What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
I speak as a survivor of domestic violence and as a survivor of an attempted suicide many years ago, while campaigning about domestic violence. Does the right hon. Lady agree that coercion is not always external? Coercion can also be internal—“Am I a burden on my family?”, “Can they afford to look after me?” That coercion is not picked up on in training, because it comes from deep inside when a person is vulnerable and at their lowest ebb.
The last time this matter was debated in this House, I was sitting at the hospital bedside of my dying mother. Consequently, I was unable to speak in that debate and unable to cast a vote. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to speak and vote today, and I urge colleagues and the promoter of this Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), to ensure that this House has the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill, to amend it and to make it safe. Accompanying someone you love through the final days of their life is one of the most profound experiences any of us can have. It confronts us with suffering, vulnerability and fear, and also with the importance of care, compassion and human dignity. That experience did not make me indifferent to the arguments for this Bill—quite the opposite. It made me determined that before we offer people assistance to end their lives, we as individuals and, especially, as legislators have a responsibility—a duty—to ensure that they have access to every possible form of support to live their remaining days well. As the friend to a mother whose child was failed time and again by the inadequacy of our mental health service, whose child by some miracle survived the swallowing of razor blades, anorexia, overdoses and self-harm, I know that access to every form of support was not there for them. As a relative who saw the inadequacy of social care eat away at the self-respect of a once fiercely independent woman, leaving her to conclude that she was a burden and would be better off dead, I know that access to every possible form of support was not there for her. As the daughter who sat at a hospital bedside, having agreed to the withdrawal of invasive treatment, only to watch my semi-conscious mother scream for water that was wrongly withheld and writhe in agony because specialist palliative care was only available nine to five on Monday to Friday, I know that access to every form of support was not there for her. I ask colleagues: how, when we know that every possible form of support is not there for our constituents, when we know that mental healthcare is inadequate, when we know that social care is threadbare and palliative care is an unfunded lottery, and when we know that there is no going back when we vote for this, how can we prioritise and fund the resources, care and support for those choosing an assisted death but deny it to the mentally ill, the elderly and those who wish a pain-free natural death? We hear much of choice in the context of this debate, but choice is only meaningful when people have genuine alternatives. In too many parts of our country, those alternatives simply do not exist. Therefore, before—not after, not over the next four years but before—we vote to facilitate death, we have a duty as legislators to ensure that the resource, funding and support is there for people. We need to know today, before we take this vote, that every possible effort has been made to treat suffering. This Bill does not do that. Once we are over the edge, there is no going back. We know that in every country that has introduced assisted dying, its scope has subsequently expanded, sometimes without further legislative approval.
I will not. Despite knowing this, we stand once more on the edge. We stand on the edge, knowing all the Bill’s flaws. I ask colleagues to pause, to not step over the edge. Instead, we must ask ourselves the following questions. Are we certain that this Bill definitively safeguards against coercion, including self-coercion? Are we certain about mental capacity assessments? Are we certain about terminal prognosis? Are we certain that the safeguards and review mechanisms will be in place? Are we certain that we have ensured that our constituents have access to every possible form of support to live their remaining days well? If the answer to just one of those questions is no, then we should not—we must not—step over the edge. Let me conclude with the words of the friend I spoke of, whose child was failed by our mental health service: “My daughter had a history of serious mental health problems from the age of 13. Aged 22 she went to university and quickly realised she needed more support to manage the change. Despite her history, referrals from her GP and multiple self harm instances that required A&E; community services kept saying she did not meet their thresholds. It led ultimately to total deterioration and 2 years as an inpatient on a secure ward. During this time she repeatedly said her life was not worth living and that she was in so much pain she wanted to die. After much fighting with inadequate and unsafe services, she is now living in the community, back at University and has plans for the future.” In countries such as the Netherlands, her wish to die would have been granted under the assisted dying rules. My constituent says: “I have my daughter today because we do not have Assisted Dying. Please don’t change that.”
