UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Kit Malthouse – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Kit Malthouse – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    The speech made by Kit Malthouse, the Conservative MP for North West Hampshire, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024.

    When I was a child, my parents shielded me from death. Centuries of art, literature and religion taught me that death was something noble or even slightly romantic. When I became an adult, I learnt pretty quickly that that was not the case. For far too many, it is anything but and certainly not noble. The deathbed for far too many is a place of misery, torture and degradation, a reign of blood and vomit and tears. I see no compassion and beauty in that, only profound human suffering. In 10 years of campaigning on this issue, I have spent many, many hours with dying and bereaved people, which has, time and again, reinforced my view.

    I am a co-sponsor of the Bill and I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for choice at the end of life. I could give a speech to promote the Bill, but my hon. Friend—and I do call her a friend—the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) has done that remarkably well. In my speech I want to address some of the common issues that have been raised, and that will no doubt be raised during the debate, with which I struggle.

    First, we will no doubt hear an awful lot about the overseas experience. I am married to a Canadian, and I can tell the House that they love their children just as much as we do. The idea that the Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Spanish and Austrians care little for their relatives, or indeed for the wider society in which they live, is frankly offensive. We should not pretend that somehow we are special or different. They have thought as profoundly on these issues as we have over the past 10 years. We can learn from them, and design a system for our own sensibilities and culture, as they have done. They all have different laws on abortion, some of which we would not pass in this House, but that does not mean we should not have abortion laws here. We are a 1,000-year-old democracy, and we should be able to design legislation that deals with this issue for ourselves.

    The second issue that has been raised with which I have struggled regards the impact on the NHS and on judges. People are already dying; they are already in the national health service and entitled to care. Even if we think there will be an impact, are people seriously telling me that my death, my agony, is too much for the NHS to have time for, or too much hassle? It is even claimed that such matters would overload the judges—that I should drown in my own faecal vomit because it is too much hassle for the judges to deal with. We send things from this House to the NHS and to judges all the time. Is anyone suggesting that we should not create the new offence of spiking, which has come through this week, because judges are overworked? Of course not. They will cope as they have done with all sorts of things that we have sent from this House over the years, and we should not countenance the idea that some logistical problem will get in the way of our giving a good death to our fellow citizens.

    I also want to address directly those Members who are considering voting against the Bill, to ensure that they are clear in their minds that a vote against the Bill is not a passive act. There are two states of being on offer today. I have to break some news to Members: whatever happens to the Bill today, people with a terminal illness will still take their lives. If the Bill falls today, we will be consigning those people to taking their lives in brutal, violent ways, as they are at the moment, and will see increasing numbers of our fellow citizens making the trip to Switzerland if they can afford it. We know that between 600 and 700 people a year are killing themselves in violent ways—shooting themselves, throwing themselves in front of trains, taking overdoses in lonely, horrible circumstances. As I said, many are going to Switzerland, but more than that are lying in hospital—I guarantee that there will be somebody over the river in St Thomas’ hospital now who is refusing treatment and starving themselves to death because they cannot face what is in front of them.

    Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)

    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we had a choice today? We have come here to debate assisted dying, but we could have come here to build cross-party consensus on how finally, once and for all, to fix palliative care in this country. We could have come to look at a funding consensus, as that does need to be cross-party. I agree with his point that voting no is also a choice, but what follows from that should be a cross-party consensus on how we fix palliative care.

    Kit Malthouse

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and what a surprise it is that the conversation about palliative care has started. We were not having that conversation before this Bill came forward. The evidence from the Health and Care Committee, published only in February this year, shows that palliative care and assisted dying go hand in hand.

    Mr Perkins rose—

    Kit Malthouse

    I will not give way.

    Improvements also go hand in hand; medics from across the world told us that the two things are complementary. In Australia I discussed this issue with a palliative care doctor who was against the introduction of assisted dying when they were contemplating it. She now finds it an invaluable tool, and she embraces it as something that her patients want and need. My concern is that if the Bill is turned down, as it was in 2015, the conversation about palliative care will wither, as it has done for the past 10 years.

    I want to share a story that has particularly affected me. Mark Crampton was a former police chief inspector who was suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. His COPD became too much for him, so he informed his family that he was going to take his own life. He took his oxygen tank and mask and late one night went out and sat on a railway embankment. He wanted a death that was instant and quick, and that he could rely on. He waited until 2 in the morning—heartbreakingly, he had worked out when the last train was going, so he would minimise disruption to the public—and then took his life in lonely circumstances in the middle of the night. By not passing the Bill, we would deny to Mark supervision, conversation, access to doctors, periods of reflection, advice. Even if he had been through all that and decided it was still too much, the Bill would give him a much better end than he actually achieved. Members should be clear, as I say, that whatever happens to the Bill, terminal people will still take their lives.

    I have to say to the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), who says that hundreds of people dying in agony every year is a price worth paying for the good of society, that I find that an appalling prospect. A society that looks away from these people —like those in the Public Gallery who are living in terrible fear of what will face them, or who have watched their families die in fear—and says that that is okay for the good of the whole is a terrible, terrible prospect. We have a duty to assist them, as other countries around the world have done, and to find a way to make them comfortable in the end.

    Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)

    Will my right hon. Friend give way?

    Kit Malthouse

    I will not.

    Finally, I want to talk briefly about rights. We hear a lot about rights in this debate—quite rightly. We hear about the rights and fears of the disabled community, who are specifically excluded from the Bill; we hear a lot about the rights and fears of the elderly, who are also specifically excluded from the Bill; we are even hearing about the rights of doctors, who are allowed to conscientiously object to participating in this process, if they wish. When are we going to have the conversation about the rights of the dying? Where do we put them in the ranking of rights, as they face their end? When do we grant them the autonomy and choice for which so many of them have campaigned over the years? Surely, as they come towards the end of their life, their rights have to be at the forefront of our mind. The last, best gift we can give them is control over the disease that is destroying them.

    If we do not pass the Bill today, we are cornering all those people; we are trapping them, with the law, in their disease, and consigning them to an end of torture and degradation that they do not wish to go through. As I said before, we are a 1,000-year old democracy. It is not beyond us to design legislation that will give those people what they want, while protecting those whom we feel need to be protected. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), I want this choice for my constituents, but profoundly I want it for myself and for the people in the Public Gallery who have worked so hard over the past decade to get us to change our minds.

    I ask Members please to be clear that whatever happens today, terminal people will still take their own lives—all we are deciding today is how.

  • Andy Slaughter – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Andy Slaughter – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    The speech made by Andy Slaughter, the Labour MP for Hammersmith and Chiswick, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024.

    It is a pleasure to follow the excellent speech of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). In preparation for today I have had a number of discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), and I want to put on record that the measured way she has dealt with the proceedings has been excellent. I do not know whether she has ever had moments of doubting whether this was the right thing to pick as a private Member’s Bill, but she has been an absolute credit to this House in the way she has dealt with these matters so far.

    In 2015, in the last Chamber debate on this subject, I wound up for the Opposition Front Bench, but my interest in it goes back much further. Like all Members of this House, I have had hundreds of emails from constituents on both sides of the argument. Many ask me to oppose the Bill; those emails come from people of faith, and I wholly and entirely respect what they say, but they are the first people also to say that this is an individual decision for every individual Member of the House to make.

    As I have been at the bottom of the list of speakers to be called for so many years, I have great sympathy for those who find themselves there today, so I will try to keep my remarks to one narrow point: the legal context of the Bill. There is a false dichotomy that the law as it stands is fit for purpose, that we go into the unknown with the Bill before us and that we should somehow keep 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 individual directors of public prosecutions to make decisions in individual cases after the event.

    DPPs take that job extremely seriously, as anyone knows who has heard Sir Max Hill, the last DPP to speak on the subject. They have, at the instigation of the courts, set out guidelines—I think we know that it was an excellent Director of Public Prosecutions who set out the guidelines on this case. They have done everything they can, but it is not their responsibility; it is our responsibility, and the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, have made that clear.

    We assign in this Bill a role to the High Court as part of the process, but we are the final decision takers. That has been made clear not only by domestic, but by international courts; the European Court of Human Rights has said in every case in which such matters have come before it that the margin of appreciation should be put into effect and therefore it should not interfere with the law as we decide it. We cannot dodge our responsibilities and I know that we do not want to do that. We have a duty to put in place the best law we can, and that is not the law as it stands.

    There are three choices for people who want to end their own lives. They can go to Dignitas alone, if they can afford to do that. They can attempt, and perhaps succeed in, suicide. They risk failing. If they succeed, they will have a lonely death. They may, as others have pointed out, simply have to resort to refusing treatment or food. The third option is that they can embroil their relatives or friends, at the risk of their being investigated or prosecuted. They also risk ending their lives too soon.

    On safeguards, I do not follow the view of opponents of the Bill. At some times they seem to say that they are too complex, too expensive and that there are not enough resources. If we want to resource the Bill, we can. I do not think that those are the strongest arguments.

    Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Andy Slaughter

    I really do not want to, because of the time. I am sorry. [Interruption.] Should I? I will give way once.

    Jonathan Davies

    My hon. Friend talks a little about safeguards. I invite him and the House to reflect on the covid pandemic, when a lot of safeguards around a lot of things were relaxed. I worry that if we were to see another pandemic on the scale that we saw in 2020, people might feel that they were doing something patriotic by getting out of the way and freeing up a bed for a younger person. I invite him to reflect on that.

    Andy Slaughter

    In practice, a terminally ill person will need to formally consider their decision at least eight times under the provisions in the Bill. This is a starting point—a number of Members have made that point. I believe the Bill has already had more scrutiny than most public Bills we consider, but we have up to nine months before us to consider it further.

    All the practical and legal considerations point towards the Bill. It may well be amended to change the safeguards or the way it operates, but we have the opportunity to do that. In the end, for me, that is not the decision. The decision is about two things: it is about human dignity and it is about agency. I would like to think that even at the end of life—no, especially at the end of life—when someone has their faculties but may be at their weakest ebb, they can still exercise that agency and still make decisions for themselves. They can have the longest life they can and they can end that life in the way that is most beneficial to them, their loved ones and their family. That is simply not happening, and by voting against the Bill today Members ignore those facts.

  • Andrew Mitchell – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Andrew Mitchell – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    The speech made by Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative MP for Sutton Coldfield, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024.

    I want to make three brief points. First, I have completely changed by mind on this subject since I entered the House during the last century, because I have sat in my advice surgery with tears pouring down my face listening to constituents who have set out so clearly, speaking with such emotion, about how their mother, brother, father or child had died in great pain and great indignity.

    I strongly support the Bill, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) on the excellent way in which she has presented it. I believe that we should give our constituents—our fellow citizens—this choice. I want this choice for my constituents; I want it for those whom I love; and I want it, perhaps one day, for myself.

    Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Mr Mitchell

    I will not, I am afraid. The current law forces people to plan their deaths in secret. Their bodies are found by their loved ones. Often, they die in the most horrific circumstances. They have no chance to say goodbye to their loved ones. It is devastating for their families. The former Health Secretary commissioned the Office for 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.

