UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Health

  • Wes Streeting – 2025 Speech at Unison’s Annual Conference

    Wes Streeting – 2025 Speech at Unison’s Annual Conference

    The speech made by Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, in Liverpool on 9 April 2025.

    Good morning conference.

    Let’s start on a point of agreement.

    The killing of 15 health and rescue workers in Gaza was an appalling and intolerable tragedy.

    Healthcare workers in any context, in any part of the world, should never be a target.

    The international community, or indeed any actors in any conflict, all have a responsibility to protect health and humanitarian aid workers and also to protect innocent civilians.

    And it’s clear that in Gaza, as well as in other conflict zones around the world at the moment, the international community is failing and failing badly.

    So I want to say, as a Unison member, I strongly support the sentiments expressed by our Healthcare Executive.

    But on behalf of our government, we want to see a return to an immediate ceasefire.

    We want to see aid in, people out of harm’s way, an end to this bloody conflict and a state of Palestine alongside a state of Israel, and the just and lasting peace that Israelis and Palestinians deserve.

    I also have to say, having been to the West Bank with Medical Aid for Palestinians and seen first hand the work that they do supporting the health needs of Palestinians across the occupied Palestinian territories, they do brilliant work.

    And I would fully endorse the sentiment of the motion in supporting them, and each of us putting our hands in our pockets to do that.

    I’m proud to be here today as the first Health and Social Care Secretary to address a UNISON conference since Andy Burnham did 15 years ago—and proud to do so as a UNISON member.

    My first ever parliamentary debate in 2015 was with UNISON, opposing the abolition of the NHS bursary. Since then, I’ve spoken on countless UNISON platforms across my time as Shadow Schools Minister, Shadow Child Poverty Minister, and Shadow Health & Social Care Secretary.

    But today is different. This is the first time I speak to UNISON not as someone discussing what a Labour government should do, but what we are doing—delivering real change to transform society and improve working people’s lives.

    Last July was historic. Labour returned to power with a thumping majority—only the fourth time in our history. It was a result made possible by UNISON’s support for Keir Starmer: helping to change the party, change the government, and now change the country. That victory brought 74 new UNISON MPs into Parliament, including Katrina Murray, Melanie Onn, Mark Ferguson, and my own PPS, Deirdre Costigan. Three UNISON MPs are now in the Department of Health and Social Care: Stephen Kinnock, Karin Smyth, and me.

    We’re delivering the change people voted for. It’s not easy—and I know you’ll have questions and challenges. But we’re ready to engage. UNISON has always been a critical friend to Labour. The “critical” part is just as important as the “friend” part.

    In the past nine months, nothing has shaken my conviction that we will get the NHS back on its feet and build a National Care Service worthy of the name.

    Take Southport, for example. On July 29th, a senseless, mindless attack left children and adults bleeding, some dying, in a community centre. NHS staff responded with extraordinary courage—from paramedics and porters to receptionists and surgeons. But what happened next filled me with rage. Racist thugs attacked Filipino nurses, a Nigerian care worker’s car was torched, and GP surgeries had to close. These are people who came here to care for us. They represent the best of Britain.

    Violence against NHS staff must end. One in seven NHS workers have suffered abuse. That shames us all. So today, I’m announcing mandatory national recording of incidents, data analysis to protect the most at-risk, and requirements for NHS trust boards to report on progress. Zero tolerance. Campaigned for by UNISON. Denied by the Tories. Delivered by Labour.

    Too often, NHS staff are trained at great public expense, only to be driven out by poor treatment. Some end up working in Canada or Australia. We must retain talent and respect staff—through training, flexible working, and fair pay. That’s why we’re implementing a new digital system to fairly apply the Job Evaluation Scheme. A fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. Campaigned for by UNISON. Denied by the Tories. Delivered by Labour.

    I owe my life to NHS staff who treated me for kidney cancer. I’ll never be able to repay that debt, but I’ll try. You were there for me—I’ll be there for you.

    We have a ten-year plan. The Conservatives left us with record waiting times and low satisfaction. Our mission: get the NHS treating patients on time, and reform it for the future.

