Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Is a requirement to ask someone why they want to have a physician-assisted suicide a wrecking amendment?
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
As a former mental health doctor and someone who has done research on decision-making capacity, I want to talk about stigma in the brief time I have today. I have looked after many hundreds of people—perhaps thousands—who have self-harmed or attempted suicide. Of course, a desire for one’s life to end can be entirely reasonable and an understandable wish, but it is often a manifestation of a treatable mental disorder. With the right intervention, care and support, people can get better. They can look back and say, “What was that about? I’m so thankful I didn’t succeed” when they get the care and treatment they need. The Bill refuses to acknowledge that. It frames the debate—the intervention—as shortening the death process or some form of assisted dying rather than what it is, which is physician-assisted suicide. The Bill is designed to take at face value an expression of a wish to die as an absolute fact—an expression of autonomy—and not a possible manifestation of mental illness. That is its blind spot. That is its most tragic flaw, and it is from there that I believe all its problems derive. Mental disorder can be very tricky to detect. There is nothing stigmatising about mental disorder. If someone in hospital expressed a wish to die, if someone in a care home or an outpatient clinic expressed a wish to die, if someone here in the Chamber expressed a wish to die or if a loved one expressed a wish to die, the first person I would want them to see would be a psychiatrist, not an assisted dying practitioner.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I congratulate the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards). For her, and for the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), this is a remarkable feat of political endurance; I pay tribute to them for that. I start by declaring my interest as a registered medical practitioner and an active doctor, but far more importantly, as somebody who has sat by relatives in their final hours and minutes, as many in this Chamber have done. That really has an impact, and is certainly germane to what we are discussing. Although he is apparently not voting today, the new Prime Minister has said that he wants to improve palliative care before we weigh up this extremely difficult matter, which will affect a relatively small number of people at the end of their life. I do not agree with the Prime Minister on much, but I do agree with him on that. Happily, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who is no longer in his place, agrees with it, too. If I may paraphrase the Prime Minister, I want good palliative care to be available in every postcode. The criticism we have of it in this country right now is that it is not universally available to all. I believe that if it were, many of the considerations that we are deliberating on today would be profoundly altered, and that is one of the reasons why I will not support the Bill today.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I certainly do, and I expect that those sort of things were on the mind of the Prime Minister when he made his remarks recently. The first reason why I will not support the Bill today is that I seriously do not want to live in the kind of society in which the frail, elderly and vulnerable feel coerced into “doing the right thing.” We can set up panels, and involve judges in chambers, social workers and all the rest of it, but as humans, we know how humans work. We know the light side and the dark. Often, the currency that passes between vulnerable adults and their influencers is things that are not said; some of the contributions today have touched on that, and none of it is captured in clause 34. We know that certain groups particularly like to please, to acquiesce, to oblige. We all know constituents like that, and they are often among the most vulnerable. They are people with Down’s syndrome, and people like the lady who featured in the advert for simple cremations, cited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley)—quiet people, if you like. They are among the people who are not adequately protected by this Bill. Can we genuinely say that there would be a level playing field for them? Our first mission in this place must be to protect the most vulnerable. Speaking of the vulnerable, Canada has seen the most appalling mission creep, particularly into mental health. That is probably why the Royal College of Psychiatrists is so wary of the Bill, and it is in company with the most impressive array of medical, disability and charity groups—count them off! Do not turn a deaf ear to them. I do not want the tone and texture of my profession, or of any other, to be changed irrevocably by its involvement in termination. Nor do I want others in the NHS or elsewhere in our care system who are unprotected by codes of ethics and opt-outs, and who will not be explicitly protected by the Bill, to feel obliged to be involved in termination. Clause 31 is all very well, but if this Bill passes, the pressure on those in the palliative care sector in particular to facilitate assisted dying will be substantial. Earlier in my career, I considered being an obstetrician; it was a career to which I was attracted, but one of the reasons why I did not take that route was that I did not feel comfortable being involved with a very large part of that practice, which is termination of pregnancy. I feel that this Bill will irrevocably change the nature of palliative services in this country. The previous Health Secretary pointed out the tedious business of opportunity costs. Five per cent of deaths in Canada, where the law we are debating has been in place for a decade, are now assisted.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I will not, because of time. I would get the evils from Madam Deputy Speaker. One in 20 deaths in Canada is assisted. If that were translated to this country, it would mean a huge extra cost, and the money would have to be found from other frontline services. Which ones? Likely it would be taken from Government support for hospices, which are already reeling from national insurance increases that have yet to be fully offset. In my view, the moral, ethical, legal and practical issues that we are discussing today, complex as they are, are well beyond the scope of a private Member’s Bill. The only way to achieve a halfway safe and competent Act is to make this a Government Bill, mentioned in a manifesto. So far, no major political party has wanted to do that. It is true that, each day, lives are shortened by interventions aimed at easing pain or suffering, which is what the caring professions do. That is quite different from a deliberate and systematic state-sanctioned and delivered programme to end the lives of people approaching death. At the end of the day, we can rationalise the pros and cons of assisted dying, but most of us will go with what we feel in our guts. My instincts tell me that giving the state or its agents leave to end life in this way is wrong. They tell me that, however well intentioned, it would lead in one direction, and would, over time, leave a grisly trail of unintended and unforeseen consequences. That is why I oppose this Bill.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Today is once again a day of heavy responsibility for all of us to decide on what we in this House call “conscience issues”. Many of the people who we represent hold strong and immutable views, and we hear from them. However, we represent many others who hold much more nuanced views and we are less likely to hear from them. They are the ones who say “Yes, but…”, “Well, it depends…” or “I’m just not sure”. Others evolve their views over time, and most can do so in private, but there is no such option for Members of Parliament: our names are publicly recorded in a column marked “Aye” or “No”. On issues like this, Members from across the House cast their vote after very serious consideration, personal reflection and sometimes deep turmoil. Members who support the Bill should not have their motives questioned, Members who oppose the Bill should not have their motives questioned, and Members who have reached a different conclusion from one they reached at an earlier stage should not have their judgment questioned either. At the previous Second Reading, we were voting on the principle of the Bill, as is usual on Second Reading. Colleagues knew that amendments could be made in Committee and, as has been discussed, a number of such amendments were made. On Third Reading, many MPs voted in the expectation that further changes would be made in