    Secondly, in our democracy, the Commons must make this decision. Only we, elected by our constituents, have the legitimacy to do this. It is not the DPP, the Crown Prosecution Service, the police, doctors or even unelected Members of the House of Lords—this House of Commons must make this decision. Let us be clear that all of us on both sides of the debate strongly support an increase in the quality and extent of palliative care. For me, the debate is about extending choice, in very narrow and heavily regulated circumstances under the Bill, as the hon. Lady so clearly set out—the choice not to be forced to end your life in pain and indignity. No element in the Bill talks about intolerable suffering. Many believe that the Bill is too narrowly drawn. I stand by the hon. Lady’s drafting. We should remember that in Oregon there has been no serious attempt to change or amend the law.

    I had the privilege of speaking to an NHS consultant last year, the day before she headed to Dignitas. She said, “I love my country, but I object very strongly to my country forcing me to make this choice, and to having to travel unaccompanied to a foreign country to die.” The status quo is cruel and dangerous. People caught up in these circumstances have no transparency; there is no regulation, safeguards or oversight. The Bill contains a whole series of safeguards that are not present at the moment.

    Thirdly, we are deciding today on a principle. If the Bill is voted down on Second Reading, that will be the end of the matter for many years, and we will do that in the knowledge that Scotland, the Isle of Man, Jersey and 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 there being one. If we agree to a Second Reading today it is, in my judgment, inconceivable that the Government Front Bench will not ensure we have the proper time to scrutinise the Bill.

    This Bill goes with the grain of our constituents’ views—about 75%, according to the most recent polling. There is an opportunity and a chance, as the hon. Member for Spen Valley has set out, to consider in detail these matters ahead of Third Reading. As drafted, the Bill seems to me a very modest and controlled proposal. Let us not forget this: Oregon shows us that fewer people take these steps once they know they have this choice as a back-up.

    I end with something I have never forgotten. Some years ago, I was listening in a debate to a young man who had recently lost his father. He had visited his father and seen him in great pain and indignity. He had seen him three days before he died. In the end his father put a bag over his head and used his dressing-gown cord to hang himself. That young man said to all of us: “If you are ever in this position, let’s hope that God will help you, because they certainly won’t.” Today, this House has the opportunity to ensure that they will.

  • Diane Abbott – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Diane Abbott – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    The speech made by Diane Abbott, the Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024.

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) on bringing forward this Bill, which has been the occasion of a very important national conversation. I recall to the House the fact that, in 1969, Parliament voted to abolish the death penalty for murder. Public opinion was actually against that change, 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 not against legalising assisted dying in any circumstance, but I have many reservations about this Bill. 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 a High Court judge, but the divisional courts have said that

    “the intervention of a court would simply interpose an expensive and time-consuming forensic procedure”.

    Sir James Munby, the former president of the family division of the High Court, said recently:

    “Only those who believe implicitly in judicial omniscience and infallibility—and I do not—can possibly have any confidence in the efficacy of what is proposed.”

    Is the judge supposed to second-guess doctors? Will the judge make a decision on the basis of paperwork? Or will there be a hearing in open court? Where will be the capacity in the criminal justice system to deal with all this? Far from being a genuine safeguard, the involvement of a judge could just be a rubber stamp.

    Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)

    More than two thirds of care proceedings involving the most vulnerable children in our society cannot be completed within six months. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a real concern that the safeguard is not deliverable, or risks being the rubber stamp that I know my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) does not want it to be?

    Ms Abbott

    I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

    Robust safeguards for the sick and dying are vital to protect them from predatory relatives, to protect them from the state and, above all, to protect them from themselves. There will be those who say to themselves that they do not want to be a burden; I can imagine myself saying that in particular circumstances. Others will worry about assets they had hoped to leave for their grandchildren being eroded by the cost of care. There will even be a handful who will think they should not be taking up a hospital bed.

    Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)

    My right hon. Friend makes her case powerfully. Can I ask her to comment on the current situation whereby people ask themselves the question she just asked today? What safeguards are there for those people? What inquiry is made before those people pass away, often having taken the most drastic and horrific action to do so?

    Ms Abbott

    But if the House passes this legislation, the issue that I have raised will become foremost in people’s minds even more so.

    We are told that 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 those letters on file. Coercion in the family context can be about not what you say but what you do not say—the long, meaningful pause.

    Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)

    As a medical professional who is surrounded by even more senior medical professionals, I know we can all miss things when there are tangibles in front of us: the shadows on X-rays and the markers on blood tests. As professionals, we miss things that can be seen. What security will we have that we can pick up things that we cannot see, like coercion?

    Ms Abbott

    That is the point: coercion is something that there will be no material evidence of and that we cannot see.

    People keep saying that the Bill cannot be amended, but of course any future Government could bring in new clauses. We can see what has happened in Canada, which introduced assisted dying in 2016 for adults with terminal illnesses. In 2021, it was extended to people with no terminal illness and the disabled. In March 2027, anyone with a serious mental health problem will also be eligible. The House should remember that no single organisation representing the disabled supports the Bill.

    Mary Kelly Foy

    My daughter Maria lived her life with severe disabilities and health conditions. Since her birth, we were told many times that she might have only six months to live. She lived for 27 years. Crucially, Maria was non-verbal. I am filled with dread and fear about what might happen to people like Maria who are non-verbal and do not have that capacity, if they are not loved and cared for and do not have somebody speaking out for them.

    Ms Abbott

    I have heard so many stories like that. The arbitrary cut-off of six months does not necessarily meet with the reality of sick people.

    Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)

    The case of Maria, and others, should give us all pause. Does the right hon. Lady agree, with two thirds of the Cabinet apparently supporting this measure in principle, that we should reject the Bill today, but that we should as a House commit not to go another 10 years ignoring this topic, but to come forward in a considered way, ensure it is looked at properly, and do everything possible to have a system that is more robust, more caring and ensures good outcomes for people like Maria?

    Mr Speaker

    Order. Let me also say that we must try to keep to the time limits.

    Ms Abbott

    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. As I said right at the beginning, I am not against assisting dying in any circumstances. If the Bill passes, we will have the NHS as a 100% funded suicide service, but palliative care will be funded only at 30% at best. The former Member for 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 when I have doubts about whether they will be protected. We can come back, have a commission and craft a better Bill, but I will not be voting for the Bill today.

  • Danny Kruger – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Danny Kruger – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    The speech made by Danny Kruger, the Conservative MP for East Wiltshire, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024.

    I think you indicated that I could speak for a little longer than eight minutes, Mr Speaker.

    Mr Speaker

    Yes.

    Danny Kruger

    Thank you very much. I do not want to have too much grumbling at the eight-minute moment. I will take my 15 minutes, with time for interventions.

    I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for her very powerful speech and the way in which she has led this campaign—with great respect, sensitivity and, to use a contested word, dignity. She and I knew each other before we were MPs, when we both worked in the charity sector. I like and admire her greatly, and I know that we have more in common than might appear today.

    All of us in this House have this in common: we all share a deep concern about the experience of people dying or fearing death, pain and suffering. I bear heavily on my conscience the people whose lives will be prolonged beyond their wishes if I get my way and this Bill is defeated today. I will not disregard those people or minimise their anxiety. We will hear those voices in today’s debate—we have heard many of them already—speaking through hon. Members in what I know will be very moving speeches.

    If I voted for this Bill, I would have on my conscience many more people whose voices we cannot hear—the people who would be vulnerable as a consequence of the huge changes that this Bill would introduce in our society and in the NHS. My view is that if we get our broken palliative care system right and our wonderful hospices properly funded, we can do so much more for all the people who we will hear about today, using modern pain relief and therapies to help everybody die with a minimum of suffering when the time comes. We will not be able to do that if we introduce this new option; instead, we will expose many more people to harm.

    I will go through the Bill in a moment, but first I will say a word about process, in response to the points made by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. This Bill is simply too big for the time that it has been given, and I implore hon. Members not to hide behind the fiction that it can be amended substantially in Committee and in its later stages. The remaining stages of a private Member’s Bill are for minor tweaks, not the kind of wholesale restructuring that we would need if we were ever to make this Bill safe. Members who vote for the Bill today must be prepared to see it become law largely unamended. I suggest that if they have any doubts, the only responsible choice is to vote no, and let the advocates of assisted dying bring back a better Bill at another time.

    Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)

    I deeply appreciate the respectful way in which the hon. Gentleman is making his point, but I stand before him not sure of how any colleague in this Chamber cannot have doubts whichever way they are voting today. It feels like there are two necessary harms that we are all forced to weigh up. If the hon. Gentleman is so certain that doubt should push people one way, I am deeply intrigued to hear why that is, when it is very clear that many people will continue to suffer unnecessarily if we reject this Bill.

    Danny Kruger

    I recognise that there are very many doubts on each side, and I fully respect the arguments that have been made by the hon. Member for Spen Valley. Of course this is a finely balanced debate, but the point about process is that this Bill is too flawed; there is too much to do to it to address in Committee. By all means, let us have this debate, but let us have that before a Bill of this magnitude is brought forward, The consideration of the Bill should be much more comprehensive.

    Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)

    Contrary to what the media are saying, today’s decision is not about bringing this Bill into law; it is about allowing it to go to the next stage. People may have misgivings, but the hon. Gentleman is making the assumption that the Bill cannot be corrected or amended in order to make it palatable to people who have doubts. We all have doubts, but surely today’s vote is simply to let it go to the next stage. The final decision on Third Reading is the critical one in deciding whether the Bill goes into law.

    Danny Kruger

    I think I have made the point that this Bill is too comprehensive and there is too much in it to address through the process of a private Member’s Bill. If the hon. Gentleman has serious concerns about aspects of the Bill that he would not be prepared to see come into law, he should not be supporting it today.

    Let me explain the concerns about the Bill that I think are too comprehensive to be dealt with in Committee. I recognise how hard the hon. Member for Spen Valley has worked to try to ensure that it is safe, but I do not believe it is, for the following reasons. Let us start at the beginning. The process starts with a conversation between a patient and a medical practitioner—not necessarily a doctor; just a medic of some sort, unspecified at this stage. If the patient tells their ordinary family doctor that they want an assisted death, the doctor is obliged to either explain how it works or pass them on to someone who will do it—which is probably what will happen, by the way. The likelihood is that we would see a new branch of medicine spring up, like the medics I met in Canada.

    Kevin McKenna

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Danny Kruger

    I will in a moment.

    These medics I met in Canada are specialists in assisted death and personally kill hundreds of patients a year in their special clinics. [Interruption.] If hon. Members have difficulty with the language, then I wonder what they are doing here. This is what we are talking about. I met doctors for whom this is their profession and their job, and they are proud to do it.

    Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Danny Kruger

    I will give way to the other hon. Gentleman.

