Unemployment Levels
3. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of recent trends in the level of unemployment.
5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Unemployment Levels
To cut spending and balance the books, Labour has to get people off welfare, but the Chancellor’s job tax and the Deputy Prime Minister’s unemployment Bill mean that there are fewer jobs for them to go to. Some 285 more of my constituents are out of work than last year, and since the Budget a quarter of a million jobs have vanished. A rise in public sector roles in the same period is probably masking a far deeper crisis going on in the private sector. There is no joined-up thinking. Has the Secretary of State warned her Cabinet colleagues that their policies are making her job impossible?
- Hansard source
UK Military Base Protection
Humza Yousaf, the former First Minister of Scotland, has invited those in this place to check their moral compass over the proscription of Palestine Action, but I think we have heard here today that no one is seriously suggesting that these people are anything other than saboteurs, and that anyone who expresses sympathy for them has their moral compass spinning like a peerie, as we would say in Scotland. Mr Yousaf further suggested that American aircraft using Prestwick airport in Scotland could leave us open to charges of war crimes, and I wonder whether the Minister agrees with me that that is absolute nonsense. Prestwick airport is owned by the Scottish Government—in fact, it is a civilian airport, although it is heavily used by our allies, in particular America and Canada. What can we do to protect those aircraft at that civilian airbase?
- Hansard source
UK Military Base Protection
The Armed Forces Minister was asked a direct question by the shadow Secretary of State for Defence. It was simply this: do the Government support the United States’ actions in Iran over the weekend? The answer he gave was that he agreed that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. That is not the answer to the question he was asked. What is the answer? Do the Government actually know whether they support the US action? If they do know their own mind, why will he not tell us?
- Hansard source
UK Military Base Protection
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I entirely understand that it is a fast-moving situation in relation to Qatar. I am grateful for the limited update that he could provide. We join him in condemning any escalation and look forward to further updates in due course. On Brize Norton, let me say what the Minister was unable to: the attack on RAF Brize Norton was not vandalism; this was sabotage, undertaken without regard to the consequences for our Royal Air Force and our ability to defend our nation. As a result, there must be consequences for those responsible. Can the Minister explain how on earth these saboteurs were able not only to break through the perimeter fence, but to cover a considerable distance to reach the precious airfield tarmac, inflict damage to our airframes and then get out of the base, all without being intercepted? What steps is he taking to ensure rapid reinforcement of perimeter and internal fencing, not just at the specific point of incursion at Brize Norton, as he describes, but throughout the base and at all other UK bases? What is he doing to ensure sufficient military policing personnel are in place to enforce security and that they have access to effective countermeasure technology? On the drone threat, which is relevant, the Minister knows how quickly military technology is moving. In December, I asked him in a written question about the protection of UK bases, and asked whether he would accelerate testing of directed energy weapons, such as lasers, for drone interception on our military bases. He said that work was in development. What progress has he made in the six months since? The protection of our bases is not just a priority on the UK mainland. Given the confirmation of reports that a man allegedly linked to Iran has been arrested on suspicion of espionage and terrorism offences in Cyprus, can the Minister confirm that all measures being taken to reinforce UK bases will be replicated with the same urgency throughout our overseas basing, Akrotiri in particular? Can the Minister confirm what will be the financial cost and impact of this attack on the RAF? In particular, can he explain the immediate operational impact on the RAF? He says there has been no impact on planned operations from Brize Norton, but he will know that it could still mean that task lines are unintentionally reallocated to cover for the damaged aircraft. How long will the two aircraft in question be out of action for, if at all, and what has been the wider operational impact? Turning to the perpetrators, what progress has been made on catching those responsible and have there been any arrests? Does the Minister agree that one way to defend our bases is to deter future incursion by ensuring that the full force of the law is felt by the individual saboteurs in question? Will he ensure that everything is done to work with the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that the offenders receive an appropriately robust response? I note, for example, that section 1 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 provides for an offence of action that can “endanger the safe operation” of aircraft, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Section 12 of the National Security Act 2023 relates to sabotage, and again the offence carries a penalty of up to life imprisonment. The review is welcome, but it needs to report urgently. Can the Minister confirm who will lead it and how quickly it will report? On the important issue of personnel, will the review consider how responsibility for the security of RAF bases is divided between RAF police, the RAF regiment, military provost guard service and private contractors? I join the Minister in condemning Palestine Action without reservation. Its role in this attack on the Royal Air Force was totally unacceptable, and we welcome the steps taken to proscribe that organisation today. I also welcome the Minister’s commitment to strengthening force protection more widely in the middle east, including through the deployment of RAF Typhoons, and particularly in light of the breaking news in Qatar. To conclude, the Minister is entirely right that the MOD’s priority at this time must be the protection of our people and bases in the region. In his opening remarks about the airstrikes against three Iranian nuclear facilities and, indeed, throughout multiple questioning in his media round today, it was totally unclear whether the Government support or oppose those US airstrikes. The Minister was asked seven times on LBC whether the Government support or oppose US military action. He failed to answer once. He is now in front of Parliament. These are matters of the utmost importance to the security of our nation, and he is the Minister for the Armed Forces being asked about the action of the armed forces of our closest military ally. I will conclude with a straight question: does he support the US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities—yes or no?