the other place. Today, we vote on the Bill as it is today, which is almost exactly the same as it was at that previous Third Reading. If there is the prospect of the Parliament Acts being used, that would increase the importance and the salience of the text as it is now. Today, it is reasonable and entirely in order for hon. Members to consider information that is available now that was not available in those previous parliamentary deliberation. Colleagues have alluded to a number of such pieces of information. We now have the evidence that went to the Lords Select Committee on safeguards and procedures, the updated impact and equalities impact assessments, and the reports from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee covering the extent of delegated powers. We have heard from royal colleges and other professional bodies, many of whom have a neutral stance on the principle but raise significant questions about particular aspects. We know from Ministers that there would need to be some reprioritisation of NHS resources, but we do not know the extent. None of these things decide the question for Parliament, but they may help inform us. If any provision in the Bill has not been fully brought into effect within four years, it comes into force automatically. Different views will exist among us as to whether that can confidently be said to be time enough in considering workforce, training, operational readiness, and the design and implementation of safeguards. The Government have said, rightly, that the time taken to implement other schemes is not directly comparable, because none are as in this Bill. This is a free vote on a matter of conscience—there is no party line on either side of the Chamber. No one, I suggest, finds this issue easy. I, like all of us, have received countless representations from constituents, often informed by the most heartbreaking family circumstances. Their arguments are sincere, earnest and deeply moving, and in equal measure on both sides of this issue. We can say the same for the heartfelt speeches we have heard once again today from Members from all parties represented in the House. There are moments in debates like the one we have had today that are difficult to sit through and listen to, but it is the most immense privilege to be a Member of Parliament and to hear some of these testimonies. There are moments in debates like the one we have had today that are difficult to sit through and listen to, but it is the most immense privilege to be a Member of Parliament and to hear some of these testimonies. We have had, again, a good and respectful debate in the very best traditions of our Parliament. Whatever the result of the vote a little later today, that respect must endure, for that is why we are put here—to take difficult decisions about the law. Somebody has to take those decisions, not because it is obvious to everyone what to do, but precisely because these issues are hard to resolve. That also involves recognising that good people with the best intentions can and do reach different conclusions on the same question. Each of us now can only make our own judgment in good faith. Each of us bears the responsibility that can only fall to us as parliamentarians to consider the arguments, the evidence and, crucially, the legislation before us as we cast our votes.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
This is a very difficult day. No one could fail to be moved by the grief of campaigners and by the deeply personal stories, whether born of their own experience or of those they have lost. Those voices deserve to be heard, and it is important in this place that we respect all views, whether we agree or disagree; but as we deliberate today, I go back to the words of the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) in a past debate, asking us to remember “the quiet ones, those who may be less organised or not as powerful but who are none the less equally, if not more, important—the voiceless”.—[Official Report, 13 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 11.] Those words resonated particularly strongly with me, because I had the privilege of serving 10 years ago as the Minister for Preventing Abuse, Exploitation and Crime—the first time that safeguarding brief had been brought under one Minister. It was so often the quiet voices that needed to be heard. It was the time I spent with victims that persuaded me that modern slavery was something we needed to legislate for. It was the time I spent with the victims of domestic violence, some of whom did not even want to admit that they were victims, that persuaded me we needed to do more and that we needed to legislate in this area. When I took the coercive control offence through Parliament, it was incredibly important. That is a very difficult offence; coercive control is not easy to prove or to find the evidence for, but it was so important that we did that. I remember speaking at an event not long after the legislation had gone through, where I explained that coercive control offence and what we were trying to do in Parliament. Afterwards, a woman came up to me privately, in tears, and told me that what I described had been her life some 30 years earlier. She had recognised eventually that she was a victim; so often victims do not recognise that they are victims, but she did recognise it. She had gone to the police, but because the offences were not violent or physical, they said that there was nothing they could do. They even said, “Lock the door and hope that he beats the door down, because then we could arrest him on criminal violence.” That was all they had. There was nothing they could do to help this woman. That encounter stayed with me, and it reminds me time and again that abuse is not always a single act. It can be the gradual erosion of somebody’s confidence, independence and sense of what choices are really theirs. Coercion to end one’s life may not come as an explicit threat. It may be the repeated suggestion that someone is becoming a burden.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I will not be giving way much, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will give way to the hon. Lady.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Coercion is something that we absolutely need to tackle and understand as a society, but I do not think that this Bill has the safeguards that are needed.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I will give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and then to the previous sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), and then I will make progress.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I accept what the hon. Lady says, and I know she speaks with great sincerity, but it is still the case that under this Bill, somebody could be seen remotely—without a face-to-face appointment—where they are not alone and the coercive perpetrator may be forcing them.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I have enormous respect for the previous Minister, who I have worked closely with, but the point she is making about suicide of women who were victims of domestic abuse is a separate matter. For women to feel that they have nowhere else to go other than to commit suicide, is the most outrageous and horrendous situation, and we absolutely have to tackle and work on that. But this Bill is not the solution to that problem.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
The hon. Lady makes the case so powerfully. I am going to disappoint Members now, because I will not take any further interventions for some time. Like the hon. Lady, my fear is not principally for those who are confident, articulate and able to insist on what they want; it is for the person who does not want to make a fuss—the person accustomed to putting everybody else’s needs before their own, who internalises that coercion and feels guilty about the care they require, or has simply been deprived of it. Recognising abuse is really difficult. Those who have the misfortune of watching daytime TV may notice that there are currently adverts for “no frills” cremation services. I am particularly struck by one, which features a woman of late middle age, who is slightly small and says in a quivering voice that she does not want to be a burden or cause any fuss and does not want her family to have an awful time at the point of her death. Therefore, she is investing in a “no frills” cremation to make things better for her family. That person exists. The advertising agency would not bother making that advertisement if that person did not exist. We have to think about the most vulnerable. These are the people who Parliament—this House—has a particular duty to remember when we legislate and, today, when we decide whether this Bill, without further changes, is safe to become law. The question before us is, what decision will this House make. I recognise that the sponsor, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), is keen to focus on the other place. There is an appealing simplicity in saying, “Send it back there and let them do their work”, but this is not really about the other place anymore. That House has made itself irrelevant. It is about this House and this House alone. If we seek to engage the Parliament Act, we are, in effect, taking a unicameral decision, and we should understand what that means. We would be declaring that the Bill before us is in a fit state to become law whether or not the other place completes its work. There is no separate process by which this House later authorises the Parliament Act. Our approval of the Bill is the decision.