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
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Under the Bill, what we would be saying to those clinicians is, “We want you to do much, much more. We want you to gauge whether people are being coerced. We want you to make a definitive judgment about how long someone has to live.” That is an unbearable pressure on those who have a mission to save lives, not to take them.
I applaud my right hon. Friend’s passion and clarity on this issue. On the subject of democratic accountability, he knows that if, as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) has made clear, no amendments to the Bill can be accepted from this House, the authority to decide whether the Bill changes passes to the other place. There must be a problem in my right hon. Friend’s argument, with this House saying, “If we are worried about the content of this Bill at the moment, we can do nothing about it, and we rely on the other place to do something instead.”
The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) has spoken most movingly, and we know that many of us are very conflicted on this issue. We have to respect each other and show compassion—we know what this debate is all about. No one side has a monopoly on compassion. I will say in a moment why I believe in being assisted to die in a dignified way, but will the House forgive me if I start with an essential legal point? We know that what this is all about is ensuring that the Bill we are debating today leaves the House unamended so that the Parliament Act can be imposed. The Isle of Man had an assisted dying Bill, which, like this Bill, left a lot to delegated powers. The Ministry of Justice concluded that this meant that that Bill was not compatible with the European convention on human rights. When the result of the private Member’s Bill ballot was published, three former Attorneys General of both parties—Baroness Scotland, Dominic Grieve and Baroness Prentis—wrote to the promoter to urge her not to present the same Bill, as it would run into the same legal and constitutional difficulties. It is unfortunate that that offer has not been taken up, and we have to ask why. Let me give my own personal views as briefly as possible. I will surprise the House by saying that I am in favour of assisted dying. I am in favour of the idea that when I, or when any of us, approach our last moments, we go into a hospice and are assisted to die. That is what doctors and nurses do all the time. I have been very impressed by what our Prime Minister has said on this issue—he has not been mentioned yet. It is about ensuring that everybody receives excellent palliative care, as we see in our hospices like St Barnabas hospice in Lincoln. So we are agreed on that.
If the hon. Member will forgive me, I have been told to be brief. I am in favour of our being assisted to die as painlessly as possible, and every palliative care nurse and doctor I have ever talked to has made it clear that in the overwhelming majority of cases, that is possible. Of course, we can be anaesthetised, as we all are when we have operations. I hear the argument, but I believe that we need to improve palliative care. What worries me about the Bill—this is my point—is that I do not believe that it will be just an assisted dying Bill; I think that in time, it will become an assisted suicide Bill. I have mentioned the ECHR. What is the logic of the Bill? We all know it is terrible if you have a terminal cancer prognosis, but what if you are clinically depressed? What if you are quadriplegic? What if you are sentenced to a lifetime of being unable to move your arms or legs? What if you know, as a member of our family in Canada does, that you will get more and more dementia, so you take the assisted dying route? The truth is that we cannot differentiate between these conditions that make life unbearable for many people. I make this prediction: if this Bill goes through—if the Parliament Act ensures that it does—I believe that in 10 years’ time we will be in similar situation to Canada, and very large numbers of people will be choosing assisted dying. We hear a lot that this country is broken, and that the elite is ruining the country. I think that is rubbish. This country is not broken. The reason we are under pressure is that there are too many of us—too many old people; too many people with multiple health conditions. There is tremendous pressure on the NHS; we know that. We heard a lot from my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) about coercion. We have also heard that coercion is not necessarily external; it can be internal. I believe that if we move to a society in which assisted suicide is the norm, vast numbers of people will take it up. Is that really the sort of society that we want?
No. I agree that we would have more prosperity and be a richer country, and would have more choice and freedom, but would it really be a happier country? What I stand for, and what I believe in passionately, is respect for all human life—the life of old people who are suffering so much from dementia that they cannot even recognise their own children, and the life of people who have appalling long-term conditions. I believe that there is a greater thing than choice or prosperity; it is love—love of life. All of us in every country in the last 100 years have said that whatever happens, we should respect life and not take it. Yes, this will be difficult for many people, and we have heard moving stories, but take the NHS; at the moment, when a person goes to hospital, they know that they will be dealt with compassionately by a doctor or nurse, and that the conversation will be all about relieving their symptoms and trying to save their life. Do they want the conversation to start with the fact that their life is unbearable? I know that there is passion on both sides of this debate, and we treat each other with respect, but before we vote for this Bill at 2.30 pm, remember what sort of society we would be creating—not a society that loves life.