    We’ve engaged more than a million people in the biggest NHS consultation ever, including 3,000 staff meetings. The result, to be published this spring, will outline three goals:

    • Shift care out of hospitals and into the community;

    • Modernise the NHS with digital tools and technology;

    • Build a preventative health service to tackle major killers.

    This isn’t the staff’s fault. But we can’t fix it without you. I know how hard it is to fight a broken system. But help is coming. My message: stay and help us rescue it. We’re turning it around.

    In nine months, we’ve already:

    • Given NHS staff an above-inflation pay rise;

    • Ended the resident doctors’ strikes;

    • Invested £26 billion in health and care;

    • Made the largest investment in hospices in a generation;

    • Agreed the GP contract with £889 million in new funding;

    • Reversed a decade of pharmacy cuts;

    • Delivered 2 million extra appointments—seven months early;

    • Diagnosed 80,000 suspected cancer cases early;

    • Cut waiting lists for five months in a row.

    On social care, we’ve delivered the biggest-ever increase to carers allowance—£2,300 extra a year—and introduced fair pay agreements as part of Labour’s Employment Rights Bill. That’s the first step in building a National Care Service.

    And today, I can announce the first universal career structure in adult social care: four new job roles and millions in training investment.

    Keir Starmer said his ambition is for his sister, a care worker, to be treated with the same respect as her brother, the Prime Minister. With Labour, she will be.

    But we carry a huge responsibility—not just to NHS users, but to prove that the NHS can still deliver. On its 75th anniversary, most Britons were proud of the NHS. But 70% thought “free at the point of use” won’t survive the next decade.

    Right-wing figures like Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage want to change that. Farage wants insurance-based models and to charge patients. Over my dead body.

    We will always defend the NHS as a public service—free when you need it, no matter who you are.

    Tories and Reform are willing us to fail. But the future of our party and our health service are bound together. The stakes are high. But the prize is huge: an NHS where workers are respected and patients get the care they deserve.

    We can look back one day and say: we were the generation that rescued the NHS from its worst crisis and made it fit for the future.

    Change has begun—and the best is still to come.

  • Keir Starmer – 2025 Speech on the NHS

    Keir Starmer – 2025 Speech on the NHS

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, at the South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre, Epsom on 6 January 2025.

    A happy new year to you all!

    I hope you had a refreshing Christmas break.

    I do recognise and realise that for so many people in the NHS, those words ‘Christmas’ and ‘break’ don’t very often go well together.

    So before I say anything else – can I just say to all of you, and through you to all of your colleagues who work in the NHS. Thank you.

    Thank you for the service to our country. And for the countless lives that you save and change – every single day. A massive thank you to you.

    Now, this year of course is the 80th anniversaries of VE and VJ day.

    And on the 8th of May and the 15th of August we will come together to celebrate the greatest victory of this country and the greatest generation that achieved it.

    It will be a wonderful moment – and we intend to do them proud.

    But what that generation knew is that the strength and prosperity of a nation rests on the security of working people.

    And that the fundamental job of government is to deliver that security so working people can realise their aspirations and drive a country forward.

    And so for this Government that is what this year is about, what next year is about, what every waking moment is about.

    The goal of our Plan for Change. And this year – we will deliver.

    And let me tell you there is no institution more important for the security of our country than the National Health Service built by that generation eight decades ago now.

    It’s the embodiment of British values and humanity.

    Fairness and equal respect.

    But look at it now. And I’m looking at the staff here.

    Because the feeling of record dissatisfaction.

    Millions of people – waiting, waiting, waiting on waiting lists.

    Their lives on hold.

    The potential of the country, if you like – blocked.

    So 2025 is about rebuilding Britain.

    And rebuilding our NHS is the cornerstone of that.

    We will protect the principles we all cherish and that you all work to every day.

    Care – free at the point of use.

    Treatment according to need. Key principles.

    But to catapult the service into the future.

    We need an NHS reformed, from top to bottom.