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I will not; I really need to make progress. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and co-sponsors of the Bill have been clear, including in the debate now, that there will not be amendments made in this place. A deliberate decision has been taken to introduce a near-identical Bill and not to incorporate the 77 amendments from the Lords sponsor, including changes that addressed issues that he himself accepted required attention.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I really cannot; I am so sorry to my hon. Friend. We could have dealt with this over the summer; we had time to work on it. We could have included, for example, a clause that would have given an equal right to palliative care or a simple assessment of unmet need—something, anything, to allow there to be a genuine choice. But that opportunity is now gone. Let me be absolutely clear about what today’s vote is and what it is not. It is not another vote on the principle of assisted dying as on an ordinary Second Reading debate, and the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood said that herself. It is not a vote to allow this House to improve the Bill. It is not even a vote to allow the other place to improve it, because that is not in this House’s hands. If this Bill is sent to the other place and falls for whatever reason—even if that is because Parliament prorogues early and it receives not a single further hour of debate—it could be forced into law as it is. The Hansard Society put it plainly in saying “bills proceeding under the Parliament Act have been subject to only minimal amendment.” The House needs to understand that the proposed approach requires “preserving an unchanged bill with…defects”. That is a very different decision. I know that there will be Members in the House saying to themselves, “Nothing has changed since I voted for this before—why should I change my vote now?” My answer is simple. A great deal has changed, though not, unfortunately, in the Bill itself. We know more now than we did then, and changing one’s conclusion when the evidence changes is what Parliament is supposed to do. We now have revised estimates from the Government showing that many more people may seek an assisted death than Members previously understood: up to 4,610 may apply in the first year, and up to 10,428 in year 10. That is more than 1,000 times the number going to Dignitas each year. That is not a slow run-up during which we can watch the system develop, identify mistakes and quietly correct them.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I am sorry; I really must make progress. We could have thousands of people entering the system immediately. If the safeguards are not right on day one, vulnerable people will be exposed on day one. We also have the updated equality impact assessment, to which the hon. Member for Bradford West referred, and its conclusions should give every Member pause. It recognises that “disabled people may feel subtle pressure due to attitudinal barriers or a lack of alternative appropriate services and support…This could also include structural pressures such as neglect, poverty and difficult living conditions”. It also recognises that we may see “disproportionate numbers of ethnic minority people choosing to have an assisted death to avoid financial hardship or escape abuse.” I believe that the Bill is not finished, but we are effectively voting today for a completed and finished Bill. That worries me enormously. Much has been said previously in the debate—I will not repeat the point—but we are giving powers to a future Government to implement this Bill. We are not giving those powers to the Ministers sitting on the Front Bench today, and we are not necessarily giving them to those on the Opposition Front Bench; we are giving them to a future Government of any political persuasion. When I was a Government Minister, I remember always asking myself, “Would I be happy if another Government took this forward—if they had the power to do this?” I ask Members to apply a test that we too rarely apply when legislating: do not ask whether you trust the people who will administer these powers today; ask whether you would be content with the political party you trust least possessing them tomorrow. There is simply not enough detail in the Bill to constrain how many of these decisions would be made. The National Down Syndrome Policy Group put it best: this Bill hopes for the best rather than prepares for the worst.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I feel sorry for my hon. Friend from the Home Affairs Committee, but I really must make progress, because Madam Deputy Speaker has been clear to me that I must. I say to colleagues who supported the Bill before and have wrestled sincerely with the issue since: you do not have to repudiate the vote you cast last time to vote differently today. You do not have to decide that assisted dying can never be right. You do not have to abandon the compassion that led you to support the principle. You need only ask whether this Bill, in this form, on the evidence before us today, is safe enough for Parliament to force it into law. That is today’s test. There is no shame whatsoever in concluding that the answer to a different question is different. Indeed, there would be something profoundly wrong with a Parliament in which Members felt bound by an earlier vote, regardless of everything they had learned since. Success is rare for private Members’ Bills. It is an amazing route when legislation is simple and consensus is easily achieved, and the whole House came together last Friday to do something quite remarkable for babies, but it is a terrible route when the risks of getting it wrong are great and there is great complexity and such emotion. Before a Government Bill is introduced, Departments will normally spend months or years developing the policy—sometimes that is too slow, but that is what they do. They consult experts and those affected, test the legal and practical implications, produce impact assessments, secure cross-Government agreement and have the legislation professionally drafted and scrutinised by parliamentary counsel. Finally, the legislation goes through the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee, where Ministers have to prove to the rest of Government that the Bill is fit for purpose. That is what we needed here, when dealing with one of the most profound changes that Parliament could make to the relationship between the citizen, medicine and the state. Some say they want to amend the Bill. Have there been any reassurances that those amendments will be supported? The promoter controls the make-up of the Public Bill Committee and will have a majority. On Report, if we are fortunate Members may have the opportunity to vote on only a handful of issues, and those who support the Bill will be asked to reject each one. We are being asked to support the Bill as it stands, alongside a commitment to force it into law regardless of what safeguards are forgone or what gaps, through which vulnerable people may fall, remain. There is no one else to whom we can pass responsibility. We cannot say that the other place will sort it out, or that we will fix it later. If the Bill becomes law, Parliament may not get another opportunity to reopen it and put right what we discover we got wrong. The consequences will instead be worked out in practice—in hospitals, homes and, ultimately, the courts, where judges will make decisions based on the law before us today. For the people affected by a mistake, “We will sort it out later,” is no safeguard at all. My appeal today, particularly to those who voted for the Bill before, is this. Look at what we know now. Look at the people who will depend on our having got every safeguard right. Remember the quiet ones. Are you prepared today to say that this Bill, in this form, is safe to be forced into law?
