Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Kim Leadbeater Excerpts

Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It is an honour and a privilege to open the debate on Third Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. It has been a long journey to get here, and I do not underestimate the significance of this day. It is not often that we are asked to wrestle with issues of morality, ethics and humanity, but with great privilege in this job comes great responsibility, and never more so than at a time like this.

Benjamin Franklin told us that

“in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”

In this House we debate the latter incessantly, but here and in the country as a whole discussing death is something that we tend to shy away from, yet it will come to us all and to all those we love. We all have our own experiences of death, loss and grief. There are good deaths and bad deaths. I, like many, have experienced both.

I appreciate that, for some colleagues, the journey to this point has been a difficult one. I want to pay tribute to the way in which the overwhelming majority of Members have approached the subject. Second Reading back in November was quite rightly seen as an example of Parliament at its best. Contributions from across the Chamber were incredibly powerful, the atmosphere was respectful, and people listened with care. I hope that we will see the same today.

I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, and your team along with the fantastic Clerks and procedural experts who have ensured that parliamentary protocols have been followed and have guided us through the intricacies of what can be a complex parliamentary process—one that is steeped in tradition, but not always easy to follow. Of course, process is important, but it is also important to remember that we are not voting on the merits of parliamentary procedure; we are voting on an issue that matters deeply to our constituents. Indeed, the issue before us is very personal for many people—so many of our constituents, but many of us as well. It is an issue that transcends party politics. I thank colleagues from across the House who have shared their very personal stories with me.

I am grateful to all colleagues who have studied the detail of the Bill. It is essential that we come to a decision based on the content of what it actually says. I have been pleased to work with Members on all sides of the debate to ensure that the legislation is something that Parliament can be proud of—a cogent, workable Bill that has one simple thread running through it: the need to correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it.

I will not go into the amendments in detail, as I know that is not the purpose of this debate, but whether by adding further safeguards and protections for patients through additional training around coercive control, the addition of specialist expertise through the inclusion of multidisciplinary panels, widening the provision for professionals to opt out of the assisted dying process, providing additional employment protections, or prohibiting the advertising of assisted dying, cross-party working has strengthened the Bill.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

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?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think what he is saying is that people have got different views, and they do have different views; we have different views in this House, and different people in different professions have different views. Every royal college has a neutral position on assisted dying because of that.

I have been pleased to work with Members on all sides of the debate to ensure that this legislation is something that Parliament can be proud of, and the many safeguards in this Bill ensure that only terminally ill patients who are eligible under the strict criteria and want to access assisted dying can do so.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I felt disturbed by quite a lot of the emails that I received from constituents—some of them who are my friends and people I like—implying that we here are either too stupid or careless to care for the most vulnerable. Is it not true that we all do care, whatever decision we make today, and that we have to continue to educate people and tell them what this Bill is about?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and she is absolutely right; the detail does matter. That is why I am so grateful to colleagues who have engaged in the detail. We know that there are different views within the public, and we have to take on board the concerns of vulnerable groups—that is why the safeguards are so important—but I would also say that there is no one more vulnerable than someone who is dying.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am just going to make some progress.

Patients must have

“an inevitably progressive illness or disease which cannot be reversed by treatment”

and a person is not considered to be terminally ill only because they have a disability or a mental disorder. These clear, strict criteria, plus the multiple capacity assessments, exclude possible serious mental health disorders such as anorexia.

I was also very pleased to support the change advocated for by Marie Curie and Hospice UK, which would ensure an assessment of palliative and end-of-life care as part of the first report on the Act. We know from other countries, in no small part due to the 14-month inquiry by the Health and Social Care Committee, that palliative care and assisted dying can and do work side by side to give terminally ill patients the care and choice they deserve in their final days. It should not be an either/or for dying people, and we need to channel our energies into supporting all options for terminally ill people.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. As she knows, the leading experts in palliative care have come out to oppose the Bill, and they point to the fact that hospices are underfunded and do not have the same ability to serve patients. I therefore gently question whether we are in a position today to make a judgment that patients truly would have a choice at the end of life.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank him for his intervention, but I would say, as I have said previously, that people working in palliative care have a mixed range of views on this subject. I have met with palliative care doctors, and some are very supportive of a change in the law because of the suffering they have seen.

[Richard Burgon]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that particular point?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am just going to make some progress, if I may. But, as I was saying, it is an either/or decision for us today: either we vote for the safe, effective, workable reform contained in this Bill, or we say that the status quo is acceptable.

