Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Debate between Tom Gordon and Liz Saville Roberts

Friday 16th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. It was really interesting how the debate was conducted on Second Reading and in Committee, and how we were meant to be having that respectful debate, and it is disappointing to hear comments from opponents already.

Amendment 4 seeks a simple yet crucial change to extend the eligibility period for those with neurodegenerative conditions, from six months to 12 months, something that is already reflected in legislation in five of six Australian states. My amendment mirrors the wording used in that legislation, and it is based not on conjecture but on medical reality, international precedent and, most importantly, the lived experiences of those facing some of the most harrowing diseases imaginable.

Amendment 4 would not expand the Bill’s reach beyond terminal conditions; it simply acknowledges that for people with conditions such as MND and other neurodegenerative diseases, the current six-month prognosis requirement creates a cruel and unnecessary barrier.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am sure that the House will be interested to note that the jurisdiction of Scotland, as well as the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and Jersey, have variations that are different from what has been discussed. Will the hon. Member join me in commiserating with the family of Iola Dorkins, a campaigner I mentioned back in November? She died of motor neurone disease on her birthday last week. Let us remember that we are doing this for real people who are undergoing real suffering at the end of life.

[Tom Gordon]

The right hon. Member makes a pertinent point about other jurisdictions and the different Bills and conversations around them that they have. I tabled my amendment in order to ensure that we have that debate in this place. I extend my condolences to the family.

These are progressive, irreversible diseases; their trajectory is well understood; and their toll is devastating. People with MND, for instance, often face a relentless loss of muscle function, leaving them unable to move, speak or even swallow. Before they reach the six-month prognosis threshold, they may already be enduring intolerable suffering. Crucially, many will lose the capacity necessary to make an application before they ever qualify.

The Bill already contains the most robust protections of any assisted dying Bill in the world, with mandatory capacity assessments, a multi-step approval process and a clear requirement for terminal illness. We have gone further than any other jurisdiction in terms of safeguards.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting)

Debate between Tom Gordon and Liz Saville Roberts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I rise to support amendment 535. I do not intend to say much, because the hon. Member for Richmond Park has made many of the points I wished to make. The amendment recognises that an opinion was stated in a debate in the Senedd in October, which dealt in detail with the principles of this Bill, and that Professor Emyr Lewis told us that one way of recognising that would be to consider different commencement provisions in Wales.

Reference has been made to the different criminal law arrangements in England and Wales to do with smacking children, and during covid there were quite definitely different arrangements between England and Wales. After a quarter of a century of devolution, we have devolution divergence, and we are seeing that in action.

We have already accepted the principle that there are aspects of the Bill that are devolved, responsibility for which must be passed to Welsh Ministers. We are still debating the wording of that, but we are working towards it, and I think we have accepted the principle of it. We should also acknowledge that the Senedd and Welsh Ministers may well be able to make a move that would have the same effect of changing the commencement date, but I support the amendment because it shows that we are acknowledging the consequences and implications of a legislative consent motion. Incidentally, I could often stand up here and talk about the fact that legislative consent motions can be overridden by Westminster, but we are working from the point of view of seeking to respect devolved powers alongside the powers that we have here, so I will be supporting amendment 535.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I rise regretfully to speak in opposition to amendment 548, which would extend the implementation period from two to four years. I start by saying that I have had complete and utter admiration for the hon. Member for Spen Valley throughout this process, and I appreciate that she said herself that she had tabled the amendment in disappointment—I will echo a lot of what she said.

We are here today because we acknowledge that there is an injustice—that the current law for assisted dying is failing people. It forces people who are terminally ill and in unbearable pain to make impossible choices; it compels them to travel overseas, away from the comfort of home, to die in unfamiliar surroundings; it punishes grieving families by forcing them to endure police investigations for simply standing by their loved ones; and it denies dignity in death and peace in grief. We have recognised that as unacceptable, and that is why we are here debating the Bill.

The delay brought about by the amendment would tell those same people that they must wait. People have already been waiting far too long. The amendment would tell them that their suffering is not seen as important enough and that their right to a peaceful death has to be postponed. It is not justice, and we must not allow it. We know that the British public overwhelming support a change in the law. People want to see assisted dying laws in place during this Parliament, not in some uncertain future. They will not accept delay, and I do not think they will be particularly forgiving of excuses.