    Millions of extra appointments signed, sealed and delivered with the plan we are launching today.

    National renewal in action.

    You know, people have long said we couldn’t do this.

    The wallowing in a fatalism about the potential of this country.

    The change we can deliver for working people.

    Well – this plan is a comprehensive rebuttal of that mindset.

    A National Health Service that treats patients more quickly. That is closer to their lives.

    Gives them a level of convenience that they take for granted in nearly every other service they use every day.

    Just think about, every day, with just few swipes of their phone millions of people buy food or clothes for their family. They book holidays. They even find love!

    There’s no good reason why a public, free at the point of use, NHS can’t deliver that kind of convenience.

    In fact – it must.

    And we talked about some of these this morning. We need an NHS hungry for innovation as you are at this centre.

    That is the only way to face up to the challenges of the future.

    The wonder of us living longer and longer.

    And with that hunger – together we will save countless lives.

    Improve care from where it is now, beyond belief.

    Do not doubt this can be done.

    A system like ours with vast amounts of patient data, with scale, with the extraordinary resilience of our NHS staff.

    We are well-placed for the AI revolution in healthcare.

    Trust me – that is coming.

    And Britain is a world leader.

    So we can do this.

    But first – we must confront the reality of what is needed.

    Because the NHS can’t become the national money pit.

    Productivity can’t bump along 11% lower than it was before the pandemic.

    Working people can’t be expected to subsidise the current level of care with ever rising taxes.

    That is the price of ducking reform – and I won’t stand for it.

    I believe in public service, I believe in the NHS, I will fight for it – day and night. But I will never stand for that.

    And look as many of you will know, and as we talked about this morning – my wife, my sister, my mum.

    They all worked or work for the NHS. And as you know nobody works in the NHS for an easy life – you know that and I know that.

    Indeed, I’ve said many, many times before – I wouldn’t be standing here in front of you today if it wasn’t for the NHS.

    Because my Mum had Still’s disease – she was diagnosed when she was eleven. And one of the things she was told was that she would never have children.

    Well the NHS never gave up on her. And that’s why I’m standing here today, so thank you to the NHS – as every family has a story like that to thank the NHS for.

    And every day, in this hospital and throughout the service NHS staff give their all to save lives and look after the families of other people.

    And then just get up the next day and just to do it all again. Every single day.

    So when I think about what they’ve been through over fourteen years.

    It makes me angry.

    I am angry – that you are working harder and harder yet the system just isn’t delivering results that we need for patients or for staff.

    That is the cut and dry argument for reform.

    And it’s not just about money.

    At the budget we invested over £25 billion in the National Health Service.

    A record amount, and rightly so over £1.8 billion since July on cutting waiting times – alone.

    And that’s investment that will deliver 40,000 extra appointments every single week, picking up on some of the techniques that you are using here.

    And that’s an outcome that is wanted by everyone. Wished for by everyone. But it’s only possible because of the difficult choices we confronted.

    But let me be crystal clear that money will not be used, not as it has been in the past just to paper over cracks.

    That’s the definition of the sticking plaster politics that we were elected to change.

    No, this is the year we roll up our sleeves and reform the NHS.

    A new era of convenience in care. Faster treatment – at your fingertips. Patients in control. An NHS fit for the future.

    It’s not just about giving patients greater flexibility over appointments or leveraging the power of the NHS App.

    And we are doing to do that.

    But there’s a bigger principle here.

    It’s about unlocking the huge untapped potential if we organise services around patient control.

    And you see it with Martha’s Rule which was really important.

    It’s about a shift in the balance of power away from a passive deference to doctors and towards patients being able to get that second opinion.

    Play a greater role in deciding their care and treatment.

    And the early results of Martha’s Rule are in.

    Lives of some of the sickest patients in our care:

    Transformed, extended, saved.

    And so it’s a rule that’s now being recognised as a potentially groundbreaking innovation.

    So look – across the NHS we will put patients in control of their care.

    And to meet that demand we will also move care closer to their lives.

    Shift treatment away from hospitals and centres.