    Kevin McKenna

    I want to be very clear that “medical practitioner” is a synonym for doctor—not nurse, pharmacist, dentist or any other practitioner. To be a doctor is to be a practitioner of medicine. We need to be very clear on this. There is lots of law and regulation on this, and I believe that what the hon. Member said is incorrect.

    Danny Kruger

    What the Bill actually says is that a doctor means

    “a registered medical practitioner…who has such training, qualifications and experience as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations”.

    Obviously they are some sort of regulated medic—I recognise that—but they are not necessarily a doctor. We will find out. I recognise that they will have professional qualifications, but it is not clear what those are going to be because it is not in the Bill.

    Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)

    I commend the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he is engaging in this discussion, in the same spirit as the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). We often hear that one of the safeguards associated with the Bill is that medical practitioners would be involved and that a diagnosis of a terminal illness, with six months or less to live, would be required. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that medicine is not an exact science? It is the science of uncertainty blended with the art of probability. There is no exactitude in this. No court will second-guess medical opinion; it will simply look at process.

    Danny Kruger

    I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. I am afraid that the definition of terminal illness is in a sense the essential flaw in the Bill, but I will come on to that.

    Going back to the conversation that the patient has with the medical practitioner, the crucial point is that the conversation does not need to be started by the patient, according to the Bill. It could be started by the medic—any medic—perhaps in hospital, who could make the suggestion of an assisted death to a patient who has never raised the issue themselves, whose family have never suggested it and whose own doctor does not think it is the right thing to do. And so the idea is planted.

    Then, for whatever reason—and, by the way, there is no need ever to give a reason—the patient says that they want to proceed with an assisted death. They sign a declaration, or rather somebody else can sign it for them. It could be any professional, someone they do not know—maybe a new medical practitioner. A total stranger can do all the paperwork on their behalf. That is what the clause about the proxy entails. Then these two medical practitioners make their assessment.

    Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)

    I urge the hon. Member to check the wording of the Bill, because if somebody signs as a proxy, they have to have known the individual for two years, and would simply be signing to say that they agree with the patient who wishes to go forward with assisted dying.

    Danny Kruger

    I do not have time to check the Bill now, but from my memory it refers to someone who has known the patient for two years or someone of good standing in the community, which could be some sort of professional who is not known to them at all. Someone can quickly check the Bill, but my understanding is that it could be a total stranger to them.

    Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)

    Is the matter not very clear? Clause 15(5) states:

    “In this section “proxy” means—

    (a) a person who has known the person making the declaration personally for at least 2 years, or

    (b) a person who is of good standing in the community.”

    So there is no protection such as that which is pretended by the supporters of the Bill.

    Danny Kruger

    I am grateful for that intervention.

    The assessments have to determine whether the patient is terminally ill, whether they have mental capacity to make the decision, and then whether they have been coerced or pressured into the decision. In many ways the whole issue turns on the question of whether someone is terminally ill. I am afraid that it is a term of great elasticity, almost to the point of meaninglessness. It is well known, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said earlier, that it is impossible for doctors to predict with any accuracy that somebody will die within six months. It is a purely subjective judgment, made in this case by a doctor whose job will be approving assisted deaths. They simply have to determine not whether it is reasonably certain that death will occur, but that it can be reasonably expected—in other words, that it is possible.

    Simon Hoare

    The thrust of the Bill, as I understand it, is to ease suffering and pain in a patient who has a diagnosis and will die of the condition that has been diagnosed. But that right could only be exercised within a six-month period, and the pain and discomfort could last a lot longer than that. Has my hon. Friend heard—because I have not—what the importance of six months is? Why not eight, 10 or 12? What would stop people challenging it on the grounds that the dam has been breached, the six months is entirely arbitrary and it could, and indeed should, be extended by negative resolution in a statutory instrument?

    Danny Kruger

    My hon. Friend makes the right point, and I am afraid to say that is absolutely the case. The six-month cut-off is completely arbitrary and impossible to determine. It is a line in the sand, and of course it could be challenged, as so much of the Bill could be challenged, on human rights grounds. Every one of the safeguards that has been introduced by the hon. Member for Spen Valley would in fact be a barrier and a discrimination against the new human right that has been awarded to one group but should of course be awarded to all—if the point is conceded in this way.

    Melanie Ward

    Earlier this week, colleagues and I met two eminent doctors who were former presidents of the Association for Palliative Medicine, and they raised serious concerns about the Bill, including that the doctor or medical practitioner who makes the assessment need never have met the person they are assessing, or been involved in their care at all. What does the hon. Gentleman make of that?

    Danny Kruger

    The hon. Lady makes a very important point. I will not get into the question of public opinion and the polling, because it is so contested, but there is clear evidence that the doctors who work with the dying—the palliative care professionals—are opposed to a change in the law by a great majority. They see the damage that it would do to the palliative care profession and services, and they see the danger for vulnerable patients.

    Wera Hobhouse

    I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman talks to us as a medical professional and we need to listen to his views. But is it not true that any medical assessment is an approximation; something that cannot be said for certain? For this decision too, we cannot be 100% certain, but that is life. We cannot make legislation that is 100% good because at some point we have to make a decision, on balance, whether something has merit or not. For that reason, we should vote for the Bill.

    Danny Kruger

    I am grateful to the hon. Lady, especially for promoting me to the status of doctor; I am actually a charity worker and political hack by background. It is good of her to credit me with those skills—perhaps I should set myself up as a medical practitioner. She is right that medics and indeed judges have to make difficult judgments all the time. I think it would be very dangerous and inappropriate to give them the power to do so in this case.

    The whole question of the six-month cut-off is very important. I acknowledge all the points that have been made, but there is another problem with the definition of terminal illness. Almost anybody with a serious illness or disability could fit the definition. I recognise that these are not the cases that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has in mind—of course they are not—but that is the problem with the Bill. All that someone needs to do to qualify for an assisted death—for the definition of terminal illness—is refuse treatment, such as insulin if the person is diabetic. In the case of eating disorders, a topic on which I have worked with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), a person just needs to refuse food. The evidence from jurisdictions around the world, and our own jurisprudence, shows that that would be enough to qualify someone for an assisted death.

    Lewis Atkinson

    Does the hon. Gentleman accept that every day in the NHS patients refuse treatment, and indeed food, and that there is currently legal oversight in respect of coercion and other such matters? Would the Bill not strengthen protections in those areas?

    Danny Kruger

    I am perplexed by that argument. The suggestion that there may be coercion—of course there will be—and abuse, and all sorts of injustices that take place in the current system, does not strike me as an argument for regulating and licensing assisted suicide. If we have concerns about practice in the NHS, let us deal with that. Let us not license suicide—and, by the way, evidence from around the world shows that that increases suicide in the general population. Suicide is contagious. For instance, Oregon is often pointed to as an example. The incidence of suicide, outside assisted suicide laws, has risen by a third there since it was legalised. There would be enormous contagious effects were we to regulate and license it in this way.

    Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)

    The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent case for the Bill to be passed today. What he is actually saying is that there are specifics that require debate, analysis and discussion in great detail in Committee—that is the whole point of it. If it is not dealt with properly in Committee, it will not pass Third Reading. He is suggesting that because he does not like those specifics, we cannot discuss the Bill in any detail.

    Danny Kruger

    I am sure that the hon. Member for Spen Valley is delighted to have the support of the hon. Gentleman. I refer him to the point that I was making: this is an inappropriate process.

    Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

    My hon. Friend is making a superb speech, as I expected him to do. On the issue of process, I say this to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), my constituency neighbour: as he will know, I have introduced some very serious Bills, including the one that became the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. It was preceded by three independent reports and pre-legislative cross-party scrutiny by both Houses, which happened before the Committee stage. The point is that that process should take place before Second Reading, not after.

    Danny Kruger

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I will now run through the process before taking any more interventions.

    As I have explained, pretty much anybody with a serious illness or disability could work out how to qualify for an assisted death under the Bill. Members may think that far-fetched, but it is what happens everywhere that assisted suicide is legal, including in Oregon.

    Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is using incorrect language. It is not suicide. That is offensive. I ask him please to correct his language.

    Mr Speaker

    That is not a point of order.

    Danny Kruger

    I am sorry if offence is given, but the fact is that the value of having a Bill in black and white is seeing what the law really is. What the Bill would do is amend the Suicide Act 1961. It would allow people to assist with a suicide for the first time. I respect the hon. Lady’s concern, but I am afraid we do need to use the proper language here.

    The Bill’s scope is very broad. Members who think that assisted suicide for people with anorexia or other conditions that would not be regarded as terminal could not happen here should consider the young people in the UK today who are given a diagnosis of terminal anorexia and put on a palliative care pathway—essentially, assigned to death. Of course these are extreme cases—

    Wera Hobhouse rose—

    Danny Kruger

    I am not going to give way again.

    There are a great many of these cases, I am afraid, and I mention them to show how wide open the Bill is. [Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    Order. May I ask the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) to keep a little calmer? She has intervened twice already, and plenty of other Members who also need to be heard.

    Danny Kruger

    I think particularly of disabled people, many of whom require constant treatment to stay alive. All, immediately and by definition, will be eligible under the terms of the Bill for a state-sponsored death. I refer Members to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has made the point that the line between disability and terminal illness is very blurred. That is why the Bill’s title is, in fact, so dangerous.

    Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) rose—

    Danny Kruger

    I will make a little progress.

    The second question that medical practitioners have to answer is about mental capacity, and here again is a great vagueness. How do they judge if someone is in their right mind when they are asking for help to kill themselves? The Bill says that the definition of capacity is based on the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but that Act is deliberately expansive. It explicitly assumes capacity in the patient, so having acute depression is no bar to being judged to have capacity under the Act. Being suicidal is no bar under the Act, so the capacity test is no bar at all.

    Finally, there is the question of coercion. Is the patient asking for an assisted death because of pressure from someone else? There are two glaring problems here. The first is that the process does not even attempt to answer the question properly. There is no investigation, no requirement for medics to interview friends and family, and no need for a psychiatrist or family doctor to be consulted. The medics just need to satisfy themselves—who knows how?—that, to the best of their knowledge, the person has not been pressured.

    The second problem with the coercion test is that it focuses on only one type of coercion—the less likely type. The bigger danger is not other people pressuring someone to do this; it is that they pressure themselves—hon. Members have made this point. The Bill has nothing to say on that. Internal pressure is absolutely fine. If you feel worthless or a burden to others, if the NHS will not offer you the treatment you need, if the local authority will not make the adjustments you need to your home, if you have to wait too long for a hospital appointment, or if you want to die because you think the system has failed you, that is absolutely fine.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Danny Kruger

    I will get to the end of my speech.

    That is the medical stage, and I will jump straight to the judicial stage. The medical practitioners sign it off, and then the judge has to confirm all the same tests. Of course, many eminent judges have made the point that it will overwhelm the family courts if the test were applied properly, but it will not be applied properly, because the Bill assumes that judges will fulfil a new inquisitorial role and actually look into cases as investigators, which is entirely unknown in English common law. But the Bill will not require any actual investigation.