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I encourage Members to think of colleagues when making their contributions, and not to speak for too long. Obviously, I cannot introduce a time limit.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
That brings us to the Front Bench contributions.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
As the hon. and very experienced Member will know, that was not a point of order and not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure the Minister has heard her.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
“Erskine May” gives this House a way to send what are called “suggested amendments” to the Lords as a separate motion alongside the Bill, when it goes to the other place. It has not been used since 2004, but does she recognise that if some Members of this House think certain amendments are crucial to the Bill, they can do so?
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Palliative and social care need fixing, and that is a concern that unites the House. It is a scandal that how well people die depends on where they live, but to suggest that this Bill should wait until palliative care has been improved is a fallacy for two reasons. First, the Bill gives us an opportunity to improve palliative care. It places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to tell this House what the state of palliative care in this country is, and whether people can even access it. No Government have ever been required to answer that question, and under this Bill, they would be. I would go further and say that this assessment should be in place before the Bill comes into force and should be an annual update to Parliament, but that amendment cannot be made to a Bill that does not exist. If we vote down this Bill today, we will delay and deny the possibility of mandating a genuine assessment of the state of palliative care in this country. The second reason it is a fallacy is that Hospice UK has told us repeatedly that it would be inappropriate to even imply that hospice and palliative care can address pain in all circumstances; we know that it does not, and honestly cannot. When we say that we will fix palliative care first, we are promising something that no palliative care system has ever delivered or will ever be able to deliver, and we are asking people to die in pain waiting for something that cannot be given. If we vote this Bill down, we will be no closer to understanding the state of palliative care. I would also add that in this country, we already have “do not resuscitate” orders. Doctors suggest them, families agree, and a person who could have been revived dies, often without their voice featuring in any way. I have experienced this in my own personal circumstances—I had to run across to Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospital and tell them to lift a “do not resuscitate” order that they had put in place without consulting me—so let us not pretend that this line is sacred, because no one in this place seems to be saying, “While we’re at it, let’s scrap ‘do not resuscitate’ orders.” Those are on the same continuum. Let me turn to the other place and the question of procedure. A great many peers were doing precisely their job; others were laying siege to the Bill. If anyone does not want to accept that both those things are true, I ask them to look at their own bias. On some issues—treatable depression, eating disorders and whether a hospice can decline to take part—the Lords were right. When this House passed the Bill, we expected it to be debated and that amendments would come back to us in the ordinary way. “Erskine May” provides that where a Bill proceeds under the Parliament Acts, this House may suggest amendments to the other House without inserting them into the Bill. That power does not sit with the Bill’s promoter; it sits with anyone sat in this Chamber. If the Lords agree to those amendments, they are treated as Lords amendments already accepted by the Commons—they do not even need to come back to us. There is precedent in the Hunting Act 2004 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976, so the choice before us is not between an unamended Bill and no Bill. I am not asking the House to accept the Bill as it stands, and I myself will press amendments through that process, particularly regarding the audit of palliative care and treatable depression. The process can be improved. As a Conservative, individual freedom, choice and personal responsibility shape my decision making until those freedoms cause harm to others. For years, I have listened to debates on this issue, waiting for the harm in the principle of giving us autonomy over our own bodies and our own deaths to materialise. There is no harm in the principle of assisted dying, and I am yet to hear an argument that exposes it. This Bill applies to those who have six months left to live—no one else—and I am arguing for a freedom that harms no third party, but will relieve a great deal of suffering. During our last debate, I told the House that my mother’s last words were, “I cannot go on like this.” She died a few days later, and that was a great kindness to her, even if it was a great cruelty to me and my children. However, too many in this country—this great, compassionate country—go to sleep at night desperate for the pain to end. They wake the next morning knowing that they must endure another day of it—a body that betrays them or wracks them, and that no medication will soothe—and another day in which this House has denied them the option of bringing it to an end, with their families and on their own terms.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I am going to keep going. Members have often spoken of unexpected recoveries that have led them to oppose the legislation. That is the news we wish for every person we love and for every loved person we have. Last year, I was told twice that I would die—most likely or potentially—given complications I had that I will not speak about at the moment. I know what it is to want to survive. I know what it is to fight. But for many, that day is not coming—there will be no reprieve of that kind—and we cannot write laws about the dying in the hope of a miracle that will not come for most. As such, I will vote for the Bill, because living in a perpetual state of torture cannot be right, and we cannot allow people to wait longer. I urge hon. Members who are undecided to vote for the Bill. I urge them not to end the argument, but to continue it; I will stand with them in tabling amendments in the other place.
