Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I will speak briefly and cover just three points. I do not expect to persuade those committed to opposing the Bill to change their minds; I hope that I do not persuade those supporting it to change theirs. This is the time to put our concluded thoughts on the record before seeking their lordships’ opinions.

I start where I finished my speech on Second Reading: agency. Since that debate last November, I have continued to meet constituents on both sides of the argument, and answered hundreds of letters and emails—I am sure that other hon. Members have done the same. I have met mainly with groups that oppose the Bill, including faith groups, because they have sought to change my mind. I have not changed my mind. I am still driven by the plight of those suffering unnecessarily at the end of life.

I wholly respect the decision of those who would not want assisted dying for themselves, but I cannot accept their right to deny that choice to those who would, for the most profound reasons, use the provisions of the Bill to end their lives. The pain, suffering, indignity and degradation of a slow, painful, tortured death is something none of us would wish on a friend or relative—on anyone. If that suffering at the end of life, in the narrow circumstances prescribed by the Bill, can be avoided, who are we to deny that?

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andy Slaughter]

I am not going to give way.

The obvious qualification to what should be a clear and personal choice to leave life in a matter and at a time of one’s choosing is the risk of coercion, and that has rightly dominated much of the debate for the past eight months. There are two points to be made here.

First, great effort has been expended, and is reflected in amendments to the Bill, to make the safeguards as comprehensive and watertight as possible, learning from and going beyond practice in other jurisdictions. Compliance with the provisions of the Bill is a rigorous process, but it is also a practical one; it is designed to be transparent and to test the intent of the person seeking an assisted death.

Secondly, some say that that is still not enough, but with what are they comparing it? The answer at best, and in some cases, is the status quo, which may involve an investigation post mortem as to whether assistance has been given—putting a caring loved one at risk of prosecution, but doing nothing to prevent those of malign intent.

Finally, although I have tried to see both sides on every issue, there is one point on which the opponents of the Bill are, in my opinion, just wrong: whether the Bill has, thus far, seen due process. I have been in Parliament for a month over 20 years, and I can think of few Bills of this length and scope that have received so much scrutiny and so many hours in Committee, or on which so much evidence has been submitted and comment made.

Members will vote against the Bill for many reasons, even though by doing so they restrict the choice of others. They should compare the regime pre and post legislation and, I hope, decide that the Bill gives greater protection. But I ask them not to vote against it because we have lacked the time or information to make a decision—we have not—or because we do not as a country have the ability to resource the Bill—we do. A great trust and great opportunity have been given to the Members of this Parliament. This is the moment of decision, and we should discharge it to the best of our ability.