Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. What level of concern does it give her that, between Second Reading and today, a growing canon of professionals and their independent professional bodies have urged great caution about this Bill, not on the principle, but because they are opposed to the details of this Bill and believe it should be defeated?
Does the right hon. Lady find it rather peculiar that the previous Parliament spent 746 hours discussing the death of a fox and about 98 hours discussing the death of fellow humans?
It is always an honour to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah). Like many hon. and right hon. Members in this House, I have genuinely agonised over which way to vote on this issue, because I have changed my mind over the years, largely influenced by constituents coming into surgeries or informing me about their own deeply personal experiences. That includes horrific stories of seeing loved ones in their final days, but I also recall a lady whose mother did go to Dignitas. She said that it was a decision that she thought was absolutely right at the time, yet, since then, she has regretted helping her mother with that every single day of her life, and believes that she helped contribute towards her death. Therefore, these are very complex and deeply personal issues. I also respect the more than 1,000 constituents who have contacted me about this issue over the last few weeks. I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of two people who I greatly admire: Dame Esther Rantzen and Tanni Grey-Thompson. I got to know Dame Esther Rantzen in unusual circumstances, when we stood against each other in Luton South in the 2010 general election. Well, it did not end well for either of us. Tanni Grey-Thompson, of course, I got to know very well as the sports Minister. They are on different sides of this debate, but I appreciate their contributions, which show that people can productively use their profiles and personalities in order to contribute to debates. However, I am afraid, Esther Rantzen, I do love you, but I respectfully disagree with you on this issue. I know that every MP wants to do the right thing on this issue today. No one side has a monopoly on compassion. All of us want to make the right decision, and this is not an easy choice. Every now and again in this place, we have the awesome responsibility of making decisions that we know could ease suffering or could cost or save lives. This is one such decision—this is one such vote. If I am making such a choice—making a decision that will inevitably lead to the shortening of life—I want to be absolutely confident that I am doing so for the right reasons and that the risks and unintended consequences are minimised, and I am afraid that this Bill does not meet that high confidence bar.
I will not, out of respect for everybody else who wishes to speak. At some point in the future, a Bill with different words, stronger safeguards and a more robust impact assessment, perhaps brought forward through a different parliamentary route, might pass that confidence test. This Bill does not. But it may well pass, and I have joined others in arguing and voting for enhancements to safeguards, particularly for the disabled, those with eating disorders or mental health problems, those who may feel that they are a burden and, of course, the vulnerable, who are exposed to the risk of coercion. I believe that some improvements have been made to the Bill, but not enough. I continue to have significant concerns about the potential for assisted dying to be abused and to be extended way beyond the originally intended scope. Finally, I must mention one area of disappointment, in what has otherwise been an extremely respectful debate, and that is about the tone of some of the discussions and the somewhat dismissive attitude that has been expressed towards those with religious beliefs, as though such beliefs are not valid in this debate. They absolutely are. Those who express a belief in God and the sanctity of life should be respected, not sneered at. It is perfectly legitimate for religious beliefs to influence one’s views on assisted dying. Otherwise, this debate has been largely respectful and has indeed shown the House at its best. Again, I would like to thank all my constituents who have contacted me. While I know that some will disagree with the decision and the vote I will cast today, I hope they recognise that I have tried to exercise my judgment carefully and in good faith, as indeed has every colleague in this House.
That was a four-minute speech—thank you very much. I now call the Father of the House.
Order. Colleagues can see how busy the Chamber is, and will understand that not everybody will get in, but if speeches are longer than five minutes, even fewer colleagues will get in. I call Dr Beccy Cooper.
Ahem.
If colleagues do not want me coughing at the end of their speech, it is best to keep them under five minutes.
On Second Reading I spoke in support of the principle of the Bill, because I believe that freedom of choice, especially at the end of life, should always rest with the individual; that it is the individual with a terminal diagnosis who is best placed to decide when it is their time to slip away. As a society, we do not talk about death enough—it is one of those subjects that we shy away from—but thousands of our fellow citizens each year must come to terms with terminal diagnoses, their medical treatment and their final days. I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for the way that she has conducted the debate. I know that it has been difficult at times, particularly with the criticism coming from outside this place. Voting for the status quo—voting against the Bill—will not solve the problem. Indeed, with the advance of medical techniques that prolong life but not necessarily the quality of life, the case for the compassionate ending to one’s life will continue to grow. At least one Brit every week is taking the stressful and too often lonely journey to Switzerland for an assisted death at the cost of £12,000. To decide the time of one’s own death is an option only available to those who have the wealth.
I am not giving way. As a supporter of the Bill, I have listened to the debate closely and I agree that we need better palliative care across the UK. My own grandparents were both superbly supported by amazing Macmillan nurses in their final weeks battling incurable cancers. But I recognise that this support is not universal across the country, and that more needs to be done to improve this important service. The blunt truth of the matter is this: if someone is dying from an incurable condition, they could have the best palliative care possible, but ultimately they are still dying. In her final weeks, my nan told me that it was her time to go, that she had made peace with her God, and that she did not want to endure the next few weeks of decline in her physical and mental health. Days before her death, she was hallucinating from the high dose of medication to treat her pain, telling me vividly how she was flying a spaceship. That was not how she wanted to spend her final weeks, and I know that because she told me so. She, like so many others, had been denied her final wish. The legislation has received far more scrutiny than much of what we vote on in this place—and rightly so. The 28 Public Bill Committee meetings interviewed 40 witnesses, and divided 110 times on proposed amendments. As a country we have been debating this subject for over 20 years. I can recall as a 16-year-old law student discussing the case of Diane Pretty, and her campaign back then to change the law. I believe the Bill as presented is narrowly defined, with the necessary safeguards to ensure that those with a terminal condition can freely choose the time of their own passing. There are those in this House, often through religious beliefs or otherwise, who could never support a Bill of this kind. That is their right and I respect that. But that right should not extend to denying the choice to other people. There are those who argue for what they see as even greater safeguards, but we should remember that legislation must be balanced and workable in the real world beyond this Chamber. The Bill is not about shortening life; it is about shortening death. I ask all hon. Members across the House to support it.