    And deliver more care at their GPs, in their community, in their home.

    And you gave me some brilliant examples of what a difference that makes – shifting care towards people’s communities and their homes this morning when we were walking through what you do right here.

    Because as you know – this will make a massive difference to waiting times.

    If we can get more GPs consulting immediately with specialists. Diagnosing even more quickly than that will avoid an extra 800,000 unnecessary referrals and appointments – every single year.

    Another game-changer – community diagnostic centres.

    We will open them, more of them – and they will be seven days a week, twelve hours a day.

    So that if you need a scan or an X-ray, you get it done much more quickly – and at your convenience.

    That alone – will deliver 440,000 extra tests and scans every year.

    We’ll also let patients with long-term conditions monitor themselves at home. Give them the technology to do that.

    That will cut another half a million unnecessary appointments.

    We’ll also reform funding incentives.

    Focus our investment on what will actually cut waiting times.

    Far too much money is wasted on inefficient care. That has to stop. Because we can’t afford it.

    Artificial Intelligence will help us here as well.

    I’ve seen it in action at the hospital I was at the tail end of last year.

    AI-enhanced stethoscopes that can tell, literally in a heartbeat whether you’re at risk of cardiac failure.

    And just think about that.

    A patient saved, in an instant.

    From a possible future that they may have had, where they collapse, possibly more than once.

    Rushed, on trolleys, into acute services in a hospital. All of that avoided because AI was able to pick it up much earlier.

    Think of the impact not just on the individual patient, the person that might happen to, and of course their families, but also on the NHS.

    Artificial intelligence is a technology with almost unlimited power to cut waste, speed things up and save lives. And with this plan – the NHS will harness it properly.

    And finally – to cut waiting times as dramatically as possible our approach must be totally unburdened by dogma.

    Working people would expect nothing less.

    So today – I welcome a new agreement that will expand the relationship between the NHS and the private healthcare sector.

    Make the spaces, facilities and resources of private hospitals more readily available to the NHS.

    That’s more beds, more operations, more care – available to the NHS. Treating patients – free at the point of use. Targeted – at where we need them most.

    A partnership – in the national interest. Cutting waiting times, working for you. Delivering our plan for change.

    I know some people won’t like this, but I make no apologies.

    Change is urgent.

    I’m not interested in putting ideology before patients and I’m not interested in moving at the pace of excuses.

    All through this project that we have been involved in people have been saying – slow down…

    “You won’t win in every nation in Britain…”

    “You won’t deliver that plan…”

    They’ll say it again this year – I have no doubt about that.

    It’s that anthem of decline.

    But they’ve been wrong at every stage so far and they’ll be wrong again.

    Because this year – we will show that Britain can. We can change our country.

    Politics can be a force for good.

    We can unite the NHS behind a plan for reform.

    An NHS that is faster, easier and more convenient with waiting times – cut.

    Patients in control.

    Technology – at your service.

    And outstanding care in your community.

    That is the change we will deliver.

    Another step along the road to a country and a people…

    Strong, secure, confident.

    That the future will be better for their children.

    Thank you.

  • Kieran Mullan – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Kieran Mullan – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    The speech made by Kieran Mullan, the Conservative MP for Bexhill and Battle, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024.

    Today the focus is rightly on Back Benchers, so I will limit my remarks and—mindful of your advice on time, Mr Speaker—I will not be taking any interventions.

    It is not for me to make the case for His Majesty’s Opposition, because we have not taken a collective view, and, like many other Members, I have struggled greatly with this decision. I do not believe there is a perfect choice to be made today, just different versions of imperfection, and my time working as a doctor in A&E has made me sympathetic to both sides of the argument. I have seen the pain in the eyes of relatives who want to ease the suffering of their dying loved ones, but I have also held the hand of frail elderly people, forgotten by their families, feeling themselves to be nothing but a burden. When we reduce it to its core, we are facing a difficult dilemma.