- Hansard source
Points of Order
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to the Secretary of State, and I am grateful for advance notice that he would be giving a point of order, although not of the exact detail. This is extremely important, because while there is no set process, there is a ministerial code, which clearly states that commercially sensitive information should not be given out to the media prior to being given to Parliament. To reiterate, on that day, yes, we were given a hard copy of the SDR 90 minutes before the statement, but I was already in the Chamber for the urgent questions arising from that situation—officials would have known that we were in the Chamber—and was unable to read it. However, at 8 o’clock that morning, senior people from the biggest defence companies in the land received a hard copy of the SDR. The key thing is that, on the point of order on 2 June, I said to the Secretary of State that the situation was unacceptable, and he justified the procedure on the fact that, at the time when I was a Minister—I quote him— “We had no advance copy of the defence review.”—[Official Report, 2 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 40.] His justification was something that is not the case, and I said that in my immediate response to him. I am glad that, three weeks later, he has corrected the record. We have war in Ukraine and all the instability in the middle east; there should be consensus on matters of national security, and we should not play games on the most important strategic defence review for many years. I hope that we can now draw a line under this, but to enable that, I hope that the Secretary of State will say to his special advisers and officials that they must be as transparent as possible in all pursuant written questions on this matter to which we still await answers and in responses to freedom of information requests.
- Hansard source
Unemployment Levels
Two weeks ago, the hon. Gentleman’s Government told people they were U-turning on winter fuel payments because the economy is on a “firmer footing”. The next day, the unemployment figures were released, showing that a quarter of a million jobs have been lost since the Chancellor’s job-taxing Budget. The country is now losing 100,000 jobs a month. These figures are worse than even the most pessimistic forecast. Is that what a firm footing looks like to the hon. Gentleman?
- Hansard source
Unemployment Levels
Honestly, who does the Minister think he is fooling with this spiel? Growth forecasts have been slashed and inflation has surged. What world is he living in? The Government have been in office for a year and people are losing their jobs because of the decisions that they have made. How does he think his “everything’s fine” mantra actually sounds to one of the people who have lost their jobs or to a business facing a tax bill that it cannot afford? Has the Secretary of State even told her Back Benchers, who will be strong-armed into voting for cuts next week, that the welfare cuts Bill that we will be debating will get a grand total of zero people into work, according to the Government’s own impact assessment?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
More than half of new health and disability benefits claims are now for mental health, yet under the Government’s welfare cuts Bill the personal independence payment could be stripped from three quarters of claimants with arthritis and two thirds of those with heart disease but fewer than half of those with anxiety. Does the right hon. Lady believe this is the right decision?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
Goodness me; I asked the right hon. Lady quite a serious question, so that was a very disappointing answer. However, she and I are in agreement that the benefits bill needs to come down, and that will need real reform of the system, so why is she pressing ahead in a panic with her half-baked cuts rather than doing the job properly? We would support a proper rethink of which conditions should get what help, and a better system for people struggling with mental health or neurodiversity, who would be better off in work than parked on benefits. Why did not she make that part of her plan?
- Hansard source
Child Poverty
When the Government’s own impact assessment for the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper suggests that 50,000 children will be plunged into poverty and businesses are already slashing vacancies in the light of the Employment Rights Bill, does the Secretary of State really believe that the Government’s child poverty taskforce is pushing in the same direction as the rest of the Government?
