Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Florence Eshalomi Excerpts

Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly]

The hon. Lady asks me to speculate about a set of circumstances that are personal and painful. I suspect that she and I both know that the outcome could have been very different, and that the moments she had with her sister, just like those I had with my dear friend, might have been lost.

We have to recognise that this is an important moment. While I respect the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), I disagree with her assessment that it is now or never; that it is this Bill or no Bill; and that a vote against it on Third Reading is a vote to maintain the status quo. None of those things is true. There will be plenty of opportunities. Indeed, we are dutybound, stimulated by this debate—which is why I do not criticise the hon. Lady for bringing forward the Bill—to have a serious conversation about palliative care. Many people will say that these are not conflicting or contradictory positions. But—and I will crack on because otherwise you will tell me off, Mr Speaker—we know that there could be circumstances where assisted dying would be on a statutory basis and the provision of palliative care would not.

We also have to address the point that we can all pray in aid individuals and institutions to reinforce our positions on this, but we cannot subcontract our decisions. Yes, we can fish around for people to come up with the perfect quote to reinforce our arguments, but another five minutes on Wikipedia, Google, or with friends of ours in the medical profession will find another voice that opposes that. Yes, it is a mixed picture in the medical professions, but I am struck by the number of professional bodies that are neutral on the topic of assisted dying in general but opposed to the provisions within this Bill in particular. We cannot just say, “They are neutral on assisted dying, and therefore this particular vehicle has to progress.”

We carry a responsibility—it is what we are sent here to do—and we need to take it very seriously. We must be rigorous on the specific details in the Bill. Just like the hon. Member for Spen Valley, I do not have time to go through every single argument that was had on Second Reading, in Committee and beyond, but in order to ensure that we are rigorous, there are three fundamental questions that we should ask ourselves—not lean on our friends and colleagues, but ask ourselves—and ensure that we answer fully and honestly.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, in 2021, he and I worked cross-party on identifying inequalities within certain communities and on getting them to come forward for the covid vaccination. Does he agree that one question we parliamentarians need to ask ourselves is this: how is it right that some communities are denied basic healthcare within the current system; how is it right that some communities do not have access to good palliative care; how is it right that some communities still mistrust the medical profession; and how is it right that we are not listening to their voices?

[Sir James Cleverly]

The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point, and I will touch on that briefly in my remarks. I am minded to take no more interventions, because otherwise I will be stealing time from others.

There are three questions we need to ask. First, are we happy for this Bill—not for the principle, but for this Bill as drafted—to become law? Many of the elements that I have already discussed are concerning. In the criteria set out, medical professionals do not need to seek deeper motivation. We have said there is not a real choice between palliative care and assisted dying, because one will have a statutory underpinning and the other will not. As I say, the “gold standard” protections were lost in Committee, because a number of professional bodies and—