I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important matter of the potential development of the green belt in my Rayleigh and Wickford constituency. In addition, I am sure the Minister responding to the debate has many pressing demands from his constituency diary on a Friday, so I am personally grateful to him for being here in the House of Commons this afternoon to respond on behalf of the Government. To add context, I will briefly explain to the Minister a bit about the geography of my constituency and how that is pertinent in relation to future development. In essence, south-east Essex is something of a peninsula, bordered to the south by the River Thames, to the east by the North sea, and to the north by the River Crouch and the River Roach, which run inland from the North sea as far west as the village of Battlesbridge. There are two principal east-west arteries that run from London into south Essex, namely the A127, the Southend arterial road, and the A13, which runs broadly parallel to the A127, but further south, closer to the Thames. Both roads are already extremely busy during the morning and evening peaks. I am sure the Minister is familiar with the concept of heat maps, whereby the busier the road, the darker the shade of red they appear on the map. Both roads are effectively glowing bright scarlet during peak periods, because they are already at between 98% and 99% capacity in the morning and evening rush hours. In simple English, these roads are already maxed out, despite a number of junctions being upgraded along both roads in recent years. In simple English, these roads are already maxed out, despite a number of junctions being upgraded along both roads in recent years. When we look at medical infrastructure, the theme of a system creaking at the seams is unfortunately repeated. Both Southend and Basildon university hospitals are part of the Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust, along with Broomfield hospital at Chelmsford. The three hospitals were merged some years ago, admittedly under a Conservative Government, and it is fair to say that the merger has not been a great success. In the case of Southend hospital, according to the senior trust management, last autumn, prior to so-called winter pressures, the hospital was already at 98% to 99% bed capacity. Once winter pressures were added in, it went well beyond 100%, and unfortunately there were frequent incidents of patients on trolleys in corridors. The situation is similar at Basildon hospital, slightly further west. I have raised Basildon hospital with the Minister before. In addition, GP surgeries in south Essex have patient lists above the national average, and are under tremendous pressure too. For brevity, our education infrastructure is also under considerable pressure, especially with regard to places in special educational needs schools. I have tried the Minister’s patience by mentioning all of this in order to try and explain as frankly as I can the serious infrastructure pressures that residents in my constituency, and right across south Essex, are already experiencing. Given these, it is absolutely critical that any future development should incorporate large-scale infrastructure investment to be provided well in advance of the tens of thousands of extra houses that Labour is seeking to build in south Essex, as part of their desire to create an additional 1.5 million homes over the course of the Parliament. For the avoidance of doubt, I accept that there does have to be some additional house building. Clearly, young people cannot live at home with their parents forever. But any such construction has to be done sensibly, at a pace that the local infrastructure can realistically accommodate in an environmentally sustainable way, so as not to adversely damage the natural habitat nor degrade the quality of life of the people who already live in the area—they have rights too. When it comes to housing targets, I am afraid that the Minister and I have a very basic philosophical difference. I admit that under a previous Conservative Government we did at one time have a system of mandatory housing targets, whereby officials in Whitehall could set targets for house building for each local authority, and then left it up to the local authority via its local plan to decide where that arbitrary number of dwellings should be built. I was one of a number of Conservative Back Benchers who lobbied very hard to have that procedure changed to a system of advisory targets, whereby Whitehall could set a benchmark, but local authorities with special circumstances—for instance, a large proportion of green belt—were at the very least given the opportunity to argue back, and make a case for reducing such arbitrary targets if they threatened to be realistically undeliverable in practice. I very much regret that the incoming Labour Government immediately reverted to a system of mandatory targets, made worse by their overreliance on a computer algorithm in order to calculate the number of dwellings supposedly required in each local council area. The prospect of so-called devolution and local government reform, about which I am deeply sceptical, has only threatened to make this already complex situation even more confused. In short, I believe it is highly unlikely that Labour will achieve its 1.5 million target, not least because it now incorporates a policy of making 50% of all new dwellings affordable. That was exactly the same policy that was operated for years by the Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. It is a matter of record that Mr Khan never gets anywhere near his housing targets. Indeed, they have now been reduced at the expense of increasing targets in the home counties, including in my home county of Essex. The 50% affordable policy deterred many house builders from building anything at all. As it failed in London, I believe it will now fail elsewhere across the country. As one example, Phillip Barnes, group land director at Barratt Developments, which has a £5 billion per year turnover, raised concerns about the policy in a blog in August 2024. He warned that existing sites within the green belt in draft local plan applications for housing, “will not be able to provide 50% affordable housing”. He went on to say that since the draft NPPF—as it then was—Barratt “has already pulled four in-flight planning applications on draft allocated sites because the spectre of 50% renders the scheme unviable due to the unacceptably reduced (or removed) land value for the landowner”. Nevertheless, Labour’s doctrinaire adherence to the 1.5 million figure means that they are giving local authorities targets that are so high as to be realistically completely