Before I begin, I declare an interest as a patron of my local hospice, Community hospice. I want to be clear from the outset that I am not opposed to assisted dying in principle; I understand why many people support a change in the law, and I recognise the compassion that motivates those views. However, today I will set out why I remain unable to support this Bill. This debate evokes deeply held views across the House. I respect my colleagues who have reached a different conclusion, but the question that has troubled me throughout remains the same: can a choice ever be truly free if the support, care and dignity that people deserve are not equally available to all? Through my work with my local hospice, I have seen at first hand what excellent end-of-life care can achieve. I have seen dignity, comfort and compassion, and I have seen how much those final months, weeks and days can mean to individuals and families. That experience leaves me convinced of one thing: dignity at the end of life is possible, and it is our challenge to make it available to everyone. I have listened carefully to constituents on all sides of this debate. One constituent wrote to me about caring for both her husband and her former partner after they were diagnosed with terminal cancer. Both were told that they had no more than six months to live, but both lived for more than a year beyond that prediction. During that time, they were able to reconnect with family, spend precious time with loved ones and continue to live meaningful lives. Her message was simple: prognosis is not certainty, and diagnosis is not the end of the journey. That does not mean that doctors are wrong, but it does mean that when Parliament considers legislation built around predictions of life expectancy, we must take that uncertainty seriously.
I will not. I believe the concerns raised by organisations such as the Royal College of Physicians and the British Geriatrics Society about the uncertainty of the end of life, safeguarding and the definition of terminal illness deserve careful consideration. I cannot separate this debate from my own experiences. Members of my family have experienced discrimination in the healthcare system. Those experiences leave a lasting impression; they remind us that trust, access and outcomes in healthcare are not always experienced equally by everyone. Those inequalities do not disappear when people become seriously ill.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I also want to talk about data from the King’s Fund, which shows that in 2023-24 local authorities received more than 2 million requests for social care support for new clients, but only 859,000 received publicly funded, long-term social care, nearly two thirds of them older people. That means that 58% received no support. Furthermore, the Government’s equality impact assessment gives me pause. It acknowledges concerns that people from ethnic minority backgrounds may face higher risks because of poorer access to healthcare, poverty, lower quality of care and higher levels of abuse. Disabled people and disability organisations have also spoken powerfully throughout this debate about their concerns and the risks they believe this legislation could pose. We should listen carefully to those voices, because for many people the question is not simply whether they have been coerced; it is whether they are making this choice in circumstances none of us would want for ourselves.
I thank my hon. Friend, and I do share those concerns. I have met with constituents who have also been impacted, and I have seen that in the equality impact assessment. My point is whether people would be making this choice in circumstances none of us would want for ourselves: the person unable to access the social care they need, the person worried about the financial consequences of their illness, the person who feels like a burden to those they love, or the person facing loneliness, dependency or abuse. Where evidence identifies greater risks for particular groups and where respected voices continue to raise concerns about whether existing safeguards are sufficient, I believe Parliament has a duty to take those concerns seriously and to test whether more can be done, because access to death should never be easier than access to dignity in life. I want every person approaching the end of life to receive the dignity, support and compassion that I have seen provided by our hospices across the country. But, having considered the evidence before us, I am not persuaded that these serious concerns about inequality, disability, safeguarding and end-of-life uncertainty have been adequately resolved. Until I can feel confident that the safeguards are strong enough to protect the most vulnerable, I do not believe that Parliament should create a legal route to an assisted death.
We must also remember the families of those killed on this tragic day 25 years ago. I was working in the BBC press office at the time and remember everybody standing around watching the shocking scenes unfolding on television—horrific scenes, unseen until perhaps the covid pandemic. Does he agree that international efforts to promote tolerance and understanding to avoid another such incident of this type are vital?