    There is no requirement for a judge even to meet the applicant. They simply have to have a phone call, or maybe it will be an email, from one of the medics. That is it. That is the inquiry. On that basis, the judge must decide whether it is more likely than not that there has been external pressure. After the judge approves it—they are required to approve it, unless they can find evidence of external coercion—we go to “the final act”, as the Bill says, where a junior colleague, as a medical practitioner, oversees your death by pills or lethal injection.

    And here is the last thing that the Bill does or does not do. There is no requirement at any stage of the process—at either the medical or the judicial stage—for anyone to tell the patient’s next of kin, their wider family or even their GP that 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 that these are not the cases that the Bill was designed for, but they are directly in scope, and it is going to take more than a tweak in Committee to get them out.

    Is this what is meant by having choice at the end of life? Let us talk about choice. I am often accused of wanting to impose my view on others—that point was made earlier. People say, “If you don’t approve of assisted death, don’t have one, but don’t deprive me of the choice.” In fact, the evidence is that, with this new option and the comparative loss of investment and innovation in palliative care, real choice will narrow. There is a broader point to make about choice, which is that no man or woman is an island. Just as every person’s death, even a good death, diminishes us all, so we will all be involved and affected if we make this change.

    The Bill will not just create a new option for a few and leave everyone else unaffected; it will impose this new reality on every person towards the end of their life, on everyone who could be thought to be near death, and on their families—the option of assisted suicide, the obligation to have a conversation around the bedside or whispered in the corridor, “Is it time?” It will change life and death for everyone.

    I am very aware of the terrible plight of the people who are begging us for this new law. I think we can do better for them than they fear, but we also need to think in real human terms about what the effect will be on the choices of other people, and I do not mean the people who are used to getting their way. I am talking about the people who lack agency, the people who know what it is to be excluded from power and to have decisions made for them by bigwigs in distant offices who speak a language they do not understand—the sort of people who the hon. Member for Spen Valley and I both know from our previous charity work, and who we all know from our constituency work. They are not the people who write to us campaigning for a change in the law, but the people who come to our surgeries with their lives in tatters, or who the police or social workers tell us about—the people with complex needs. What are the safeguards for them?

    Let me tell the House: we are the safeguard—this place; this Parliament; you and me. We are the people who protect the most vulnerable in society from harm, yet we stand on the brink of abandoning that role. The Rubicon was a very small stream, but on the other side lies a very different world—a worse world, with a very different idea of human value. The idea that our individual worth lies in our utility, valuable only for so long as we are useful—not a burden, not a cost, not making a mess. Let us not be the Parliament that authorises that idea.

    I mentioned at the start of my speech the voices of those we cannot hear: the frail and elderly and the disabled. As we are surrounded by such a cloud of witnesses, let us do better than this Bill. Let today be not a vote for despair, but the start of a proper debate about dying well, in which we have a better idea than a state suicide service. Let us have a debate in which we remember that we have intrinsic value; that real choice and autonomy means having access to the best care possible and the fullest control over what happens to us while we live; and that true dignity consists in being cared for to the end.

  • Kim Leadbeater – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    Kim Leadbeater – 2024 Speech on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

    The speech made by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP for Spen Valley, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2024.

    I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to everyone who is attending this hugely significant debate. It is a privilege to open the debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, a piece of legislation that would give dying people, under stringent criteria, choice, autonomy and dignity at the end of their lives. I welcome the debate on this hugely important issue.

    Let me say to colleagues across the House, particularly new colleagues, that I know this is not easy—it certainly has not been easy for me—but if any of us wanted an easy life, I am afraid we are in the wrong place. It is our job to address complex issues and make difficult decisions. I know that for many people this is a very difficult decision, but our job is also to address the issues that matter to people. After nearly a decade since the subject was debated on the Floor of the House, many would say that the debate is long overdue.

    For my part, I have tried incredibly hard to ensure that the tone of the debate has been—and continues to be—robust, of course, but most importantly respectful and compassionate. I am pleased that, for the most part, that has been the case. I can be confident that that same tone of respect and compassion will be adopted by colleagues today, whatever views they hold. That is particularly important as we have people in the Public Gallery who have a strong personal interest in this issue. They hold a range of views. Some of them have lost loved ones in difficult and traumatic circumstances, and others are themselves terminally ill.

    I want to pay a huge and heartfelt tribute to those families and to every single person who has contacted me about this issue, and in many cases shared their own very personal stories of loss and death. I know from my own personal experience of grief that telling your story over and over again takes energy, courage and strength. I am incredibly grateful to them all. It is their voices and their stories that have inspired me.

    Such stories are difficult to hear, but it is vital that they are heard as they are at the heart of the debate. They show that the law is failing people. Where that is the case, we have a duty to do what is right to fix it. Those here today or watching at home are dealing with the real consequences of the failings of the current system. I will start by recounting just a few of their stories.

    Warwick was married to his wife Ann for nearly 40 years. She had terminal peritoneal cancer, which meant that she could not breathe properly. She spent four days gasping and choking, remaining awake throughout despite being given the maximum dose of sedatives. She eventually died of suffocation. She had begged Warwick to end her life, but as he stood over her with a pillow he could not do what she asked as he did not want that to be her final memory of him. Ann had excellent palliative care, but it simply could not ease her suffering.

    Tim fell in love at first sight when he met his wife Louise—he proposed after just three days. But Louise got cancer, twice, and at the end, the morphine simply could not control her pain. In desperation, she managed to smash a small glass bottle and tried to take her own life, not realising that her toddler daughter had got into bed with her. Tim found her. He says,

    “You get to a point where you stop praying for a miracle and start praying for mercy.”

    Former police officer James waved is mum off as she embarked on her final trip, to Dignitas. She had terminal vasculitis. James desperately wanted to accompany his mum and hold her hand during her final moments, but he knew, because of his job as a police officer, that it was just not possible. Indeed, she insisted that he must not go with her, so she went alone—no one to hold her hand, and no proper goodbye or funeral. Those are just a few examples of the heartbreaking reality and human suffering that far too many people experience as a result of the status quo. the public know this.

    I have always been keen to ensure that my politics stays rooted in the world beyond Westminster. It is clear that public opinion is very much in favour of a change in the law. Polling shows consistently that around 75% of people would like to see the legalisation of assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults. These findings are significant, but it may not be that surprising that most people believe, as I do, that we should all have the right to make the choices and decisions we want about our own bodies. Let us be clear: we are not talking about a choice between life or death; we are talking about giving dying people a choice of how to die.

    Let us examine what that choice currently looks like. I do not have a legal background but I have always been driven by a strong sense of injustice. If I see a problem, I will do everything I can to try to solve it. Indeed, in this job, we all do that every week and every day, whether here in Parliament or in our constituencies. When four former directors of public prosecutions, including the Prime Minister, two former presidents of the Supreme Court and many lawyers all agree that the law needs to change, surely we have a duty to do something about it.

    Intentionally helping another person to end their life is currently illegal under the Suicide Act 1961, and carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years. This includes family and friends helping someone who is terminally ill to die, both in the UK and overseas. Existing guidance does not stop people from being investigated by the police, adding fear, guilt and further trauma to grieving families. The law is not clear, and it does not protect individuals, families or medical professionals. That drives people to very desperate measures.

    What about coercion? Senior King’s Counsel have said:

    “There is currently no established system for identifying abuse or coercion in advance of a person’s death or for helping vulnerable people to make end of life decisions.”

    Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)

    I have been a nurse for more than a quarter of a century, and in that time I have worked mostly in intensive care as a specialist. I have worked with compassionate and skilled, well-trained clinicians who have been taught to spot coercion—it is fundamental to our practice. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong to suggest that clinicians cannot spot coercion in these cases?

    Kim Leadbeater

    My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I thank him for it, and for his years of service as a nurse. I have spoken to many medical professionals about this issue, and they say that this is part of their job. They are very skilled and they work closely with patients, particularly dying patients, to assess their needs and to have those difficult and delicate conversations. As the KCs said, at the moment we check for coercion in cases where people have taken their own lives—when someone is dead. The Bill would make coercion a criminal offence with a sentence of up to 14 years.

    Surely, by putting a legal framework around this difficult situation, we will provide an extra level of safeguarding. One psychotherapist, who is terminally ill herself, said to me recently that coercion happens when things are hidden away. The Bill would bring things out into the open. Surely, that must be safer for everyone. Let us look at what the absence of a robust legal framework looks like.

    Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)

    I thank the hon. Lady for giving the House the time to debate the Bill this morning. She references coercion, and I understand her point about the two medics, but medics will not be able to see or hear everything at all times. People will not be put beyond challenge, because subsequent to the death, if a relative claims coercion of another relative, investigation will remain. I am entirely unclear how, without peradventure, two clinicians can claim that there had been no coercion at any point.

    Kim Leadbeater

    The hon. Gentleman has made the point for me: within a robust system, we will check for coercion, but we do not have any of that now. At the moment, the person will be definitely be dead. We have to look at the status quo. Putting in layers of safeguarding and checking for coercion must be better than the system that we have now.

    Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)

    Colleagues are right to raise questions around coercion. I hosted a phone-in on LBC where people rang in and said, “I feel like I have to end my life because I recognise how difficult it is for my family to see me suffering.” The limit in the Bill, however, is that someone must have only six months to live according to two doctors and a judge, which I genuinely believe massively reduces the risk of coercion. Are we really saying that people are so desperate to bump off their families that if they were told that they had six months to live, they would escalate the process and do it sooner?

    Kim Leadbeater

    The hon. Lady makes an excellent point—she is absolutely right. The very strict criteria in the Bill add extra layers of safeguarding, which, again, we just do not have at the moment.

    Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)

    I have the deepest respect for my hon. Friend, but one thing that concerns me is societal or systemic coercion. At the moment, elderly people in our society pay thousands of pounds a month to be in a care home. What reassurances can my hon. Friend give that an elderly person in a care home who has been given six months to live would not think to themselves, “I’m a burden. I have been given six months to live. If I end my life now, I can save my family between £25,000 and £55,000”? That really concerns me.

    Kim Leadbeater

    As I have said, at the moment, we have no idea whether that person would take action because we are not having those conversations. By getting two medical professionals and a High Court judge involved, we would be putting this out in the open. Evidence from other jurisdictions shows clearly that coercion tends to happen the other way; what tends to happen is that families try to prevent the person from making the choice of an assisted death.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Kim Leadbeater

    I will take one more intervention.

    Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)

    Is it not the case that the conversations that patients will have with doctors will bring out whether they have been coerced or are suffering intolerably? The criteria are about suffering, not whether somebody worries that they are a burden.

    Kim Leadbeater

    I agree absolutely. Those conversations, which are not taking place at the moment, are very important. I will make some progress.

    There has rightly been a lot of discussion about palliative care in recent weeks, and I am convinced that a significant amount of that discussion would not have taken place without the introduction of the Bill. It is a long overdue conversation, and I am very pleased to see it happening.