    Access to assisted dying could reduce suffering for the terminally ill. That is a choice that some people would like to have, and some people would make that choice without any undue pressure. If we vote against this Bill today, they will not have that choice. I caution against avoiding facing up to this hard moral reality by arguing that whatever people may fear about dying can always be managed by modern medicine. For all that it can achieve, modern medicine cannot achieve everything. We have heard examples today of the worst illnesses that do more than cause pain. The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) and my hon. Friend the. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) described dying from a catastrophic bleed that takes a person’s life in a panicked final moment.

    Of course, the treatments we may use to help people with pain often rob them of what they may sincerely feel to be their own independence and dignity. Some people may not want to spend their final days in a drug-induced state of semi-consciousness to manage their pain. Those minded to vote against the Bill should give that the greatest possible consideration. I do not think that the Bill’s opponents can deny it, any more than its proponents can deny that if this law is passed, it will represent the crossing of a significant legal, societal and moral Rubicon. Every other expectation that we have of the state is for it to help to extend and protect life, but we will instead be asking the state to procure the medicines, provide the staff, and sign off through the courts a process that is designed to lead—and will lead—to someone’s death.

    A deep respect for the sanctity of life is not the preserve only of religious thinkers. Opponents of the Bill place great weight on that consideration. They argue that once we accept that the state and its citizens can play a proactive role in causing death, the debate will shift from whether it should do that at all to how and when it should. It may be that we pass this legislation and no other in future, but those who have the utmost concern about even the possibility of an expanded Bill may vote against this one as the surest way for them personally to prevent that from happening.

    The Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), argued that coercion is not limited to the selfishly motivated relative directly pressuring a vulnerable person. It can be as simple as knowing that people in the same position as oneself could and did choose to die. Some Members worry that people will then ask themselves not just “Do I want to die?”, but “Should I want to die?”

    So where does this leave us? All of us can make a sensible and reasonable case for our positions, and even point to care and compassion, as we see it, in support of our view. Taking all this together, I think it means that one thing more than anything else should be our guiding principle today: we should, above all else, vote with great humility, and with respect for each and every vote cast in whichever direction. I want to direct that sentiment to the country at large. There are passionate campaigners on both sides of the debate, with their own perspectives, who fear greatly the outcome today if it turns out not to be the one that they want. I say to them that as well as being MPs, those voting today are also sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, parents and grandparents. Each Member will have in mind what they would want for their families and themselves.

    Our final decisions will come at the end of a great deal of thought and careful consideration. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) said, if people listened closely enough today they will have heard us all speaking with one voice—the voice of passion, for those people and causes that we are trying to aid with our vote, even if those people and causes are different. That passion represents this House at its very best. That should not be forgotten. I hope that it is something on which we can all agree.

  • Vikki Slade – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Vikki Slade – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    The speech made by Vikki Slade, the Liberal Democrat MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024.

    We do not need to choose between palliative care and supporting those who want to make their deaths better. It is so fantastic to hear Members from every part of the Chamber with a shared commitment to funding more palliative care, and I hope that the Secretary of State and his team hear that and will go further, knowing that they have our support in investing more. But until they do, we cannot condemn those who are at the end of life to terror, loneliness and being forced into horrible circumstances.

    I have been concerned by some of the comments in the debate, so I re-read the Bill as I sat here. It has been suggested that mental health conditions would be included, but they would not—under clause 2(3). It was also suggested that people might not be offered surgery or other treatment, but they must, under clause 4(4). It is also worth noting the suggestion that a person being coerced could be protected by disclosing to the very family that might be coercing them. The provision for a witness in clause 5(2)(c)(ii) and the period of reflection would allow the independent person to be present at the appropriate time.

    I have already shared publicly my own family’s death journeys—and I wear them on my jacket—but today is not about them. Today is about all those people who need this Bill. Last night I read the book “Die Smiling”, about Nigel’s journey to Dignitas. It ends with his final journey and a Facebook post, prepared before he made that agonising 20-hour journey to Switzerland with his wife and children. It moved me to tears. However, most people cannot afford that option. Most do not want to put their families at risk of prosecution; they want death on their own terms.