- Hansard source
Middle East
It seems that we have been going around in circles for an hour and a quarter. In answering questions, the Foreign Secretary has rightly pointed out that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran reaching 60% enriched uranium. Likewise, he has rightly acknowledged that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran spreading and sponsoring terrorism around the region, yet each time he has concluded with a hope that greater rounds of diplomacy will solve this. Hope is not a strategy. At what point will the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that there probably can be no diplomacy with a regime that is so brutal to its own people and just will not listen?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
At the weekend, Vivergo and Ensus workers learned that UK negotiators had successfully protected the UK bioethanol industry until President Trump called the Prime Minister and he sold out that industry, allowing a genetically modified bioethanol to flood the market and put all those jobs at risk. What can the Secretary of State tell those workers who feel that they have been sold out by our Prime Minister when negotiators had successfully protected an industry of the future?
- Hansard source
UK Military Base Protection
When organisations such as Palestine Action break into military bases, damage secure facilities and put our personnel at risk, they are not just protesting but sabotaging. With that in mind, if any other extremists had carried out those tasks they would rightly be described as domestic terrorists. Does the Minister agree that this is not legitimate protest, it is domestic terrorism and that any attack on our armed forces’ infrastructure should be seen thus?
- Hansard source
Draft Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the Minister for introducing the draft regulations. The Government are right to focus on strengthening trade in the internal market and ensuring that Northern Ireland is not disadvantaged in any way by de-listing. Maintaining a wide variety of product choices and availability is crucial: not only does it benefit consumers, but it encourages competition. However, it is important to consider the regulations in the broader context of the Government’s economic policies. Unfortunately, recent measures taken by the Chancellor, such as the increase in national insurance contributions, have led to significant increases in costs for business. Although the draft regulations exempt small businesses, as defined in the Companies Act 2006, they do not exclude medium-sized or large businesses, which together account for 53% of private-sector employment in the UK. The impact assessment sets out that, over a 10-year period, businesses will face between zero and £53.8 million in total one-off labelling costs, including package redesign and the costs associated with setting up new product lines, and between zero and £279.4 million in total ongoing labelling costs, including product line changes and transportation. That is a considerable cost to push on to businesses in the full knowledge that it may ultimately be paid for by consumers. What assurances can the Minister provide today that the regulations will not add to inflation, which is something that the Government have yet to get under control? The draft regulations set out that the intention is to provide businesses with the opportunity to comply with any notice before a fixed monetary penalty is imposed. They therefore allow a sufficient period of time to be granted to businesses to make the necessary changes. The period can be extended by agreement, where a business has demonstrated sufficient progress but has been unable to become fully compliant in the timeframe allowed. Can the Minister outline how many businesses he expects to seek an extension and what the cost will be for local authorities to process applications for extension? I would also like to ask about Labour’s proposed new deal with the EU. Can the Minister clarify whether the deal will facilitate trade across the Irish sea, and what impact that might have on these regulations? Although we do not want to see customers in Northern Ireland suffering as a result of the unavailability or insufficient supply of retail goods, we have concerns that the regulations will be considered another blow to business confidence and business finances, so I will be grateful if the Minister can give reassurances on those points. We look forward to scrutinising the matter further and to the Minister’s addressing our concerns about the potential consequences of the draft regulations for businesses in an increasingly difficult climate.
- Hansard source
Middle East
I thank the Foreign Secretary and his Department for the work they are doing to protect British citizens here and abroad. What does he think needs to happen for Iran to abandon its ambitions to build and deploy a nuclear weapon?
- Hansard source
UK Military Base Protection
When an extremist minority spreads division and intimidation and now has even attacked our military, prioritising foreign regions and their interests above our own, it is an attack on our country. It is treason. The primary job of our Government is to protect the UK, so I welcome the announcement today that the Government are taking action to do just that. I was proud to celebrate Armed Forces Week at the flag raising ceremony in Runnymede this morning. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to all our armed forces staff and the work they do for us all?
