Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
This is the first time during this Parliament that I have been able to speak publicly about assisted dying and why I support a change in the law and, indeed, this Bill—a decision I voted for 11 years ago when the then MP for Wolverhampton South West, Rob Marris, put his assisted dying Bill to Parliament. I think of all the people who have suffered unbearable pain and loneliness since that first debate took place. I will make three brief points, and forgive me if I do not take interventions—I know so many people want to speak. The first is why I support a change in the law in principle. I have always believed that so long as it does no harm to others, people should have as much control, say and choice over their lives and the decisions that matter to them as possible, no matter their background or situation. That power should be in people’s hands to live or die as they choose, not as anybody else thinks they should or tells them they should. It should not just be the privilege of those with money, knowledge or resources. For me, that applies as much to the end of life as it does throughout the rest of life, and arguably more so—to choose as best we can how we leave this mortal coil on our own terms, in as little pain as possible with grace, humanity and dignity, surrounded by the people we love and who love us in return. That is not the case at present. As my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) so bravely and movingly set out, the principle of choice is deeply important to the people and families who have suffered unbearable deaths or are worried about unbearable deaths, whether or not they use that choice. Many have talked about having the option as a kind of insurance policy or as a comfort for them when they are going through those difficult times. That principle of choice and how important it is leads me to my second point, which is that we need better palliative care and social care before any change in the law. The truth is that for people who genuinely believe in choice, it is not either/or—better palliative care and social care or the option of assisted dying—but both. Even the best-quality universal palliative care will not alleviate unbearable suffering for some people. We know that from respected research institutions, hospices and patients themselves, and we should listen to their voices. Back in 2000, the then editor of the British Medical Journal wrote a powerful article entitled, “A good death”. I remember reading it and thinking how amazing it was. In it, he argued that medicine in particular and society as a whole do not give the attention that we should to helping people die a good death. With our ageing population, increase in long-term chronic conditions and the fact that sudden death is no longer the norm, we need a new approach. We must look at the broad spectrum of support that is needed to provide a good death. The support needs to be based on clear principles, including people being afforded dignity and privacy, having control over pain relief and symptom treatment, and having choice over where death occurs and who is present and shares the end with them. People need to be able to leave when it is time to go and not have their life prolonged pointlessly. I see today’s debate very much within that context: what makes for a good death. Alongside a change in the law on assisted dying, we must also improve palliative care and social care for families. I have campaigned for that for years, including campaigns for more beds in my local hospice LOROS and for free social care and for choice at the end of life. As Richard Smith argued all those years ago, we as a country and society can bring death more into life. That is entirely within the power of this Government and this House. I know that my dear and honourable friend on the Front Bench, the Minister for Social Care, cares passionately about those issues. My third and final point is about trust in our democratic process. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) for the very powerful speech he gave earlier on this point. I have the greatest respect for the many knowledgeable, experienced and highly principled Members of the House of Lords, but it is not right and not acceptable that a tiny minority should be able to talk out the Bill with hundreds and hundreds of amendments—a Bill that has been scrutinised far more than many Government Bills—with the sole purpose of scuppering it. It is the most scrutinised Bill I have seen in my 16 years in Parliament, and it was passed by this House of elected Members. The Lords should vote on this Bill, amend it if they see fit, send it back to us—just like we do with all other Bills. We have done our job. Now the House of Lords needs to do theirs to give people dignity, respect, choice and control over how, where and when they die, which so many hundreds of people have not had in the decades since we last faced this issue.