    I have met with the Association for Palliative Medicine, Hospice UK, Sue Ryder and Marie Curie, and last week I was delighted to attend the inaugural meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for hospices. I also attended the fantastic Kirkwood hospice, which serves my constituency of Spen Valley. I pay tribute to the dedicated staff and volunteers across the country in the palliative care sector, who do some of the most vital work in society. We must do more to support them, and I look forward to working with the Government and colleagues across the House in that important endeavour. That is why I have included in the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to report to the House on the availability, quality and distribution of palliative care.

    Of course, assisted dying is not a substitute for palliative care—it is not an either/or. We have some of the best palliative care in the world in this country, and, when it can meet the needs of terminally ill people, it is second to none. However, when it cannot, surely the choice of an assisted death should be one component of a holistic approach to end of life care.

    The comprehensive report by the Health and Social Care Committee, published earlier this year, found no indications of palliative care deteriorating in quality or provision in places where assisted dying had been introduced.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    Ever mindful of what the hon. Lady has said about the criteria, I remind her that Belgium started off with a simple project like the one she refers to but it deteriorated and expanded to include sufferers of dementia and under-18s—children. What guarantees do we have that this legislation will not end up with a situation like that in Belgium, in which case anything goes? Is that what the hon. Lady wants? I do not want that. Does she?

    Kim Leadbeater

    I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but let us be very, very clear. Huge amounts of research has been done by the Health and Social Care Committee, and indeed by myself and others. The model being proposed here is nothing like what happens in Belgium. It is nothing like what happens in Canada. There are strict, stringent criteria, and if the House chooses to pass the Bill, those criteria cannot be changed.

    Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)

    I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and congratulate her on the measured way in which she has conducted this debate over the last few weeks. Whatever side of the House and whatever side of the debate, I would like to recognise that—it is not always the case. But is it not the case that the Bill crosses a new and irreversible medical red line for doctors and nurses? Is it not the case that in other Bills we have seen in this House over the years, the safeguards invariably become obsolete over time, and so the safeguards in this Bill, however well meant, should be seen as temporary safeguards and not immutable safeguards?

    Kim Leadbeater

    Absolutely not. I respectfully disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. In countries where a Bill of this nature has been implemented, the safeguards have been in place and the boundaries have never changed. I will come on to talk about that.

    Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) rose—

    Kim Leadbeater

    I will take one more intervention and then I must make some progress.

    Sir Oliver Dowden

    I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I have a great deal of sympathy for the arguments she is making. However, we have seen, time and again, excessive judicial activism taking the words in this House and expanding their meaning into places we had not foreseen. What reassurances can she give that the words in her Bill will be respected by the judiciary and that we will not find ourselves in a decade’s time in a totally different place that this House did not intend?

    Kim Leadbeater

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The courts have repeatedly put this issue back to Parliament. This is not their domain. This is the legislation. There are strict criteria.

    Coming back to palliative care, in situations where pain simply cannot be managed, the result is deaths that are so horrific that the person themselves can spend hours, and in some cases days, in unimaginable pain as they die. I want to bring the debate back to the issue that we are trying to solve. For their loved ones, no matter how many joyful and happy memories they have, they also have the trauma that comes from watching someone you love die in unbearable agony and fear. That memory stays with them forever.

    Rebecca’s mum Fiona developed metastatic brain cancer at the age of 69. She had very good palliative care, but her pain could not be managed, and she died begging and screaming for assistance to end her suffering. Her family and the medical team treating her cried beside her bedside as it took her 10 days to die.

    Lucy’s husband Tom was 47, a music teacher with a young son. He had bile duct cancer which obstructed his bowel, resulting in an agonising death. Tom vomited faecal matter for five hours before he ultimately inhaled the faeces and died. He was vomiting so violently that he could not be sedated and was conscious throughout. Lucy pleaded with the doctors to help. The doctor treating him said there was nothing he could do. His family say that the look of horror on his face as he died will never leave them. Lucy now has post-traumatic stress disorder, which is quite common for families who lose loved ones in such harrowing circumstances.

    Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)

    I thank my hon. Friend for the powerful and moving stories she is telling. A constituent of mine watched her mum suffer from pancreatic cancer. Unable to keep any food down, she basically starved to death. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is no way to see a loved one die? Does she also agree that we did not come into this place to shy away from difficult choices, but to listen to our constituents and make better laws for everyone?

    Kim Leadbeater

    I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I am so sorry to hear that story from her constituency. We all have stories from all our constituencies, and she is absolutely right that we are here to make difficult decisions. On her example there, I have been astonished by the number of people who have been in touch with me to tell me about the terminally ill loved ones who have starved themselves to death out of desperation—something that takes far longer than we may imagine and is just horrific for everyone involved. That is currently legal, and doctors are required to assist the patient through this agonising process. How can we allow that, but not a compassionate and humane assisted death?

    Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)

    I join the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) in commending my hon. Friend for the way she has made sure that this binary debate has not been a polarising one. I started the debate where she is now, but I have moved to opposing the Bill by the stories I have heard of disabled people who have had “do not resuscitate” put on their medical records without their permission, or who have been stopped by strangers in the street and been told, “You would be better off dead.” I know she will say that we are voting on the specifics of her Bill, but we are also voting on a principle. Does she agree that there should be a precautionary approach, and does she honestly believe the legislative process gives us the time to be sure that we are making the right decision?

    Kim Leadbeater

    I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I will come on to some of those points later in my speech. Let us be very clear: the title of the Bill refers to terminally ill adults, not disabled people or elderly people, as another hon. Member referred to. The criteria are very clear.

    I come back to the status quo, which is the problem we are trying to address. If people want to avoid the trauma of some of the harrowing circumstances I have described, they can have an assisted death—just not in this country. If they have £10,000 or £15,000, they can make the trip to Switzerland or elsewhere but, because of the current legal position, it is often a deeply distressing and very lonely experience, shrouded in secrecy, with people feeling like criminals as the fear of prosecution hangs over them.

    Ilana’s husband Crispin had late-stage motor neurone disease. He was paralysed, and Ilana is a wheelchair user, but at his request she took him on a traumatic and difficult journey to Switzerland. She describes the intense stress and anxiety she felt due to the total secrecy of their plan—and we can only imagine what the journey home was like, on her own, with an empty seat beside her.

    There are also those terminally ill people who take matters into their own hands. Gareth’s father Norman served in the Welsh Guards. He was a strong man, but his final five years were full of pain and discomfort. He had prostate cancer, which he lived with for 15 years. He was given good initial hormone therapy and chemo, but the cancer spread everywhere and the pain could not be eased. One day, when it all became too much, he went into his garden with the gun he owned and shot himself. Gareth’s sister rushed to his house and found him. Gareth said his father just wanted the pain to stop.

    Then there is Peter, from Mirfield in my own constituency, who stopped me in a car park a couple of weeks ago to tell me the harrowing story of his beloved wife, who was diagnosed with metastatic cancer aged 52. The treatment was ineffective and her symptoms were unbearable. She took an overdose of her medication, and Peter found her and took her to hospital. She recovered and he brought her home, but the following day she made another attempt to take her own life, in a way that is too awful to describe. Peter found her dead, and he spent the next eight hours being questioned by the police.

    It is estimated that more than 600 terminally ill people take their own lives every year. Often patients will store up medication. Josh, a 33-year-old from Huddersfield went to coach his local kids’ rugby team one Saturday and came back to tell his mum all about it. He found her dead. Lisa, who was terminally ill, had stored up her medication and taken her own life.

    Our former colleague Paul Blomfield, the previous MP for Sheffield Central, has campaigned tirelessly on this issue since his dad Harry took his own life in 2014, alone in his garage, after being diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer. Language matters: Harry was not suicidal; he loved life, but he had watched too many of his friends have lingering, degrading deaths and he did not want that for himself. But, like the others, he could not tell Paul and his family of his plan, as they would have been complicit and could have faced prosecution. How many precious days and weeks did Harry miss out on as a result of having to take action while he was still physically able to do so? Hearing these stories is not easy, but it is important.

    Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)

    What I have been struck by in recent weeks as I have listened to Members from across the House is the clear agreement that the current situation is neither sustainable nor dignified. Almost everyone in this House agrees that the status quo is unacceptable in terms of dignity, palliative care and end of life. Given that, does my hon. Friend agree that today’s debate is about how we depart from the unacceptable situation that we currently face? Is today’s vote not the first stage of an important discussion about we improve the end of life for hundreds and hundreds of people across this country?

    Kim Leadbeater

    I wholeheartedly agree. I am setting out what we are dealing with now. This cannot be right, and surely we have a duty to do something about it.

    Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)

    Will the hon. Lady give way?

    Kim Leadbeater

    I am going to make some progress, if that is okay.

    Some of the most important voices in this debate are, of course, those of people currently living with a terminal illness. Having a terminal diagnosis is perhaps one of those situations where it is very hard, if not impossible, to know how we would feel. I have met many terminally ill people over recent weeks and every one of them is in my thoughts today.

    Sophie, who is here today, was diagnosed with stage 4 secondary breast cancer, which has spread to her lungs, liver and pelvis. She is allergic to opioids, so she knows that her pain is very unlikely to be able to be managed. She has a 17-year-old daughter. All she asks is to have the choice to say goodbye to her daughter at a time of her choosing, in circumstances that she can have some control over, and for her daughter to be able to remember her as the vibrant, positive woman she is.

    Nathaniel, who also joins us today, has stage 4 incurable bowel cancer, which is now in his liver and brain. Like many of us, Nat says that he does not know whether he would choose an assisted death or not, but he simply cannot understand why anyone would want to deny him the choice. He says:

    “I wish to live as fully as I can and for as long as possible. But when the time comes”,

    Nat also wants

    “the right to die with dignity and compassion”.

    Another very emotional lady came up to me at a recent interfaith event. She and her husband thanked me for putting the Bill forward. She said, “Kim, I am a proud Christian and I am guided by my faith. But I also have terminal cancer and I want the right to choose a compassionate death.”

    There has been much discussion about the views of people who hold religious beliefs. I fully respect those beliefs and do not intend to say much more about this, other than that I know there are a range of views within faith communities. Indeed, some of the most powerful conversations that I have had have been with people of faith, including in my own constituency. People of different religions have said that although they would not choose an assisted death for themselves or their family, who are they to stop someone else who may want to make that choice?

    Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)

    Will my hon. Friend give way?

    Kim Leadbeater

    I will make some progress, if I may. I hope that I have set out the problem that clearly exists. Now allow me to set out how the Bill can address that problem and, most importantly, do so safely and effectively.

    If the Bill were to become law, it would contain the most robust and strongest set of safeguards and protections in the world. Very strict eligibility criteria and multiple layers of checks and safeguards are embedded in the Bill, none of which, as we have seen, exist at the moment. I made a conscious decision to name it the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, rather than anything else. That title can never be changed and ensures that only adults who were dying would ever come within its scope. As such, the Bill is not about people choosing between life and death; it is about giving dying people with six months or less to live autonomy about how they die and the choice to shorten their deaths.