- Hansard source
Pride Month
I am proud to speak in today’s debate on Pride Month; it is the first time I have done so. I also enjoy the distinction of being the first straight man to become a member of LGBT Conservatives, which involved a special resolution to approve my membership. Hopefully that will be the first and last constitutional conundrum for which I am responsible in my political career. Today, I want to speak of my incredible pride that, more than 10 years ago, a Conservative coalition Government passed legislation to legalise same-sex marriage. Today, around 167,000 people are living in same-sex marriages, with all the happiness, challenges and life-enriching complexity that involves. I am proud of that because the Conservative party is the party of family, and the party of rights and duties, freedoms and responsibilities—the freedom for people to love whoever they choose, and the freedom to honour that love by making a lifelong commitment to another person, with all the responsibilities for mutual care, support and home building that entails. Children enjoy the best outcomes when they are raised in stable, loving homes. While marriage is not always a guarantee of stability, it is a good indicator and supporter of it. Data from the UK longitudinal household survey shows that cohabiting parents were 3.4 times more likely to split up during any given one-year period compared with married parents, across income groups. The benefits of making a commitment and raising a family are not just for the children of those families. Taking on family responsibilities gives people meaning and purpose, making them more productive as they work to put the people they have taken responsibility for ahead of themselves. In saying this, I want to acknowledge and pay tribute to the single parents and cohabiting couples, both same sex and heterosexual, who do a heroic job every day for their families. Quite frankly, as a married parent myself, I do not know how single parents manage it and I pay tribute to them. All parents should be acknowledged and appreciated for the daily acts of care and sacrifice that they make for their children—our future. Just because other models can and do work, we should not stop striving to support the institution of marriage as the foundational building block of our society. Society benefits from stable families where children can be supported to thrive and become citizens who contribute to not only their family lives, but their communities. I am pleased and proud to belong to a party that championed the rights of same-sex marriage and brought it into law. Our laws and policies should incentivise commitment to family life for all couples, regardless of sexuality. I am proud that because of decisions in this place, so many people can marry the person they love today.
- Hansard source
UK Military Base Protection
My constituents in military establishments around Salisbury plain will not see this as an act of vandalism. They will see it as criminal damage. They will see it as sabotage. They will see it as terrorism. The Minister, who I respect, does himself no good by trying to downplay its seriousness. There are 2,900 Ministry of Defence policemen in the country. In recent years, they have been employed largely in investigating relatively low-level fraud within the Ministry of Defence and in military establishments across the country, with a relatively low conviction rate. Does the Minister agree that they would be much better employed looking after our critical national infrastructure and military bases up and down the land, including those in my constituency, and will he consider ensuring that warranted officers are able to do a job of work for the MOD that cannot be done by regional forces? I am very confident that they would welcome the challenge.
- Hansard source
Pride Month
The Minister is rightly pointing out where progress has been made nationally and internationally, but when he was cantering through those points of light nationally, he missed out one group: the men and women serving in our armed forces. I am particularly mindful of that because Saturday is Armed Forces Day and, sadly, one of the chief advocates for LGBT people in the armed forces, Lord Etherton, died in May. Will the Minister pay tribute to Terence Etherton and comment on his 2023 report into the shameful way in which gay people were treated in the armed forces between 1967 and 2000?
- Hansard source
Middle East
The family of my constituent, Katie Solomon, have been in touch to share their fears about her as she shelters from Iranian attacks in Israel. My constituent Mehdi Moslehi has told me about how his life in the UK started as a refugee from the Iranian regime. Can the Foreign Secretary tell my constituents and the House why, given Iran’s record, he is finding it so difficult to follow the Prime Minister in welcoming the actions of our allies in seeking to reduce the risks posed by the Iranian nuclear programme?
- Hansard source
Middle East
If Iran chooses to close the straits of Hormuz, which the Iranian Parliament has now voted to do, what contingency options has the Foreign Secretary worked up to protect UK national interests?
- Hansard source
UK Modern Industrial Strategy
I was glad to hear defence running through the Business Secretary’s statement. Will he tell us how much equity the authors of the strategic defence review had in the compilation of the UK modern industrial strategy?
- Hansard source
Personal Independence Payment
I respect the Minister very much, and I know that he cares deeply about people who rely on the social security system. That is why it is such a tragedy that he is presiding over these profound reforms without having consulted disabled people. Can he explain why so many benefit claimants feel that these reforms have been rushed through, not to make a fairer system but because the Treasury demanded cuts to meet the fiscal emergency created by the Chancellor’s job-destroying, growth-stopping Budget? They are right to think that, are they not?