I congratulate my hon. Friend very much on bringing this debate to the House. What he has said is symptomatic of the importance of the special relationship, which he does so much to support in his role as a member of the executive of the British-American Parliamentary Group. Does he agree that a point that could be added to his list would be for the Government to promote the special relationship, ensuring that generations of children coming up realise that we are really close allies and shall remain close allies with our friends in the United States, irrespective of who happens to be holding elected office at any one time?
I welcome the speech from the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), who is an example of what we have seen throughout this debate, going back to the early 2000s: people peeling off from supporting assisted dying in principle and, certainly, peeling off from supporting this Bill. I am a case in point. I came into the Chamber to listen to Lord Falconer’s Bill in 2014 absolutely determined that I was going to vote for assisted dying. I sat through the debate and ended up voting against, because I thought that the arguments were not made in favour of the Bill. The second reason we should throw out this Bill is that it keeps changing. Even now, it is not settled. Even now, its advocates want changes to it. They are stuck with the reality that if the Parliament Act is invoked, they will only be able to invoke the Bill as it stands today. They will not be able to have their changes. So if in doubt today, the House must vote no. Thirdly, the question is far bigger, it turns out, than just a matter of conscience or an isolated matter to be decided. It is a massive question that affects public policy and has major public expenditure consequences. That has convinced me that we really should not see another Bill like this one until we have had a Government Bill go through the process of proper scrutiny within Government, with all the consequences laid out and dealt with. It must be a responsible and accountable Secretary of State that presents the Bill; it must not be a Back-Bench Bill. Maybe there should be a citizens assembly on this question—it is a subject that would lend itself to a citizens assembly. [Interruption.] Well, it would not take away any power from this House. This House would still be able to decide, but it would inform the debate in a way that the debate is still not informed. My mother and father passed away in recent years, and I am so grateful that my mother never had to confront this question. She often said, “Oh, I just want to die. I am just a burden on the family.” Though she would never have qualified for this Bill, I am so grateful that there were never any circumstances that would possibly have confronted her with this question. I advert to another conversation. I have a very dear friend—someone who has become a mentor—who is a very interesting, clever, intellectual, determined and courageous lady. She has scoliosis of the spine. The last time I went to see her, there she was, hardly able to sit up and in constant pain. We have open conversations, so I asked her, “If assisted dying were available to you, would you take it?” Without hesitation she said, “Oh, yes.” When I asked why, she said, “Because I am a burden to my family.” I said, “Well, I have been voting against assisted dying. I am going to have to rethink my position.” Then she said, without hesitation, “Oh, I don’t advocate it.” She understands the complexity of this, and she knows that it opens a can of worms that we really have not understood fully. I urge colleagues in the House to vote against the Bill today.
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She has outlined the will of this House, but she may remember that, during the passage of the last Bill, I asked the then Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions to do what has happened with similar Bills in the past—on homosexuality, on abortion and on the death penalty—which was to give time on the Floor of the House for Committee of the whole House. That would massively strengthen amendments that are made by using the whole House to approve them. That is a choice for Government Front Benchers, so is the hon. Lady going to lobby her own Government to give everybody in this House the opportunity to properly scrutinise the Bill in Committee?
The hon. Lady is making a principled argument that the House must listen to and respect, but she has spoken about choice and dignity, and the one thing I have never understood about this Bill is the importance of the specific time period—that it would apply to adults who have six months or fewer to live. If there is to be choice and dignity, and if people are in pain and the condition is terminal, what is the sanctity of six months? If the principles of choice and dignity underpin the Bill, surely six months is way too narrow.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way a second time. This is the democratically accountable House; I think we would all agree on that point. On that basis, is she prepared to accept in Committee and on Report, if this Bill secures its Second Reading this afternoon, amendments authored, debated and voted upon by Members of Parliament?
Will the Minister give way?
