would legislation and we would strengthen protections around those areas. i’m strengthen protections around those areas.— those areas. i'm perplexed by this argument, _ those areas. i'm perplexed by this argument, the _ those areas. i'm perplexed by| this argument, the suggestion that there may be coercion, abuse and all sorts of other injustices that go on in the current system do not strike me as an argument for regulating and licensing assisted suicide. if we have chances questions about the nhs... evidence round the world shows it increases suicide in the general population, so suicide is contagious and oregon, which is often pointed to... suicide outside assisted suicide laws rose by a third since assisted suicide was legalised, there is an enormous contagious effect if it was licensed in this way. i am grateful to him for giving way and he makes an excellent case for the bill to pass today. what you are actually doing is saying there are specifics that need to be to,

analysis, discussion, great detail in committee. that is the whole point of it and if it is not done properly in committee, it won't past the third reading. because you don't like specifics, your suggestion is we cannot discuss it in any form of detail. i’m it in any form of detail. i'm sure the — it in any form of detail. i'm sure the honourable - it in any form of detail. i'm sure the honourable lady is delighted to have the support of the honourable gentleman with the bill and i refer to the point i was making. my right honourable friend wants to intervene. he right honourable friend wants to intervene.— to intervene. he is making a su erb to intervene. he is making a superb speech, _ to intervene. he is making a superb speech, as _ to intervene. he is making a superb speech, as i - to intervene. he is making a i superb speech, as i expected. i say to the honourable gentleman from boston and skegness, when i introduce very serious bills, there need to be scrutiny

across both houses of parliament before we went into committee. the point is it should take place before we consider a second reading, not after. i consider a second reading, not after. . , ., after. i am very grateful, i will run — after. i am very grateful, i will run through _ after. i am very grateful, i will run through the - after. i am very grateful, i will run through the end . after. i am very grateful, i | will run through the end of after. i am very grateful, i - will run through the end of the process before taking any further interventions. i explained that pretty much anybody with a serious illness or disability could work out how to qualify for an assisted death under this bill, and if members think it is far—fetched, that is what happens everywhere else that assisted suicide is legal, including in oregon. points of order. including in oregon. points of order- he _ including in oregon. points of order. he is _ including in oregon. points of order. he is using _ including in oregon. points of order. he is using the - order. he is using the incorrect _ order. he is using the incorrect language, i order. he is using the i incorrect language, that order. he is using the - incorrect language, that is offensive, it is not suicide. please correct your language. i please correct your language. i am afraid to say i am sorry if offence is given but the value offence is given but the value of having a bill in black and white as we need to see what

the law really is that this bill would amend the suicide act of 1961, allow people to assist a suicide for the first time. i respect the honourable lady's concerns but i am afraid we have to use the proper language. just quickly on this point about the broad scope, if you think people with anorexia or other conditions we would not regard as terminal could not regard as terminal could not happen here, consider the young people in the uk today given a diagnosis of terminal anorexia and put on a palliative care pathway, essentially to die. of course, these are extreme cases. i am not going to give way again. there are lots of these cases, i'm afraid, and i mention them to show how wide open bill is. please keep calm, you have intervene _ please keep calm, you have intervene twice already, we have — intervene twice already, we have lots _ intervene twice already, we have lots of other people in this— have lots of other people in this house. tony kruger. |

this house. tony kruger. think this house. tony kruger. i think particularly of this house. tony kruger. i think particularly of disabled people, many of whom require constant treatment to stay alive, all eligible under this bill for a state—sponsored dad. i refer members to the human rights commission which made the point that the line between disability and terminal illness is very blurred, which is why the title of this bill is in fact so dangerous. i will make more progress. the second question the medical practitioners have to answer is about environmental capacity and this is a great vagueness. —— is about mental capacity. the bill says the definition of capacity is based on the mental capacity act of 2005 but that is deliberately expansive and explicitly assumes capacity, so having a depression is no bar to capacity, nor is being suicidal. —— so having acute depression. so the capacity testis

depression. so the capacity test is no bar. then coercion, is the patient asking for assisted death because of outside pressure? there are two glaring problems, the first is that the process is not investigated properly, that the process is not investigated property, there is no requirement for medics to interview friends and family, no need for psychiatrists or the family doctor to be consulted, the medicsjust need to satisfy themselves, who knows how, butjon boutcher the best of their knowledge the person is not being pressured. the second problem is this focuses only on one type of coercion, the less likely type. the biggest danger is not other people pressuring you to do this, it is pressuring yourself. the bill has nothing to say to much, internal pressure is absolutely fine. if you feel worthless or a burden to others or the nhs will not offer you the treatment you need all the local authority not to make the adjustment to your home you need or you need to wait too long for hospital appointments, if you want to die because you think the system has failed you, is absolutely fine. i will move