    The Bill does not apply to people with mental health conditions. It does not apply to the elderly. It does not apply to people with chronic health conditions, and it does not apply to disabled people, unless, of course, they have a terminal illness, in which case they would and should be entitled to the same rights as anyone else.

    Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)

    One group of people who are not often talked about are the learning disabled. Clause 9(3)(b) says that if an assessing doctor has any doubt as to the capacity of the person, they may refer them for a further psychiatric assessment. If the Bill is voted through today, will the hon. Member engage in a debate about whether that language should be strengthened from “may” to “must” and whether the training and experience required of the assessor should be strengthened as well?

    Kim Leadbeater

    The hon. Lady makes an excellent point and highlights a community who we must consider in light of the Bill. I would absolutely be open to that conversation in Committee; it is a very valid point.

    There are different views within the disabled community. As Professor of Disability Research, Sir Tom Shakespeare says that it is unacceptable that people with disabilities continue to face social stigma and inequalities, but that it would be a mistake to conclude that we should oppose legalising assisted dying for terminally ill people until those wider problems are fixed. He says that it is paternalistic and wrong to imply that inequalities will be resolved by reducing choices, and that a clear, transparent legal framework for end-of-life choice is better for everyone. He is right. There is, of course, still work to do in the fight for equality for people with disabilities, but once again it is not an either/or. I will campaign alongside many others in this place for those rights, but I will also campaign for the rights of terminally ill people, because their rights are as important as anybody else’s rights.

    Barry Gardiner

    I have huge respect for the hon. Lady for the way that she has conducted this debate over the last few weeks. My concern is that she has focused today on the individual and the individual choice, but we are here to legislate for society as a whole. In legislating, what we are saying if we pass the Bill is that it is okay to take that choice—[Interruption]—and there will be some people who have six months of their life to go who will then feel, “Ought I to do this? Is this something that I now should do?” That brings into play a whole set of considerations—“Is it better for my family? Is it financially better for my family?”—in ways that, at the moment, are out of scope. Rather than simply focusing on the individual suffering, which we all recognise is acute, we must broaden the debate to the impact that the legislation will have on society as a whole.

    Kim Leadbeater

    I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I suggest that the Bill will give society a much better approach towards end of life. We are already hearing conversations about dying and death which I do not think we have heard enough in this country. We have to take a holistic view. Indeed, that is what happens in other countries and other jurisdictions. Having those deep and meaningful conversations about death and dying is really important. My hon. Friend’s comments bring me on nicely to the protections and safeguards in the Bill.

    Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)

    A decade ago, I voted against a similar Bill, because I felt that perhaps it was not perfect and there were more things that I needed to know. My hon. Friend is right that we have not talked about death for the 10 years since or considered any legislation. The truth is that if we vote against her Bill today, it will be the end of the conversation once again for another decade.

    Kim Leadbeater

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. How many people will go through the situations I have described if it is another 10 years before we address this matter?

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Kim Leadbeater

    I am not going to take any more interventions, I am afraid, because I am conscious that lots of hon. Members want to speak; I know Mr Speaker is conscious of that as well.

    Under the Bill, any terminally ill person who wants to be considered for an assisted death would have to undertake a thorough and robust process involving two doctors and a High Court judge. No other jurisdiction in the world has those layers of safeguarding. The person requesting assistance must have mental capacity and a settled wish at every stage. That means they must repeatedly demonstrate that they understand the information relevant to their decision, the ability to retain that information, and to use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision. We know that capacity can fluctuate which is why it is assessed at every step of the process.

    Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)

    On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

    Kim Leadbeater

    I am sorry but I am not going to take any interventions, as I need to make progress.

    The court must speak to one of the doctors and can hear from anybody else they deem necessary. If there is any evidence of coercion, the court will not approve the request, and if evidence emerges subsequently, the court order could be revoked. It is also important to note that the person can change their mind at any time, with periods of reflection built in. Having consulted at the highest levels in the judiciary and the medical profession, I know that they can and will fulfil those safeguarding responsibilities and that they have the expertise to do so.

    Let us be clear: as my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) said earlier, this is not brand new territory for doctors. Doctors, working in partnership with other clinicians, are already required to manage complexity in end-of-life decision making. I followed the request of the British Medical Association that doctors should be under no obligation whatsoever to participate, but if they do participate, they will receive appropriate training and support. Doctors should be able to use their professional judgment when and if a conversation takes place, taking their cue from the patient, as they do for many other issues. I welcome that patient-centred approach. Many doctors feel the change in the law would safeguard clinicians and patients by making everything explicit.

    When it comes to the detail of what assisted dying would look like, we have the benefit of drawing on the experience of 31 jurisdictions around the world. I could talk extensively about the international experience of assisted dying. The Health and Social Care Committee report did a brilliant job of that, and this Bill has looked at best practice as well as models which I and many others would not be comfortable with our having here in England and Wales.

    Reflecting on their experience, clinicians in Australia say:

    “through deep and meaningful conversations between doctors, patients and their loved ones we can dispel fear, reduce suffering, bring death and dying out of the shadows, and so allow patients and their families a better quality of life and quality of death”.

    As one Australian Member of Parliament said:

    “We have brought ‘behind-closed-doors’ practices into the open and given dying people meaningful, transparent choices. Crucially none of the fears that were put forward as reasons not to change the law have been realised. The status quo was broken and assisted dying works.”

    Evidence from around the world shows that the option of having an assisted death actually lifts the fear that terminally ill people have, and that many never actually use it but are able to make the best of the time they have left due to the comfort and reassurance that it provides.

    People talk about a slippery slope, but the Health and Social Care Committee found that not one jurisdiction that has passed laws on the basis of terminal illness has expanded its scope. [Interruption.] That is absolutely true. As the courts here and in Europe have repeatedly made clear, Parliament is sovereign. This Bill could not be made any broader through any judicial process.

    Speaking of process, with reference to the Bill, having listened to what I know are genuine concerns of Members about ensuring that we get this legislation right, I commit to the House that if the Bill passes Second Reading today, which I sincerely hope it does, I am minded to move a motion that gives the Bill Committee the power to take oral and written evidence in order to ensure that a thorough approach continues to be taken. That is not normal procedure for a private Member’s Bill, but I think that that is the right thing to do. I also reassure colleagues that the Bill Committee will meet over a number of weeks, meaning that there is ample time for full consideration of the details of the Bill, including amendments. The Committee will be representative of the views and make-up of the House. Let me be clear: that will mean there will be representatives of different parties with a range of views on the Committee.

    As the Leader of the House said at the Dispatch Box just yesterday, and has said several times, the Government will, of course, work with me to ensure that the Bill is workable and operable. That will quite rightly take time, and I have included in the Bill a commencement period of up to two years—this is not going to happen overnight. That timeframe can be explored in Committee, as it is more important to get this right than to do it quickly.

    In conclusion, for the reasons I have set out, I am very clear that the law needs to change to give terminally ill people choice at the end of life and to protect their loved ones from fear of prosecution. There will be some of us here today who are lucky enough not to have personal experience of this issue, but sadly we know that any one of us could end up in this heartbreaking situation. We are all living longer, which is brilliant, and I have campaigned inside and outside Parliament for a greater focus on prevention and early intervention of illness and disease to keep us fit and healthy for as long as possible, but any one of us or our loved ones could be unfortunate or unlucky enough to receive a terminal diagnosis. I struggle to see how it is fair or just to deny anyone the autonomy, dignity and personal choice of taking control of their final weeks. And the right to choose does not take away the right not to choose. Giving the choice of an assisted death to those who want it would of course not stop anyone who is terminally ill from choosing not to make that choice.

    Whatever happens today, I am incredibly proud of the work that my fantastic team and the many campaigners have done on this hugely significant, emotional and sensitive subject. We need to be clear: a vote to take this Bill forward today is not a vote to implement the law tomorrow. It is a vote to continue the debate. It is a vote to subject the Bill to line-by-line scrutiny in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. Then, of course, the Bill will go to the Lords for what I have no doubt will be further robust debate and scrutiny. This will be a thorough process, focused on one of the most significant issues of our time—an issue that people across the country clearly want us to address, none more so than the many families who are facing the brutal and cruel reality of the status quo. Today is the beginning, not the end, of that process, but the debate can continue only if colleagues join me in the Aye lobby today. I wholeheartedly encourage them to do so, and I commend the Bill to the House.

  • Louise Haigh – 2024 Letter of Resignation Sent to Keir Starmer

    Louise Haigh – 2024 Letter of Resignation Sent to Keir Starmer

    The letter sent by Louise Haigh, the Secretary of State for Transport, to Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, on 29 November 2024.

    Text of Letter (in .pdf format)

  • Keir Starmer – 2024 Letter Accepting Louise Haigh’s Resignation

    Keir Starmer – 2024 Letter Accepting Louise Haigh’s Resignation

    The text of the letter from Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, to Louise Haigh following her resignation as Transport Secretary.

    Text of Letter (in .pdf format)

  • Rachel Reeves – 2024 Mansion House Speech

    Rachel Reeves – 2024 Mansion House Speech

    The speech made by Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the Mansion House in London on 14 November 2024.

    Lord Mayor, Governor, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    It’s an honour to be here with you this evening.

    Thank you to the City of London Corporation for hosting us.

    It is a privilege to follow the Lord Mayor’s address…

    … and to give my first Mansion House speech.

    As the Lord Mayor said, there are so many reasons to be optimistic about our country…

    … and I absolutely share his ambition for our potential.

    The potential of our financial services sector.

    The potential we have to make Britain more competitive.

    And critically, the potential that we have to grow our economy.

    That is why…

    … both in opposition and now in government…

    … improving economic growth has been at the very heart of everything that I am seeking to achieve.

    In my Mais lecture earlier this year…

    … I set out my view that we are in a moment of flux…

    … and a new approach was required to build secure and sustainable growth…

    … on the platform of stability, investment and reform.

    When I arrived at the Treasury just over four months ago…

    … I said on day one that economic growth was now our national mission…

    … as I set out plans to tackle some of the longstanding issues in the supply-side of our economy.

    And two weeks ago, I delivered my first budget as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    It was a once in a parliament budget to wipe the slate clean.

    It was a budget that tackled two elements in our plan for economic growth.

    First, it provided economic stability…

    … by putting our public finances back on a firm footing.

    That required difficult choices.

    On spending, on welfare, and on tax.

    But by making those tough choices now…

    … we are providing stability for the long-term.

    Because instability in our public finances leads to instability in our financial markets.

    That is not good for investment.

    That is not good for growth.

    And it is not good for business.

    So by drawing a line under instability…

    … business can now plan for the future.

    And we have provided stability for our public services too…

    … which now deliver within the spending envelope that they have been set…

    … and through reform, they must live within their means.

    The second step that we took to improve economic growth at the budget…

    … was to change course on public investment.

    Public investment was set to fall by nearly 1% of GDP under the plans that I inherited.

