Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

Such courts are to be seen not only in Texas, but in Stockton, Teesside; I visited an intensive supervision court there and saw for myself the value of this approach in ensuring that we really tackle the challenge of prolific offending among the relatively small group of people who commit a significant number of crimes. We are operating this approach in four locations in England, and will do so in a further seven by 2029, including in London.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Last week, I visited a prison with the University and College Union to look at the prison education service. I saw the power of dynamic prison education, but also heard about the cuts to these privatised contracts. Will the Minister will bring those contracts back in-house, and work with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education to ensure that education has real purpose in people’s lives and reduces reoffending?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend will hopefully not doubt my commitment, as a former Minister for Schools, to education as a life-changing force. Indeed, I want to see it employed to reduce reoffending and protect the public while changing lives.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Lewin]

I am going to make some progress.

This is the first time that I have spoken on this subject, and I want to set out briefly why I have consistently supported choice at the end of life. First, there is the simple principle that, faced with a terminal diagnosis, it should be the right of the individual to choose how they leave this world. If we offer the choice of an assisted death in the circumstances detailed in the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) said in 2024, we will be

“shortening death, not life…This is not life or death; this is death or death.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 1048.]

Our choice is whether we want people to have the choice of a dignified death or to force some people to endure painful and traumatic last moments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) set out in her astonishing speech.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew Lewin]

I will not at this moment.

My second reason is the medical reality that some conditions are beyond good palliative care. Driving improvements in palliative care should be a moral imperative for all of us in this place, but doing that does not resolve the question before us today. Another doctor, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), again speaking in November 2024, said that there are some conditions for which we “cannot provide” good palliative care. He said that for

“the likes of the inoperable neck cancer, eroding away into the carotid artery”,

there is

“no alternative to that terrifying death.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 1070.]

If we fail to pass this Bill, we do so in the knowledge that we are making an active choice to allow people to continue to die in this way, when we know that an alternative is possible.

Finally, I cannot support a status quo in which the state decrees that it knows better than a terminally ill person who has expressed their wish. That is the reality today—people who are dying are denied their wish to end their time on this Earth on their terms. I am voting for this Bill today because I believe in the primacy of the elected House of Commons, and above all because I believe that someone who is terminally ill should not have their last moments dictated to them by the state. Just as in life, in death an individual deserves to choose their own path.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards). For her, and for the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), this is a remarkable feat of political endurance; I pay tribute to them for that.

I start by declaring my interest as a registered medical practitioner and an active doctor, but far more importantly, as somebody who has sat by relatives in their final hours and minutes, as many in this Chamber have done. That really has an impact, and is certainly germane to what we are discussing.

Although he is apparently not voting today, the new Prime Minister has said that he wants to improve palliative care before we weigh up this extremely difficult matter, which will affect a relatively small number of people at the end of their life. I do not agree with the Prime Minister on much, but I do agree with him on that. Happily, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who is no longer in his place, agrees with it, too. If I may paraphrase the Prime Minister, I want good palliative care to be available in every postcode. The criticism we have of it in this country right now is that it is not universally available to all. I believe that if it were, many of the considerations that we are deliberating on today would be profoundly altered, and that is one of the reasons why I will not support the Bill today.

[Rachael Maskell]

I led the independent commission on palliative care, and the data shows a worsening of palliative care; 170,000 people do not have access to the care that they need, and even those who are able to access palliative care may not have access to specialist techniques such as neuromodulation and palliative radiotherapy, and to nerve blocks. Does the right hon. Member not recognise that we need to look at the skills available, as well as the access points?

[Dr Murrison]

I certainly do, and I expect that those sort of things were on the mind of the Prime Minister when he made his remarks recently.

The first reason why I will not support the Bill today is that I seriously do not want to live in the kind of society in which the frail, elderly and vulnerable feel coerced into “doing the right thing.” We can set up panels, and involve judges in chambers, social workers and all the rest of it, but as humans, we know how humans work. We know the light side and the dark. Often, the currency that passes between vulnerable adults and their influencers is things that are not said; some of the contributions today have touched on that, and none of it is captured in clause 34.