As Members of this House, our fundamental obligation, above all political considerations, is to protect those who are most exposed, most vulnerable and least able to advocate for themselves. I acknowledge that colleagues from all parties view this Bill as a measure of compassion, but if compassion is to truly serve the public interest, then it must be paired with rigorous scrutiny and an examination of all consequences of the intended legislation. I voted against this Bill on Second Reading in 2024 and on Third Reading in 2025, and I intend to do so again today. I believe that Government should assist people to live, not to die. Our focus should be on providing hope and support to all those who feel that death is the only way out of a dark situation. That is the purpose of humanity—to preserve life. We should prioritise the improvement of palliative care and end-of-life care, as opposed to directing taxpayer money away from those services and into assisted suicide. Around 60% of the public agree that we should first fix our NHS before even considering whether to introduce assisted suicide into law. I note that during his tenure as Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) concurred with that majority in June 2025, describing how such a measure would take time and money that is already in short supply. In addition, our new Prime Minister has outlined his commitment to a new national care service and to implementing reforms to strengthen our existing services. I welcome the fact that this Prime Minister is acting to protect the function of our health and care networks to support our constituents in life, because ultimately the NHS should be saving lives, not taking lives. Our palliative and end-of-life care services are an essential part of our NHS and wider healthcare system. I pay tribute to LOROS hospice, which provides free and high-quality care to terminally ill and adult patients across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. It cares for around 2,500 people and plays an important role in our community in Leicester East, not only in its direct support for patients, but through its provisions to wider families and friends affected by such situations. In its evidence to the Public Bill Committee, it highlighted that there should be one specialist palliative care bed for every 12,000 people, but, with just 22 beds, it has one bed for every 55,000 people. How can I turn around to my constituents and say that they will have a choice other than assisted death against that backdrop?
Respectfully, I will not take interventions. Many colleagues wish to speak, and I am mindful of time—please forgive me. I am disappointed and concerned that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) has reintroduced an identical Bill to the House and ignored all the issues revealed, even the ones admitted to by the noble and learned Lord Falconer in the other place. This Bill’s failure is not just a sign of how inadequate the private Member’s Bill process is for a Bill of this magnitude; it is an alarm over the lack of safeguards for vulnerable people—the very demographic that we in this House are supposed to protect and support. The purpose of this House is to legislate well. We are here to advocate for our constituents, share our differing opinions and use our privileged positions of influence to impact the outcome of legislation, but the methods and attitude of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood completely discount the hours of debate that took place on the assisted suicide legislation in the last Session. The amendments tabled in the other place were not unreasonable; they were legitimate safeguards to protect those in our society who are vulnerable. Many of those amendments were from external organisations, and 26 amendments were from the Law Society. Those amendments would have ensured the safety of those with eating disorders and Down’s syndrome and increased the chance of catching abusive situations in which an individual is being pressured to end their life. There were amendments from trade unions to protect the compensation rights of families of workers suffering from occupational or industrial diseases who seek an assisted death. The Leader of the House told MPs before summer that lessons needed to be learned about how we take the public with us and build consensus, rather than just keep ploughing on. He said that Members should consider if the PMB route is really appropriate, but it seems that his words fell on deaf ears. We stand here in the mother of Parliaments as representatives of the millions of British citizens throughout our constituencies, and we have the right to debate issues, because generations before us fought tirelessly to secure that right. The threat of the use of the Parliament Acts to drive through this legislation completely disregards safeguards for vulnerable people. It requires us not to care if no further changes are made to the Bill. I am well aware that this subject of debate is not easy or straightforward, and that it is painful for a lot of our constituents and distressing for Members across the House. Let me come to my last point. One of my many concerns with the concept of assisted suicide relates to coercion. As we have heard in the House, coercion can come in many forms. Members across this House will know that my constituency of Leicester East has one of the highest concentrations of non-white British and multi-ethnic populations in the country, and I will say again that I am enormously proud of that, but I will not support any Bill that leaves them vulnerable to coercion. Legal experts gave evidence to the Bill Committee during the previous Session stating that in some cultures, “decision-making is a collective process involving family and community members.” We cannot allow the fear and distress of people experiencing palliative care, end of life care or simply struggling with the prospect of living another day to be taken advantage of. It is dangerous that this House would consider creating legislation that would allow space for people to be encouraged and, in some instances, forced to take a decision to end their life when at their most vulnerable. Let me conclude by reminding the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood that 59% of voters in her own constituency agree that this Bill should not be the priority of this Government. Does she sit here today to truly represent her constituents? If she does, and if she takes into account the situations of those in her constituency who are vulnerable, she will acknowledge that it would be morally void to support this Bill any further.
I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous with her time. Is she aware of the sheer number of palliative care consultants who are not prepared to take part in assisted dying, and the impact that that will have on the palliative care system? In my constituency, all three palliative care doctors who work in Plymouth’s Derriford hospital are against assisted dying and are saying that they would leave the profession. How can we offer palliative care at the same time as assisted dying?
