Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater]

There is absolutely nothing in the Bill that has any suggestion that any funding would be impacted by whatever decisions organisations make around assisted dying.

I will make some progress. New clause 10(1) states clearly:

“No person is under any duty to participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act.”

That is something I feel strongly on a personal level. If people do not want to be involved, they should not have to be involved, and those who do, should. Subsection (5) covers pharmacists and pharmacy technicians and new schedule 1 provides comprehensive employment protections, so I hope that whatever colleagues’ views are on assisted dying, they will see the value of these changes and support them.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for these amendments, because a number of people have written to me concerned about the very issue that she is raising. Does she agree that many people will just be opposed to assisted dying in all its forms, and I entirely respect that, but if that is really their objection, they should be honest about that and not pretend that it is only particular amendments they need? They should make the argument that they actually want to make.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree that we must be respectful, but we must also be honest with each other.

Amendment (a) to new clause 10 was tabled by the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), who I thank for her work on the Bill Committee. I understand the thinking behind the amendment, but I worry about unintended consequences for patient care and protection. I have been advised that that is the case, and I think the Minister will speak to that. I think there is consensus across the House that, in the interests of patient safety, it is vital that there is clear and open communication, and sharing of information, between healthcare professionals in the assisted dying process. If an employer can stop their whole workforce participating in any sort of assisted dying services, it could prevent the sharing of information or the recording of information in a patient’s records. That could relate to safeguarding, and it could put patients at risk as a result of the employer’s decision. Terminally ill patients may be receiving different treatment at different places and from different healthcare professionals, and it would potentially be harmful if they were not able to transfer information or records.

There are also workability issues with amendment (a) to new clause 10. It is not clear how it would work with regard to the requirement in subsection (7) for professionals to provide information to an assessing doctor about a patient—someone whom they may have previously treated—or in relation to information about a specific condition that they may specialise in. That information would need to be provided in the interests of patient care. An employee will always be bound by their contract of employment, but flexibility is needed, as many health and care professionals work for multiple employers. It is not uncommon for clinical staff to have more than one employer—for example, a doctor may be employed by the NHS but also work for a hospice—so it is not a straightforward scenario. Just as it would be wrong for anyone to be compelled to be involved in the process, it would be wrong for anyone to be prevented from doing so, particularly if there was an impact on patient safety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

I wholeheartedly agree.

There is much to discuss today and there is little time, so I will start at the beginning of the Bill, at the point at which the criteria for eligibility for an assisted death are set. It is there that important safeguards are needed to ensure that those who should never be eligible are excluded. We should not make the mistake of assuming that a doctor will always make the right decision or that they are infallible. It is incumbent on us to put in place law that makes it harder for them to get it wrong—that makes it harder for someone vulnerable to fall between the cracks.

[Mr Perkins]

The hon. Lady has just agreed with a point made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). Exactly the same point was made when this House voted against the Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill back in 2015. Would she say that in the nine years after the House voted against the Bill, we saw a golden age in palliative care as a result, or does she think that if we wait for palliative care to be perfect we might never vote in favour of assisted dying?

[Rebecca Paul]

The evidence is clear that palliative care does not get better when assisted dying is introduced; we heard that in the Bill Committee. We should absolutely look to address palliative care, because that will benefit more people. I will come to that point later in my speech, so I will not discuss it any further now. I do not want to get ahead of myself.

There are many helpful amendments in this vein—namely, new clause 16, new clause 9 and amendments 80, 14, 38, 81, 24, 30 and 31. In simple terms, they seek to tighten and refine the eligibility criteria for an assisted death by setting out when and for what reasons an assisted death should be allowed, and by ensuring that those who are vulnerable are protected from something that may not be in their best interests.

Interestingly, on Second Reading the argument put forward for assisted death was that those who are dying should be spared unbearable pain. This is an argument that everyone understands and has full sympathy with. No one in this place wants people to endure pain as they come to the end of their life; I certainly would not want that for my loved ones or indeed for myself when my time comes.