We know that certain groups particularly like to please, to acquiesce, to oblige. We all know constituents like that, and they are often among the most vulnerable. They are people with Down’s syndrome, and people like the lady who featured in the advert for simple cremations, cited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley)—quiet people, if you like. They are among the people who are not adequately protected by this Bill. Can we genuinely say that there would be a level playing field for them? Our first mission in this place must be to protect the most vulnerable.

Speaking of the vulnerable, Canada has seen the most appalling mission creep, particularly into mental health. That is probably why the Royal College of Psychiatrists is so wary of the Bill, and it is in company with the most impressive array of medical, disability and charity groups—count them off! Do not turn a deaf ear to them.

I do not want the tone and texture of my profession, or of any other, to be changed irrevocably by its involvement in termination. Nor do I want others in the NHS or elsewhere in our care system who are unprotected by codes of ethics and opt-outs, and who will not be explicitly protected by the Bill, to feel obliged to be involved in termination. Clause 31 is all very well, but if this Bill passes, the pressure on those in the palliative care sector in particular to facilitate assisted dying will be substantial. Earlier in my career, I considered being an obstetrician; it was a career to which I was attracted, but one of the reasons why I did not take that route was that I did not feel comfortable being involved with a very large part of that practice, which is termination of pregnancy. I feel that this Bill will irrevocably change the nature of palliative services in this country.

The previous Health Secretary pointed out the tedious business of opportunity costs. Five per cent of deaths in Canada, where the law we are debating has been in place for a decade, are now assisted.

Criminal Justice Reform

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is crucial that conditions are followed on release. However, automatic recall often means that people who miss a probation appointment end up in prison, often for months on end. Will the Secretary of State look at the recall process and ensure that it is fair and equitable and that if people do err on their conditions, there is work to support that person outside prison rather than their being brought back into custody?

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I think we could say unanimously across this place that if an individual out on licence contacted their victim, that would be a significant transgression, and it would have the most significant response, as would breaching their conditions flagrantly and clearly deliberately. There is an element around non-compliance that is more technical—I have to say, I do not think that this is happening widely, but I want to recognise it in the spirit of my hon. Friend’s question. I would defend strongly the principle that people must turn up to the meetings that they are expected to attend, but as my hon. Friend has asked me to look at that issue, we will of course do that, because we want the recall system to be effective.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

The impact of delays, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, is a feature of not just our criminal courts, but our civil and family courts. The financial impact, and, if an individual has been waiting, the build-up to the nerve-racking prospect of a trial in court, can be absolutely devastating. We are working to maximise capacity in every jurisdiction and hiring more judges to improve timeliness. I will continue to work with colleagues across the Department to deal with delays in the family court.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have met the academics behind the University and College Union reports on the prison education service, which highlighted the real challenges around the wellbeing and mental health of educators, as well as their safety, especially with the racism they have been experiencing. Will my hon. Friend look at carrying out a complete review of the prison education service to ensure it is fit for purpose and able to do the job it was designed for?

[Jake Richards]

Lord Timpson and I are looking at this issue in the round. We are ensuring that where prisons have education contracts, they are being given full effect, which often is not the case. My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are working on it, and we will keep her informed.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

When debating justice, I am first minded of the victim’s right to a process producing a fair and timely verdict and the defendant’s right to know that justice has been served fairly and without delay. There is much to commend in the Bill, including the removal of the presumption of parental involvement, protecting children from becoming the proxy target of a perpetrator’s abuse and the better handling of evidence.

The listing backlog is not universal. York Crown court’s cases are being listed for 2026-27. The Government must learn from successful courts and think about instituting things like Nightingale courts to deal with the backlog. When I visited York Crown court, I was told about the dysfunctional IT system and how difficult it was to connect to achieving best evidence videos. I was told about the PECS contracts. I say to the Government that we should in-source that work to ensure that we do not see those delays. Estate improvements are also vital, not least in a Crown court built in 1777, like York.