- Hansard source
25th Anniversary of 9/11
Twenty-five years ago today, on a clear Tuesday morning, 19 terrorists hijacked four passenger planes. Two were flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre in New York. A third struck the Pentagon, and the fourth, United Airlines flight 93, crashed in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after passengers and crew resisted their hijackers. In a period of less than two hours, the twin towers fell and 2,977 innocent people from more than 90 countries were murdered. Of those killed, 67 were British citizens, more than from any other country apart from the United States. Thousands more were injured, and many survivors, emergency workers and people who took part in the recovery operation have lived with the physical and psychological consequences ever since.
- Hansard source
25th Anniversary of 9/11
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his apt intervention. I absolutely agree with him: the United Kingdom stands shoulder to shoulder with the United States of America, our strongest and longest-standing ally.
- Hansard source
25th Anniversary of 9/11
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that point, and it is one that I will come to later in my speech. I was just saying to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that it is right that we stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends and colleagues from the United States, because although the attack took place on American soil, it was a global tragedy. Its victims came from across the world. Its grief crossed borders and its consequences shaped the quarter of a century that followed. The work of the 9/11 memorial and museum in New York is guided by three simple principles: to honour, to educate and to inspire. Those principles should also guide us in how we mark this anniversary in Britain: honouring those who are lost, educating those too young to remember and drawing inspiration from the courage shown in the face of terror. For those of us old enough to remember that day, the events are seared into our memory. We remember where we were when we heard the news. We remember watching the images from New York and struggling to understand what we were seeing. We remember the shock of the second plane striking the second tower when it became clear that this was not an accident, and we remember the towers falling, knowing that thousands of people were still trapped inside. But the passage of 25 years creates a new responsibility. Every child now at school was born after the attacks. Many young adults have no personal memory of 9/11. Indeed, one current Member of this House was not yet born when the attacks took place. In fact, across the United Kingdom, around 20 million people—close to three in 10—have been born since the attacks. For a growing number of our population, 9/11 is not a memory; it is something they encounter only in textbooks, in online videos or in brief references during foreign policy discussions. For them, it is history. That change is inevitable, but forgetting is not. We must ensure that future generations understand what happened, who was lost and why the attacks still matter. Young people should understand that al-Qaeda’s terrorism was driven by a murderous ideology. They should also understand the extraordinary courage shown in response.
- Hansard source
25th Anniversary of 9/11
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We should use this opportunity of the 25th anniversary to look forward and to educate young people. As well as educating young people about al-Qaeda’s terrorism and its murderous ideology, there is an opportunity to teach them about the extraordinary courage shown in response to that ideology—from the firefighters climbing the stairs as others came down, to police officers, paramedics and office workers helping strangers to safety, and to the passengers and crew of United Airlines flight 93 whose resistance prevented many more deaths. 9/11 must never be reduced to footage of aircraft and collapsing buildings. The numbers “2977” were 2,977 individual lives—parents, children, husbands, wives, siblings, friends and colleagues, all of whom expected to return home that evening. That includes the 67 British victims, who were mentioned by me and the hon. Member for Strangford. 9/11 was an attack on the United States, but its grief crossed borders immediately. British families received the same unbearable phone calls, waited for the same news and experienced the same permanent empty place at family gatherings. I recognise those British families today. Their loss did not end when the cameras moved on. Anniversaries can bring public attention, but bereavement is lived privately day after day and year after year. Earlier this year, His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen visited the memorial in New York. They laid flowers beside the south pool, met bereaved families, survivors and first responders, and left a message honouring those who lost their lives. They expressed Britain’s enduring solidarity with the American people, and their visit was a fitting expression of the special relationship between our countries and a reminder that Britain continues to share in this remembrance. That loss also reaches into my Havant constituency. My constituent Sally Taber lost her godson Oli Bennett in the attacks. Oli was 29 years old and a successful financial journalist. He was at the World Trade Centre on 9/11 to report on a conference. Sally told me that, when she saw the TV footage, she knew her godson had died. Oli’s family, his godmother and his school friends were determined that his life would be remembered not for the terrible way it ended, but for the values he had lived. They established the Oli Bennett Charitable Trust in his memory, offering grants to aspiring entrepreneurs. Over nearly 25 years, the trust has helped 169 young people begin their dream of starting a business. The trust is now drawing to a close, but its closure does not bring Oli’s legacy to an end. It leaves behind scores of young people who were given an opportunity because his family and friends responded to an act of destruction by helping others create something new. Sally’s story reminds us that an atrocity committed thousands of miles away can leave an absence in a home and a community right here in Britain. It also reminds us why names, photographs, voices and personal memories still matter. We must therefore continue to recognise that the human cost did not cease on 11 September. The destruction of the World Trade Centre released a vast toxic dust cloud, and more than 400,000 first responders, recovery workers, survivors, residents and others were exposed during the attacks and the nine-month recovery operation that followed, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) rightly said, and this House pays tribute to all of them. It is also right that this year, for the first time, the ceremony at ground zero will include a seventh moment of silence, dedicated to those who died from 9/11-related illnesses. This is an important recognition that the victims of 9/11 were not only those whose lives were taken on the day itself, but also those whose sacrifice shortened their life in the years afterwards. That brings me to the role of technology in remembrance. 