- Hansard source
Personal Independence Payment
I am just sorry that there has been so little consultation with the victims of the changes that the Government are introducing. One area where the Government do not seem to be looking for savings is in the Motability scheme. It was supposed to help physically disabled people get around, but now we have 100,000 new people a year joining the scheme, many of them not physically disabled at all. One in five of all new car purchases are bought through this scheme, and it is costing taxpayers nearly £3 billion a year. I know that the Minister will blame us for the system, but the fact is that the Government are not even looking at Motability. They have had a year, and it is their policy now. Will the Minister commit to a proper review of the Motability scheme, and if not, why not?
- Hansard source
Middle East
The Foreign Secretary has referred a number of times to the diplomatic off-ramp. Will he confirm to the House that the diplomatic off-ramp—the request of the United Kingdom to Iran—is that the regime changes its stance and finally recognises the right of our ally, Israel, to exist?
- Hansard source
Middle East
It is good news that, reportedly, the Home Secretary has finally decided to proscribe the treacherous terrorist group Palestine Action. Given that she has done that at great speed after the recent attack, and given that the IRGC has conducted or attempted attacks on this country multiple times, will the Foreign Secretary use his powers to persuade the Home Secretary to proscribe the IRGC in its entirety?
- Hansard source
Middle East
In the event that Iran does launch a retaliatory military strike against the US, what do the Government believe our article 5 obligations would be with regards to military support for the US, and how would that change if the location of the attack were in the region?
- Hansard source
UK Military Base Protection
Given the manner of infiltration at RAF Brize Norton, I am concerned that the MPGS across the defence estate is neither resourced sufficiently nor given the authorisation to engage potential saboteurs. The scope of its role allows lethal force to be used only if there is a direct threat to life. RAF Wyton in my constituency, which has the same issue, is protected by the MPGS and augmented by serving personnel. Given the sensitive information that it provides as the home of defence intelligence, can the Minister offer a guarantee that security levels there will be ramped up? Furthermore, RAF Molesworth and RAF Alconbury are both in my constituency. As USAFE—US air forces in Europe—bases, they operate under US rules of engagement, so lethal force is permitted at a far lower level. Why are US bases in the UK defended to a higher level?
- Hansard source
Points of Order
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the statement on the middle east earlier today, I asked the Foreign Secretary: “In the event that Iran does launch a retaliatory military strike against the US, what do the Government believe our article 5 obligations would be with regards to military support for the US, and how would that change if the location of the attack were in the region?” Just a few minutes after I asked that question, Iran launched an air attack against US bases in Qatar and Iraq. The Foreign Secretary evaded providing a coherent response by referring me to 2.13 of the ministerial code. In the current version of the ministerial code, published on 6 November 2024, there is no 2.13; chapter 2 finishes at 2.7. I seek your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, in understanding why the Foreign Secretary is misleading the House by quoting made-up references to the ministerial code to avoid scrutiny. Should he, as one of the great officers of state, return to this place and clarify why he is not on top of his brief?
- Hansard source
Middle East
The Foreign Secretary has said that Iran must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. Does he therefore support the recent targeted strikes by the United States and Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities: yes or no? If not, can he explain how exactly that inaction would have curtailed Iran’s nuclear ambitions?