    Gary lives in my constituency, and he asked me to tell the House his story of dying with liver cancer. He knows that the end stages will be brutal, and he wants to decide when enough is enough. He me:

    “Death does not worry me at all. Dying a slow death with my dignity stripped away terrifies me. So when my time is right I will kill myself—alone and afraid. My sick dog will not have to die alone and afraid, but I am forced to do so. I want to die on my terms. How can this be right?”

    Tracie, who was a palliative care nurse, told me:

    “I’ve witnessed many end of life patients and I cannot say hand on heart that many of those patients had a peaceful death. I left palliative nursing as the emotional trauma became too much. There are neither the range of medication or symptom relief treatments available for many of the harrowing things people are forced to go through in their last days and weeks of their life.”

    This Bill is about compassion and humanity, and we must listen to the voices of dying people.

  • Rosie Wrighting – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Rosie Wrighting – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    The speech made by Rosie Wrighting, the Labour MP for Kettering, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024.

    I rise to support this incredibly important Bill. Like many hon. Members, I have been contacted by hundreds of constituents on both sides of the debate. I have been moved by their personal stories, which bring home the impact that this legislation could have on them and their families, and I want to put on record my thanks to everyone who has contacted me. I fundamentally believe in the right to choose at the end of life, and that is what the Bill is about: giving dying people a choice on how they die. Anyone who does not want an assisted death can choose not to have one, and anyone who wants the reassurance of an option has it.

    My constituents’ stories and the stories shared by hon. Members today have shown me that it is truly unacceptable to maintain the status quo. Without a change in the law, terminally ill people will continue to face the end of their lives with a very limited range of options. Some will travel abroad for help to die, but that is only an option for those with the financial means to do so. Choice at end of life should not be an option only for those who are financially stable or desperate. Death should be peaceful and pain-free, and the Bill gives us the opportunity to make that a reality. There is no doubt in my mind that the Bill, so carefully considered by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), would be an improvement for the lives and liberties of my constituents and those across the UK who are terminally ill. I urge Members to give it a Second Reading today.

    I want to end with the words of one of my constituents, who wrote:

    “We have some amazing care givers in this country who provide the most compassionate care in the most difficult of circumstances & that gives great comfort. But I feel no-one should be forced to know how the book ends when they are only part way through it without having the choice of putting it down and choosing one with a better ending.”

  • Ruth Jones – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Ruth Jones – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    The speech made by Ruth Jones, the Labour MP for Newport West and Islwyn, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024.

    It is an honour and a privilege to speak in the debate and to follow so many hon. Members who have made such powerful contributions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater)—no longer in her place—for all her work on the Bill; colleagues from across the House who have worked together so collegiately; my constituents who have written to me in their hundreds; and the experts who shared their views with us.

    Everybody in the Chamber wants a good death, but at the moment palliative care across the UK is chronically underfunded, mostly paid for with money raised by charities and a postcode lottery. I pay tribute to all the hospices that are working around the clock and doing an amazing job on very stringent budgets, especially St David’s Hospice and the Hospice of the Valleys, which do amazing work. However, we have to remember that although we are talking about people with very powerful stories—some of whom are here today—we legislate for all, and that means ensuring that our legislation is safe and future-proofed.

    I have concerns about the Bill on issues such as presuming consent. My worry is that if the door is opened with this Bill, it will then be widened, as it has been in places such as the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada. These things will happen.

    More than 65 private Member’s Bills were passed in the last Parliament. Not one of them had more than one sitting in Committee, where the average length of debate was 35 minutes; and just over a quarter had any amendments made to them at all. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Spen Valley has said that she is willing to extend it, which I welcome; I will be pressing her on that to ensure it is safe. If the House votes to carry the Bill forward—I will be voting against it—scrutiny will be crucial at all points of its passage.