We have heard much today about the legal, medical and ethical questions being raised by this Bill. For me, the idea of ignoring the warnings of the medical professions is absolutely baffling, but my remarks today will focus on poverty, inequality and what dignity really means at the end of life. My daughter Maria has been in my mind throughout my considerations. Maria lived with severe cerebral palsy. She was non-verbal and required round-the-clock care. From the day she was born, we were told that she might have just six months to live, but she defied that and lived for 27 years, bringing immense joy to our family. It is because of Maria that I approach this debate with concern; I fear for non-verbal or vulnerable people, and I worry about those who do not have a trusted person to protect them or speak out for them. I am sure that we all want to see dignity for those at the end of life, but we must ask ourselves what dignity really is. In these circumstances, dignity means being well cared for and supported, receiving the best possible treatment, and knowing that your life is valued. It is not dignified to feel pressured towards death because of the burdens of cost, or the social and economic pressures that accompany serious and terminal illness. When we talk about coercion, we often think of pressure from individuals, but the greater risk may be social coercion driven by inequalities that exist in our society.
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but he will find that there are statistics on that. In America, 8% of those who have been deemed to have chosen to end their life have faced huge financial difficulties.
I could not agree more—these issues have come to light in similar jurisdictions around the world. We know that there is a greater risk of social coercion driven by the inequalities that people face. Under the current proposals, will the panel of experts be able to adequately assess the impact of the wider pressures of life? The truth is that when we talk about choice, the reality of making such a choice is very different for the wealthy than it is for others. Inequality shapes health outcomes throughout our lives, as well as the options available to people at the end of their life. The choices facing someone who is financially secure are very different from those facing someone on a low income, relying on benefits or struggling to make ends meet. As I say, evidence from other countries starkly highlights that such social and economic factors—including inequality in the provision of healthcare—are significant for those who are deemed to have chosen to end their life. We should not ignore that. For more than a decade, we have seen public services come under strain, disability support reduced, and rising hardship for many families. During covid, we witnessed immense pressures on our health system, and I worry that we risk telling people that we cannot always guarantee the support needed to live well, but we can offer greater choice in death. Real choice can only come with high-quality care, strong support services and access to excellent palliative care. That would provide dignity, and it is our job—and a challenge for society—to deliver the chance of real dignity for those facing terminal illness. The people most exposed to the risks within the Bill are often those who already face disadvantage: older people, women, those living in poverty and those with poor mental health. We live in a very unequal society; the wealthy are better protected from hardship, while others face pressures that can profoundly influence their decisions. I cannot be clear enough in saying that poverty should never be the reason for someone to choose to die. I conclude by returning to Maria. While she will not be able to hear my remarks today, I know she would be pleased that I finally got to make my case, and I urge colleagues to bear in mind people like Maria when they cast their votes. If we are serious about dignity and choice, our first duty should be to improve care, strengthen support and tackle the inequalities that shape people’s lives.
My hon. Friend is making a good case for this Bill, but she will know that when the Bill was introduced in 2024, no equality impact assessment was carried out. Recently, the Government have published the assessment, and it highlights the disproportionate impact that the Bill will have on black and ethnic minority communities and on disabled people. There is nothing in the Bill to address that point.
I thank my hon. Friend for the very powerful speech she is giving; she truly sets the tone when she talks about disabled people. There was a poll out this morning of thousands of disabled people, and many of them rightly said that they need assistance to live. We have to get our palliative care and social care right, with the right investment, before we can even begin to engage in a debate about assisted death and assisted suicide. Does she agree that those should be our priorities, not trying to push through legislation that is flawed and not fit for purpose?
I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that the law in Canada was brought in after a Supreme Court judgment, whereas our Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights have repeatedly refused to rule on this, saying quite rightly that it is a matter for Parliament. Does she accept that this jurisdiction is different, and that this is a matter for Parliament, and can be changed only by Parliament?