- Hansard source
UK Modern Industrial Strategy
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. It is always a good day when we can talk about our wonderful and innovative British businesses, but, sad to say, this strategy has taken the best part of 12 months to appear. That is how long British industry has had to wait for this cut and paste industrial strategy; 158 pages mostly copied and pasted from previous sector strategies and the science and technology framework, which do nothing to alleviate the pain and turmoil that Labour has already inflicted. In those 12 months, Labour has crashed the economy—[Laughter.] Labour Members are laughing, but unemployment has been up in every one of the nine months of this Government, with hiring and investment down. I understand that this document is printed on 40% recycled paper—very much like its content. Yet there is no respite for businesses from the decisions that have been taken. The Secretary of State talks about restoring stability, and that may well be what was written for him, but he, like me, listens to businesses, so he cannot possibly believe that. The Government have hiked taxes by £40 billion when they promised not to, and gilt rates are higher today than after the mini-Budget; they fiddled the fiscal rules and are now running out of headroom, all while setting up state investment banks in a repeat of the previous Labour Government’s private finance initiative. Higher taxes, higher energy costs and more red tape on employment—the proposals set out in this document are simply insufficient at a time when businesses need far greater measures to defend them from the minefield that Labour has left out. There are many elements of this strategy that we do welcome. I am pleased that the Government have continued the work the former Chancellor and I undertook on access to capital, and it is good to see an emphasis on trade and international co-operation, particularly with the document’s focus on Japan and Saudi Arabia. I am glad that the Government are implementing the O’Shaughnessy reforms and turning the NHS into a global platform health data research service. It is encouraging to see the weight given to autonomous cars, although it is curious that there is no mention of the opportunity of driverless trains. I am disappointed that the life sciences and engineering biology receive relatively modest mentions. There is a minor mention of skills reform, but there is no mention of real deregulation to our labour market and a near absence of references to small businesses, which account for the majority of businesses and employment in this country. The big miss, however, is on energy. We welcomed the Prime Minister’s epiphany this weekend when he announced he would slash green levies on a certain number of businesses. However, the industrial strategy still talks about accelerating to net zero at a time when British business needs the opposite. It is simply mad. Rather than the Business and Trade Secretary—sitting next to the Energy Secretary on the Front Bench—addressing the root causes of high energy costs, this Government seem intent on adding to the web of complexity of taxes, levies and subsidies. There is nothing in the strategy about reopening the North sea—the energy reserves that lie under our own secure feet. It even compounds the problem by imposing further self-harm through a carbon border adjustment mechanism—a tariff by another name—which will cost businesses and consumers in this country dear. How can anyone outside this postcode running a business believe that Labour intends to cut the regulatory burden when it has set up new quangos at the rate of one every two weeks, including in the Business Secretary’s own Department? How can anyone outside Whitehall looking at the regulations take seriously the commitments in this document, when the Secretary of State’s own Department is guiding through the House 300 pages of trade union-written employment law, which will force employers to cut hiring and jobs? I will conclude with a number of questions. If the Secretary of State cannot answer today, perhaps he would be so kind as to write with a reply. The small business strategy was promised for the spring, but the summer solstice is now behind us. Can he tell the millions of businesses when it is coming? There are a number of live situations that the Secretary of State will be aware of, including the bioethanol plan in Saltend Chemicals Park in Hull, Syngenta moving its precision wheat breeding programme to France, and the Government equivocating over supporting the stake in the vital low Earth orbit satellite operator OneWeb. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is actions, not words, that count, and will he impress that on his Treasury colleagues? Finally, the strategy does talk about reducing the number of regulators, which is wholly welcome, as we need a marked cull in the number of regulators and their scope and size. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing an annual statement showing the progress his Government are making on that, and will he start today by agreeing not to create any new ones?
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
This is the first time I have spoken in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I assure you that I will keep my comments short and respectful, and respectful of others. I am also conscious that none of us in this place underestimates the enormity of the decision that we face today. I do not believe it is a heart or a head decision; that over-simplifies a very complex matter. I have no doubt at all about the sincerity of the intentions of the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) in bringing forward this Bill, but I would just gently say that in this place, good intentions do not always yield the good results that we might all strive for. As I have monitored the progress of the Bill, I have continued to struggle with it, and nothing in it has changed my mind. The importance of these debates is monumental; that is underpinned by the literally thousands of comments and emails I have had from my constituents in Aldridge, Brownhills. Some have been writing to me on this matter since before the first debate at the end of November. As the Bill has proceeded through this place, I have also struggled with the way that it has been likened to previous moral and ethical legislation; I would argue that the process is very different from that which went before. Hon. Members are correct that some of the most pioneering social legislation of the post-war period was introduced via