But then the arguments being put forward changed. There was less emphasis on pain, and more on choice and autonomy. The word “autonomy” came up again and again in Committee—and autonomy is important, of course, but up to a point. From a proposal to provide a humane end to someone’s pain when it cannot be relieved in the last months of their life, we have moved to a proposal to provide an assisted death service to those who choose it for any reason, even if the pain can be alleviated by palliative care. This approach, however, comes with a cost to others: family, clinicians and broader society. This really is momentous. There is no going back from such a massive shift. A move to autonomy trumping everything else changes everything.

Chagos Islands

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman goes over ground that he has gone over before, with questions I have answered in this House and, indeed, which were discussed in yesterday’s debate. We have been very clear, as indeed were the previous Government, that this base was not on a secure footing. This has been done in full agreement with the US national security apparatus across the piece. He refers to the ICC; it was, of course, the International Court of Justice that made that judgment.

We are very clear that the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia plays a critical role in countering an array of threats to regional and international security, and we will not scrimp on the security of that base or on the solidity of the agreements around it. We will ensure that it is in operation well into the next century and that we are able to operate unimpeded as we do today. That is exactly why the previous Government recognised there was a problem and engaged in this process, and it is why we have brought that problem to a conclusion, with a deal that protects our interests and the interests of the United States and that ensures the security of the base and its operation.

As I have said, once the treaty is signed, it will be brought before the House for scrutiny before ratification in the usual way. [Interruption.] I hear chuntering from the Opposition Benches. I have to say, the Opposition seem to have collective amnesia over this issue. They know full well the reasons behind this; many of them were members of the previous Government. They have heard what the Prime Minister just said on the Leader of the Opposition’s attacks. We are very clear that this is about defending the UK’s security, putting the base on a secure footing and securing that for the future, for both us and our allies.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

At the most recent Environmental Audit Committee sitting, we heard about the importance of the Chagos islands for the marine environment. Can my hon. Friend tell us anything more about the specific reassurances we have had on that crucial area for the biodiversity of the marine environment, and how that will be protected after this deal, from the discussions that he has had?

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. It was a delight to appear before his Committee to discuss other matters just a few weeks ago. This treaty reflects both parties’ shared commitment to uphold international environmental law, including high conservation standards across the archipelago. Mauritius has expressed dedication to marine conservation and has aligned its global initiatives to protect 30% of marine areas by 2030 and its commitments under the sustainable development goals, and establishing a fit-for-purpose marine protected area is a crucial part of that. We will work with Mauritius very closely on this matter. It was a very important part of the discussions, and I am very glad we have been able to make the agreements that we have.

Northern Gaza

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

As I said earlier, the situation for new mothers, for expectant mothers and, indeed, for the majority of vulnerable Palestinians is appalling and needs to change urgently. The obligations on the Israeli state under international humanitarian law are clear. We raise these points with Israel publicly and privately, and we will continue to do so directly and in multilateral forums until the situation is resolved to the satisfaction of international bodies.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Israel’s conduct in this war is not just an attack on the people of Palestine; it is an attack on the international rules-based approach, the international community and the United Nations. Although I accept that the Minister is right to say that this Government are doing more than their predecessor, can he specify why the UK Government’s current policy is not to have sanctions, even against occupied territory products? Even if that is under review, why is that the Government’s policy at this moment? Does he agree that it is an attack on all those institutions, and not just the people of Palestine?

[Mr Falconer]

First, on the question of international law, this Government have been clear that we stand for a rules-based international order. Where anyone, whatever our relationship with them, takes steps that undermine that order, they undermine the safety and security of British nationals and many others. We are clear, with the Israelis and others, where we are concerned that there are breaches of international humanitarian law. I reiterate our position on the status of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which is consistent with UN Security Council resolutions. We have put sanctions on those operating in those territories, both where they are conducting illegal settlements and where they are perpetuating horrific violence against Palestinians in the OPTs. We will continue to keep these measures under review.

Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hamish Falconer]

For the awareness of the House, the shadow Attorney General has written about the two different legal interpretations of immunity and has sought the Attorney General’s view on these matters. I think the shadow Attorney General acknowledges that this is a case on which the courts are the competent authority, but the Attorney General has undertaken to respond to that letter in due course.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The law is the law, and the evidence is the evidence. Whether or not it is politically convenient or diplomatically helpful, the law is the law. The International Criminal Court has been clear, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to reject the Opposition’s calls to turn this into a political decision. It should remain an independent legal decision for our courts and for the International Criminal Court, and the Minister should continue exactly as he is.

[Hamish Falconer]

I agree.

Israel and Gaza

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady is not right in what she says about there being a change in the Government position, for the reasons that I have repeatedly set out. The United Kingdom has long been calling for an immediate humanitarian pause leading to a sustainable ceasefire, and that is what resolution 2728 seeks to deliver.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I understand what the deputy Foreign Secretary says about wanting both sides to acknowledge United Nations Security Council resolution 2728, but he must know that the people in Gaza facing starvation, going to bed every night wondering whether it will be their last, do not have the power to bring the hostages back. The people who have the power to bring the hostages back are sitting in five-star hotels in Qatar, so it is useless to allow the aid for people in Gaza to be blocked by Israel, and for them to continue to be on the end of a bombardment, while somehow suggesting that they are masters of their own destiny. Will he say what this Government will do in the event that Israel continues to ignore a binding United Nations Security Council resolution?

Ceasefire in Gaza

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara]

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. If we accept Israel’s response as the new norm, the danger that everybody across the world, regardless of their circumstances, will be put in is terrifying. It is a terrifying example to set, and a terrifying precedent that should worry us all. I thank her for that intervention.

To address the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), no one can argue with any credibility for what they used to call, and some people still do call, “humanitarian pauses”—the convoluted idea of organised fixed-term pauses in the killing that would allow emergency aid into Gaza, only for the carnage to resume at a prearranged date and time. That should be seen for what it always was: a smokescreen for politicians to hide behind while waiting to see in which direction the wind of public opinion will blow.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment (a), to leave out from “House” to end and add

“believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children; condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages; supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October 2023 cannot happen again; therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza; further demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures; calls for the UN Security Council to meet urgently; and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.”

There are times when this House can come together with clarity and a unity of purpose, and I hope that this can be one of those moments. It is with pain and sadness that this House gathers today—the pain and sadness of war that has gone on too long. It is now 137 days since the appalling 7 October massacre, and since that day, the killing has gone on. Flattened cities, ransacked kibbutzim, teeming refugee camps, hostages in chains—we have seen it all on our TV and phone screens.

A ground offensive in Rafah would be a humanitarian disaster, a moral catastrophe and a strategic mistake. It must not happen. That is our position, it is the position of the European Union, it is the position of our friends in the Arab world, and it is the position of our Five Eyes partners in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. We must not just avert a ground invasion of Rafah, essential though that is; all violence against civilians must now stop. That is why Labour is saying unequivocally that we need an immediate humanitarian ceasefire to end the bloodshed and the suffering.

[Mr Perkins]

It is important that we try to come out of this debate not only with the House united, but with the United Kingdom in line with international partners. If the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) had given way, I would have said to him that although the leader of the SNP, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), spoke during Prime Minister’s questions about being in line with the international community, it is actually Labour’s amendment that would put us in line with international partners. The SNP motion puts us outside the space in which the vast majority of the international community is.

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is a moment when the whole House can come together. Let us be clear, whether from the Government Benches or the Opposition Benches, that we all agree that the time for a ceasefire has come, to end the bloodshed and suffering, and to allow a sustained effort to salvage the hope of a two-state solution. There are three motions before us today. Only one can be supported by all sides.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend will know that this is a difficult area that involves other Departments. I will ensure that he gets an update on that issue from the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) when she winds up the debate.