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Order. Before we begin, as Mr Speaker said in his statement yesterday, today marks the 25th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States. It is also the subject of today’s Adjournment debate. I, too, have seen the site of the attacks, and it is a harrowing reminder. We remember the 2,977 innocent lives lost, including 67 British citizens. The attacks also impacted family members in my constituency of Sussex Weald. We pay tribute to the extraordinary bravery of everyone who risked their lives and their own safety and ran towards the danger in order to save others. I am sure that colleagues from across the House will wish to remember the victims of those terrible events and their loved ones.
I remind Members that it is not customary to impose a speech limit on private Members’ Bills, but I hope that after the Member in charge of the Bill and the speaker after that, Members will restrict themselves to about seven to eight minutes in the first instance; that includes taking interventions. I may need to ask for further shorter speeches to enable more Members to contribute. I should make it clear that the Chair retains the right to impose a formal speech limit, but I would rather colleagues helped each other, especially on a day like today.
Order. The Member has made clear that she is not taking interventions at this point.
Order. Interventions must be short.
More than 90 Members are trying to catch my eye. I can maximise contributions only if colleagues keep their speeches to around six or seven minutes.
I call the Father of the House.
Looking around the Chamber, I see many Members wishing to contribute. In case I did not make myself clear, I urge colleagues to keep their contributions to five minutes or less; otherwise, I will be forced to put a speaking limit in place.
Order. Members can help each other by keeping their speeches to five minutes.
There is no issue of conscience more capable of dividing constituents, families or, indeed, this House, than that of assisted dying. We can all agree that no one wants to suffer unnecessarily at the end of their life, and that no one wants to witness their loved ones suffering. We are all here in this place doing what we believe is best to achieve that end. This debate means that the subject of death as a process is again out of the shadows, where we as a society have thrust it over many years. We have been unwilling to confront our own mortality, avoiding difficult discussions even with our own families until reality finally hits us, as it does—we just do not know how. It is a truth that the death of a loved one, and our own inevitable decline, can sometimes arrive with real fear, real pain and, sadly, too much unnecessary and unsupported suffering, but it does come to us all. It would be wiser for us to be ready to face it, to prepare for it and to be able to live with it as individuals, as families and as a society. For those of us here today as lawmakers, the reality is that a change can happen in all our lives—whether a bolt from the blue, an accident, an incident, a tragedy, a violent attack, a diagnosis or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time—that can mean life changes in an instant. Who you are, what you are capable of and what your life is now and onwards comes into focus. My dad’s life and that of my family changed in an instant. He was attacked at work. Punches were thrown and he fell and hit his head on the kerb. He was saved by a passing man on his lunch break with first aid training. I was 11. Dad did not recognise us for several months. The financial impact was that we eventually lost our home, our family business and the surety that his hard work had given us. Disablement can begin at birth, it can be acquired or it can come with a health condition—all determining what happens next. Yet we are legislating potentially to fundamentally change every person’s relationship with the state, their doctor and the NHS, depending on their health, their preparedness for what is next and the support they may or may not have. Over the past two years, I have listened carefully to my colleagues from all parts of the House who have made personal arguments for and against. I have read the many briefings sent to me by charities, organisations, groups and representatives from right across our society. I have heard, too, from 1,000 or so of my constituents, who I thank deeply for sharing their own stories and thoughts. I have reflected back on my own experience, and that of my father, friends and loved ones, as one does when one witnesses an accident or incident, a health condition or, eventually, the death of a loved one. We know that many people are fighting for—and come to this place to fight for—better lives, better treatment, updated drugs, better knowledge and empathy. They often live longer, and push to live longer, than the initial prognosis they have been given. My father lived a longer life than my mum, who became his main carer. She had previously worked with disabled young adults, helping them into work and helping them to thrive. As someone who previously had the honour of being the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, I roundly appreciate that some of our most vulnerable often feel under-acknowledged, undervalued, unheard and screened out of life and work in wider society. In that role, I had to learn not base policymaking on my own thoughts and my own family experiences, but to put good lawmaking at the heart of what I did. People must not feel pressured, worthless or subject to coercion, defined solely by what they cannot do. My dad too often felt worthless. Long term, he felt less of a man, no longer a provider or a business owner. He went back to his farming roots, but a head and neck injury meant that that was not sustainable. An unseen disability saw him succumb to early onset dementia, with trauma-induced epilepsy and diabetes. He far too often felt he was worth more to us dead than alive. That was long before social media and the additional pressure that that entails. I therefore believe, sadly, that this process is completely wrong. It is wrong to use the vehicle of this Bill to bring forward such societal consequence and change—changing the relationship between patient and doctor, and individual and state, and changing significantly the connection we all have with the NHS.
