, rather than because rehabilitation or punishment has been successfully completed. The Bill is purposely vague and open to interpretation. It is not tough enough, and it does not address the problems our judicial system is facing. For that reason, I will not be supporting it.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I want to make three brief points. First, I have completely changed by mind on this subject since I entered the House during the last century, because I have sat in my advice surgery with tears pouring down my face listening to constituents who have set out so clearly, speaking with such emotion, about how their mother, brother, father or child had died in great pain and great indignity.

I strongly support the Bill, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) on the excellent way in which she has presented it. I believe that we should give our constituents—our fellow citizens—this choice. I want this choice for my constituents; I want it for those whom I love; and I want it, perhaps one day, for myself.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Mitchell]

I will not, I am afraid. The current law forces people to plan their deaths in secret. Their bodies are found by their loved ones. Often, they die in the most horrific circumstances. They have no chance to say goodbye to their loved ones. It is devastating for their families. The former Health Secretary commissioned the Office for National Statistics to try to find out how many people who committed suicide every year were dying people. The figure was between 300 and 650.

Secondly, in our democracy, the Commons must make this decision. Only we, elected by our constituents, have the legitimacy to do this. It is not the DPP, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police, doctors or even unelected Members of the House of Lords—this House of Commons must make this decision. Let us be clear that all of us on both sides of the debate strongly support an increase in the quality and extent of palliative care. For me, the debate is about extending choice, in very narrow and heavily regulated circumstances under the Bill, as the hon. Lady so clearly set out—the choice not to be forced to end your life in pain and indignity. No element in the Bill talks about intolerable suffering. Many believe that the Bill is too narrowly drawn. I stand by the hon. Lady’s drafting. We should remember that in Oregon there has been no serious attempt to change or amend the law.

I had the privilege of speaking to an NHS consultant last year, the day before she headed to Dignitas. She said, “I love my country, but I object very strongly to my country forcing me to make this choice, and to having to travel unaccompanied to a foreign country to die.” The status quo is cruel and dangerous. People caught up in these circumstances have no transparency; there is no regulation, safeguards or oversight. The Bill contains a whole series of safeguards that are not present at the moment.

Thirdly, we are deciding today on a principle. If the Bill is voted down on Second Reading, that will be the end of the matter for many years, and we will do that in the knowledge that Scotland, the Isle of Man, Jersey and many other countries are likely to bring in legislation like this. There are 300 million people in 30 jurisdictions who have secured this ability to choose. There will be numerous safeguards. There will not be a slippery slope unless this Parliament agrees to there being one. If we agree to a Second Reading today it is, in my judgment, inconceivable that the Government Front Bench will not ensure we have the proper time to scrutinise the Bill.

This Bill goes with the grain of our constituents’ views—about 75%, according to the most recent polling. There is an opportunity and a chance, as the hon. Member for Spen Valley has set out, to consider in detail these matters ahead of Third Reading. As drafted, the Bill seems to me a very modest and controlled proposal. Let us not forget this: Oregon shows us that fewer people take these steps once they know they have this choice as a back-up.

I end with something I have never forgotten. Some years ago, I was listening in a debate to a young man who had recently lost his father. He had visited his father and seen him in great pain and indignity. He had seen him three days before he died. In the end his father put a bag over his head and used his dressing-gown cord to hang himself. That young man said to all of us: “If you are ever in this position, let’s hope that God will help you, because they certainly won’t.” Today, this House has the opportunity to ensure that they will.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to keep it brief and stick with procedure.

The decision we are taking today must be, for most Members, one of the most painful decisions. It certainly is for me. I am someone who has changed his position. I am a believer in the sanctity of life, but I am also an antagonist to torture and misery at the end of life. Accordingly, I intend to vote for the Bill on Second Reading. I say to those who have made procedural comments that Second Reading is a point of principle, not a point of conclusion. I have changed my position because since the scandal of Dr Shipman and the murders he carried out, the behaviour of the health service has changed. I have witnessed, with constituents in particular, any number of people who have died slowly and in agony beyond the reach of palliative care—the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) made the point brilliantly—so that no matter how well we do it, we cannot fix that problem.

Secondly, I am going to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse): it is not insulting to critique what others who have tried this have done. The countries that have tried this provide a wide range of examples and outcomes. If on Third Reading I think that the outcome we are heading towards is Belgium, I will vote against; and if the outcome is Canada, I will probably vote against. If it is Australia, I will vote in favour. That is what the next stage of this process is about.