If we allow the implementation period to be extended to four years, we will be seen to be kicking the can down the road. Comments have been made about how the implementation would potentially be before the next general election, but there is no guarantee or certainty of that. It is in the gift of the Prime Minister to decide when the next general election is called. I cannot think of a more worrying instance of a newly elected Government having to implement a big societal change, but the amendment could make that a possibility. No Parliament can bind the next, and legislation that has been passed but not enacted could be quickly abandoned. We cannot allow that to happen; the cost would be too great. For people out there who have been campaigning for years, that would be a catastrophe. This is not an abstract policy debate; it is about real people who are suffering right now and cannot afford to wait.

A number of people have been in touch to make clear their views on the amendment. Tim Wardle, a terminally ill man from Devon with bladder, prostate and lung cancer, said that “even a slight delay beyond the two years currently proposed is not fair or reasonable. I hope the proposal is defeated.” Clare Turner, a mother of two with stage 4 breast cancer, made it even clearer, saying, “This is outrageous for terminally ill people like me. Every delay means more suffering, more people forced to endure unbearable pain against their will. This Government needs to stop dragging its feet and act now.” I appreciate that it is not the Government who are promoting the Bill, but that is the reality for people and, as uncomfortable as it is to hear those stories, we must hear them and we must listen.

It is not just people who are terminally ill who are anxious about a change in the law. Every time that I have spoken to my mum on the phone during this Committee process, she has asked me how it is going, what the process is and what the end date will be. It popped up on Facebook yesterday that it is eight years since she received her all-clear from breast cancer, but it still hangs over her. When she was diagnosed, she had two independent tumours, and her mum and her sister—my gran and my aunt—had both had breast cancer too. While there was no genetic testing to show a link, the doctor said, “This is probably going to come back, and you will probably end up with breast cancer again.”

My mum had post-traumatic stress disorder from that experience of going through cancer treatment—through the mastectomy and the recovery. It was prolonged and, to this day, there are complications as a result of the procedure and the chemotherapy. It was traumatic for the entire family, and my mum has long said that, if she had to go through something like that again, or if she ended up with secondary breast cancer at a later date, she would want this option. Every time I have spoken to her, she has been really heartened to hear the progress that the Committee has been making on the Bill, and when we spoke about this delay, it crushed her heart—and it has mine, too. Just having the option would give her—someone who does not have a terminal diagnosis or anything, necessarily, just yet—peace and comfort.

Supporters of amendment 548 will say that we need four years to get this right, but I want to know where the evidence for that claim is. It has not been clearly set out. Other countries have managed to implement similar laws in far less time. Spain implemented its law in just three months after the passage of a Bill; Jersey and the Isle of Man are aiming for an 18-month implementation period. Indeed, no country has taken longer than two years. The only example of a particularly protracted and prolonged process was in Oregon, and that was because of legal challenges.

The NHS has demonstrated time and again, particularly during covid, that when there is a need, it can act swiftly and decisively. When we set a deadline, civil servants will work towards it. We have some of the best civil servants in the world, and I commend them for their work. Throughout this process, we have examined the Bill line by line to ensure that it is the strongest, most robust assisted dying legislation in the world. We have strengthened its safeguards and refined the eligibility criteria, although I appreciate that I have had different views from some on the Committee about that. We have embedded rigorous oversight mechanisms and ensured that every step is guided by medical expertise. We have drawn from the best of international practices. We have learned from the experience of jurisdictions that have successfully implemented assisted dying laws with compassion and care.

The Bill is not a rushed or reckless piece of legislation; it is carefully crafted, and it balances the right to choose with the need for stringent protections. To delay its implementation from two years to four years, after such thorough debate, scrutiny and refinement, would undermine the very care and diligence that the Bill has been shaped by. Delaying implementation is not simply a neutral decision; it is a decision to prolong the lack of choice for people with terminal illnesses. It is a decision to deny them the ability to die on their own terms. It is a decision to force more families into impossible situations—watching their loved ones suffer, facing investigations for simply accompanying them abroad, being unable to grieve properly because they cannot even bring the body home. That is the reality of such a delay, and we have the power to stop it.

We cannot allow interference from Government, or wherever this has come from, at the last moment. This is my frustration: the amendment was tabled at the very last moment, without an explanation of where it has come from. We must listen to the people who are at the heart of the Bill. We must listen to the public and all the people who have given us input, to make sure that we end up with a Bill that takes into account the need for compassion and does not prolong the timetable for people. It is therefore with regret that I will vote against amendment 548.