private Members’ Bills, most notably the Abortion Act 1967 and the Sexual Offences Act 1967, which decriminalised homosexuality. It would be remiss of me not to point out that both those Bills went through an extensive, Government-led public inquiry, which paved the way for legislation. A medical advisory committee, under the chairmanship of Sir John Peel, considered the Abortion Bill, and the Wolfenden committee considered the laws on homosexuality. I am afraid that advice is sadly lacking for this Bill. The Government have set up a wide range of policy reviews, and it would have been totally appropriate for such a review to have been sought on this matter. Much has also been made in this debate of the idea that the Bill is a slippery slope, and that in the future the Bill will be extended and extended; that point is made because of what we see in other countries. As a modern society, we must come to terms with having a conversation and a debate on death. I do not believe that today has to be the end of that conversation, but I genuinely do not believe that the Bill is in the right place to go forward to the House of Lords, and I will therefore vote against it.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Many points have been made already today, so I will not cover them all. Briefly, I associate myself with the words of the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), whose powerful speech summarised the points that many of us wish to make, and those of the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), whose questions have got to the heart of this matter. This Bill is about many different things, but fundamentally, it is about two: power and trust. It is about the power over life and death, not just over ourselves, because we already have the power to end our own lives—it is called suicide. It is not a crime, and has not been a crime in this country for decades. The Bill is about a different power: the power of the state through its agents to exercise power over life and death. Yes, the exercise of that power will be agreed and approved of in advance, but when the state takes a life, even with consent, that is a huge shift in the relationship between the individual and the state. It is a transformation in the way in which power lies, and we should be fully conscious of what is being done. That is why this debate, frankly, needs a little more honesty. We have heard the blandishments and the warm words of euphemism; we have heard this called assisted dying, but the truth is that it is not assisted dying. Assisted dying is what a hospice already does today—helping people, caring for them and supporting them. This is assisted killing or assisted suicide, depending on which word we choose. Honesty in language is important. If we are not even willing to be honest with ourselves in this place, how on earth can we expect the courts to consider the questions we have debated when they have to look at these cases? I say to all right hon. and hon. Friends—in a debate like this, we are all friends, because we are all seeking the right answer for our country—that this is the last time we are going to talk about these questions. This is the last time that we are going to have actual authority over the words in this Bill, and no matter what interviews we have heard and no matter what assurances we have been given, today or over the past few weeks, the only thing that matters is the words in black and white in the Bill. Those are the words that will be interpreted by judges for years to come.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I will not. Those are the words that will give powers to Ministers and to the Secretary of State to exercise his or her discretion with the most cursory of oversight from this place. Let us be absolutely clear on what we are choosing to do. Let us be absolutely clear that it is on us—it is our responsibility—to think not just for those who have options and power, and those who will not be intimidated, but for those who will be. We must think of the weak and vulnerable, to whom the Mother of the House referred, and for the communities in our country who already do not trust the health service, reject vaccination, choose not to come early for cancer diagnoses and already have the worst health outcomes. We need to think of them. Choosing to make that gap greater is not just enabling someone to access care, but actively rejecting others in our community who should seek care but will not because of the fear this will raise in their hearts. We need to think really hard about that. To those who say that there will be no change and that, “This is it; there can be no further change,” I say that the closest legal equivalent to this legislation is the Canadian legislation. The closest legal equivalent to us is the Canadian Parliament. The closest equivalent to the national health service is the Canadian health system. I therefore give you—
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I am not giving way. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady has spoken for many hours; I am speaking for five minutes. The experience of Roger Foley, a Canadian living with a degenerative condition, warns us: “As Canada has expanded its assisted dying law, I have faced neglect, verbal abuse, and denial of essential care. I’ve been told my care needs are too much work, and my life has been devalued. Worse still, I have been approached and told by healthcare staff to consider opting for Medical Aid in Dying. Instead of offering compassionate support to alleviate my suffering, it is suggested…that I should end my life.” Sadly, this is not the only example we have heard of this; we have also heard of veterans with post-traumatic stress order and others with limiting conditions. Today, sadly, we have even said that those who merely feel pressure are allowed to access this service. Members have a real choice today. When that first 18 or 19-year-old—that first individual—goes and asks for this, it will be we who made that decision. It will be on our consciences. It will be a decision that has fundamentally changed the relationship between the individual and the state in a way that can never be reversed.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Order. I reiterate the admonition that Mr Speaker has offered. This is one of the most far-reaching considerations that the House—even those of us who have been here for a very long time—can remember. It is understandable that a lot of Members will wish to take part, from across the House and on both sides of the argument, but looking around, it is quite clear that we cannot accommodate everybody. This means there will inevitably be a considerable number of interventions. All I would say, gently, is that interventions will be taken into account when considering the order of priority in which Members are called.