    That would have held back our growth potential for many years to come.

    As the International Monetary Fund have set out…

    … low levels of public investment have been a major contributing factor to the UK’s weak growth performance…

    … not least, because it makes it harder to catalyse the private investment that we so badly need.

    Now, as a result of the measures that we have taken…

    … public investment will be £100bn higher over the next five years…

    … creating jobs…

    … and driving growth and opportunity across the United Kingdom.

    This will be delivered alongside a series of vital guardrails…

    … to ensure that spending delivers the very best value-for-money…

    … provides returns for taxpayers…

    … catalyses private investment…

    … and significantly boosts growth and productivity.

    Because of the steps that we took…

    … the Office of Budget Responsibility have set out that, in the long-term…

    … our policies would permanently increase the supply capacity of our economy.

    But that does not represent the height of my ambition.

    I know that we can do more…

    … to go further and faster in realising our growth potential.

    So that is why economic growth will continue to be the central mission in the weeks, months and years ahead.

    Having focused on economic stability and public investment in the budget…

    … tonight I will set out the steps that we are taking …

    …to drive growth across the other key areas that have long been my priority.

    Increasing private investment.

    And reforming our economy.

    Let me begin with our plans to increase investment.

    More investment is how we spur innovation and growth.

    It is how we boost the efficiency and the capacity of our economy.

    And it is how we create the new opportunities and high-skilled jobs in every part of our country.

    Today, I am focusing on how we continue to attract investment across the world.

    And how we increase private investment…

    … by working in partnership with business…

    … and specifically, with the financial services sector.

    Before entering politics, I worked as an economist at the Bank of England.

    And then in financial services.

    Before we came into government…

    … I was clear that financial services must play a central part in our economic vision…

    … and our plans for economic growth.

    Because I know that this sector is the crown jewel in our economy.

    It employs 1.2m people, from London to Edinburgh, and from Manchester to Belfast.

    It is one of the country’s largest and most productive sectors, accounting for 9% of our economic output.

    And it is a global success story, as the Lord Mayor has said: we are the second largest exporter of financial services in the G7.

    But we cannot take the UK’s status as a global financial centre for granted.

    In a highly competitive world…

    … we need to earn that status…

    … and we need to work to keep it.

    I have been determined to do just that since becoming Chancellor.

    Just one week into office, I welcomed the biggest changes to the UK’s listing regime in over three decades…

    … to reform our capital markets…

    … increasing the flexibility for firms and founders of British high growth companies…

    … so we have more British success stories…

    … like Raspberry PI and Applied Nutrition…

    … IPO right here in the UK.

    In our first month, we launched the landmark Pensions Review, and I will return to that later in my speech.

    And in September, we announced the final stage of our post-crisis reforms to banks’ capital requirements…

    … marking the end of the journey to ensure that banks are well-capitalised…

    … working side by side with the Governor…

    … strengthening the resilience of our banking system…

    … whilst protecting banks’ ability to lend to small and medium enterprises…

    … and also for infrastructure.

    Now, we must build on the steps we’ve already taken.

    In the Spring, we will publish the first ever Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy.

    This will give the financial services sector the confidence it needs to invest.

    Financial services is one of the eight growth sectors in our modern industrial strategy…

    … recognising that, just as in other parts of the economy…

    … we must constantly work to remove barriers to growth and investment.

    This approach will ensure that we promote our strengths across the world.

    And today, we are setting out the five, priority growth opportunities on which that strategy will focus…

    … Fintech…

    … sustainable finance…

    … asset management and wholesale services…

    … insurance and reinsurance…

    … and capital markets.

    And we will work in partnership with you…

    … on the development of the strategy…

    … ahead of its publication in the Spring…

    … driven forward by our City Minister, Tulip Siddiq

    By providing the basis of long-term stability for the sector…

    … we are laying the foundations for more private investment.

    The UK has the lowest levels of business investment in the G7 as a percentage of GDP.

    In the Budget, we confirmed our plans to capitalise the flagship impact investor, the National Wealth Fund…

    … to invest in the industries of the future…

    … and catalyse over £70bn of private investment.

    And in the last month alone, the National Wealth Fund has struck a number of deals…

    … including funding to deliver full fibre broadband across the UK…

    … and to support the building of new infrastructure in Wales.

    The PRA, the Treasury and the National Wealth Fund will work together to crowd in investment by insurers…

    … in productive assets…

    … taking full advantage of the new Solvency UK regulatory regime.

    That includes investment in clean energy projects.

    I want London to be the place where the billions needed to finance the energy transition are financed…

    … and we have already mobilised significant private capital through the International Investment Summit last month…

    … including £4bn for the East Anglia 2 wind farm…

    … and £2bn to build new solar farms in Essex, Yorkshire and Wiltshire.

    This week, the Prime Minister welcomed the launch of the Climate Investment Fund Capital Market Mechanism on the London Stock Exchange.

    Tonight we are building on these foundations to deliver a world-leading sustainable finance framework.

    This will be built in partnership with industry…

    … and we will be co-launching the Transition Finance Council alongside the City of London Corporation.

    This presents a huge opportunity for the UK financial services sector…

    … and I am determined that we win this race for global business.

    Alongside our National Wealth Fund…

    … we must ensure that there are a wide range of other vehicles to drive private investment.

    Tonight, I want to focus on our plans in one of those key areas: pension funds.

    Our pensions market is one of the largest in the world.

    There will be £800bn of assets in workplace Defined Contribution schemes…

    … and £500bn of assets in the local government pension scheme…

    … by the end of this decade.

    Pension funds will always play an important role in the gilt market…

    … but for too long, pensions capital has not been used to support the development of British start-ups, scale-ups or to meet our infrastructure needs.

    I have long been of the view that this hurts our economy…

    … because our highest-potential businesses cannot expand…

    … and savers are not seeing the returns on their investment which they deserve.

    So I was pleased when the previous government, led by my predecessor as Chancellor…

    … working with industry…

    … took steps through the Mansion House Compact…

    … to encourage more pension fund investment into productive assets.

    I welcomed those reforms and we will take them forward…

    … but now we need to go further.

    That is why one of my first steps as Chancellor was to announce the Pensions Investment Review…

    … led by our first ever joint Treasury and DWP Minister for Pensions, Emma Reynolds…

    … who has worked with many of you over recent months.

    Australian pension schemes invest around 3 times more in infrastructure investment compared to Defined Contribution schemes in the UK…

    … and 10 times more in private equity, including in high growth businesses, compared to the UK.

    One of the key reasons for this is the much larger size of their funds…

    … while our pensions landscape remains highly fragmented.

    That means many of our pension funds do not have the capacity to invest at the scale required.

    And more often than not, it is Canadian teachers and Australian professors…

    … reaping the rewards of investing in British productive assets through their pensions schemes…

    … rather than British savers.

    That’s not good enough…

    … and we need to change that.

    So tonight, we are publishing the interim report of the Pensions Investment Review.

    It sets out our plans to create Canadian and Australian style-“megafunds” to power growth in our economy…

    … and start the most significant set of changes to the pensions landscape since the Turner Review…

    … underpinned by a clear commitment to legislate for these changes for the first time…

    … in the Pension Scheme Bill next year.

    We will deliver a significant consolidation of the Defined Contribution market…

    … to enable schemes to deliver better saver outcomes…

    … while investing to support growth.

    And we will legislate on measures to consolidate the Local Government Pension Scheme…

    … one of the largest pension schemes in the world…

    … and require that the 86 Local Government Pension Scheme administering authorities consolidate all their assets into 8 pools.

    These reforms will deliver real change in our economy.

    Through consolidation of the DC market and Local Government Pension Schemes into megafunds…

    … previous domestic and international experience suggests…

    …that we could unlock around £80bn for investment in private equity, including exciting growth businesses…

    … and in vital infrastructure projects including transport, energy and housing projects here in the UK.

    We will take a more proactive approach to working with investors to ensure that capital is directed to the UK’s biggest growth opportunities.

    We are creating NISTA and we will publish a ten-year infrastructure strategy…

    … to ensure that there is a pipeline of projects to attract that investment.

    We have established a new pathfinder British Growth Partnership…

    … to crowd-in institutional investment into venture capital funds and innovative businesses here in the UK.

    This work is already making an impact.

    I can confirm this evening that Aegon UK…

    … will be a substantial cornerstone investor…

    … and Natwest Cushon…

    … and they have now agreed to work with the British Business Bank on the launch of the British Growth Partnership…

    … with a view to making an investment in the initial fund.

    The final area I want to focus on when it comes to investment is the importance of looking internationally.

    Last month, with the support of many people in this room – including the Lord Mayor and Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds, and M&G – we hosted an International Investment Summit in London…

    … where we saw £63bn of investment flow into the UK.

    That shows the potential that we have to attract funding from across the world into our country.

    But I want to be clear-eyed about the context in which the UK…

    … and its businesses…

    … will be operating under in the years ahead.

    We face geopolitical uncertainty.

    There are other countries who are looking for the very same economic opportunities as we are.

    And we face structural challenges too, including those which have come from Brexit.

    It will not be straightforward to navigate all of these headwinds.

    We should be honest about that.

    But as we navigate them…

    … I will be guided by a clear principle.

    I will always do what is in our national interest…

    … for our economy…

    … for our businesses…

    … and for the British people.

    That means free and open trade…

    … especially with our most economically important partners.

    That includes the United States…

    … our single most important destination for financial services trade…

    … and there is so much potential for us to deepen our economic relationship on areas such as emerging technologies.

    I look forward to working closely with President-Elect Trump, and his team, to strengthen our relationship in the years ahead.

    And of course our biggest trading partner is the European Union.

    We will not be reversing Brexit or re-entering the single market or customs union…

    … but we must reset our relationship.

    That will be my message when I attend the Eurogroup meeting of finance ministers in Brussels next month.

    We must recognise that our markets are highly inter-connected…

    … and ensure that on the economy and in financial services…

    … our approach supports growth and delivers investment.

    And where there are other important economic opportunities for the UK…

    … including by engaging with significant and fast-growing economies like India, China and the Gulf states…

    … we will look to realise those opportunities, too.

    Alongside economic stability…

    … and higher levels of investment…

    … we need reform.

    Supply-side reform has been a central part of our work in the last four months…

    … through changes to our planning system to unlock housing and new infrastructure…

    … policies to reduce economic inactivity, improve skills and bring people back into the workplace…

    … and a focus on place-based measures to deliver growth right across the UK.

    I know the Governor will have more to say on the topic of supply-side reform shortly.

    Tonight, I want to build on the work we have done…

    … which puts reform at the heart of this government’s agenda.

    First, I am clear that this must include reform of our public services.

    In the budget, I set out our future spending plans…

    … to ensure that our public services have the investment that they need for the years ahead.

    That additional investment comes with the clear expectation of better value for money…

    … and higher productivity.

    As the Secretary of State for Health said yesterday…

    … taxpayers welcome the additional investment we put it into the NHS…

    … but they worry it won’t be spent wisely.