I want to focus on the removal of jury trials. We know that the judiciary lacks diversity, as we have heard, and I fear that is the result of unconscious bias, as academic papers have pointed out. We need to ensure that we have stronger deliberations of trials, and therefore to hand that to a jury would give more security.

The final point I want to impress upon the Justice Secretary is a political one. When victims and defendants have lost confidence in the establishment and the elite, including the judiciary, a bridge to maintain confidence between them and their communities and the justice system is vital. As has been put to me, without that, a victim is less likely to have confidence in someone whose experiences are a million miles from their own. The same is true for a defendant, having been failed by the establishment time and again. Maintaining the bridge to justice with people who have walked in their shoes, grown up on their street and faced the same challenges enables the victim and the defendant to know that at least the court understands, even if it has not found in their favour.

For someone to have their truth told to those from their community serving on a jury, and to know that the evidence has been deliberated well, upholds confidence in the courts and in justice, but to break that trust breaks justice and builds barriers. Justice must not only be done but be seen and felt to be done. It is easy for Ministers to get lost in the data and miss the purpose of justice, and I believe that it is this miscalculation that we wrestle with today. It is about who holds power and, ultimately, trusting that power.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; when we are building new prisons, we have to think about the local area and ensure that we listen to local people’s views. I would gently say that the Conservative Government promised 20,000 new prison places, but managed just 2% of that—I think we are starting to see why.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Government were making great strides on imprisonment for public protection sentences, yet after my constituent, who was held for nearly two decades, had a minor infringement—he missed an appointment—he ended up back inside. That cannot be right. We need to ensure that people get proper support outside. Will the Government review what happens to IPP prisoners post release?

[Mr Lammy]

I was looking at these issues just yesterday with one of the leading campaigners on IPP. We are making progress with the action plan, but I am happy to arrange a meeting with my hon. Friend and the Prisons Minister to discuss these issues in a bit more detail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Lady is right: it is important that parent carers get the information they need that helps with rehabilitation and getting things to the right place. If she wants to write to me about that particular case, I will look into it and write back to her.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Survive is a York-based charity providing specialist services and trauma-specific interventions to survivors of sexual violence and abuse. However, it has had to close its waiting list because it does not have the capacity to meet the demand. Will the Minister look at providing additional funding, so that we can get those vital services to survivors and victims now and they do not have to wait?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend has contacted me and written to me on this issue. She will know that we in the Department are looking at the spending allocations following the spending review. However, we have protected and ringfenced special support for sexual violence victims, because we know that there is huge demand coming through the system and we need to keep those victims engaged in the criminal justice system to ensure they get their day in court and justice is served.

Victims and Courts Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend speaks of one of the tragic cases that has led to these changes in the law and on which, in fairness, the previous Government were also seeking to act before the election was called. We are pleased to go further on sanctions. I know that some of the families we are talking about are here and I will pay tribute to them in a few moments’ time.

We will take a delegated power to allow the Secretary of State to specify sanctions in regulations. Those regulations will provide discretion to prison governors, who hold a legal responsibility and accountability for what happens inside prisons. Judges will retain discretion over when to order offenders to attend. This means that, in cases where a victim’s family does not want to see the offender forced to attend, judges can decide differently. As this is a delegated power, the list of sanctions is not presented on the face of the Bill, but it will be rooted in the Prison Rules 1999, which will be amended and extended. The Secretary of State will have the ability to add more sanctions quickly and easily, should that be necessary. This approach offers much more flexibility than a rigid list, which would require the lengthy process of primary legislation to amend it.