    We have talked about terminal illness today, but intractable pain is something that people live with every day. That is another issue. In my 30 years as a physiotherapist, I have seen good deaths and bad deaths. We all want to ensure that we get the best for our constituents, so we need to ensure that end of life care is sorted. This has been a good debate, because we have talked—I have certainly talked to my family. My lovely mum of 89, who is disabled, housebound and widowed, said, “It’s all very well talking about assisted dying, but we need to talk about assisted living as well, because that is most important.” Quality of life is crucial here.

    We need to ensure that we are here to legislate for all, which is why I will vote against the Bill today. I am grateful for the opportunity to explain.

  • Jim Allister – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Jim Allister – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    The speech made by Jim Allister, the MP for North Antrim, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024.

    This is not an easy subject, nor should it be, because this is a matter of the taking of human life—the taking of human life, sanctioned by the state.

    Our nation, through many wonderful charities and through Government, reaches out compassionately to those who are threatening suicide. They are urged to use the services of the Samaritans and to get all the help they can. I cannot square the circle where the state would then move to itself sanction suicide—indeed, to facilitate and, in fact, to promote suicide. And to do that in respect of those who are intrinsically the most vulnerable in our society. Anyone who gets a diagnosis of terminal illness is, by reason of that, obviously vulnerable. Many, in consequence, suffer depression and other difficulties, so they are among the most vulnerable in our society. Being vulnerable, they are among those most liable to fall under the foul influence of coercion.

    Coercion comes in many forms. Anyone who has listened to domestic abuse cases will know that it can be very insidious, invasive and persuasive, because the coercer has the constant ear of those they wish to coerce. Add into that mix the fact that that person might feel a burden. We have all heard old people say, “I am a burden on society. I am a burden on my family.” Even when they are told, “No, caring for you is not a chore, but a privilege,” they still think they are a burden. If in that background—that matrix—there is still the pernicious influence of coercion, then the thought that people reach a reasoned, considered, independent opinion is a fallacy.

    It is those people that this House should be protecting above all, but this Bill does not protect people in that situation. Oh, we are told, “two doctors and a judge”. The judge does not have to, but he might decide to hold Zoom call with the applicant, but he is not to know if sitting in the corner of the room, out of camera shot, is the coercer. Where is the protection in that?

    I say to the House that this issue cuts to the very quick of our fundamental duty to be the protectors of the most vulnerable. There is no part of the state’s function to be promoting or assisting the end of life for people who could be in that condition, and we will never know how many are in that condition, so I cannot and will not vote for the Bill.

  • Catherine Fookes – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Catherine Fookes – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    The speech made by Catherine Fookes, the Labour MP for Monmouthshire, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024.

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for the incredibly sensitive and thoughtful way she is conducting the passage of the Bill, consulting widely with terminally ill people and their families, medical staff, lawyers, faith leaders and those on both sides of the debate.

    I have two very personal stories about why I support a change in the law. Last year, my dad’s health took a turn very much for the worse. He had sepsis, kidney failure and heart disease and had lived with Addison’s disease for almost 50 years. He was given the dreaded news that he only had a few months left to live. I would not have wished his last few weeks upon anyone. He was in agony and suffering—his breathing was difficult and he was in such pain. I struggled to see him suffer so much, but the nurses, doctors, carers and my incredible step-mum were all without fault and, thankfully, his palliative care was excellent. He was able to die at home with me, my sister and my step-mum by his side. Seeing him suffer so terribly convinced me that we need a change in the law so that people who are terminally ill have a choice.

    My second story is from Australia where my brother lives. My wonderful sister-in-law Kelly sadly died of liver cancer that developed into bone cancer. She had a fractured left arm, pelvis and sacrum, and had cancer in her spine. At 54, Kelly was far too young to die. Her cancer was particularly painful and unforgiving. As she lived in Victoria, she was able to register for assisted dying. For her, it was incredibly comforting to know that if, and only if, she needed to, she could stop the suffering. She did not need it in the end, but she did have the option. In her darkest days—her fearful days—that brought her and my brother incredible peace of mind.