Over recent months, I have heard hundreds of stories from people who have lost loved ones in deeply difficult and traumatic circumstances, along with many terminally ill people themselves. I spent some time with some of these families yesterday. They are real people with real stories and they deserve to be heard.

Adil’s terminally ill father took his own life by buying drugs on the dark web. It was his third attempt, and Adil found him in a truly desperate state. He and his sister will never get over that night, nor the police investigation that followed. Katie waved her mum off as she made the lonely and costly journey to Switzerland, where she had a peaceful and dignified death. But the family had no chance to say a proper goodbye and her dad made the journey home grieving and alone.

Others have had to watch their loved ones die harrowing deaths despite receiving excellent end-of-life care. Warwick’s wife Ann, suffering from peritoneal cancer, had the maximum dose of sedative, but it was not enough to stop the choking and suffocation, and she begged him to help her put an end to her suffering. But he did not want her last memory to be of him stood over her with a pillow. There are many, many more such stories.

Perhaps most importantly, I have spoken to terminally ill people themselves. We have spent a lot of time talking about them, but not always with them. Pamela and Sophie both have terminal breast cancer, and they shared their stories yesterday. Pamela is a proud Christian who just wants to have choice when her time comes. Sophie, who is allergic to opioids, wants to ensure that her beautiful daughter has nothing but happy memories of their time together. Not supporting the Bill today is not a neutral act. It is a vote for the status quo. It fills me with despair to think that MPs could be here in another 10 years’ time hearing the same stories.

[Richard Burgon]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; she is being very kind. I came into this House supporting the principle of assisted dying, and I thought very carefully before voting against the Bill on Second Reading. There are differing views, but I want to ask my hon. Friend, before MPs put their name not to the principle of assisted dying but to this Bill specifically, why the vast majority of primary care doctors, geriatricians and groups representing people with disabilities, eating disorders and domestic violence are all opposed not to the principle but to this Bill specifically. Some people who are supportive of the principle of assisted dying do not support this specific Bill; can my hon. Friend explain their opposition?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I think we have covered that point already. These are not homogeneous groups of people; they have different views and opinions.

If we look at the inconsistencies in the current law, it just does not make sense. If someone with a terminal illness voluntarily stops eating and drinking, it is legal for them to starve themselves to death. A competent patient has the right to refuse foods and fluids even if they will die. The exercising of that right is sometimes proposed as an alternative to assisted dying. I suppose it could be argued that starving oneself to death is one way of taking control at the end of life, but it is a deeply traumatic experience for the person and their loved ones, and there are people here today who have direct experience of that.

[Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I will make some progress.

We have a system in which it legal for someone to starve themselves to death, which can take days or weeks, but where it is not legal for someone to seek assistance from a doctor to take an approved substance themselves to end their pain or suffering and take back control in their dying days. It is also legal in this country for someone to discharge themselves from medical care or refuse life-sustaining treatment such as ventilation, CPR or antibiotics, as long as they have the mental capacity to do so and are making the decision of their own accord, without harassment from anyone else. Colleagues might think that is fine, and I agree, but there is no requirement for two doctors, a psychiatrist, and a social worker, and there is no lawyer or judge. It is legal, yet what is being proposed in this Bill, with so many more safeguards and protections, is not. It simply does not make sense.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

rose—

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am not going to take any more interventions, because lots of people want to speak.

Then there are the criminal offences that the Bill introduces—none of which exist now—including life imprisonment for anyone who induces another person to take the approved substance, and 14 years in prison for coercion, dishonesty or pressure. It is a robust process that goes further than any other piece of legislation in the world, and it is far safer and significantly more compassionate than what we have now.

If we look internationally, there are clear, well-established, safe and compassionate assisted dying laws in existence. On Tuesday I joined doctors from Australia who used three key words repeatedly: choice, control and relief. Dr Greg Mewett has 20 years of experience as a GP and 22 years as a palliative care physician, and he spoke about the thorough approach that he has taken to ensure safety and efficacy of the assisted dying process. Perhaps the most stand-out quote from that session came from Dr Jacky Davis, chair of Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying, who said that by introducing assisted dying,

“no more people will die but far fewer people will suffer”.

This is not a choice between living and dying. It is a choice for terminally ill people about how they die. I fully appreciate that some colleagues would never vote for any version of this Bill, and I am respectful of that despite disagreeing with them. However, I say to colleagues who are supportive of a change in the law but are hesitant about whether now is the time, that if we do not vote for a change in the law today, we will have many more years of heartbreaking stories from terminally ill people and their families, of pain and trauma—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am going to finish.

