Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Friday 20th June 2025 Commons Chamber

Further consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to the Bill, I would like to say a few words about today’s proceedings. On 13 June, an objection was taken to the Question that new clause 16 be read a Second time. As the objection was taken after 2.30 pm, proceedings on the Bill stopped. We will begin with the Question that new clause 16 be read a Second time. I will then put the Questions on the amendments selected for separate decisions. I can confirm that I have selected all the amendments in the name of Kim Leadbeater for separate decision, as well as amendments 14, 24, 12 and 21.

Once the decisions on Report are complete, I will then call the Member in charge to name the day for Third Reading. If she says now, Third Reading will begin then. Many colleagues will wish to participate in the debate today. I hope the Divisions that we are about to have can take place reasonably quickly in order to maximise the time available today.

On 13 June, Rebecca Paul moved formally that new clause 16 be read a Second time.

New Clause 16

Wish to end one's own life

“(1) A person does not have a wish to seek assistance to end their own life in accordance with this Act under section 5(5) if they are substantially motivated by—

(a) not wanting to be a burden on others or on public services,

(b) a mental disorder (including depression),

(c) a disability (other than the terminal illness),

(d) financial considerations, including lack of adequate housing,

(e) lack of access, or delayed access, to treatment or other service which a public authority is required (or can reasonably be expected to) provide, or

(f) suicidal ideation.”—(Rebecca Paul.)

This new clause ensures that a wish to end one’s own life that is substantially motivated by the factors listed in the amendment does not qualify for the provision of assistance under this Act.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

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?

[Mr Speaker]

I can say that I have been given no notice of the incident at Brize Norton; I know nothing of the incident. Those on the Front Bench will have heard the point. I would not want to interrupt today’s proceedings. If the incident was that serious and somebody was so minded, we could always put something on at the end of proceedings, but that would be for others, not for me at this stage.

Third Reading

[Mr Speaker]

A huge number of Members have indicated that they wish to speak in the debate. I hope that Members will restrict themselves to a reasonable amount of time—after the two opening speeches, I will advise on five minutes—to enable other colleagues to participate. We need shorter speeches to enable all Members, or as many as possible, to contribute. I shall make it clear that the Chair retains the right to impose a formal time limit, but I would rather colleagues helped each other. After all, it is an important day, and we do want to hear as many views as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Cleverly]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, but I refer her to my second question. Those bodies say that they do not have the people to populate those panels, yet that is what the commencement date demands. The principle of having a person or group of people to protect against coercion is important—I am talking not just about coercion, but about how people perceive people in authority—but royal colleges and social workers have told us that they do not believe they will be ready to put those guardrails in place by the commencement date. We should listen to them.

This is an important debate that has stimulated an important conversation, which demands our full attention, but I do not believe that the Bill is ready to go to the other place. It is interesting that there are both proponents and opponents of the Bill who hope that the Lords will make significant changes to the Bill. That should surely set off alarm bells.

Ultimately, because the Bill is such a fundamental change, we need to ensure that there is an enhanced level of scrutiny of its detail. We all want to avoid and alleviate suffering wherever possible, but I do not believe that we have had the opportunity to get the Bill into the right shape. That is why I will oppose Third Reading, and I encourage others to do likewise.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. After the two opening speeches, we will now have a five-minute limit, and I hope that Members will restrict themselves to up to five minutes. The Mother of the House will now give us a very good example.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It will help others if Members can keep to four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Hudson]

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.

[Mr Speaker]

For the final speech before I call the Front Benchers, I call Lola McEvoy.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and celebrate her courage and kindness throughout this whole process.

I agree with many in the House that the status quo is unacceptable—that is why most of us are here—and I urge colleagues who, like me, are in favour of the principle of choice at the end of life to vote today not on the principle, but on how the Bill will work in practice. This is not an opinion poll, and there are very real trade-offs. Without palliative care parity across the UK, this new way to die offers a replacement, not a real choice. I am pleased to have the support of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Gordon Brown, as well as a huge number of medical professionals, on these arguments.

I was brought up around death, and I am still smiling. I know about good palliative care because my dad would take me to the hospice to meet his patients that he had grown to love. As a child, I remember him getting promoted to a new nurse consultant role. They were experts in their field of nursing and were promoted to fill the gap in expertise in making decisions on crucial palliative care and pain relief. My dad’s positional and relational power to give confidence around decision making and to support less experienced but more senior staff in essential decisions around life and death meant that those decisions could ease a lot of people’s passing. When decisions are delayed, the patient suffers unnecessarily, and we have heard that happen in the stories and many cases of poor palliative care that have shaped this debate today.

In the interests of time, I will skip to my final point. The practical reality of what we see today is that, without radical improvements to palliative care, a joined-up digital system, and clear recorded centralised data on when and how we talk to patients about the treatment they are getting, and about what that means—not just for the length of their life, but for the quality of their life—we will continue to have a postcode lottery. With a finite number of experts in our NHS, this decision to bring in this new way of dying will simply deprioritise addressing the gaps in the provision of good-quality palliative care, which will affect most of us, in favour of offering a new option to the minority of people who will be eligible. That is not in line with my values, and that is why I cannot vote for it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.