Absolutely; we are here to make good laws. Today’s vote, as we have heard, is not simply on the principle of the Bill, but on the detail—or, frankly, the lack of detail. Good intentions are not enough. We are voting not on what we want to happen because of the Bill, but on what will happen. We cannot continue to divorce it from reality. It will have an impact right across Government and our communities, and intertwine us swiftly in new challenges. Too often in this place, we have good intentions but no delivery plan. We cannot continue in that way. The Bill’s sponsor in the other place felt the need to bring forward 70 amendments of his own.
Let me make some progress. I have four main concerns: funding, the assessment process, the lack of institutional opt-outs and, crucially, the auto-commencement clause. Can we all look our local NHS teams in the eye, knowing that we are ultimately taking more resources from them? The equality impact assessment explicitly acknowledges the impact on disabled people and those from ethnic minorities—people we often speak about in this place, because we are the ones who can speak up for them. This Bill is at odds with that. There is much more I would like to say, but I need to conclude. This Bill, although well intentioned, is simply a mixture of naivety, idealism and wishful thinking. There is no delivery plan, and it greatly raises the hopes of our constituents in their hour of need for care, good support and understanding. We are being asked to send this Bill back to the other place and perhaps to use the Parliament Act to force it through, regardless of its fitness for purpose and with full knowledge of its flaws and lack of workability, just to get it done. However, that means we are not listening even to the doctors who have spoken in this place today. I cannot subscribe to this type of lawmaking, no matter how well intentioned. I am grateful that we are talking about life and death, end-of-life care and the value we put on people and loved ones. We are fighting for better palliative care, and we are doing what we can to give people all they need as death approaches. However, I cannot in good faith support an unsafe private Member’s Bill or the process we are undertaking today.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Understandably, we have heard some passionate and courageous contributions, such as the one from the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who is no longer in her place. She made a remarkable contribution to the debate. In this House, we discuss a whole range of issues week in, week out. Many of them are rather mundane, but nothing is more important than issues of life and death. To be honest, I would have thought that the mountain of briefings, reports and individual letters, particularly from a number of clinicians, would have been sufficient to persuade most people that this is an unsafe Bill, but I want to speak about the wider implications. Other Members have mentioned the impact on society. I claim no particular insight; indeed, I see through a glass darkly. Some of us believe that life is God-given, and others do not, but I am sure we can all agree that it is uniquely precious and that we should do all we can to preserve it. I do not in any way question the motives of hon. Members or members of the public who take a different view. As we have heard today, many will have reached their conclusions having witnessed the slow and sometimes painful death of a loved one. I am of the firm view that if assisted dying is legalised, we will be poorer as a society. We will have crossed a line. We will have accepted that, to adapt the phrase I used earlier, life is not uniquely precious and, importantly, we will have changed the relationship between doctor and patient. That relationship is crucial, and it could be compromised if a patient was anything other than 100% certain that their doctor or clinician was striving to maintain life. When we are old, weak and seriously ill, we need compassion and support, not the nagging doubt that the treatment that we are receiving is not entirely—
No, I cannot give way. There is no time for interventions. As society has evolved and civilisation has advanced, care of the vulnerable, those who are sick and those who need comfort as they near the end of their lives has become a higher priority, and rightly so. In preparation for this debate, I re-read an article that the former Supreme Court Justice, Lord Sumption, published in the Sunday Times in November 2024. We cannot produce legislation that meets every circumstance. Lord Sumption stated that “the decision to allow doctors to help bring about the death of a human being crosses a major moral threshold.” I think that is sufficient warning that we should be very confident that the Bill has the necessary safeguards, and I do not believe it does. As I say, we cannot produce legislation for every individual circumstance, so we are left with the alternative: to include sufficient safeguards. Even for those who support the Bill in principle, it does not have those safeguards. If one is old, frail, weak and seriously ill, one needs help, support and compassion, not the added worry and the nagging doubt over whether everything possible is being done to preserve one’s life. Both of my parents died of cancer and suffered in their final months. I well remember the telephone call from the consultant after the tests on my father, when he said, “We must hope that God is merciful and does not allow him to suffer for too long.” Although he did suffer, he lived for a further six months after I received that fateful call, and in that six months I saw him enjoying life and sharing time with his then four-year-old granddaughter. In his final weeks, he spent time in St Andrew’s hospice in Grimsby. I saw then what comfort could be offered through palliative care. No longer did he suffer the periods of pain that he had had in earlier weeks. That happened as long ago as 1988, and things have improved dramatically since that time.