There will be stories of suicide attempts, post-traumatic stress disorder, lonely trips to Switzerland, police investigations, and everything else we have all heard of in recent months. As the Commission on Assisted Dying said in 2011, 14 years ago:

“The current legal status of assisted dying [in the UK] is inadequate and incoherent. It outsources a healthcare issue abroad, especially to Dignitas, instead of the Government and Parliament assuming responsibility.”

That was 14 years ago, and we are in exactly the same position today. Things have got to change.

As the Government’s impact assessment states, the Bill will improve equity of choice, ensuring that terminally ill adults from all socioeconomic backgrounds can access end-of-life options within a regulated and safe framework.

I will draw my comments to a close. There are essentially two ways in which we can look at the situation we are in. We can look at it through a legal lens. As legislators, we have a duty to change the law where it is failing, and when the last four Directors of Public Prosecutions tell us that the law needs to change, surely we have a duty to listen. We need scrutiny before people die, not after. Most importantly, there is the human lens, which is how I approach most things. Giving dying people choice about how they die is about compassion, control, dignity and bodily autonomy. Surely we should all have the right—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Kim Leadbeater]

I am going to finish shortly.

Surely we should all have the right to decide what happens to our bodies and decide when enough is enough. Of course, giving people the right to choose does not take away the right not to choose.

Today, we can vote with either our hearts or with our heads, but either way, we should end up in the same Lobby. On a compassionate, human level, and as responsible lawmakers, we should support this desperately needed reform, which is rigorous, practical and safe, and which is rooted in the principles that should underpin any legislation: compassion, justice and human dignity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think he might have read some of my speech, which I will carry on with.

I will set out why the Bill is not safe, and speak about the two amendments that I tabled: amendment 14, which we have nodded through today, and amendment 38, which we will not get the chance to vote on. Amendment 14 dealt with the issue of voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, or VSED, which has been used as a “bridge” to assisted death in other jurisdictions. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley accepted that amendment, but let me be very clear: this does not close the anorexia loophole—that was the subject of another amendment. Voluntarily stopping eating and drinking is not what happens to people with anorexia. People with anorexia stop eating and drinking because they have a psychiatric illness. Those are two categorically different issues. I must make it absolutely clear that even though amendment 14 has passed today, it does not address concerns about anorexia or close that loophole.

Members in the other place are already raising the concern that, because this is a private Member’s Bill, they do not believe that they can provide all the necessary safeguards if we give a Third Reading today to a Bill that is not safe to be delivered to the public. At least 60 women with anorexia in multiple countries have died by assisted death when they needed treatment, not help to die. Every one of them was assessed to have capacity by two doctors.

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Naz Shah]

I will make some progress.

Hundreds of eating disorder experts, doctors, lawyers, charities, family members and people with lived experience urged Parliament to close this loophole and support amendment 38. As a Committee, we failed to heed their warning. We have now learned that the one remaining amendment that could protect people with eating disorders will not even be voted on.

Our responsibility is to make the Bill safe. We know what happens when politicians think they know better than the experts. Let us make it clear: the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Pathologists, palliative care doctors, the British Geriatrics Society, almost every eating disorder charity and almost every disabled people’s group do not support this Bill. That is not because they do not believe in the principle; they are warning us about the dangers of this Bill, and of getting this wrong.

Our job is not to be activists—to fight until our last breath for the principle, whatever shape or form it is delivered in. Of course we believe in causes—that is why each and every one of us is in Parliament—but we legislators must listen to the experts, heed the evidence, scrutinise and debate the ideas that are before us, and deliver for our constituents laws that are safe, workable and effective. We have a proud history; the likes of Florence Nightingale—the lady with the lamp—broke every barrier possible to heal the wounded, provide care for the vulnerable and reduce the chance of death. Those are the principles that our great NHS was founded on. We must ask ourselves whether those fundamental principles will still be intact if the Bill passes. Will they be there to protect those who face a postcode lottery in healthcare and palliative care, the most vulnerable, and those who have faced the greatest hardships in life and feel like a burden? Will those principles be there to protect those who feel like giving up, but whom we could help back up and push towards a better life? Instead, we will be giving them a way to give up, even if they could have survived.

This is the question for all Members: what is the margin of error that we are willing to risk today when it comes to something as serious as death? I urge Members to vote against this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

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—

[Kim Leadbeater]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

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.