9/11 was one of the first great tragedies of the digital age. Millions watched it unfold live on television, and much of what survives was recorded by ordinary people using the technology available to them at the time: voicemails, telephone calls, photographs, emails, webcam recordings and amateur video. They all captured fragments of individual experience. Today’s technology allows those fragments to be preserved, connected and shared on a scale that would once have been impossible. A pupil in the Havant constituency who has never visited New York can examine a digital timeline of the morning, study primary source material and hear directly from a survivor, a bereaved relative or a first responder. That work of preservation is increasingly urgent as people with first-hand memories of 9/11 grow older. The children who lost parents are now adults. Many of the firefighters, police officers, medics and recovery workers have passed away. We cannot assume that first-hand testimony will always be available, so we must record it while we can so that it remains accessible in the decades ahead. No institution has done more to provide that access than the National September 11 Memorial and Museum in New York. Built on the site of the World Trade Centre, it combines the physical power of place with the evidence needed to understand what happened. Its collections preserve objects, images, recordings and personal accounts, and its educational work helps teachers to introduce pupils to an event that took place before they were born. Anyone who has visited the memorial and museum, as I have had the privilege of doing with my wife, will understand the scale of its reach. It is not only an American place of remembrance. Around 97 million people have visited the memorial and nearly 28 million have entered the museum. Visitors have come from more than 170 countries, travelling to the place where history happened to pay their respects, understand the attacks and remember those who were murdered. I thank everyone at the memorial and museum for the care and the seriousness with which they have preserved this history, supported families and helped a generation understand the attacks. I also thank the survivors, relatives, first responders and witnesses who have entrusted the museum with their memories. Sharing those experiences can carry a considerable personal cost, but it gives future generations something that no summary can ever provide: a direct connection with another person’s experience. The museum’s work should prompt us to consider our responsibilities here in the United Kingdom. 9/11 is not a mandatory topic in England’s national curriculum and, while some schools do teach it, not every pupil will learn about it. I recognise that education policy does not fall within the Minister’s Department; nevertheless, 9/11 was an international event that profoundly shaped Britain’s relationship with our closest ally. I would therefore be grateful if she addressed three questions when responding. First, will she work with the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary to examine how 9/11 is taught in schools and how resources from the museum can be made more readily available to teachers and pupils? Secondly, will she ask the British embassy in Washington and the consulate general in New York to support closer educational and commemorative links between the museum, British cultural institutions and victims’ families? Thirdly, how can the Government support British families to preserve their memories so they are not lost? Today’s anniversary is an opportunity to reaffirm our faith in democracy and decency.
- Hansard source
25th Anniversary of 9/11
I thank my hon. Friend for his very positive intervention and for his work as an officer of the British-American Parliamentary Group. I am proud to serve on its executive. The Minister will have heard his request, which I certainly agree with. I agree that today’s anniversary is an opportunity to reaffirm our relationship with the United States and our wider faith in democracy and decency. The terrorists sought not only to murder innocent people on 9/11, but to destroy open societies, the relationships my hon. Friend talks about and the values that sustain them. They failed. The response to hatred was courage. The response to destruction was rescue and rebuilding. The response to human lives being lost is a determination to keep speaking their names. Remembrance is not passive. Instead, it requires active choices: to teach, to preserve and to tell the stories of individuals, rather than allowing them to disappear into history. Those who remember that morning must now pass on its story to those who do not. We owe it to the people who were murdered, including the 67 British victims; we owe it to families such as Sally’s, who have carried their loss for a quarter of a century; and we owe it to future generations, who must understand both the hatred displayed that day and the courage that came in response. Inscribed in the 9/11 museum’s memorial hall are words from Virgil’s “Aeneid” “No day shall erase you from the memory of time.” Inspired by Virgil’s poetry, we must ensure the victims of history’s deadliest terrorist attack are never lost to time. That is a responsibility carried by each generation, including ours, and it is one that we must always honour.
- Watch on YouTube
Our Woman for Reform Launch.
We are proud to introduce Sian Astley as our president of Women for Reform.
- Watch on YouTube
Richard Tice's Pledge to Britain.
In his first 100 days in government as Business, Trade and Energy Secretary, Richard Tice MP will take £250 a year off your energy bills. If he fails, he will RESIGN.
- Hansard source
Ukraine and Russia
With permission, I will make my first statement to the House as Secretary of State for Defence on Ukraine, the ongoing threat from Russia and the Government’s approach. It is not yet clear whether freedom or tyranny will define the 21st century. What is clear is that the United Kingdom will not be a bystander in that struggle. The frontline is Ukraine. In Kyiv, on my first overseas trip, I saw for myself what modern tyranny looks like. President Putin’s illegal and unprovoked invasion is a challenge to the collective security of all of us in Europe. History—especially the history of our continent—teaches us that when imperialist ambitions go unchallenged, leaders like President Putin come back for more. That is why Ukraine’s security is our security and why we will not waver for one second in our support for Ukraine. This week, I co-chaired my first meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group with my German counterpart Boris Pistorius, alongside Ukraine’s new Defence Minister Evgeniy Khmara and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. We know that President Putin, facing the reality that Russian casualties surpassed 1.5 million this week, is preparing to intensify his barbaric attacks against civilian and energy targets over the coming months. When I met President Zelensky, I heard loud and clear the vital importance of supporting Ukraine through this winter, as did the Prime Minister. We promised to mobilise allies and provide more support wherever we can. We are delivering on that commitment, strengthening Ukraine’s defences and, alongside more than 50 nations, converting commitment into capability. This week I announced that the UK is pledging £100 million to support the rapid delivery of air defence interceptors in response to a direct request from Ukraine. We also reaffirmed our commitment to provide more than 120,000 drones to Ukraine over the course of this year. In total, the United Kingdom has committed £25 billion for Ukraine. That includes nearly 20 million rounds of small arms ammunition, more than 1 million artillery shells, more than 100,000 drones and thousands of air defence missiles and armoured vehicles. Winter in Ukraine is no longer a season; it is a weapon. In Kyiv, the Prime Minister and I saw at first hand the destructive consequences of this war, but we also experienced the spirit and the strength of the Ukrainian people. The message we delivered on behalf of this Government, and on behalf of the British people, was unequivocal: we will be with Ukraine for as long as it takes. That commitment is built on the rock-solid foundations laid by our Labour and Conservative predecessors, who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Ukraine from day one. Boris Johnson pledged anti-armour missiles before Russia’s invasion. In one of his first acts in office, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister handed over blueprints for British-made missile components so that Ukraine can produce long-range weapons on its own assembly lines. It has been a striking feature, during an especially divisive period in British politics, that support for Ukraine unites this House. One of the things I feel most strongly about in this role is showing our allies, but particularly our adversaries, that there is an enormous amount of consensus and national unity when it comes to defence. That unity is itself a projection of strength and deterrence, so I say to colleagues from across the House: it is your job, and the job of Parliament, to hold us to account. It is right that you do so, but let us not manufacture difference where it does not exist. On this issue, more than any other, there is far more that unites us than divides us, and we have a collective responsibility to level with the British people. If the first duty of