[Mr Perkins]

The Minister has just laid out the Government’s position, and the difference between that and the Labour amendment may not be immediately clear to those watching. The Labour amendment calls for an immediate ceasefire, and the Government’s calls for a “pause”, which by definition means that the war is not over but there is a pause in it. The Labour amendment calls for the introduction of a Palestinian state, and is in line with the position of Australia, Canada and New Zealand. It opposes the action in Rafah, whereas the Government only have “concern” about it. Will the Minister explain, given those four differences, what he thinks is wrong with what Labour is saying in our amendment?

[Mr Mitchell]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s recognition that the amendments tabled by the Government and the official Opposition are close. It is a great pity that it is not possible for the official Opposition to support the Government amendment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that when he comes to decide how to vote. I will come directly to the other points he mentioned, if he will allow me to do so.

As I have said, we are deeply concerned about the prospect of a military offensive in Rafah, where over half of Gaza’s population are sheltering, including more than 600,000 children. Those are people who have fled repeatedly since the conflict began, and as the Foreign Secretary has said, it is impossible to see how a war can be fought among them. There is nowhere for them to go. They cannot go south into Egypt, and they cannot go north because many of their homes have been destroyed. Hamas, of course, displays the utmost cynicism in lurking among civilians, sacrificing innocent lives in the name of their fanaticism, and we condemn that utterly. But we must also recognise the result of that cynicism: Israeli soldiers will only be able to reach hostages or the Hamas leadership at an incredible cost to innocent lives. We share Israel’s desire to end the threat from Hamas, and ensure that it no longer exerts control over Gaza, but the UK and our partners say that Israel must reflect on whether such a military operation is wise or is counterproductive to its long-term interests and the achievement of the goals that the international community has set out, before it takes any further action.

Britain and our partners are doing all we can to help those suffering. We have trebled our assistance, and we are pressing to get it into Gaza by all available routes—land, sea, air, trucks of aid rolling in from Jordan, and ships loaded with supplies sailing from Cyprus—all while striving to get more crossings open. As I mentioned, last week I was in Qatar, where we discussed the need to increase humanitarian aid to Gaza. I am pleased to say that a joint UK-Qatar aid consignment arrived in Rafah last week, including tents to shelter families in desperate need. Our partnership on that consignment prefigured our new $50 million global humanitarian and development co-funding initiative, which I unveiled with Qatari Minister Al-Khater last weekend. The Rafah crossing is vital to ensure aid can reach the people who so desperately need it. Britain has continually underlined the need for Israel to ease restrictions on humanitarian supplies and to ensure that the UN and aid agencies can reach civilians in need throughout Gaza.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

We have heard some compelling speeches today. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar), the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and many other Members gave the perspective of people on the ground living in that hell that is Gaza right now. We should listen carefully to their incredibly powerful contributions.

I am proud to speak to the amendment tabled in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and it is important to focus on what it says. The amendment says that we oppose the ground offensive in Rafah, which “risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences”. It would put us in line with

“Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire.”

The amendment calls for

“rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief”

for the people of Gaza,

“demands an end to the settlement expansion and violence”

and

“urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures”.

The amendment also demands a two-state solution, to which the people of Palestine are entitled, and says that Palestinian statehood is

“not in the gift of any neighbour.”

I challenged the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) to tell us what is wrong with the amendment. We have heard many speeches from Conservative Members, and not a single one has outlined what they oppose in the amendment. Anybody who says that they are in favour of an immediate ceasefire is compelled to support the amendment or explain why they do not. It is not enough simply to say that they are supporting the Government motion, because that is very different. The Government motion calls for a pause, not a ceasefire. This is not semantics. A pause means that the fighting is interrupted but then continues. A ceasefire continues to hold until someone breaks it, which is very different.

The Government motion does not oppose the action in Rafah or speak about the need for a Palestinian state. The Government motion does not bring us in line with our colleagues in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and it does not urge Israel to comply with the ICJ verdict. I am afraid that people who vote for the Government motion but do not vote for the Labour amendment are voting against all those things, and it is really important that that message is heard.

I am very pleased to hear that the SNP will support the Labour amendment. The party is right to do so, and I hope that all those—from both sides of the House—who have argued powerfully in this debate for an immediate ceasefire will support the Labour amendment and see this House united behind those words.