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) and many others who have given brave testimony of their own personal experience in this matter. I join the tributes to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), who I think has conducted herself with decency, dignity and compassion throughout this process. But I have heard her and others say that the decision we have to make today is whether or not we are in favour of the status quo, and I respectfully disagree. Our job as legislators is to consider rigorously the proposed legislation before us, and those who propose it bear the burden of persuading us that this is the right change to make, and not a change that may bring problems as big or bigger than those we are trying to solve. I have spent nearly 30 years in this place that makes our laws and practising in the courts that administer them. I have had ministerial responsibility for sentencing and for the Crown Prosecution Service. I have faith in our system of laws, but I have also seen the limitations on our ability to avoid the negative consequences of the laws we make, however hard we try. So very often the legislative decisions we take are about a balance of risks. In this case, the risk of not changing the law is that we leave some of our constituents in pain where it could be avoided, and expose their loved ones to the fear of prosecution for acts of love and mercy. I acknowledge that risk, and I have felt the anguish and desperation of those who want this Bill to pass for the very best of motives. But good people can come to different conclusions on the balance of risks here, and I think that we take a bigger risk in changing the law. That is because of the signal we send in the legislation we pass. Signals sent by changes in the law matter. When Parliament changes the law, it brings consequences for those who break the new law, but it also intends to change behaviour. Creating new criminal offences, increasing maximum sentences or even strengthening regulations are acts that we hope everyone will take notice of and behave differently as a result, because they recognise that Parliament, on behalf of society as a whole, is signalling its disapproval of certain actions or practices. If that is true for legislation that makes unlawful what was previously lawful, why should the same not be true for legislation that makes lawful something that was previously unlawful? We are sending a signal there too: that society, through Parliament, believes that something we used to think was unacceptable is now acceptable—in this case, that assisting someone to die is now something of which we approve. I believe that is bound to have an impact on those who, in great distress at the end of their lives, may already be thinking that it would be better if they were out of the way. I do not want to live in a society in which anyone, including the terminally ill, is encouraged in the belief that their life is not valuable and valued to their very last moment. Though it is not its intent, I fear that the Bill brings such a society closer. That is why I cannot support it.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I have no doubt that the vast majority in this House—probably every single hon. and right hon. Member—is sympathetic to the underlying motivation of the Bill, which is to ease suffering in others and try to avoid suffering where possible. For the most part, the debate, both in this Chamber and in Committee, has been good natured and conducted in a way that we can be proud of. There have been wider questions about the motivations of both the proponents and the opponents of the Bill. Although this is not about any individual one of us, I think it is only fair that, because some questions have been asked, I put a few things on the record about my own position. I do not come at this from a religious point of view—I am an atheist; I am a humanist. My position is driven by my concerns about the practicalities of the Bill, rather than any religious viewpoint. It has been suggested, particularly when people talk about their experience of talking to people who have lost loved ones or who are themselves terminally ill—this has been said to me on a number of occasions—that if we had seen someone suffering, we would agree with the Bill. I have seen someone suffering. Earlier this year, my closest friend died painfully of oesophageal cancer, and I was with him in the final weeks of his life. I come at this from a position neither of faith, nor of ignorance, and I hope that the House will take those factors into consideration when I say what I am about to say.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I will refer to the hon. Gentleman’s point later in my speech. I will try not to take too many interventions, because many people have not had the chance to speak in the debate and I want to give them the chance to do so. On Second Reading I made the point that we need to think about the detail of the Bill and not just vote in accordance with the broad principles. I made the point that, because it is a private Member’s Bill, the opportunity to change it fundamentally is limited, and so we have an enhanced duty to get it right first time. We were told on Second Reading that a lot of the concerns, worries and detailed questions would be resolved in Committee. We were promised the gold standard: a judicially underpinned set of protections and safeguards. Those protections did not make it through Committee. I have also heard people say, where there are still problems, issues and concerns, that the Lords will do that work. But none of us should think that it is right to subcontract our job to the other place. We are making an incredibly important and fundamental change, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted, in the relationship between medical professionals and those they serve. If we make that change, we will introduce a small but permanent question mark in the minds of every patient, particularly a patient who is discussing a serious illness or terminal diagnosis: “What is this medical professional expecting of me? What are they thinking? Where is their head?” Whereas, with the situation we have at the moment, the patient knows that the medical professional is dutybound to do no harm, and to preserve life and dignity wherever possible.