This is the first time during this Parliament that I have been able to speak publicly about assisted dying and why I support a change in the law and, indeed, this Bill—a decision I voted for 11 years ago when the then MP for Wolverhampton South West, Rob Marris, put his assisted dying Bill to Parliament. I think of all the people who have suffered unbearable pain and loneliness since that first debate took place. I will make three brief points, and forgive me if I do not take interventions—I know so many people want to speak. The first is why I support a change in the law in principle. I have always believed that so long as it does no harm to others, people should have as much control, say and choice over their lives and the decisions that matter to them as possible, no matter their background or situation. That power should be in people’s hands to live or die as they choose, not as anybody else thinks they should or tells them they should. It should not just be the privilege of those with money, knowledge or resources. For me, that applies as much to the end of life as it does throughout the rest of life, and arguably more so—to choose as best we can how we leave this mortal coil on our own terms, in as little pain as possible with grace, humanity and dignity, surrounded by the people we love and who love us in return. That is not the case at present. As my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) so bravely and movingly set out, the principle of choice is deeply important to the people and families who have suffered unbearable deaths or are worried about unbearable deaths, whether or not they use that choice. Many have talked about having the option as a kind of insurance policy or as a comfort for them when they are going through those difficult times. That principle of choice and how important it is leads me to my second point, which is that we need better palliative care and social care before any change in the law. The truth is that for people who genuinely believe in choice, it is not either/or—better palliative care and social care or the option of assisted dying—but both. Even the best-quality universal palliative care will not alleviate unbearable suffering for some people. We know that from respected research institutions, hospices and patients themselves, and we should listen to their voices. Back in 2000, the then editor of the British Medical Journal wrote a powerful article entitled, “A good death”. I remember reading it and thinking how amazing it was. In it, he argued that medicine in particular and society as a whole do not give the attention that we should to helping people die a good death. With our ageing population, increase in long-term chronic conditions and the fact that sudden death is no longer the norm, we need a new approach. We must look at the broad spectrum of support that is needed to provide a good death. The support needs to be based on clear principles, including people being afforded dignity and privacy, having control over pain relief and symptom treatment, and having choice over where death occurs and who is present and shares the end with them. People need to be able to leave when it is time to go and not have their life prolonged pointlessly. I see today’s debate very much within that context: what makes for a good death. Alongside a change in the law on assisted dying, we must also improve palliative care and social care for families. I have campaigned for that for years, including campaigns for more beds in my local hospice LOROS and for free social care and for choice at the end of life. As Richard Smith argued all those years ago, we as a country and society can bring death more into life. That is entirely within the power of this Government and this House. I know that my dear and honourable friend on the Front Bench, the Minister for Social Care, cares passionately about those issues. My third and final point is about trust in our democratic process. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) for the very powerful speech he gave earlier on this point. I have the greatest respect for the many knowledgeable, experienced and highly principled Members of the House of Lords, but it is not right and not acceptable that a tiny minority should be able to talk out the Bill with hundreds and hundreds of amendments—a Bill that has been scrutinised far more than many Government Bills—with the sole purpose of scuppering it. It is the most scrutinised Bill I have seen in my 16 years in Parliament, and it was passed by this House of elected Members. The Lords should vote on this Bill, amend it if they see fit, send it back to us—just like we do with all other Bills. We have done our job. Now the House of Lords needs to do theirs to give people dignity, respect, choice and control over how, where and when they die, which so many hundreds of people have not had in the decades since we last faced this issue.
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.
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?
I think we need to be very careful when we are quoting polling. For instance, we know that Whitestone Insight has been criticised heavily by the British Polling Council in recent weeks for failing to meet its standards in terms of disclosing who has been funding its research. The reference I am making in my speech is to those very robust, independent polls, such as the British attitudes survey, which in 2024 found that 73% of the British public supported assisted dying and have done so over the last 20 years.
I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier).
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.
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.
It is absolutely right that, for instance, the Prime Minister and the Government have said that improving palliative care must be a priority—I think that is something we can all support. Everybody should have access to good-quality palliative, hospice and end-of-life care in their final moments.
I will make some progress. As acknowledged by organisations that provide that care, though, their services cannot address pain and suffering in all circumstances. During the passage of the Bill in the last parliamentary Session, we heard examples of the limits of palliative care from Members with medical expertise themselves.