on. i will get to the end. right, that is the magical stage, i willjump straight to thejudicial stage. a medical practitioners sign it off and thejudge has to practitioners sign it off and the judge has to confirm these same tests. many eminentjudges have made the point this would overwhelm the family courts if this test was applied properly, but it won't be, because the bill assumes judges will fulfil a new inquisitorial role as investigators, entirely alone investigators, entirely alone in the english common law. it would not require any actual investigation, there is no requirement for thejudge investigation, there is no requirement for the judge to either meet the applicant, they just need a phone call or maybe an e—mailfrom one of just need a phone call or maybe an e—mail from one of these metrics, that is their inquiry, and on that basis decide whether it is more likely or not there has been external pressure —— all and e—mailfrom one of these magics, maybe. then the final act when a

junior colleague is a medical practitioner oversees your death by pills or lethal injection. this is the last thing the bill does or does not do, there is no requirement at any stage, medical orjudicial, for anyone to tell the patient�*s next of kin, their widerfamily or even patient�*s next of kin, their wider family or even their patient�*s next of kin, their widerfamily or even their gp wider family or even their gp what widerfamily or even their gp what is happening, the nhs and thejudicial what is happening, the nhs and the judicial system what is happening, the nhs and thejudicial system are what is happening, the nhs and the judicial system are working in secret to bring about the death of their loved one, maybe their father or their daughter. i say again, these are not the case is the bill was designed for so they are directly in scope and it will take more than a tweak in committee to get them out. is this what is meant by choice at the end of life? let's talk about choice, i'm often accused of wanting to impose my view on others. people say if you don't approve of assisted death, don't have one but don't deprive me of the choice. but with this new option and the comparative loss of investment and innovation in

palliative care, real choice narrows and there is a broader point to make about choice, nomad or woman is an island and just as every death, even a good death, diminishes us all, we will all be involved and affected if we make this change. the bill will notjust create a new option for a few and leave everyone else unaffected, it will impose on every person towards the end of their life, everyone who could be thought to be near death, and theirfamily, this new reality. the option of assisted suicide, the obligation to have the conversation about the bad side it whispers in the corridor, is it time? it will change life and death for everyone. i'm coming to the end. i'm very aware of the terrible plight of people begging us for this new law, i think we can do better for them that they feared that we need to think it will, human terms, what is the impact of our choices on other people. i do not mean people used to getting their way, not mean people used to getting theirway, i mean not mean people used to getting their way, i mean the people

who lack agency what it is to be excluded from power, to have decisions made for them by bigwigs and distant offices in language they do not understand, the type of people the honourable lady and i know from our charity work and from our constituencies, not those who write to us appealing for a change in the law but those who come to us with lights in tatters, or people the police and social workers tell us about, those with complex needs. what is the safeguard for them? we are the safeguards, this place, this parliament, you and me. we protect the most vulnerable in society from harm yet stand on the brink of abandoning natural. the rubicon was a very small stream but on the other side was a very different world, a worse world with a very different idea of human value and an idea that individual worth lighting utility, valuable only for so long that we are not a burden, not a cost, not making a mess. let's not beat the parliament

that authorises that idea. i mentioned the voices of those we cannot hear, the frail, elderly and disabled. since we are surrounded by such a cloud of witnesses, let us do better than this bill. led today not be the vote for despair purpose the start of a proper debate about dying world in which we have a better idea than a state suicide service, in which we remember we have intrinsic value, that real choice and autonomy means access to the best care possible and the fullest control over what happens to you while you live, that you dignity consists cared for until the end.— for until the end. thank you. can i remind _ for until the end. thank you. can i remind the _ for until the end. thank you. can i remind the house - for until the end. thank you. can i remind the house that| for until the end. thank you. i can i remind the house that we want _ can i remind the house that we want to— can i remind the house that we want to try— can i remind the house that we want to try to aim up to eight minutes _ want to try to aim up to eight minutes. another of the house, diane _ minutes. another of the house, diane abbott. | minutes. another of the house, diane abbott.— diane abbott. i should like to congratulate _ diane abbott. i should like to congratulate the _ diane abbott. i should like to congratulate the member - diane abbott. i should like to congratulate the member for| congratulate the member for spen for bringing forward this bill which has the occasion of a very important national conversation. ——