undeliverable—short of massive infrastructure investment, which the Government are clearly not in a financial position to provide. Last month alone, borrowing was £17 billion. I will now raise with the Minister some specific examples of where his Government’s policy is already beginning to cause threats of unsustainable development in the green belt. Some months ago, Labour-led Basildon borough council published their regulation 18 draft local plan. The proposals anticipate building an incredible 27,000 dwellings across the borough council area during the planning period out to about 2043, 4,200 of which are anticipated to be built in and around the town of Wickford in my constituency. For the reasons I have already articulated, there is absolutely no way that the infrastructure in and around Basildon, Billericay and Wickford can possibly cope with massive house building on that scale, not least because about half of the sites are in the current metropolitan green belt. Basildon borough council has published a number of documents supposedly related to infrastructure, but they are incredibly thin in actual content. For instance, the supplementary document on health and medical infrastructure says absolutely nothing in detail about the expansion of capacity at Basildon hospital at the heart of the borough. That is despite the fact that according to the NHS’s own metrics each new dwelling could represent an additional 2.4 patients for the hospital, producing an overall total just shy of 60,000 new patients for a hospital where they are, metaphorically, already coming out of the windows as it is. All Basildon’s extremely limp document on health says on the subject is that it will all be sorted out by the integrated care board. I have double-checked that with the leadership of the Mid and South Essex ICB, which is itself now in the course of a reorganisation into a countywide ICB. I was assured that there have been absolutely no discussions between Basildon borough council and the integrated care board about the expansion of capacity at Basildon hospital. Basildon’s reg 18 plans should be found unsound on those grounds alone. Moving on to the Rochford district council side of my constituency, we can already see how the Government’s targets are having an adverse effect there, too. As one example, Taylor Wimpey recently began a consultation on plans to build up to 350 houses in the metropolitan green belt, in an area of land between Mount Bovers Lane and Gusted Hall Lane in Hawkwell. The local community are up in arms about that, and if the Minister had the time to drive down Main Road in Hawkwell, he would see protest posters in almost every window against this completely unsustainable development in the environmentally sensitive upper Roach valley. The site is wholly inappropriate for development, and indeed it is specifically excluded within the current Rochford district council local plan. Policy ELA3 states: “The Core Strategy states that the Upper Roach Valley will be protected from development which would undermine the area’s role as a green space, providing informal recreational opportunities.” Moreover, policy URV1, which relates specifically to the upper Roach valley, says: “Policy URV1 seeks to protect the Upper Roche Valley from development so that it can become a ‘vast’ area for informal recreational opportunities.” The policy goes on: “The Council will strive to see the Upper Roach valley become a vast ‘green lung’ providing informal recreation opportunities for local residents. The Council will protect the area from development that would undermine this aim and will continue the approach of creating the right conditions for flora and fauna to flourish, with the minimum of interference.” I should explain to the Minister I am firmly opposed to the proposed Taylor Wimpey development, which is completely contrary to two very specific policies in the excellent Rochford district council local plan, as I have just emphasised. There are absolutely no “very special circumstances” that would justify house building on this scale in this part of the green belt, which is extremely popular with my constituents for leisure purposes, jogging and dog walking, all of which contribute to their wellbeing. However, this is by no means the only example of where inappropriate development is now being proposed in my constituency. When I was seeking re-election last year, Mr Speaker, my final leaflet was headed, “Give me a mandate to fight Dollymans Farm”. In short, this is another site in the metropolitan green belt, slap bang between the two largest towns in my constituency, namely Raleigh and Wickford. During the 2024 general election campaign, I warned about Bloor Homes, which has a reputation as a highly aggressive developer and, it must be said, treated my former constituents appallingly in a proposed development of some 660 homes at Ashingdon, which is now on the eastern fringe of my constituency. That development was rightly opposed by Rochford district council, but Bloor subsequently won at appeal, where—among other things—Rochford district council’s hired transport consultant mysteriously changed sides the night before the public inquiry commenced. As part of its proposals, Bloor offered a number of section 106 commitments, including a new doctor’s surgery on the site. Some two years later, not one brick has been laid to that end. Despite my attempts to raise this matter with the integrated care board on several occasions prior to the boundary changes, there is no sign whatsoever of Bloor undertaking any proactive activity to keep its word about the GP surgery. To me, that sounds a powerful warning regarding its proposals at Dollymans farm. In essence, Bloor now envisions initially building 1,300 dwellings on the Dollymans farm site. Its proposals for Dollymans farm are a Trojan horse. The site is firmly within the metropolitan green belt and would represent completely inappropriate urban sprawl. I remind the Minister that paragraph 142 of the national planning policy framework—the so-called planning bible, which I am sure he now knows off by heart—states: “The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open”. To allow development at Dollymans farm would be utterly contrary to that fundamental tenet of the NPPF. The 1,300 homes initially proposed take up only a fraction of the land on the whole Dollymans farm site, as was confirmed at a recent public consultation exercise that the company held at Rawreth village hall and that I attended. One need only take a single glance at the proposed site plan to see that this proposal is a Trojan horse, and that if the 1,300 dwellings are approved, further applications for thousands more on the same site will no doubt