I say to both the Bill’s sponsors that it has a number of areas that they know I think they have to put right—about a dozen, in truth.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Davis]

I am afraid not, as I have only five minutes.

I will pick one of those areas, as it is technical and awkward. Clause 4(2) appears to give doctors the right to initiate the process. But after the “Do not resuscitate” scandal during the covid crisis, I do not want that at any price—I do not want the state initiating this process. That is critical for me. I am really making the point that the decision on Second Reading is about principle, not outcome.

The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) has said that she will work hard to make the Committee work. I am sure she will, and she may succeed. But I say this to the Government. I understand perfectly well that they are trying to maintain a route of strict neutrality, but there is a distinction between neutrality and responsibility. They need to focus on responsibility. This Bill is more important than most of the Bills in their manifesto; I am not trying to be rude. Is the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) here? He got mobbed over breakfast by people talking about this. More people in the Dog and Duck care about this than they do about most other things that we are doing, so it deserves four days on Report in Government time over the course of several weeks.

We do not need a royal commission. The House can do this, but it needs to be given the option. I say to the Government that the path of responsibility is to give us the time to get this right. If we get it right, it will be one of the things that we can be proudest of in the coming years. I reiterate that I want the Bill to succeed. It is more important than most Bills that we handle. It cannot be dealt with in five hours here and a few hours in Committee. I will vote for it today, but I want the Government to help me be able to vote for a good Bill at the end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this hugely significant debate, and as a co-sponsor of the Bill to support my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) in advocating choice at the end of life. Since I came into this place five years ago I have spoken many times about assisted dying and the desperate need for reform of the law, and I believe this Bill is a landmark opportunity to change the status quo once for all, so that mentally competent terminally ill adults have the right to choose a peaceful, safe and compassionate death.

We hold a responsibility in this place to legislate for all people across the United Kingdom—for society. The overwhelming opinion of the public is clear. A poll conducted earlier this year found that 75% of people would support a change in the law to make it legal for terminally ill adults to access assisted dying in the UK.

The current blanket ban on assisted dying forces terminally ill people to suffer against their will as they near the end of their life, while loved ones watch on helplessly. Some choose to avoid that fate and seek assisted death abroad, but that comes at a substantial cost of around £15,000 to travel to Switzerland for that purpose. That highlights systemic inequality, whereby only those with the necessary financial means have access to a choice over the timing and manner of their death.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Hopkins]

I will continue, I am afraid.

As a humanist, I believe we have but one life and that we should live it well and make it meaningful. I believe that individuals should have autonomy in life. Similarly, I believe that at the end of life every person should have agency and the right to die with dignity and to a safe and painless death, on their own terms, subject of course to strong safeguards. I believe that the Bill contains stringent safeguards.

Although my humanist beliefs have contributed to my view, personal experience when young sparked my initial questions about the manner in which our lives end. My grandfather, Harold Hopkins, was an optical physicist and is remembered as one of the most innovative scientists of modern times. Many of his inventions are in daily use throughout the world, including zoom lenses, coherent fibre-optics and rod-lens endoscopes, which revolutionised modern keyhole surgery.

Unfortunately, my grandfather was not immune to the grip of a cruel terminal illness, and he sadly suffered greatly in the final weeks of his life, while battling prostate and secondary cancers, rendered blind during his final days, which was a cruel irony for a man who did so much to advance optics. But it was the haunted look on my father’s face when he arrived home having spent the final few days with Harold, who was in terrible pain and suffering before he finally died, that had a lasting impression on me. Surely, in a modern society, if we are able to live a good life, we must be able to have a good death.

My grandfather was just one of many who have faced such a fate. I have heard from many constituents and from other families—many who are here today—who have shared their own stories of watching their loved ones die in unnecessary pain and indignity. While many have raised concerns around the need for better funded and supported palliative care services in our country, I reiterate the point that the Bill does not represent an either/or proposal.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has said over the past few weeks, at its core this legislation is about not ending life, but shortening death. This is fundamentally an issue of dignity, compassion and humanity, and I encourage all Members across the House to use their power as elected representatives to alleviate the needless pain of thousands of individuals and their families by taking the first step towards providing choice at the end of life by legalising assisted dying.