No, I will make some progress. We heard difficult stories about patients with bile duct cancer facing the prospect of faecal vomiting as their illness progressed. We listened as Members recounted memories of watching patients bleed to death while conscious, cancer having eaten away at their carotid artery. We felt their frustration when the maximum dose of sedatives could not alleviate the choking and suffocation of someone with peritoneal cancer. Those people deserved choice and a dignified end, too.
The position that I take is that we can, and must, both improve palliative care and support assisted dying. We must grasp the opportunity that is in front of us to create a holistic end-of-life care system that will deliver choice and dignity for every single one of our constituents.
I point out that if this Bill received Royal Assent, the four-year implementation period provided for at the end of the Bill would give us the opportunity to work together to improve palliative care and assisted dying, creating the holistic end-of-life care system to which I have referred.
I am going to make a little bit of progress. The four-year implementation period means that nobody would be receiving assisted dying until 2031 at the earliest. That would be too late for many people, but it would be plenty of time to make improvements to palliative care, which would go hand in hand with providing the choice of an assisted death for those who still need it. We can, and should, do both.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Obviously, Members have previously raised concerns about doctors getting their prognosis wrong when it comes to how long someone is able to live. My understanding is that, given the international evidence, six months was seen a reasonable line to draw, because as the time of death gets closer, the accuracy of the diagnosis is increased.
I am sorry, but I will not give way. I thank all those who took part in the debate on the Bill in this Chamber during the last parliamentary Session. We showed politics at its best through our robust but courteous debates. We did our job, and we did it well; now it is time for us to send this assisted dying Bill back to the House of Lords, so that it can finish what it started. Whatever our respective views on the form and composition of the second Chamber, I hope we can agree that peers play an important role in scrutinising, refining and strengthening the legislation that we send there.
The Government have been clear, as the Government of the previous Prime Minister were, that they remain neutral on assisted dying, but that they have responsibilities to make sure that the legislation we bring forward is workable. We received those assurances on Third Reading of the previous Bill, when we voted in favour of it as a Chamber.
I will not give way. I am asking Members today to start the process of sending this Bill back to the House of Lords, so that they can continue their important function of fulfilling their constitutional role.
Members should be in no doubt that the Bill we sent the Lords last year was robust.
No. The Bill was expertly drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and developed with comprehensive technical advice from officials in both the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice.
No, I will make a little bit more progress, please. Although the Government are neutral on the issue of assisted dying—then, as now—they have a duty to ensure that any legislation that Parliament passes is effective, legally robust and workable. I am confident in saying to this House that the Bill before us today is a well-designed, safe piece of legislation.
I would start by saying that the Bill is explicit that it does not apply to people with a disability.
I would be happy to address that point. There is not a uniform view among disabled people on assisted dying. Like with anything, within organisations there are people who arrive at different views. It is important that we are giving disabled people the same rights as other people. It is very clear in the Bill that it is for adults aged over 18 who have a terminal illness and who only have six months to live. It specifically makes clear that it does not apply to people who have a disability.
As has been mentioned, the Bill has been subject to hundreds of hours of scrutiny, and amendments have been made to strengthen its safeguards, but that does not mean it cannot be strengthened further. As with any Bill, it will benefit from additional scrutiny. The Bill before us today already includes an important clarification on eating disorders that was agreed without a vote in the House of Lords last time. Together with the co-sponsor of the Bill in the House of Lords, Lord Falconer, who is in the Gallery today, I have recently met representatives from medical bodies and hospice organisations to discuss further amendments that could be made in the other place.
I disagree with the position that any time we amend a Bill in this place, it is ultimately deficient and unworkable. That is not how it works. All I am asking the Chamber to do today is to send the Bill back to the House of Lords so it can continue its work, which was interrupted, of scrutinising the Bill.
There were a number of amendments around points of clarification—some external organisations wanted some words made a little clearer, although they seem robust to me—that I certainly believe could be made in the House of Lords.
No, I will make some progress. Taking the approach I have outlined respects both the will of this House, as expressed in June 2025, and allows the usual parliamentary processes to continue.