follow. We simply do not possess the transport, medical or educational infrastructure to cope with urban sprawl on this scale, about half a mile from the Wick. As the local MP, I intend to fight these totally unsustainable proposals tooth and nail. Because of so-called devolution, the Labour Government have cancelled the local elections in Essex. However, there is a by-election in the Wickford Park ward on Thursday 26 June, and those Wickford residents who are lucky enough to have a vote can use it on Thursday to protest against Bloor Homes’ completely unsustainable proposals to build so many homes in such an inappropriate location. I therefore urge my constituents—whatever their personal politics might be—to vote for the Conservative candidate, Lewis Hooper, on Thursday in order to demonstrate to Bloor Homes that we really mean business, and we do not want its development at Dollymans farm. Perhaps the most egregious example of attempts to overdevelop my constituency relates to the proposed new town on the border between Southend and Rochford, in the area around Bournes Green. In essence, the proposal is for around 10,000 dwellings, 5,000 on either side of the Rochford-Southend border. In answer to a question to the Deputy Prime Minister on Monday 7 April 2025, she confirmed to me in the Commons that those dwellings on the Rochford side would be, in her words, “above and beyond” the mandatory housing target—which is already over 10,000 dwellings—that Rochford district residents are being threatened with by this current Labour Government. For the record, I am completely opposed to these proposals as well. However, I particularly wish to draw to the Minister’s attention the fact that there appear to have been some serious irregularities in how all of this was proposed, and I would be grateful for his close attention to them. When the original expression of interest was sent in some months ago, Rochford district council was something of a rainbow coalition, but led by the Liberal Democrat group. It transpires that the expression of interest that was sent to the Department—the new towns taskforce—was never approved by any committee of the council, let alone by the full council itself. There is even some confusion about whether or not the leader of the council, who was then Councillor James Newport, actively endorsed the proposal. In short, the whole initiative appears to have been effectively officer-led and officer-dominated. Since then, the leadership of Rochford district council has changed hands, as the Liberal Democrat group effectively collapsed and is now divided into various factions, some of whom no longer identify as Liberal Democrats. I shall not try the Minister’s patience with all the twists and turns in this process, but none the less, suffice to say that at times it has been like something out of Gilbert and Sullivan. The new Conservative-led administration, working with Rochford District Residents and several others, is attempting to bring stability to the council. At a meeting of the planning policy committee on 11 June, the council formally decided to withdraw its support for the expression of interest as submitted to the new towns taskforce. In other words, Rochford has withdrawn from the proposed new town—a decision that I wholeheartedly support, as we just do not have the infrastructure to cope with it. Moreover, in her speech to that committee, the redoubtable Councillor Danielle Belton said the following about how the EOI was submitted in the first place: “This is about transparency and doing right by the communities we serve. So finally, I should add that as the incoming Leader of Rochford District Council, I’m very concerned about what appears to have happened here—but I think it is important to establish the facts and learn from them. So, for that purpose, I will shortly be establishing an independent, externally-led investigation, to get to the bottom of all this and how, exactly, this submission came to be sent in the first place. We will then report the findings of that investigation to Full Council—and via them to our residents—in due course.” Given that an external investigation has now been initiated, I am sure the Minister will agree that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further in detail; suffice to say at this stage that something appears to have gone seriously wrong in how the expression of interest was submitted, which is even more reason for the council rightfully to withdraw from the whole process. Before leaving this topic, I should perhaps add in passing that there are emerging rumours that Brentwood borough council—which shares the same chief executive as Rochford, Mr Jonathan Stephenson—has also submitted an EOI for a new town, but for far larger numbers than were envisaged for the Rochford-Southend equivalent. I merely observe that there appears to be a bit of a pattern here. I will leave that for my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart)—he is in his place in the Chamber, listening to this news about his constituency—to pursue with Brentwood borough council, and no doubt eventually with the Minister on a separate occasion. To summarise, 24 years’ experience as a constituency MP has taught me that there is such a thing as good development, but that works only if it is something that is done with people, rather than to people. My genuine fear—I hope the Minister will appreciate what I am saying—is that Labour’s top-down approach, from both central Government and Labour-led Basildon council, very much appears to be doing things to people, rather than with them. I was elected to Parliament to represent my constituents, and I can assure the Minister that Essex people are not slow in putting across their point of view, as my email inbox regularly testifies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar is nodding his assent. We do accept there has to be some new house building in our county, but not on the scale that the Government propose in order to meet a random ideological target of 1.5 million homes, even at the risk of materially undermining the quality of life of people who live in Essex already. Finally, even if the Minister does not agree with me today, having known him for some time, I hope that he will at least respect that my concerns are genuine, and I hope that he will take at least some notice of the points that I have made this afternoon on behalf of the constituents who kindly re-elected me recently.
Am I right to say that the Minister described sustainability, particularly for green-belt developments, as a golden rule? I understand that the Planning Inspectorate is beginning to take that approach too. Could he quickly confirm that I heard that correctly?