a very important national conversation. --- a very important national conversation. -- mother of the house. conversation. -- mother of the house- eye _ conversation. -- mother of the house. eye would _ conversation. -- mother of the house. eye would recall- conversation. -- mother of the house. eye would recall to - conversation. -- mother of the house. eye would recall to the | house. eye would recall to the house in 1969 _ house. eye would recall to the house in 1969 parliament - house. eye would recall to the | house in 1969 parliament voted to abolish the death penalty for murder. public opinion was against this but mps believed on a point of principle that the state should not be involved in taking a life. it was a good principle in 1969 and it remains a good principle today. i am and it remains a good principle today. iam not and it remains a good principle today. i am not against legalising assisted dying in any circumstance, but i have many reservations about this bill and in particular i do not believe that the safeguards are sufficient. they are supposed to be the strongest in the

world because of the involvement of the high court judge. but the divisional court had said that the intervention of a court would simply interpose an expensive and time consuming forensic procedure, and sirjames mundy, the former president of the family division of the high court, has said recently only those who believe implicitly in judicial on the sense and infallibility, and he adds that he does not, can possibly have any confidence in the efficacy of what is proposed. if thejudge supposed to second—guess doctors? will the church make a decision on the basis of paperwork? orwill there

decision on the basis of paperwork? or will there be a hearing in open court? —— will thejudge make a decision. where is the capacity in the judicial system for this? so farfrom being a genuine safeguard, the involvement of a judge could just be a rubber stamp. judge could 'ust be a rubber stam -. ~ , judge could 'ust be a rubber stam. ~ , ., stamp. will my learned friend . ive stamp. will my learned friend give way? _ stamp. will my learned friend give way? yes. _ stamp. will my learned friend give way? yes. it _ stamp. will my learned friend give way? yes. it more - stamp. will my learned friend give way? yes. it more than l give way? yes. it more than two thirds of care _ give way? yes. it more than two thirds of care proceedings involving the most vulnerable children and society they cannot compete those care proceedings within six months. does my learned friend agree there is a real concern that there is a real concern that the safeguard is not deliverable or risks being the rubber stamp that i know my learned friend does not want it to be. i learned friend does not want it to be. , . , to be. i entirely agree with my honourable — to be. i entirely agree with my honourable friend. _ to be. i entirely agree with my honourable friend. robust - honourable friend. robust safeguards for the sick and dying are absolutely vital to

protect them from predatory relatives, to protect them from the state, but above all to protect them from themselves. there would be those who say to themselves they don't want to be a burden, and i can imagine myself saying that in particular circumstances. others will worry that assets they had hoped to leave for their own children are being eroded by the cost of care, and i would even be a handful who would think they should not be taking up a hospital bed. i am very grateful _ taking up a hospital bed. i am very grateful to _ taking up a hospital bed. i am very grateful to the _ taking up a hospital bed. i —n very grateful to the honourable lady for giving way, and she makes her say no case powerfully, but can i ask her to comment on the current situation where people ask the question she has asked today, what safeguards are therefore those people? what inquiry is

be for those people pass away and often take the most drastic and often take the most drastic and horrific action to do so? —— what inquiry is made for those people? ii -- what inquiry is made for those people?— -- what inquiry is made for those people? if this house asses those people? if this house passes the _ those people? if this house passes the legislation, - those people? if this house passes the legislation, the | passes the legislation, the issue i have raised will become even more foam —— foremost in people's minds. we are told there is no evidence of coercion injurisdictions there is no evidence of coercion in jurisdictions where assisted suicide is possible. but people do not generally write letters to sick relatives urging them to consider assisted suicide and then put the letter on file. coercion in the letter on file. coercion in the family context can be about not what you say but about what you don't say. the long, meaningful pores. yes, of course. �* , .

meaningful pores. yes, of course. . , . course. as a medical professional - course. as a medical. professional surrounded course. as a medical - professional surrounded by course. as a medical _ professional surrounded by even more senior medical professionals, we can all say we all miss things when there are tangibles in front of us, the shadows are x—rays, the markets on blood tests, we miss things as professionals when we can actually see them. what security but we have of picking up security but we have of picking up things we cannot see, like coercion?— coercion? that is a point. coercion _ coercion? that is a point. coercion is _ coercion? that is a point. coercion is something - coercion? that is a point. | coercion is something you coercion? that is a point. - coercion is something you will have no material evidence of and that you cannot see. people keep saying this bill can't be amended. any future government could bring in new courses and we can see what happens in a chair, which instituted assisted dying in 2016 for adults with terminal illnesses, in 2021 it was extended to people with no terminal illness and the disabled, and in march