I know that, for many, this day has been a long time coming. I am sure the House will therefore join me in paying tribute to the families of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Jan Mustafa, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa, and I would like to welcome to this place Cheryl Korbel, Antonia Elverson, Jebina Islam, and Ayse Hussein and her daughter Angel, who are in the Public Gallery today. They have suffered unimaginable pain and then faced the indescribable trauma of an offender who would not face them. They have fought tirelessly to bring about this law, and we owe them a debt of thanks for their courage and fortitude. Today is their day, and it will have a lasting impact for others yet to come, who should never have to face what they have endured. While nothing will ever lessen the pain of such immense loss suffered by these families, this measure in the Bill is brought forward in the name and memories of Olivia, Zara, Sabina and Jan.

The Bill will also address the trauma that reverberates years after a parent has sexually abused their child. Today, a parent convicted of sexually abusing their child can continue to exercise parental responsibility for them. From behind bars, these vile abusers have been able to continue interfering in the lives of their children. Today a mother has to request that parental responsibility is restricted in a case where a father has committed a sexual offence against their child; now, we will automatically restrict the exercise of parental responsibility by anyone sentenced to four years or more for serious child sexual abuse against their children. This will restrict those rights from the moment of sentencing, so that children are immediately protected. It sends a clear message that abusers no longer have the power to exercise control. Making this step automatic will spare families the trauma of having to go through proceedings in the family courts, giving them the space they need to begin healing and move on with their lives.

The previous Government brought forward proposals in their Criminal Justice Bill to apply this measure to offences committed against all children, but that measure was restricted to child rape. Under their proposals, a parent could commit a wide range of heinous sexual offences against their child, including sexual assault and sexual exploitation, and not be covered. We believe that was too narrowly drawn; it overlooked the devastating impact of a parent committing other serious sexual offences against their own child—so although we supported the measures in opposition, we are now strengthening them in government.

Our measure will cover all serious sexual offences committed by a parent against a child they have parental responsibility for, such as sexual assault and sexual exploitation, causing a child to watch a sexual act and sexual activity without consent. There is no denying that we are in novel territory with this measure and, as such, we have a duty to take a balanced approach. This automatic restriction can, and likely will, be challenged. We do not yet know how many challenges the courts will receive. We have a responsibility to ensure that the courts are not overwhelmed, and that vulnerable children going through the family court do not suffer. For that reason, we have chosen to expand the offences beyond child rape, but to begin by restricting our measures to serious sexual offences where a perpetrator holds parental responsibility for their victim.

I have heard the strength of feeling from survivors and campaigners who want to see our measure extended to all offences against any child, not just where a perpetrator has parental responsibility. I understand the calls on us to be as ambitious as possible, and to expand this to a wider cohort of offenders, but we believe that our measure is stronger than what came before and is the right starting point for this novel change. We will work collaboratively and constructively with Members from across the House, and with those in the sector. I say to them that this is the beginning of legal change in this area, not the end.

The Bill will also strengthen the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, so that victims are not forced to fight every fight themselves, but have the commissioner—both the individual and the office—to fight for them. That will ensure that there is proper accountability when victims are let down by the justice system, and that victims are not retraumatised by having to fight for every improvement to the system.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. and learned Friend is making an excellent presentation to the House. My constituent Kevin Curran has campaigned all his life in memory of his brother Declan, who tragically took his own life. He was a victim of child sexual abuse. The ability to access therapeutic services is one issue, but another is that many providers are reluctant to give their services because evidence from medical records could be used to try to break a case. Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure not only that people can access therapeutic services, but that their records will not be used in evidence to destroy a case?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I am sorry about the case of her constituent. She will know that her request is one of the leading recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and the Department of Health and Social Care has committed to taking it forward. I know that we will see more progress made in this area.

Under the Bill, for the first time, the Victims’ Commissioner will be able to act on individual cases that expose systemic failure. They will have the power to request information from agencies on why a failing has happened, what will be done to address it, and how we can drive change across the system.