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak for the first time on this Bill; I did not vote on Second Reading in November. In her opening speech this morning, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) said that we could choose to vote with our heads or with our hearts, and I have been grappling with that tension and conflict over the past few months. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), that the Bill is stronger now than it was on Second Reading. My sympathy for the principle of assisted dying is as strong as it ever was. The idea of facing a painful death or, worse, watching a loved one in pain at the end of their life frightens me. But if there is one thing that frightens me more than that—that terrifies me—it is the idea that someone I love might choose to accelerate their death imagining it to be one last act of kindness for those of us who care so deeply for them, and take away the opportunity for one last birthday together, one last Christmas shared, or even for something as simple as a picnic.
I am afraid that as the father of a 17-year-old daughter, I can identify with that question a bit too directly—although I should add that she does not suffer with anorexia. Of course, it would terrify any parent that that could ever happen.
No, I must continue—the hon. Lady has intervened multiple times. The promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, has done well with some of the safeguards around coercion, but the arguments around coercion as we normally understand them from a legal point of view miss the point. We are talking not about where someone with improper aims and motives sets out to cause someone to take a course of action that they would not otherwise take but something much more subliminal. It may be the wish to avoid being a burden, or reading too much into the doctor’s suggestion when they raised assisted death as something to consider. A few years ago I was seriously ill; at my most ill, the doctors said that I had a 90% chance of dying within weeks. When I regained consciousness, there was nothing that the doctors suggested to me that I argued over, whether it was a test, an angiogram or any other procedure. In my circumstances, if I had been in a position where assisted dying was a possibility, and the doctor had raised it entirely neutrally, I do not know how I would have interpreted it. Some Members have spoken of placing a high value on life as if it is some preoccupation of the religiously obsessed. I am a Christian; I am a very middle-of-the-road Anglican. Although I do not take my faith lightly, my Church has never told me how to vote on an issue, and it will certainly not tell me how to vote on this one. I do appreciate, particularly with my own experience, that life is precious. But one does not need to believe in an omniscient and omnipresent God to hold the view that life is precious and that we should take measures to shorten it only very carefully. As I said at the start, I do not believe that the Bill has got better. There are serious concerns about it. I genuinely do not know whether it is possible to put in adequate safeguards to ensure that assisted dying can be available for the cases where we would like to see it, but that would safeguard those difficult cases—the ones that the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), spoke so powerfully about in her very impressive and meaningful speech. What I do know is that if there is a way, this Bill does not do it. That is why I will be voting against it.
I start off by saying a huge thank you to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for the extraordinary amount of work she has done across this whole debate. This is the first time I have spoken in this debate, and, like many Members whose speeches I have heard, I come to it through personal experience. I have heard many stories of people whose relations have died; in my case, it was my mother who died. In 2012, she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. My father-in-law was a consultant, so I phoned him up and asked what that meant, and he said that she had a 90% chance of dying. I was prepared for it, but eventually the time came when I got the call saying that her health had started to deteriorate, so I went down to see her—I spoke to the Whips, and took time off work here—and watched the start of the decline from something as painful and difficult as pancreatic cancer, which, as those who have witnessed it will know, was not a nice moment. My mother was not frightened of dying at all. She would talk about it; she knew that she was going to die. However, she was terrified of the pain, and on many occasions, she asked me and Caroline, my wife, if we could make it end. We could not, of course. She had very, very good care from the NHS—the nurses came twice a day, she was on a morphine driver, and the GP came to see her, so she was looked after well. However, as she deteriorated, we could see that she was in indignity and a huge amount of pain, until eventually, she died. It was, of course, not one of the happiest moments of my life. Contrary to that experience, two or three years ago, I found myself going to the memorial service of one of my constituents, who was a truly wonderful person. She, too, had died of pancreatic cancer, but because she had been in Spain at the time—she spent quite a lot of time in Spain with her husband—she had the opportunity to go through the state-provided assisted dying programme that is provided there. I spoke to her widower very briefly, and it was fascinating to talk to him about it: he said it was an extraordinary, incredibly sad thing to have gone through, but that it was something that made her suffering much less. It was almost a sort of quiet Sunday afternoon when it happened. I saw those two people—my mother, who had the indignity and the pain and the suffering that she was terrified of, and my constituent, who had the opportunity to end it in a dignified way—and when I came to this debate, I was absolutely convinced that this was the right thing to do. I have spent the past six or seven months engaging as hard as I could with those who I hoped would be able to persuade me of a different decision—to try to persuade me that I was wrong in my assumptions. I have spoken to a huge number of people; I have joined in meetings with campaigners; I have read every email that has come in; and I have spoken to doctors and religious leaders, and I have yet to be persuaded that this is a bad thing to do. There has been a huge amount of debate here—over 100 hours of debate, when we add it all together. There have been loads of amendments, and people on both sides of the debate have been incredibly thoughtful, but are we possibly getting rid of the good in trying to find the perfect? I do not know—I am not the world’s greatest legislator—but having listened to these debates, and given what I have seen at first hand, at the end of the day, I can only go through the Aye Lobby to support the hon. Member for Spen Valley in all this extraordinary hard work. The time has come when we need to end suffering, where suffering can be put aside, rather than trying to do something super-perfect and allowing too many more people to suffer in the future.