Israel and Palestine

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are seeking humanitarian pauses, and we hope that we can reach a sustainable ceasefire. That is the policy of the Government, and it is the policy that was echoed at the United Nations. He will also want to reflect on the fact that Israel has an absolute right to exercise self-defence, but it must do so within international humanitarian law.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Young women just out of school remain in captivity, facing rape and sexual violence as a weapon of war by Hamas, and we know that Hamas remain a barrier, rather than a conduit, towards a two-state solution. On the other side, senior politicians and the Israeli ambassador now feel the confidence to be able to declare that a two-state solution is off the table, completely ruling out the position that the Minister articulates. Does he not share my fear that his refusal to condemn the comments of the Israeli ambassador, and his continuing to say that we support international law when it is clear that it is being broken, will give the Israelis the sense that, secretly, we support the approach they are taking? As friends of the Israelis, we must be much stronger in condemning what they are doing.

[Mr Mitchell]

Nothing secret is engaged here. We have been very clear about exactly where we stand, even when it is not very popular across the House: we will stand up for a sustainable ceasefire, seek to get a political track and use Britain’s diplomatic skills and clout, which are much respected in the region, to try to approach a political settlement that honours the two-state solution. I am not sure there is very much between what the hon. Gentleman and I are saying today, but that is the endeavour in which the British Government are engaged.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

We continue to be forthright in our support for the absolute right of Israel to defend its people and its sovereignty. The tragedy that has unfolded following the Hamas terrorist abomination on 7 October of course brings pain to all sides, but we will continue to be forthright in our commitment to Israel’s security and, ultimately, I hope, to Palestinian statehood, in a long-term and sustainable peace in the middle east.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Many of us absolutely recognise Israel’s right to defend itself, and that Hamas and their approach are a barrier to a lasting peace solution, but we also absolutely despair that the Government’s calls for restraint are being so ignored by the Israeli Government. Does the Minister agree that the international community needs to make it absolutely clear to every combatant in the conflict that the International Criminal Court is watching and people will be held to account for their conduct? His saying, “We call for humanitarian law to be followed” is simply not enough. People will be held to account for their conduct in this war.

[Leo Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman is stating the fact of the matter: international humanitarian law, which we expect all sides to follow, is there to be upheld.

Mahsa Amini

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

I can confirm that I am aware of those cases and that they are under consideration.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Iranian regime is guilty not just of routine brutality against its own people, but of exporting terror and supporting despotic regimes and terrorist organisations in a whole raft of countries. The people who are protesting in Iran have provided an inspirational example to all of us, but there will be many others who are considering joining those protests but are frightened to do so. It would send a very powerful message if the Minister could come to the Dispatch Box and tell us in response to the question from the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) what she is doing to build those relationships with potential alternative leaders in Iran. Can she tell us more and offer hope to those potential protesters that the UK Government will support those who can show a better future for the people of Iran?

[Gillian Keegan]

The British Government have a policy of not officially making a decision on that. Their choice is for Iran’s Government to be a matter for the Iranian people. We make sure that we support opposition groups in Iran, but we do not support any one group in particular.

Women’s Rights to Reproductive Healthcare: United States

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

The FCDO’s remit in this regard is international, and we have a very proud record in terms of universal and comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we pay a lot of attention to this and raise it in international forums.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Rape victims, women facing a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy and children who are victims of sexual abuse are all among the women who will now be forced to carry a child to full term. This Government are never slow to condemn religious fundamentalism when it is among those countries that we consider to be hostile to us. Would it not be all the more powerful if the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and indeed the Minister at the Dispatch Box were to condemn in far stronger language to one of our allies the rise in religious fundamentalism and the impact it will have on people many, many miles away who desperately want to know that they have someone on their side?

[Amanda Milling]

I have been pretty clear on my own personal opinion on this court judgment, but it is a court judgment in the US, which is not within our jurisdiction. The Prime Minister was very clear at the weekend on his view in seeing it as a backward step. One of the interviews that he gave was on CNN, so I think he has been pretty clear on our views.