Child Arrangements: Presumption of Parental Involvement

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Tidball]

I agree. We have said that we will take a mission-centred approach in Government, particularly to halve violence against women and girls, and I will return to that point. As a reference for Hansard, I mention that Claire Throssell MBE is with us in this Chamber today.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making the most powerful of speeches. We need joining up with the police service. My constituent fears every day that her children are in contact with their father. It is really important that we look at the thresholds, particularly with the Crown Prosecution Service, for prosecuting cases.

[Dr Tidball]

I agree. As someone who has worked in criminology and criminal justice for over a decade, I think the need for us to move beyond siloed working can be no more important than it is in these sorts of cases.

Just yesterday, we learned that the man Kiena Dawes named as her killer when she committed suicide wants to launch a custody battle over their daughter, saying that

“I’m coming to get you baby girl”.

This man has been jailed for six and a half years for assault of and controlling behaviour towards Kiena. Our current law would allow this person to have unsupervised contact with their child.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is hard, Madam Deputy Speaker. With compassion, we search for ways to best alleviate pain and suffering and ensure that those we love die in peace. Initiated by the Bill, focus has rapidly turned to caring for the dying and optimising every moment of the life that we want to hold on to; it breaks us knowing that at some point we have to let go. That was the mission of Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the hospice movement.

Thankfully, most die in peace, but tragically not all. Funding for palliative care has regressed against rising demand in an ageing society with growing comorbidities. Hospices are paring back services. Research by the Anscombe Bioethics Centre in Oxford highlights how jurisdictions with assisted dying fall down the rankings on palliative care, while promised funding never materialises. When more than 100,000 people, predominantly in poverty, from minoritised communities or based on postcode, fail to access any palliative care despite needing it, or when those who access care do so from frequently overstretched services, unable to make timely or optimised interventions, or when, for most, care starts far too late, tragic testimonies follow, as we have heard in recent days.

We all know that the NHS is under significant duress, and just cannot do what it should. Social care is fragmented and costly, and palliative care is significantly underfunded and inequitable. This is a mess. Following Lord Darzi’s devastating report, we must give my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary the opportunity to reset health and care. I believe that that is what we on these Benches were elected to do.

With just 17 days since publication, this Bill has consumed us and that will only intensify if it proceeds. Instead, our focus should be on getting palliation right and then seeing what is really needed. We cannot do both as there is simply not the capacity. More than 70% of the public say that they want a commission on palliative and end-of-life care before we consider assisted dying. Other polls agree. Plans for a commission are well advanced.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Lady entirely: the way forward should be through better palliative care and not through assisted suicide. The Bill does not address the needs of children. Would she recognise that we also need better palliative care for children as well as adults?

[Rachael Maskell]

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who makes a pertinent point. After all, we would never write a prescription before making a diagnosis, yet this Bill does that. It is simply prescribing the wrong medicine. Extraordinarily, there is no critical analysis, not even an impact assessment, when such significant matters of life and death are at stake and when our broken health and justice system would be stretched even further.

My constituent was just 46 when she received a terminal diagnosis. She did not have long; the cancer was advancing and the prognosis would have qualified her for an assisted death. Had it been law, she would have consented. Now 54 and in remission, she pleads that the Bill should not pass. Palliative care consultants say that it is nearly impossible to prognosticate at six months; just 46% get it right. Experts say that the arbitrary six-month threshold is insecure. We must recognise its prematurity. Clause 2(2) says that someone for whom treatment only relieves symptoms but does not cure them would qualify for an assisted death if they were within the criteria. We understand someone declining chemotherapy, but the provision extends to any condition where a cocktail of drugs is sustaining life. The person involved may be only 18. That would not need a change in the law; it is written in the Bill.

My greatest concern is coercion. We live in a coercive society; the UK spends £40 billion on advertising and ever more powerful algorithms drive us to content online. We recognise coercion in relationships or elder abuse, but the Bill fails to safeguard against it when someone is dying and there is malign intent. People often recognise coercion only after years have passed, yet within a month someone could be dead. Malign coercion cases may be few, but as a clinician working at the fringes of life, I heard my patients frequently say, “I don’t want to be a burden,” or “I’d rather the money went to the grandchildren than on my care,” or “Somebody is more deserving than me.”