Those of us who have come here today to support the Bill do not speak lightly of life and death, as some have accused us: we come here to recognise that this House has a responsibility to draw lines where there are none. Many of us have campaigned for many years, as the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), said, to give voice to dying people—not because they want to be rescued, but because time and again they are begging us for mercy. It is worth reiterating that this Bill is about not choosing death but how to face death when it is already at the door. It is about that final chapter of life—that short chapter. As many of our constituents have told us time and again, it is a chapter that they write in pain, fear and desperation. We are here today to ask a simple question: in essence, is the law, in those final, often agonising moments, to be a barrier? Are we to be a barrier, or are we here to be a companion, to assist those people to fulfil their dying wishes? I believe in autonomy—I believe in dignity—but, more than that, I believe in compassion governed by care, not chaos. That is what the system lacks. Right now, friends, as the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) said, we live with the cruel illusion that doing nothing is neutral. It is not. Those who have objected to the Bill are conspicuous in not saying that they accept the status quo for however long the Bill may take to reappear if it fails. We have heard, again and again, stories of people forced to travel abroad to die in lonely circumstances. We see loving spouses prosecuted for holding the hand of someone they have loved for 50 years. We see lonely suicides in quiet suburban bedrooms: lives ended not because of terminal illness, but because of a lack of legal options. The Bill brings order where there is confusion; it brings safeguards where there is silence; and it replaces secrecy with structure and fear with honesty. Notwithstanding the claims made today and elsewhere, it has been built in the right way. This House has taken its duties seriously, in all its forms of legislation. The Bill has gone through detailed scrutiny in Committee and concerns about coercion, training, eligibility and oversight have been met head on and addressed through carefully considered amendments. The panel model that we have now is shaped by those concerns. To ensure the right expertise, legal oversight and continuous consent checks are in place from beginning to end. This is how Parliament should legislate: carefully, collaboratively and with humility in the face of complexity. To those who worry about coercion, I would say that the greatest risk of coercion is under the status quo. Today there are no checks, no panels, no oversight. We do not know who is choosing freely because there is no system to ask and no conduct to examine. We have heard the argument about a slippery slope, and I would say this. This law is very tightly drawn. There is no constitutional pathway here for expansion by stealth. Any change would require this House—us—to decide again. It cannot drift. It cannot slide. It is anchored in law and in the authority of this place. To those who talk about misdiagnosis, I say that the Bill requires two independent doctors, clear clinical criteria and a final check at the point of delivery. Even then, the person must still be mentally competent and willing at every step. The answer can be no, but at the last—at last—there will be the possibility of a choice. To those who ask, often movingly, what if the patient lives longer than expected, I would say, “Good—they live.” This law does not force a single death. It simply allows a dying person to decide when enough is enough. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will finish with this. I have sat with dying friends. I have watched the slow unwinding of bodies that once held vigour, humour and pride. I have seen families trying to honour the unspoken wishes of someone too far gone to speak. Finally, I will say this. We do not honour life by prolonging suffering. We honour life by giving it meaning and power. The one thing that dying people ask for in their agonising final moments is control over the disease that is destroying them. The status quo, my friends, is completely unacceptable. Whatever you think of the Bill, it is indisputable that it is an improvement on what we have now, and I urge you to support it.
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36). Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put. Question agreed to. Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Will the hon. Member give way?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are reports of an extremely serious incident at Brize Norton, which is being described as vandalism but, if course, may be worse. Will there be a statement from the Ministry of Defence later?
I fully appreciate and respect the differing views on both sides of this debate, and I thank the huge number of constituents in Epping Forest who have contacted me about the Bill. This legislation to permit assisted dying or suicide leaves me with many concerns. I fear that some frail and vulnerable people may start to feel a burden to their families and may feel some pressure to proceed down this path. I also worry that the legislation will fundamentally change the doctor-patient relationship, and that it will be a foundational change in what our precious NHS is and stands for. I am concerned about the possible pressure that the Bill will place on medical practitioners when it comes to diagnosis and prognostication, which we know is not an exact science. Furthermore, although our palliative care sector provides high-quality, compassionate and dignified care at its best, access to palliative care across the country is, sadly, not at a uniform level for all people who need it at the end of life. Sadly, in terms of funding and delivery, the majority of palliative care is left to the charitable sector. That is in no way intended as a criticism of the amazing charities and hospices involved in the delivery of that care, but it is not right that the state will fund how someone comes into this life—with obstetrics, maternal care, neonatology and paediatrics—but not how they leave it. Our priority should be addressing the palliative care situation before we go anywhere near bringing in assisted dying legislation. Finally, I want to make some remarks as a veterinary surgeon.
I will not. I preface these remarks by saying that I am in no way equating the passing of an animal with the passing of a human, which is of a completely different order of magnitude, but the end of an animal’s life has sometimes been drawn into the discussion of human assisted dying. Many of the protocols and drugs are similar to those being discussed for humans. As a veterinary surgeon, I have been involved in helping countless animals, large and small, pass away, for many reasons. Each decision with the owner is very difficult—often heartbreaking—but the final act is not always routine and does not always go smoothly or according to plan. Apart from a couple of powerful speeches from hon. Members last week, we have not really addressed the issue of medical procedures and complications in this human debate. I shudder to think of the implications for the patient, their loved ones and the co-ordinating doctor if things do not go smoothly and peacefully. That must surely give us all pause for thought. For those and many other reasons, I will again be voting against the Bill.
