Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Tom Tugendhat Excerpts

Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

Many points have been made already today, so I will not cover them all. Briefly, I associate myself with the words of the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), whose powerful speech summarised the points that many of us wish to make, and those of the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), whose questions have got to the heart of this matter.

This Bill is about many different things, but fundamentally, it is about two: power and trust. It is about the power over life and death, not just over ourselves, because we already have the power to end our own lives—it is called suicide. It is not a crime, and has not been a crime in this country for decades. The Bill is about a different power: the power of the state through its agents to exercise power over life and death. Yes, the exercise of that power will be agreed and approved of in advance, but when the state takes a life, even with consent, that is a huge shift in the relationship between the individual and the state. It is a transformation in the way in which power lies, and we should be fully conscious of what is being done.

That is why this debate, frankly, needs a little more honesty. We have heard the blandishments and the warm words of euphemism; we have heard this called assisted dying, but the truth is that it is not assisted dying. Assisted dying is what a hospice already does today—helping people, caring for them and supporting them. This is assisted killing or assisted suicide, depending on which word we choose. Honesty in language is important. If we are not even willing to be honest with ourselves in this place, how on earth can we expect the courts to consider the questions we have debated when they have to look at these cases?

I say to all right hon. and hon. Friends—in a debate like this, we are all friends, because we are all seeking the right answer for our country—that this is the last time we are going to talk about these questions. This is the last time that we are going to have actual authority over the words in this Bill, and no matter what interviews we have heard and no matter what assurances we have been given, today or over the past few weeks, the only thing that matters is the words in black and white in the Bill. Those are the words that will be interpreted by judges for years to come.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I will not.

Those are the words that will give powers to Ministers and to the Secretary of State to exercise his or her discretion with the most cursory of oversight from this place.

Let us be absolutely clear on what we are choosing to do. Let us be absolutely clear that it is on us—it is our responsibility—to think not just for those who have options and power, and those who will not be intimidated, but for those who will be. We must think of the weak and vulnerable, to whom the Mother of the House referred, and for the communities in our country who already do not trust the health service, reject vaccination, choose not to come early for cancer diagnoses and already have the worst health outcomes. We need to think of them. Choosing to make that gap greater is not just enabling someone to access care, but actively rejecting others in our community who should seek care but will not because of the fear this will raise in their hearts. We need to think really hard about that.

To those who say that there will be no change and that, “This is it; there can be no further change,” I say that the closest legal equivalent to this legislation is the Canadian legislation. The closest legal equivalent to us is the Canadian Parliament. The closest equivalent to the national health service is the Canadian health system. I therefore give you—

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am not giving way. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady has spoken for many hours; I am speaking for five minutes.

The experience of Roger Foley, a Canadian living with a degenerative condition, warns us:

“As Canada has expanded its assisted dying law, I have faced neglect, verbal abuse, and denial of essential care. I’ve been told my care needs are too much work, and my life has been devalued. Worse still, I have been approached and told by healthcare staff to consider opting for Medical Aid in Dying. Instead of offering compassionate support to alleviate my suffering, it is suggested…that I should end my life.”

Sadly, this is not the only example we have heard of this; we have also heard of veterans with post-traumatic stress order and others with limiting conditions. Today, sadly, we have even said that those who merely feel pressure are allowed to access this service.

Members have a real choice today. When that first 18 or 19-year-old—that first individual—goes and asks for this, it will be we who made that decision. It will be on our consciences. It will be a decision that has fundamentally changed the relationship between the individual and the state in a way that can never be reversed.