Intrinsic coercion is very real, not least where the law has changed—rapidly becoming an expectation, verbalised as a duty to die. In fact, not wanting to be a burden is cited as a major reason to opt for an assisted death, alongside loss of dignity, loneliness, and needing personal care, yet every day, disabled people live in this reality. We fight in this House to take away stigma and give dignity, equality and worth. That is why disabled people fear the Bill: it devalues them in a society where they fight to live.

We should understand why Disability Rights UK opposes and why Liberty opposes: to push back against the Bill is the cause of the progressive and the libertarian, not just the domain of the conservative. Under this Bill, a doctor may raise an assisted death with their patient—clause 4(2). Given the trust we place in doctors, not least when people are vulnerable, this is so significantly coercive. Let us suppose there is unconscious bias, which is well known in healthcare. Before people question that assertion, let me cite the industrial application of the Liverpool care pathway, and then, five and a half years after its ban, the covid “Do not actively resuscitate” letters. The evidence shows that disabled and ethnic minority people experience bias in healthcare. Those who stand for equality will recognise the safeguarding failures in the Bill. While not wanting to encourage suicidal ideation, rates are 6% higher in jurisdictions where there is assisted suicide.

On the process, two doctors—possibly unknown to the patient—ask a set of questions. It can take days to establish capacity in the courts, but it only needs a consultation. That is the same for assessing coercion and prognosis. Doctors are proponents of assisted dying. Risk increases in closed environments. At least the Isle of Man is considering a parole board-style approach; this Bill does not. The documentation of the decision fails in its rigour, not even seeking evidence for the decision. It is passed to a judge.

Sir James Munby, former family division president, describes,

“a scheme which does not provide for an open and transparent process but, on the contrary, permits a secret process which can give us no confidence that it will enable the court to identify and prevent possible abuses.”

In decrying how the Bill changes the role of the judge to one of certifying compliance, he states,

“the Leadbeater Bill falls lamentably short of providing adequate safeguards,”

describing the suspension of any appeal as an “extraordinary” omission, not least if the patient’s concerned relative or physician cannot take their case. That is backed by Thomas Teague KC, former chief coroner, who said the safeguards “will not hold” and that they

“amount to nothing more than arbitrary restrictions, with no rational foundation.”

Lord Sumption, former Supreme Court judge, highlights that once the law facilitates assisted suicide, it could be deemed discriminatory to deny others—disabled people—the same right. Barristers say they will take cases. They expect the law to change.

[Lewis Atkinson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rachael Maskell]

I will press on.

Much would rely on regulations using the negative procedure, and some the affirmative. Even if not prepared within two years, clause 42(3) says the Act would be fully implemented. The Bill changes the role of the chief medical officer without any analysis, as is the case for doctors. During the 14-month Health and Social Care Committee inquiry, we heard how the clinician-patient relationship changed with assisted suicide. Record keeping and data collation is inadequate, as we found in Oregon.

Clause 18(9) highlights that the procedure may fail. The Bill is silent on how to manage such cases, but it should be explicit. We must acknowledge that it is not always peaceful. We learned in Oregon that some have seizures or vomit as the body rejects the toxic medication.

The Bill falls woefully short on safeguarding patients, too. It is too flawed to amend. It is a wrong and rushed answer to a complex problem. Today, we must be beyond reasonable doubt of error if voting for the Bill. Remember, the vote is not on the principle of assisted dying or on choice, but the principles detailed within the clauses of the Bill. Polling overwhelmingly says that if Members are in any doubt, the public expect them to vote against the Bill today. We can focus on optimising palliative and end of life medicine to build consensus and to discern what further steps need taking. For death, as with life, is too precious to get this wrong.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.