May I begin by first thanking the Clerks for the considerable work they have undertaken to support Members across this House in preparing amendments across so many different elements of this complex issue? I know that you, Mr Speaker, gave a great deal of thought to which of those we voted on. I also know that you had a difficult balancing exercise in giving time to this Bill versus the limited time available for Friday sittings. I say again to the Government that I am deeply disappointed that they chose not to assist you, Mr Speaker, and all Members, by providing further time on the Floor of the House so that every single Member who simply wanted to speak could do so. Telling Members how many hours were spent in Committee, when so few Members can participate in that, is of little comfort to those Members who have been unable to put their views on the record on the Floor of the House. But we are where we are. I join others in acknowledging the very hard work and sincerity of the sponsoring Member, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). Now is the moment for us vote on her Bill in what we have to assume is its final form. There might be changes made in the other place, but there might not be. If Members vote for the Bill today, they must do so happy that this is the version that will come into law. As we conclude, I return to what I said on Second Reading. No one on either side of this debate can claim that only their side is motivated by care and compassion for others. We have heard powerful speeches motivated by concern for others, both from those in favour and from those against this Bill. We heard powerful examples from the Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), who served the memory of her brother well. On either side of the debate, we should resist the temptation to give ourselves false comfort. Those supporting the Bill, and I am sure even the sponsoring Member herself, will accept that there is no such thing as a perfect law, and certainly not in an area like this. No one can be certain that the concerns raised by opponents of the Bill will never transpire in any case. Members supporting the Bill should vote with an understanding that there may be unintended consequences. Similarly, those opposing the Bill should do so, accepting that they cannot rule out that some people of sound mind, without undue pressure from others, would want to access assisted dying. We have heard about the very real suffering that people at the end of their life can experience. How much that suffering can be relieved by palliative care has been a point of real contention, but the most powerful medications for relieving pain have equally powerful side effects, and that should weigh heavily with Members considering voting against. While opponents of assisted dying may prefer an improvement in palliative care instead, they cannot guarantee it will happen. I do not think it is fair to say that those who ultimately vote no to the Bill are, as some have described, actively happy with the status quo. I am sure that all of us at some point have seen a problem of human suffering of one form or another, but opposed a plan to alleviate it, because we thought it might make things worse in some other respect. That does not mean we are happy with the problem that still remains. Taking all that into account, Members have to undertake a difficult balancing exercise. I want to end my remarks with the words we started the day with—words that are heard in the Chamber every time we sit. I am not religious, but the meaning our daily Prayers conveys is, I think, of universal assistance. We are encouraged to lay aside “all private interests and prejudices”, and to keep in mind our “responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind”. Saying those words is easy. If only it was as easy to have the necessary wisdom to always know what exactly it means to improve the condition just of our constituents, let alone all mankind. The daily Prayers cannot help us with that, unfortunately, and today we do not even have the help of the party line. All of us at one time or another have railed against the Whip and its encouragement to vote for something we think is unwise, but if we are honest, that encouragement can be a great help a lot of the time. The extent to which the debate covered the views of professionals and representative organisations reflected Members trying to find help of another form in place of the Whip. Most of us are not experts, yet we have to make a decision that even experts disagree on. But let us welcome the fact that here today, as we wrestle with this decision, we are truly doing exactly what we were sent here to do, more than on most other days. Even if we might be uncertain about our vote, we can be absolutely certain about that.
rose—
It is often said that Parliament is the conscience of the nation, but I believe that it is also its safeguard. There are people who will benefit from physician-assisted suicide, as implemented in this Bill, but there are also people who will be harmed: those with mental illness, those in care homes, those who feel a burden, those who are made to feel a burden, and those who are abused. The Bill’s safeguards are inadequate. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians—of which I am a member—and the Royal College of Pathologists, and countless doctors, professionals and charities, have all been ignored in pursuit of absolutist principle above understanding. It is a facile interpretation of autonomy to give it no bounds or to ignore its prerequisites. We must hear the concerns and act accordingly today, for who are we if not the champions of the vulnerable and the voice of the voiceless? The question before us today is this: do we believe that this harm to the vulnerable is worth it? I say it is not. I say we vote down this Bill.
Will the hon. Lady give way?
indicated assent.
When it comes to cracking down on litter and fly-tipping, I would welcome anything the Government do. However, during proceedings on the Crime and Policing Bill, which passed through this place this week, Government Members had ample opportunity to accept various new clauses and amendments that would ensure stricter tackling of littering and fly-tipping, but failed to do so. What message does that send to those who go around tossing litter and fly-tipping, and, importantly, to the many volunteers in constituencies like mine who work day in, day out, to clear up that litter?
Order. A significant number of Members want to take part in the following debate, so we are playing “beat the clock”. I will not introduce a rigid time limit at this stage, but if Members could confine their speeches to no more than six minutes, we should get everybody in, get the Front Benchers in and give adequate time for the next debate.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
I call the Opposition Front Bencher.
I call Darren Paffey to move the motion.
Order. This is a very important subject. There are some 14 Members at least who wish to contribute to the debate. Allowing eight minutes each for the wind-ups and a couple of minutes for the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I think we are looking at a time limit of about five minutes each. I will not set a formal time limit at the moment, but if hon. Members try to stick to that, we should get everybody in.
Yesterday, as the Minister probably knows, food bank groups associated with the Trussell Trust lobbied—very effectively —Members on both sides of the House. My local group, the Waterside food bank, impressed on me the gap between the £92, which the Government believe a single person is estimated to need to survive, and the £120 that the food bank believes is necessary for a single person to be able to survive alone. Can the Minister give an indication as to what extent the gap between those two figures will be closed as a result of this initiative?