I will take one intervention.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Let me go back to St Andrew’s hospice in Grimsby. My mother died in hospital on the day that she was due to be moved into that hospice—how I wish that only a day or two earlier she had been able to do that, and to receive the care that I know from subsequent visits the hospice has provided. We all have to cope with the loss of loved ones, and such experience raises in the mind of any right-thinking person the question of how we minimise suffering. If someone has previously indicated their wish to hasten their death, I acknowledge that it is extremely difficult to say, “Sorry, that is not possible.” However, I believe that moves to legislate for assisted dying would be yet another step that lessens the value that we as a society place on human life. I suggest to the House that the expert opinions and personal stories we have all received must, even if Members favour assisted dying in principle, make us think seriously about whether this Bill is the right vehicle. In my view, it is not. Too many safeguards are lacking, and the Bill must be rejected. Life is precious, and we should recognise that.
I beg to move, That the House sit in private. Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163) and negatived.
As co-sponsor of the Bill once again, I am acutely conscious that there is more at stake today than merely the fate of those who are facing their end, because the conduct of the other place means that our democracy is also on trial today. I sat in the Chamber at the other end of this building on a number of occasions when it was debating the Bill, and I saw more of the debate on television, and I watched with unfolding horror the game that was being played there—a game that was marked in homes across the country with dismay, misery and agony. I contemplated the Lords effectively putting up the pretence of scrutiny, but at the same time tabling 1,000 amendments—
I will not. The Lords tabled 1,000 amendments, many of which were cruel or absurd; they were effectively designed to be sand in the engine, and to slow up what should have been proper parliamentary process—a process that the dying deserve to see operate correctly. We have to be aware in this House that expectations are high, and the people who send us here should be able to rely on decisions made in this House proceeding into law. I am afraid that what is at stake today is our democracy. If this Bill falls today, one of the biggest losers will be the standing of this House and this institution as a whole.
I respect my right hon. and learned Friend’s expertise in this matter, but, as he has already heard on the Floor of the House, it is perfectly possible for this House to suggest amendments, negotiate them with the promoters of the Bill, place them against the legislation in the House of Lords and then have them come back to this House for approval. We would much rather that had happened in the first place. This House now faces an invidious choice: if we amend and pass the Bill in this House, it will just be talked out again. I am afraid I have no faith that the small group that dedicated themselves to holding up the Bill to deny dying people what they seek, because of their own—
I will not. Some of those Members had just a few months before been specifically rejected by the electorate and replaced in this House by others, and I am afraid that they cannot be trusted not to do the same thing again. I grant my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) that this is a less than ideal situation. However, I know that the sponsor in the House of Lords is willing to entertain amendments being tabled in the Lords, which will come back to the House for conclusion. Before I conclude, I want to deal with a couple of other issues. The first point is about the notion of palliative care, which we discussed extensively on Second Reading. I am pleased that this legislation has stimulated a strong debate about palliative care. The Health and Social Care Committee of the House of Lords found that in territories that have assisted dying, palliative care generally improves, because people become less afraid of talking about death. But we must be careful not to say that perfection is a precondition for those who are dying; perfection has to be an objective for those of us who will carry on living. We cannot delay and indulge the dying in their agony because we are not satisfied with the state of palliative care. We have to deal with the choice that those people are facing at the point of their death, and give them the choice that so many of them seek. The second point is about coercion. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), talked about love. One of the most affecting people I have met over the last 11 years of campaigning on this issue is Warwick Jackson, who came to our party conference a couple of years ago. Warwick’s wife, Ann, was diagnosed with terminal peritoneal cancer. She basically knew that she was going to die a slow, suffocating death at the end. As Warwick watched her dying and heard her begging her palliative nurse to end it all for her, he contemplated smothering her with a pillow. The only thing that stopped him was that he did not want her dying thought to be that her loving husband had brought her life to an end. That is the conflict of love that we pose to people by perpetuating this appalling status quo. We have heard time and time again that the situation that thousands of our constituents live with every single day is so horrific and appalling that even the best palliative care cannot alleviate their pain. I urge colleagues to consider what their vote may mean today. As we said on Second Reading previously, a vote against this Bill is not a passive act. It is not something neutral; it is a vote for a status quo of misery, degradation and cruelty for so many. We know that the British people support this measure. We know that there are lots of territories around the world that we respect and admire that have assisted dying and have operated it for many years successfully. It is not beyond us to get our democracy operating as it should and to design something that will work for the British people. We cannot give dying people more time, but we can give them mercy and love. I urge Members to vote for the Bill today.