European Union: UK Membership

Debate between Tom Gordon and Liz Saville Roberts

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The January poll by YouGov that I quoted earlier notes that everybody sees that tourism has been hit—by fewer people from the UK going to the EU as tourists and fewer people from the EU coming to the UK. In areas such as my hon. Friend’s in Ceredigion and mine in Gwynedd, tourism provides the chief employment in our economy, along with the universities.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Harrogate relies on tourism too. Local businesses that used to employ people coming over from the EU say that they are now struggling to recruit, so they have had to shut up and close early, which has cost jobs. Does the right hon. Lady agree that a return to freedom of movement to allow those opportunities would benefit those businesses, which might help the Chancellor with the mission for growth?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Indeed. Ensuring that there is a workforce for leisure and tourism is proving more and more challenging for a number of reasons, including the shortage of workers who previously came from the EU.

To return to Erasmus+, the Welsh Government made the decision to launch their own scheme in 2021. That was welcome, but the First Minister at the time, Mark Drakeford, said in February last year that

“if we had a choice we would much rather we were part of an established scheme”,

like Erasmus.

Disappointingly, the UK Government announced last summer that they have no plans to rejoin the Erasmus scheme, but I ask the Government to reconsider and look at recent successes in making closer ties with our neighbours. Calls for a youth mobility scheme have also been scorned by the UK Government. What is it about enriching young people’s lives that frightens this Government so much?

Just this month, the UK marked an important milestone with Horizon Europe that indicates an alternative route. Since becoming an associated country in 2024, after three years of non-membership, the UK has boasted a strong performance in recent funding rounds. In particular, the UK hosted 18 successful projects under the European Research Council’s synergy grants, the second highest number among participating countries. Ahead of the spring statement, when the Chancellor will undoubtedly be looking for opportunities to drive growth amid a dismal economic outlook, I urge the Government to find inspiration in our progress with Horizon and to pursue closer ties in further areas.

My party believes that returning to the single market and the customs union as soon as possible would be a meaningful step towards remedying the economic damage suffered by households and businesses alike. Recent figures by the Economic Cost of Brexit Project show that the average person in the UK is now £2,000 worse off as a result of leaving the European Union, worsening the effects of the ongoing cost of living crisis.

Five years on from our exit from the EU, the world is a more uncertain, more dangerous and less predictable place. From my home in Morfa Nefyn in north-west Wales, the closest capital city is Dublin. Our nearest neighbours for everyone, everywhere in the United Kingdom, are in the EU. The benefits of closer ties with our neighbours and our allies are plain to see, and I urge the Government to take heart from recent successes such as Horizon Europe and to pursue the same bold approach on youth mobility, on Erasmus, and on the customs union and single market.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Tom Gordon and Liz Saville Roberts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Q I have a question for Professor Esmail. One of the things that we have talked about with different witnesses is whether we should have a wider panel of people looking at these decisions; that might encompass people from social care, medical or legal backgrounds. I think that that would make sure that some of the issues that we have talked about would, hopefully, be more robustly picked up on. Do you think that by moving towards that in the Bill—were we to have assisted dying—it might provide a more holistic approach to end of life and to giving people that option? How might that influence and change palliative care and other interactions?

Professor Esmail: I feel that this Bill will make things much better, in the sense that when you have a conversation with someone, they could sometimes have even as a reassurance, “Look, if things get really bad, I have this option available.” That is important, and it can certainly help in that respect.

In terms of holistic care, currently when I look after dying people I never do it on my own; I am with district nurses, Macmillan nurses, or on call to a palliative care consultant. There is already a team of people looking after dying people. Where it works well, it works very well. We should not be burdened by the fact that everyone complains about how terrible everything is. I would say that probably 95% of the time, it is okay. There are issues with social care and so on, but I think that palliative care—the drugs people need, how often they get them and who gives them—works very well and it works in a multidisciplinary way. I think that this legislation will allow a much more open discussion and proper monitoring. It will improve training, guidance and everything else. People say that it will enhance palliative care, and that is what I think will happen.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Q I have a question for Professor Esmail. We heard from the Australian witnesses this morning that there was a period of implementation after legislation of 18 months. Do you think we should have a period of implementation, and what should that comprise?

Professor Esmail: I think we will need to have one, because we will need to train people up and put in place all these things. You do not want to pass a Bill that a lot of people cannot access. It will require thought about how we plan this. As with any service, it is much better to think about it and ensure that we cover all options. As I said, the worst thing would be to pass a Bill and not have the right things in place. For example, the training will take a while. I am not saying that it will take 18 months to train someone, but we are talking about training groups of doctors and nurses, and ensuring that the pathways are correct and that the legal system can deal with the requests. That will clearly take time, and we will need a lot of systems thinking about how it all fits together. You cannot specify, and I do not know how good this country is at this, but that is what should happen. It can sometimes happen very effectively and quickly.