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have known her since she first came to the House, and she knows that she has my respect and regard. Swimming is critical. It is true that people who can swim still get into trouble, but if someone cannot swim at all, they are at much greater risk. Will she work with colleagues across the House, including me in respect of Deepings leisure centre, to make sure that there are good swimming facilities across the whole of our nation?
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury mentioned the midlands rail hub. He will know that the previous Government committed to the £1.75 billion project. There has been a pause, and paragraph 5.83 of the spending review states that the Government will fund its progression. In the spirit of short answers, can he tell me exactly how much money has been committed to it?
I take your steer on that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) for securing this debate, and I declare an interest as a new vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on water safety. Members will know that there will always be moments in our careers that will forever be etched in our memories. We can only hope that they are moments of joy, but sadly I am here to talk about a moment of tragedy. That moment was on 11 December 2022, which I will always remember. This moment of great tragedy impacted my constituents in Meriden and Solihull East. On that day, four young boys were playing near Babbs Mill Lake, which had been iced over. They were: Finlay Butler, eight years old; Samuel Butler, his brother, six years old; Thomas Stewart, 11 years old; and Jack Johnson, 10 years old. They were playing near the ice, feeding ducks. As the coroner later reported, Jack was with one group, and Finlay, Sam and Thomas were playing together with another group. One of the boys decided to go on to the ice. It was Finlay who fell in first, and then Thomas and Jack tried to help. Sadly, nobody saw Samuel fall in. The boys were shouting for help, but the witnesses could not reach them in time. I pay tribute to the emergency services, who reached the location within 11 minutes. They ignored their own safety advice, taking off their body armour and taking out their batons, and they used their fists to try to break through the ice. One officer who jumped in was neck-deep in the water and had to be treated for cold water shock. As the coroner and the police reported, any moment longer and we could have had another tragedy on our hands. The water was too deep, and sadly none of the boys survived. What strikes me is the suddenness of this tragedy. That is why I am talking about it today. I suppose all tragedies are sudden, but this was 11 December, two weeks before Christmas. I am not sure any of us can fathom what the parents of the two brothers or the families of the others went through, and I do not know whether they will ever be able to come to terms with it. What happened is particularly important to my communities in north Solihull, because in Kingshurst, Fordbridge and Smith’s Wood, which used to be in my constituency, the community came together. I remember going to the vigils and tributes in the week after. These boys were massively central to their school communities and the wider community, and I could see how much pain and hurt they were going through. Everyone came together, and the collective grief, pain and sadness has stayed with me. I am reminded of it every year, because sadly every Christmas I still hear of children playing on the lake when it is iced over. As the coroner reported, the temperature that day was around 5°C. I remember where I was, and it felt a lot colder. The water was a lot colder than 5°C. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen talked about education being key, and I agree with all the requests he made. I want to put on record that I will work very closely with him on this, because I believe it to be a cross-party issue—it is certainly not a partisan issue. Cold water shock is something that I knew very little about. The coroner said that within minutes the boys would have suffered fatal brain damage, which is what happened. When the tragedy happened, I remember coming to the House having done lots of media interviews. I remember after one interview, when the story broke that one of the children had just perished, Members across the House came to pay tribute to the communities in north Solihull. That included the Prime Minister, who within minutes of the story breaking had called me to find out whether there was anything that could be done. He also paid tribute to the communities at Prime Minister’s questions. For me this is a really personal debate, because I see the pain when people in Solihull talk about this incident. There is not anyone in the midlands, or across the country, who when I talk to them about the four children does not remember what happened. When I was talking to Members about why I would be speaking today and about those four lads who passed away in Solihull, it was clear that everyone remembers what happened. Ultimately, this issue comes down to education. I wrote to Sir Nick Gibb in the previous Government and spoke to him about trying to update the curriculum, but sadly we were not able to get that done. I wrote to the Education Secretary a few months ago and did not get a response, so I hope the Minister can give me some indication of action in this area—or perhaps the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen when he winds up can do so. This issue is so important, and I know that the Minister agrees. I am really keen to ensure that we get the curriculum changed, so on behalf of my families in north Solihull and the families of Finlay, Sam, Jack and Thomas, will the Minister please work to ensure that we avoid these tragedies in future?
It is a pleasure to cover for the shadow Secretary of State, who is speaking to farmers at the 140th Lincolnshire Agricultural Show. Having visited many such shows myself, including North Sheep 2025 and Cereals 2025 just last week, may I say how disappointed I am by the Secretary of State’s lack of attendance at these crucial farming events? At a time when our farmers are going through some of the most extraordinary pressures in a generation, we have now learned that this Government have chosen to slash the farming budget. To make matters worse, Ministers have spent the past week trying to sell cuts of more than £100 million a year in real terms as a historic deal for farmers. If the Secretary of State has secured such a historic deal for his Department, where does DEFRA rank compared with others in terms of cuts in the spending review?
It is a shame that the Secretary of State did not do any media at the Royal Cornwall Show and pulled out of speaking events. I can tell him that DEFRA is ranked the third biggest loser of any Government Department in the spending review, and that is his failure. In reality, we are now looking at cuts to the farming budget of about 20% in real terms over the next three years, at a time when farmers need more support and certainty than ever. It gets worse: we now hear that the Government have issued further statutory guidance on farming rules for water, with more to follow, effectively aiming to ban—