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36). Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Quite rightly, when we enter this life, the NHS and the state support us through obstetrics, gynaecology, maternal health, neonatology and paediatrics. However, at the other end of our life, when we leave this world, the charitable sector picks things up, and the majority of support is delivered outside the NHS. Surely that cannot be right as a society. Surely we have to fix that and sort out palliative care before we go anywhere near this Bill.
I welcome the opportunity to give my personal views on this Bill, as colleagues in health have taken over responsibility for it. I have spent most of my life as someone who was highly sympathetic to the cause of assisted dying and imagined that I would support it if I ever was an MP, but that changed in 2018 when I read the Gosport War Memorial hospital independent panel report published in that year. The report should be more widely read, and I often wonder why it did not get the attention that it deserved. It found that between 1987 and 2001, more than 450 NHS patients had their lives prematurely shortened by healthcare staff. They were mainly elderly—the average age being 81—but some were as young as 61, and more than 70% of them had been admitted to hospital not needing palliative care or being at the end of their lives. The report describes what happened to some of them. One patient was admitted for respite care but deteriorated and became confused during his stay. Staff asked permission to give him diamorphine, but his daughter refused as he was not in pain. However, his wife later agreed, and he was started on diamorphine via syringe driver. He died the same day. A man admitted for dementia was started on a diamorphine syringe driver; staff asked his son for permission, and he gave it, but he felt that there was no explanation of what it meant to be given diamorphine. The dose was doubled, and his father died five days later. His son felt that the diamorphine had effectively killed him. Why did that happen? It happened because the staff in that hospital and on that ward had developed a culture of prioritising convenience in looking after patients over the value of their lives. It speaks to something that we often do not like to talk about and might feel guilty about: looking after people is not only challenging but can sometimes be deeply unpleasant. As a doctor, I have helped to look after people who, when someone approached them to give them care, would scratch or hit out at them. I have helped to look after patients who refuse to stay in bed even though it is in their best interests, and who continually wander the wards and need to be monitored all the time. Then there is something that perhaps seems benign but is sometimes very challenging: the patients who continually call out for help again and again and again, perhaps asking for a medicine or a meal that they have already been given, and refuse to be consoled. Most of the time, that brings out the best in our nature, as we would want—to be kind, caring and compassionate —but it can sometimes bring out the worst in our nature: our impatience, our intolerance and even our cruelty. While I have seen that happen in hospitals, I know that it goes on in private homes up and down the country every day.
I will not; there is not time. While I do not seek to say that the Bill will be used in that way—to deliberately bring about an end to the lives of confused or elderly patients—my worry is about how it will insert itself into that battle in our country between the best and worst of our natures, in families, conversations and settings where people, as much as we do not like to believe it, actively, for selfish reasons, wish that their relatives were dead, and where those relatives know that their family wish that they were dead. I do not want a Bill, or a message from this Parliament, to go out to the wider country to say that not just Parliament but the mechanisms of the NHS—a wing of the state—will sometimes support and help them to end their lives. I remain deeply sympathetic to the scenarios and circumstances that people have described, and I can personally foresee a situation where I would want to make use of this Bill and feel that it would benefit me, but we should not legislate for what we might want. We have to legislate for what is in the broader interests of our constituents and our country, not least because, as many have articulated, the Bill has serious flaws. There is, in particular, the arbitrary decision to implement it in four years’ time, regardless of what might be happening with our palliative care services, which have, even recently, faced new and very real funding challenges. While I understand why people think the Bill would bring benefits for some people, and I acknowledge that it would, I think that the price we are asking some of the most vulnerable and in-need people in our society to pay, and the risk we are asking them to face, is simply too high.