Government is to keep our country safe, that is now a greater and more urgent responsibility than it has been for generations. The threats we face are not only evolving; they are getting closer to home. Every day, the UK and our allies encounter espionage, cyber-attacks and military posturing by hostile states. Just yesterday, a 31-year-old British man was charged under the National Security Act 2023 over alleged contact with Russia’s military intelligence agency. Alongside these threats comes the bellicose rhetoric that we hear from the Kremlin. Russia is constantly probing us and testing us, and the tragic irony of where we find ourselves is that Russia sees the UK and NATO as a threat that, in reality, simply does not exist. The UK is not at war with Russia, nor do we seek confrontation with Russia, and nor do we have any quarrel with the Russian people. All we seek to do is to defend freedom, democracy, our interests, our allies and our values. Contrary to the propaganda, NATO has always been a defensive alliance, and if there is one thing that President Putin has achieved through the war in Ukraine, it has been to strengthen NATO and our commitment to our collective defence and security. Moscow should be in no doubt that we are ready to defend every inch of NATO, should Russia attack. Knowing the gravity of the threats our country faces, this Government have overseen the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. We are already investing £15 billion more in defence than we were at the last spending review, and over the next four years we will be investing £298 billion. As a percentage of GDP, we have gone from 2.3% when Labour came to office two years ago to reaching 2.7% next year. We know that this Prime Minister and this Chancellor are both fully committed to funding our nation’s defence, including meeting our NATO commitment of 3.5% by 2035 and setting out an earlier 3% commitment at the next spending review. No one disputes that there is more to do to get there, but it is important to emphasise how much new money is already going into defence. That money is what allows us to do the things we need to do to strengthen our deterrence so that our adversaries think twice about attacking us, and to strengthen our capabilities so that we have the resources to fight and win if deterrence fails. That means making sure that every penny—both new money and money from existing budgets—is spent wisely, so that our military has the equipment, the training and the kit that it needs to keep us safe. It means making sure that we are constantly pushing the frontier of defence innovation, so that we have an advantage over our enemies. And it means making sure that we are creating more skilled jobs, more training, and more opportunities for people and businesses in our own country—unashamedly backing British to reindustrialise places where defence runs in the blood. That is how we will keep our country safe in today’s more dangerous and volatile world. As I take on this role, I feel the considerable weight of responsibility on my shoulders to proudly and robustly defend our country, our people, our values and our allies. I am lucky that in this endeavour I am supported by our exceptional armed forces, some of the smartest brains on the planet, and the extraordinary service of those working around the clock and around the globe to protect us. I have seen the capabilities that this country has, and they are considerable. We should have enormous pride in what our country does, let alone what we can do in the future. We will build a Britain worth fighting for, and a Britain capable of fighting for it. That is our mission, and that is what we will do. I commend this statement to the House.
- Hansard source
Ukraine and Russia
First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive spirit with which he responded to my statement, and I very much hope we can maintain that on both sides of the House. I have certainly enjoyed my early conversations with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), so we will continue to work in that spirit, and maximise and project unity globally wherever we possibly can. The right hon. Gentleman referenced that I am the third Defence Secretary in recent months, for reasons that are evident, and I give him an undertaking to add this to the retention priorities for the workforce. I made that point very firmly to the Prime Minister, and I am very much in favour of retention in this post. On that note, however, I place on record my enormous respect for and thanks to both of my Labour predecessors —the Chancellor and the Security Minister. I particularly want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), who did an outstanding job during his time in this office, doing some considerable heavy lifting to get the defence investment plan over the line. Not only do I thank him for it, but I think the country will thank him for it in the longer term, too. I am enjoying working with him in his post. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned support for Ukraine, particularly the support we have given for a number of years on training. I should reflect back to the House, from my visit to Kyiv, that what is fascinating about the evolution of this terrible war is that, whereas we have spent a considerable amount of time training Ukrainians, we are increasingly finding that it is the other way around. We are seeing the rapid evolution of modern warfare, and the Ukrainians are at the forefront of defence innovation. We are actively learning from our Ukrainian friends, and their ingenuity and expertise. Yes, we have to provide them with the resources they need to fight and to win, but it is also important that we recognise their extraordinary capability under the most unimaginably difficult circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the multinational force for Ukraine. We hope for the best and plan for the worst in terms of the continuation of this war, but we are also actively working to prepare for conditions in which a ceasefire has been agreed by Ukraine, with Ukraine and, from our perspective, for Ukraine. I am proud of the work we are doing, particularly with our French allies, on the multinational force for Ukraine. I enjoyed seeing the MNFU in Paris during a visit to meet my French counterpart, Madame Vautrin, earlier this summer, and I am looking forward to hosting the MNFU here in the UK later this year. The objective of the MNFU is, in the event that a ceasefire is achieved, to increase Ukraine’s deterrence against war breaking out again, and that is the focus of the mission. The right hon. Gentleman referred to reports in the media about training, and I just want to unpack a few points. First, we are investing more in training, and it is certainly not true to say that training has ceased. [Interruption.] To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, he did not make that claim, but I have seen people draw that conclusion from some of the reports. Of course training continues, although there has been some reprioritisation to make sure we are prioritising the activities that will provide most impact at this point in time. I acknowledge, however, that one of our responsibilities as a Department is to live within our means. One discipline I have to bring to the Ministry of Defence, drawing on my experience at the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS, is to ensure there is no culture of routine overspending, that we are improving productivity, that we deliver value for money and that we recognise that the money we are investing in defence comes with choices and trade-offs that apply across Government and ultimately rest with the taxpayer. Yes, we must make the case for more defence investment and spending, and we will—we will see that across the House—but we should not in the process distract from ensuring that we live within our means, that we deliver capability, effect and impact, and that we treat every penny of taxpayers’ money wisely. [Interruption.] I hear from the Opposition Front Benchers that they agree with that point. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman tempted me to announce the date at which we will hit 3% spending. He will know that getting ahead of a Chancellor and a spending review is a breach of the ministerial code, and having resigned from the Government once already, I have no intention of doing so again today.