    I heard similar stories of suffering in the hundreds of emails sent to me by constituents over the course of the past few months. People want and deserve access to both the best palliative care and a choice if they are terminally ill. The protections and evidence underpinning the Bill are strong. I was there for my dad’s final week when he was in so much pain, and I was there right at the end holding his hand. What a privilege to be with him at the end and to see him through. In memory of my dad and of Kelly, I support the Bill and urge all those across the House to support it, too.

  • Christine Jardine – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Christine Jardine – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    The speech made by Christine Jardine, the Liberal Democrat MP for Edinburgh West, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024.

    It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler). I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). The spirit in which this debate has been conducted today is a tribute to her leadership on this issue.

    This debate has been harrowing for all of us. However, to us falls the responsibility and the privilege of making this decision on behalf of those who go through experiences so harrowing that I do not think any of us can imagine them, even though we have heard their tales—I know that I cannot.

    Until recently, I put it to the back of my mind that I have actually been in the situation of waiting to find out whether I would have a terminal diagnosis. I was lucky, as it went the other way. I do not know what I would have wanted but, as I waited, I thought about all the things I wanted to do and might be denied. People with a terminal diagnosis think about what they planned to do with their life, such as seeing their children and grandchildren grow and marry.

    When we came here today, we were all aware of that, and we thought seriously about the implications and the need for palliative care, but it is not our job to say that we should not do this because palliative care needs to be improved and because the NHS cannot cope. Our job is to say that we need to improve palliative care so that the NHS can cope, and so that we can do this.

    On the safeguards that are needed and included in the Bill, I believe they are there. For those with religious beliefs that mean they cannot countenance the Bill, I understand and respect their concerns, but I would not be standing here if I was not convinced that in this Bill we have the best opportunity to provide a choice safeguarded by medical and legal professionals and protected from that slippery slope. It happened in Canada because they did not have “terminal diagnosis” in the definition of the Bill from the beginning, but we do. If we vote the Bill through, it will go on to have the further and tougher levels of scrutiny that every piece of legislation in this place and the other place must go through. I respect everyone’s concerns and beliefs, but I also ask them, and all hon. Members, to respect those who have already been denied so much in their lives—those things I said they might want that they might be denied.

    We have a choice today: we can lead a national conversation that examines the issue before all of us, dissect the Bill line by line and check its effectiveness, or we can vote to close it down today, and then the country and the families who are suffering will be denied the light they want to see thrown on the issue and the voice they want their loved ones or perhaps themselves to have.

    Many of us have watched loved ones die difficult deaths, and we have over the past few weeks, months and years in politics heard harrowing tales and spoken to families who have had no choice but to watch their loved ones pass in the most harrowing of circumstances, or make an expensive—for many, prohibitively expensive—trip to Dignitas alone. I cannot help about those things they have been denied by the cruellest of fates, but surely we cannot deny them choice at end of life.

  • Dawn Butler – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Dawn Butler – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    The speech made by Dawn Butler, the Labour MP for Brent East, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024.

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for how this debate has been conducted.

    Yesterday, we buried Tony Warr, a GMB officer and a really good friend. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He beat it once, but it took him in the end.

    Earlier this week, the cancer community lost Nina Lopes. She had stage 4 triple-negative breast cancer and was given six months to live in 2018. Six months became six years, and she taught us how to dance through her @frodayss account.

    As we have heard, it is not an exact science when someone is given a prognosis of six months to live. As a patron of Black Women Rising, a cancer charity that supports black and minoritised women through their cancer journey, someone who had been given six months to live recently told me, “I have had a good life, and I am ready to go.” Six weeks later, they are now fighting to live. The thing is, if we had focused only on the fact that she was ready to go and wanted to die, it would have all been very different.

    As we have heard today, there are parts of the law that need changing around coercion, and around doctors being able to help people with their end of life treatment. However, I believe those safeguards and discussions can be separated from assisted dying and assisted suicide. I do not see why we need to have a combined discussion.

    Everybody has the right to die with dignity and compassion. Whether or not this Bill progresses today, I hope those conversations will continue. After all, we are legislators, and we have the ability to do that. Eighty per cent of my constituents are against this legislation, and I will be voting against it.