2027, anyone with a serious mental health problem will also be eligible. the house should remember that no single organisation represents cell representing the disabled supports this bill. itrrui’iii representing the disabled supports this bill. will the honourable _ supports this bill. will the honourable lady _ supports this bill. will the honourable lady give - supports this bill. will the | honourable lady give way? supports this bill. will the - honourable lady give way? thank you. on that point, my daughter maria lived her life with severe disabilities and health conditions, and since her birth she was told, we were told many times, she would only have six months to live. she lived for 27 years. crucially, maria was nonverbal. i am filled with dread and fear for those other people like maria who are nonverbal and don't have the capacity and what might happen to others like maria if they

are not loved and cared for and had somebody speaking out for them. i had somebody speaking out for them. . ., ,., had somebody speaking out for them. . ., ., , them. i have heard so many stories like _ them. i have heard so many stories like that. _ them. i have heard so many stories like that. this - stories like that. this arbitrary cut—off of six months does not necessarily meet with the reality of sick people. i thank the right honourable lady for giving way and i think the case of maria and others should give us all pause, but does the right honourable lady agree with me, two thirds of the cabinet apparently support this measure in principle, we should reject it today but as a house we should commit to not go another ten years of ignoring this topic to come forward in a considered way and ensure it is looked at properly and that we do everything possible to have a system that is more robust, more caring and ensures good outcomes for people like maria? we must try to keep to the time

limit _ we must try to keep to the time limit. diane. | we must try to keep to the time limit. diane.— limit. diane. i agree with the honourable _ limit. diane. i agree with the honourable gentleman, - limit. diane. i agree with the honourable gentleman, and l limit. diane. i agree with the i honourable gentleman, and as i said right at the beginning i am not against assisted dying in any circumstances. if this bill passes we will have the nhs as a fully funded 100% suicide service, but palliative care will only be funded at 30% are best. the former memberfor dunfermline east, gordon brown, has said recently, we need to show we can do better at assisted living before deciding whether to legislate on ways to die. i represent very many vulnerable people in

marginalised communities. i cannot vote for a bill marginalised communities. i cannot vote for a hill where i have doubts about whether they will be protected. we can come back, we can have a commission, we can craft a better bill, but i will not be voting for this bill this morning.- bill this morning. andrew mitchell. _ bill this morning. andrew mitchell. up _ bill this morning. andrew mitchell. up to _ bill this morning. andrew mitchell. up to eight - bill this morning. andrew - mitchell. up to eight minutes. thank— mitchell. up to eight minutes. thank you very much, mr speaker. i want to makejust three brief points. the first one, mr speaker, isi three brief points. the first one, mr speaker, is i have completely changed my mind on the subject since i had the house during the last century, the reason being i have sat in my advice surgery and i have had tears pouring down my face listening to constituents who had set out so clearly, speaking with such emotion, about how their mother, brother, father or child has died in great pain and great

indignity, andi died in great pain and great indignity, and i strongly support this bill, i want to congratulate the honourable lady for the excellent way in which she has presented it. but i believe we should give our fellow citizens this choice. i want this choice for my constituents, for those whom i love and indeed i want it perhaps one day for myself. the current law forces people... i'm not giving way, i'm afraid. the current law forces people to plan their deaths in secret. their bodies are found by their loved ones. they often die in the most horrific circumstances. they have no chance to say goodbye to their loved ones. it is devastating for the families. the former health secretary commissioned the office of national statistics to try to find out how many people who committed suicide every year were dying people, the figure was between 300 and 650. the second point,

in our democracy we the commons must make this decision. it is only weak, elected by our constituents, who have the legitimacy to do this. it is not the dpp, doctor cps, not police, doctors or unelected members the house of lords. this house of commons must make this decision. let us be clear, all of us on both sides of this debate strongly support the increase in quality and extent of palliative care. for me, this debate is about extending choice. choice in very narrow circumstances as the honourable lady has so clearly set out, the choice not to be forced to end your life in pain and indignity and in very narrow and heavily regulated circumstances, as this bill sets out. no element in this bill talks about intolerable suffering. many believe this

bill is too narrowly drawn. i stand by the honourable lady's drafting and we remember that in oregon there has been no serious attempt to change or amend the law. i have had the privilege of speaking to an nhs consultant last year on the day before she headed to dignitas and she said this, i love my country but i object very strongly to my country forcing me to make this choice today to travel unaccompanied to a foreign country to die. the status quo is cruel and dangerous. people put up in these circumstances have no transparency, no regulation, no safeguards, no oversight in this bill today —— no oversight. in this bill today there are lots of safeguards which are not present. we decide on a principle today, if this bill does not go through

