Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Melanie Ward Excerpts

Friday 13th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice]

No, that would be unfair as so many wish to speak.

In considering the Bill, I think, yes, let us improve palliative care, but let us remember that choice, when faced with certain unimaginable pain, is the right thing to provide. That is why I will be supporting the Bill.

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

I am almost in my 13th hour of trying to speak on this topic, so I hope Members will understand that I am not going to take any interventions. I rise to speak in support of new clause 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes); amendment (b) to new clause 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh); and amendment 13, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson).

Let me start by saying that ending suffering is a shared goal of all Members across this House. No one has a monopoly on wanting to end suffering; the question is how best we do it. As a former aid worker and someone who has risked my own life in order to alleviate the suffering of total strangers in war zones, I promise the House that I am motivated to end suffering at least as much as the next Member. It is worth the House knowing, too, that my darling dad died of terminal cancer in a hospice that was run and funded by a charity, because the NHS does not have that provision.

New clause 4 matters, because we do not live in an equal society, although many of us—particularly on the Labour Benches—seek to bring one about. This is a deeply flawed Bill, and the truth is that in seeking to give choice to some, it risks causing new harm to a much larger, vulnerable group of our citizens. The safeguards, which were watered down in Committee, will not prevent this. Indeed, this week, we have seen a letter from over 1,000 doctors saying that the Bill will “widen inequalities” and that it is “simply not safe”. Earlier, we heard a powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale about the impact of advertising on the most vulnerable. New clause 4 would increase the collection of data about the impact on the most vulnerable and bring in proper oversight from the chief medical officer, including in relation to those with protected characteristics.

Last time we debated the Bill, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). We are in the shared situation of having close and dearly loved family members who have complex disabilities. My hon. Friend and our families know how it is to have to struggle—to fight every week for the access to basic state services that our loved one is entitled to but cannot access. Those services and precious state resources would increase their equality and ability to live well, but were stretched beyond breaking point by successive Tory Governments. It is that experience that brought me into politics and into the Labour party, and to this day—away from my day job as a Member of this House—I still have to fight on behalf of my loved one, who has significant physical impairments as well as learning difficulties, for them to access the healthcare and support that they desperately need.

Vulnerable people do not always make decisions in their own best interests, and I also know from my family experience that they can be highly susceptible to pressure from others who do not have their best interests at heart. That is why the transparency created by new clause 4 matters. I remind the House, too, that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has described the so-called safeguards in the Bill as “inadequate”, and that in Washington state, almost two thirds of those who had an assisted death in the last year for which data is available cited fear of being a burden on their family, friends or caregivers as a reason for doing so. I do not want that to happen in our country. Over 350 disability rights organisations oppose the Bill as it stands, and one of my constituents has told me that the Bill contributes to a sense among disabled people that “We are disposable.”

Amendment 13 and new clause 4 both make important changes to the role of the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. I ask my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches whether they have questioned the wisdom of the Prime Minister himself having to personally appoint the death tsar—as the media have christened that role—shortly before the next general election.

Finally, earlier this week, I heard an hon. Member say that he believes the Bill is flawed, but plans to vote for it anyway so that it becomes law and we would have to sort out the problems later—we have heard more of that today. The hon. Member did not specify how he thought this would happen, or when. He is right that the Bill is flawed, but he is wrong that we can ignore those problems. To do so would be to fail in our job as legislators. Being in favour of these amendments and against the Bill does not mean accepting the status quo, as some have tried to suggest. It means that we choose, instead, to protect the NHS and to work, to fight and to battle for a palliative care system that is worthy of those we represent, rather than diverting time and energy into helping people to kill themselves.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Even though I am not opposed to the principle of assisted dying, I have a number of deep concerns about the content of the Bill, the process by which we are legislating for such a monumental change and, importantly, the context in which it would be enacted, given the numerous challenges facing our health and care services. That is why I have tabled amendment 21 relating to palliative care and end-of-life needs, which has attracted cross-party support.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for supporting the amendment. I want to pay tribute to her today for kick-starting a debate about dying well and, in particular, about palliative care—a topic that has been neglected by many of us, myself included, for far too long.

Amendment 21 would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament a year after the Act has passed detailing the availability, quality and distribution of health services to those with palliative and end-of-life needs. Marie Curie estimates that one in four people who could benefit from specialist palliative end-of-life care do not receive it. People who are poorer, less educated and, yes, non-white are even less likely to receive it.

I was horrified, if I am honest, by the earlier speech from the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher). All the data shows us that people from minority ethnic communities are less likely to access the healthcare services they deserve, in particular palliative care. There is a deep distrust of health services, and those of us who were in this place during the covid pandemic saw that played out in real time in hospitals and care settings up and down the country, with far more people from minority ethnic communities losing their lives and far more healthcare professionals from ethnic minorities not protected in the way that they should have been. If those people from minority ethnic and disadvantaged communities are less likely to access palliative care as a result of the Bill being passed, contrary to what its supporters say, my fear is that more people—rather than fewer—will die a terrible, horrendous, traumatic and painful death and they will be disproportionately from those communities.