- Hansard source
Ukraine and Russia
I find myself having rapidly gone from asking questions about the DSRB to now answering questions about the DSRB, so my hon. Friend will know I have been tracking developments on this Canadian-led initiative very closely. I can certainly see the enormous benefits of the DSRB and Prime Minister Carney’s objectives. We are tracking that progress, talking to our Canadian allies and considering how that could work alongside the multilateral defence mechanism, an initiative led by our former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). As those discussions continue, I will keep the House informed.
- Hansard source
Ukraine and Russia
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his constructive support and scrutiny. Through our work with my German counterpart Boris Pistorius and our coalition, we are regularly mobilising more support for Ukraine, through both direct contributions and active defence diplomacy. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the support of his Department in those efforts. Every country involved in supporting Ukraine faces the same choices and trade-offs that we are debating here at home. We approach those conversations in that spirit, but we also ask people to think about the consequences were Putin to prevail and take that as an incentive to further threaten Russia’s neighbours and our NATO allies. That is why I make the case that supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do morally, but that it is also the right thing to do in our national interest and in the interests of the collective security of our continent. The hon. Gentleman refers to the defence investment plan and raises the issue of defence spending. I want to be clear about two things. We are already delivering the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. That is a significant improvement on the previous position. He mentions the DIP not being fully funded. It is absolutely true to say that the negotiations on the DIP reached a position where there is a shortfall just shy of £5 billion which we need to deal with in the immediate term. The House should take reassurance from the instincts of the Chancellor and the Government, and from the fact that without any need whatsoever for persuasion from me or my Department, the Chancellor has already confirmed that he will close that gap at the Budget. I am reassured by that. It gives me even greater confidence as the Chancellor looks ahead to the spending review, but that does not mean that we, as a Department and as a Defence team, should be complacent about the need to make the strongest possible case, recognising the trade-offs across Government. We will continue to approach the spending review process in that spirit. The hon. Gentleman raises defence financing. It is true to say that defence bonds are borrowing. None the less, we continue to work closely with our colleagues at the Treasury and our industry partners to look at what more we can do to leverage finance for defence and to do so in a way that creates jobs, skills, opportunities and reindustrialisation here in Britain.
- Hansard source
Ukraine and Russia
There is a distinction to be drawn between what the Kremlin says and what it does: the performative displays we have seen from Russia in recent months—I think particularly about some of its actions in the channel—and the actual threats we deal with, deter and repel on a daily basis. The British people should be in no doubt about the threat and intent of Russia, but they should also draw confidence from our capability. We have been debating actively in this House, and we ought to debate it more widely as a country, how we maintain our ability to deter and how we build our capability to respond to evolving threats, given the way in which modern warfare is changing, as we are seeing in Europe. The overall posture of the country ought to be to be alert to the Russian threat, but certainly not alarmed. I am proud of the capability we have, even as we seek to fund and build more.
- Hansard source
Ukraine and Russia
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I put on record my respect for the expertise and experience he brings to debates on defence in this House. He is absolutely right about what the objective needs to be: lower cost, higher impact. We are actively working to drive innovation in this space, particularly through initiatives such as Project Brakestop. We are tracking our allies, who are also actively seeking to push the frontier of defence innovation in this space. I will, of course, keep the House updated as those initiatives progress.
- Hansard source
Ukraine and Russia
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that very serious and important issue. She will understand that, as a matter of policy, I will not comment on intelligence, but I will address the reports she has raised. One of the great privileges of being in this post in the last seven weeks has been meeting the people in our special forces and seeing the capability that they have. It is truly remarkable and my only regret is that we are not able to show, for obvious reasons, the country more publicly just how exceptional these people and their capabilities are. It is in that spirit that I find it utterly unthinkable and shameful that anyone who has served this country, in whatever capacity, would think it in any way acceptable to support the Russian state as it wages war in Ukraine. The Ukrainians’ fight is our fight. Their frontline is the frontline for freedom and democracy. Those actions are an affront not only to this country and our values, but to the values that underpin the uniform that those who serve in our armed forces wear. I know I speak for the entire armed forces community in saying that. Let me reassure the House and send a very clear message that we have robust legislation in place to tackle foreign hostile activity. The National Security Act 2023 gives our intelligence agencies and the police the tools they need to detect and disrupt threats, but the Act specifies under its interpretations that “‘information’ includes information about tactics, techniques and procedures”. It is applicable to any individual and extends beyond the period in which personnel are employed by the UK armed forces. Let that be a warning to anyone who has supported, or considers supporting, the Russians as they wage war in Ukraine.