at secondary cell reading that will be the end of the matter for many years and we do so in the knowledge that scotland, the knowledge that scotland, the isle of man, jersey, many other countries are likely to bring in legislation like this. there are 300 million people in 30 jurisdictions who have secured this ability to choose, there will be numerous safeguards. there will not be a slippery slope unless this parliament agrees to that the ni. if parliament agrees to that the n1. if we agree to a second reading today, in myjudgment it is inconceivable that the government front bench will not ensure we have the proper time to scrutinise this bill. this bill goes with the grain of our constituents' views, according to the most recent polling something like 75%. there is an opportunity and a chance to consider in detail these measures as the honourable lady has set out, head of the third

reading. as drafted, it seems to be a very modest and controlled proposal. let us not forget, oregon shows us that less people take these steps once they know they have this choice, there is something i have never forgotten, choice, there is something i have neverforgotten, some years ago, speaking in a debate, listening in a debate to a young man who had recently lost his father and he said this, he said he visited his father, he had seen him in great pain and indignity and he had seen him three days before he died, in the end he put a bag over his head and used his dressing gown cord to hang himself. he said this to all of us, if you are ever in this position, let's hope god will help you, because they certainly won't. this house today has the opportunity to ensure that they will.- ensure that they will. andy

slaughter- _ ensure that they will. andy slaughter. it _ ensure that they will. andy slaughter. it is _ ensure that they will. andy slaughter. it is a _ ensure that they will. andy slaughter. it is a pleasurel ensure that they will. andy i slaughter. it is a pleasure to follow the — slaughter. it is a pleasure to follow the excellent - slaughter. it is a pleasure to follow the excellent speech | slaughter. it is a pleasure to l follow the excellent speech of the memberfor sutton the member for sutton coldfield. in the memberfor sutton coldfield. in preparation for today i have had a number of discussions with my right honourable friend the member for spen valley, i want to put on record that the measured way in which she has dealt with this proceeding has been excellent. i don't know if she has ever had moments of doubting that this was the right thing, that she is a credit to this house in the way she has dealt with it so far. i wanted for the opposition front bench on the last debate in the chamber in 2015 but my interest in this goes back much further, and like all members of this house i have had hundreds of e—mails from constituents on both sides of the argument, many asking me to oppose the bill today coming from people of faith, and i wholly and

entirely respect what they say. but they are the first people also to say this is an individual decision for every individual decision for every individual member in the house today. because i have been at the bottom of the list for so many years, being called, i have great sympathy for those who find themselves like today so i will try to keep my remarks down to one narrow point, i think there is a false dichotomy that the law as it stands is fit for purpose. and that we go into the unknown with the bill that is before us and that we should somehow keep to the safety of the status quo. i think that could not be more wrong. there are no safeguards in the current law. the only sanction against coercion is ex post facto. we are leaving it to individuals,

individual director of public prosecutions to make decisions on individual cases after the event. they take thatjob extremely seriously, anybody who has heard cinemax hill, the last dpp, speaking on the subject. —— anyone who has heard sir max hill. it was an excellent director of public prosecutions who sat out the guidelines on this case. they have done everything they can but it is not their responsibility, it is our responsibility, it is our responsibility and the courts, up responsibility and the courts, up to and including the supreme court, have made that clear. we have a sign that this bill a role to the high court of process, but we are the decision takers here and that has to be made clear not only by domestic but international courts and the european court of human rights has said in every case that the margin of

appreciation should be put into effect and therefore they should not interfere with the law as we decided. so we cannot dodge our responsibilities, i don't think we want to, but we have a duty to put into place the best know that we can, which is not the law as it stands. there are three choices for people who want to add their own lives. they can go to dignitas alone, if they can afford to do so, they can attempt and perhaps succeed in suicide, they risk failing, if they succeed they will have a lonely death and as others have pointed out they may simply have to resort to refusing treatment or refusing food, or the third option, they can embroil their relatives at the risk of them or indeed friends

being investigated or prosecuted. and they also risk ending their lives too soon. you're watching the assisted dying bill, and a member said that about this bill would put safeguards around it but those speaking against it said the subject of this bill was too big for the time allowed to debate it before the vote. he said it was a fiction to believe it could be substantially considered or amended in the committee stage of the process. let's continue to listen. i would like him and the house to reflect on the covid

pandemic. ii