    So reform will be a central focus of the second phase of the Spending Review right across government.

    We will use digital technology more effectively.

    We will focus on prevention, to manage pressures in the system.

    We will join-up services across government to increase efficiency and to bring costs down.

    And we will harness the knowledge and expertise of business leaders as we do so…

    … so that we can ensure that we bring the best ideas into government from beyond Whitehall, too.

    Alongside this …

    … we need economic reform to unlock the full potential growth potential of the British economy.

    Our approach to regulation is a critical part of that.

    As the Prime Minister has already set out, the key test for regulation is whether it will make our economy more dynamic and more competitive.

    So we will review the strategic guidance that we give to the CMA and to other major regulators…

    … to underline the importance of growth.

    That includes our financial service regulators.

    It was right that successive governments made regulatory changes after the Global Financial Crisis…

    … to ensure that regulation kept pace with the global economy of the time…

    … but it is important that we learn the lessons of the past.

    These changes have resulted in a system which sought to eliminate risk taking.

    That has gone too far…

    … and, in places, it has had unintended consequences that we must now address.

    Let me set out some examples.

    First, while the Senior Managers and Certification Regime has helped to improve standards and accountability…

    … some elements of it have become overly costly and administratively burdensome.

    So the Treasury, the FCA and the PRA will shortly publish the outcomes of our review…

    … including a commitment to consult on removing the current Certification Regime from legislation.

    Second, as the PRA have acknowledged…

    … post-crisis pay structures made the UK an international outlier on deferral arrangements…

    … so we will support their intention to consult on reducing the length of pay deferrals…

    … helping firms to attract and retain talent.

    Third, some of our regulatory requirements are duplicative, and they could be streamlined…

    … so I look forward to seeing the outcomes of the FCA’s Handbook Review…

    …which can free up resources for businesses to innovate and to grow.

    And finally, while regulation has been successful in improving the quality of financial advice being offered to consumers…

    … many people do not get the help with their finances that they want and need…

    … so the FCA will shortly consult on transformational changes to financial advice and guidance…

    … to ensure that people get the right support.

    As these examples show…

    …the UK has been regulating for risk, but not regulating for growth.

    So while maintaining important consumer protections…

    … upholding international standards of regulation…

    … and protecting the vital stability of our financial services system…

    … now is also the moment to rebalance our approach….

    … and take forward the next stage of reforms needed to drive growth, competitiveness and investment.

    The last government introduced legislation to make growth and competitiveness secondary objectives for our regulators…

    … which we supported in opposition.

    Tonight I can announce that we have issued new growth-focused remit letters to the Financial Conduct Authority…

    … Prudential Regulation Committee…

    … Monetary Policy Committee..

    … Financial Policy Committee…

    … and the Payment Systems Regulator.

    These make clear that I expect them to fully support this government’s ambitions on economic growth.

    I welcome the work that the FCA and PRA have already started…

    … and I look forward to seeing their next steps to deliver that growth and competitiveness.

    I have also heard from many of you that our approach to redress can cause uncertainty..

    … and be a drag on investment.

    The Financial Ombudsman Service plays a vital role for consumers to get redress when things have gone wrong, and that will not change.

    But reform is needed to create a surer climate for investment.

    So we have worked closely with the FCA and the Ombudsman to develop a new agreement between the two institutions…

    … with clearer expectations on how they cooperate…

    … including on historic market practice and mass redress events.

    And I strongly welcome their joint Call for Input, to be published tomorrow…

    … which seeks to significantly improve the rules governing how the Service operates.

    Alongside these measures…

    … we are tonight setting out a range of further steps…

    … to build a true partnership between government and the financial services sector…

    … and unlock its potential.

    Let me take you through them.

    Because reforming capital markets is a priority for this government…

    … we are today committing to legislate to establish PISCES…

    … an innovative new stock market…

    … by May 2025…

    … to support companies to scale and grow.

    We are supporting innovation in the financial services sector…

    … by launching a pilot to deliver a Digital Gilt Instrument…

    … referred to as DIGIT…

    … using distributed ledger technology.

    Insurance markets are also pivotal in supporting growth.

    So we are today publishing a consultation on captive insurance…

    … where a new approach could cement the UK’s position as a leading financial services centre.

    And alongside the regulators’ continued efforts, we will consider further steps to improve the UK’s Insurance Linked Securities offer.

    To protect the integrity of the financial services sector…

    … we are working with tech platforms and telco networks to reduce the scale of incidence and losses from fraud.

    To empower female entrepreneurs and support women in business…

    … we are backing the ambitious work of the Invest in Women taskforce, led by Debbie Wosskow and Hannah Bernard…

    … delivered alongside our Women in Finance Charter – led by Dame Amanda Blanc – which continues to go from strength to strength.

    To support the mutual sector…

    … we are launching our call for evidence on the credit union ‘common bond’…

    … and asking regulators to report on the mutuals landscape.

    And I welcome the work of Nationwide, Co-operative Group, Arla and Royal London to establish an industry-led Mutuals Council to drive growth in the sector.

    And finally, we are publishing our National Payments Vision…

    … including decisive action to progress Open Banking…

    … and support our fintech businesses.

    Lord Mayor, Governor, Ladies and Gentlemen.

    In the budget, two weeks ago…

    … we fixed the foundations…

    … and restored stability to our public finances.

    The precondition for a strong and successful economy.

    The changes that I have set out this evening will drive growth and competitiveness…

    … through investment and through reform.

    A long-term strategy to harness the strengths of our financial services sector.

    Making the UK a global leader in sustainable finance.

    Reducing uncertainty by developing the right approach to redress.

    Reinvigorating our capital markets by unlocking private investment through our pension funds.

    And reforming our approach to regulation to make it more dynamic and the sector more competitive.

    Taken together, these measures represent the most pro-growth financial services package since the financial crisis.

    Because we cannot rest on our laurels.

    Where we have strengths…

    … we must build on them.

    Where we have weaknesses…

    … we must address them.

    And in everything we do, we will work together…

    … with you …

    … in partnership.

    Because that is what our country needs to prosper and to grow.

    Thank you very much.

  • Georgia Gould – 2024 Speech to the National Leadership Forum

    Georgia Gould – 2024 Speech to the National Leadership Forum

    The speech made by Georgia Gould, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office, at the QEII Conference Centre in London on 14 November 2024.

    I am really delighted to be here

    I was keen to be here to firstly say thank you.

    I have been in local government for 14 years, with seven years as a leader.

    And I have seen firsthand how hard things have been.

    But also the extraordinary love, care and dedication of public sector leaders at every level.

    How an under-valued public sector stepped up to support communities through covid.

    How so many people risked their lives to keep others safe.

    How leaders had to create new systems quickly.

    And how the work has continued through recovery and the cost of living crisis.

    And too often I have seen that political decision making has failed citizens and those trying to serve them.

    Drastic cuts, short term budgets , top down decisions, constantly changing priorities.

    Resources wasted on bidding for small pots of money rather than real partnerships for change.

    It has often felt that serving people and communities has required you to work against the system.

    Overworked staff handling growing caseloads and demand.

    Citizens experiencing longer waiting lists for help and finding they have to battle to get support.

    Lord Darzi’s report showed the NHS is in a ‘critical condition’, with 6.4 million people on the waiting list for elective treatment in England and 10 % of patients waiting over 12 hours in A&E, deepening health inequalities.

    And local government budgets are increasingly taken up with supporting people in crisis.

    Today 80% of children services spend is on acute service, while just 7% is on prevention spend.

    But I don’t want to just focus on how hard it has been – everyone in this room has lived it.

    Because there has been another story.

    Across the public sector people haven’t just accepted the status quo, they are working to change it.

    They have come together across different organisations to wrap support around people when it would have been easier to stay in silos.

    They have brought together the VCs and private sector to create new coalitions for change.

    They have developed new solutions that make it easier for people to navigate services.

    They have found a way to innovate under extreme pressure.

    In Manchester, I visited health and care hubs where local police, council and NHS services had come together to provide a joined up service, so citizens didn’t have to spend months waiting for different organisations to speak to each other.

    In Sheffield, teams coming together to design a new joined up service for those facing multiple disadvantages saw reduced ambulance call outs, reduced rough sleeping, pressure on social care, hospital admissions and police.

    Public services are under pressure but they are also full of passionate, committed innovators.

    I know that many innovators are in this room and you need a government that will get behind you.

    We want to get behind those working for change and make it easier to come together to serve citizens.

    And the service of citizens is what connects us all.

    People have to be at the heart of how we deliver public services.

    In local government I saw the transformation that can be unlocked when you build services around people.

    But also the risks when you don’t hear their voices.

    I became leader of Camden council in 2017 and shortly afterwards we had the awful tragedy at Grenfell, 5 years later the memory of that awful night still feels very as does the terror felt by every resident living in a tower block. This was heightened in five blocks in Camden which had the same cladding.

    I will never forget the visceral fear in a packed room full of residents after this was confirmed – parents terrified for their children, and tenants running through a list of safety concerns.

    The next day the fire brigade inspected and told us the blocks were not safe for people to stay in due to a combination of the cladding and a list of internal issues.

    The thing was most of the issues that they picked up on were the same ones our tenants had alerted us to the night before.

    We hadn’t been listening hard enough to their voices – a reminder that people know their homes and communities best and not hearing them is dangerous.

    But we need to ask ourselves where else are we failing to hear people? What risks is that exposing us to?

    It can’t take a terrible tragedy for us to do the hard work of deeply listening to communities and taking action on what they say– this has to be the default way of operating.

    But when services do listen to people, the results can be transformative.

    When they pay attention to their aspirations, their strengths and understand their whole lives.

    When I led a council and we started to work differently with families in the child protection system we saw extraordinary results.

    We introduced family group conferences bringing together all the people involved in a child’s life to develop a plan to support them, and families came up with ideas that social workers would never have come up with alone.

    We saved millions, were judged by ofsted to have outstanding services and critically more children thriving within their family networks.

    There are these green shoots of change in communities around the UK but we need to get behind the leaders that are doing the hard work of designing public services around people.

    To help people at the earliest point so they don’t fall into crisis.

    To stop people bouncing between services and intervene early.

    To save money that can be invested back into public services.

    To achieve this we need a new partnership approach.

    Missions give us a clear shared purpose.

    A golden thread that connects the work of public servants across the UK.

    And we need public services to be at the heart of delivering these missions as they are big ambitions for the country…

    … to kickstart economic growth…

    …make Britain a clean energy superpower…

    …take back our streets…

    …break down barriers to opportunity…

    …and build an NHS fit for the future.

    To deliver these we need to work at a pace an ambition we haven’t seen before.

    We will need to draw on all the energy and ideas of our communities, and to use every lever available to us to make progress.

    We will need to build new coalitions with partners across different sectors, and your role as collaborative leaders is so important.

    Today for me is an important step in a new partnership.

    We won’t make policy in a closed room in whitehall but we will make it alongside you, working together to change how things are done on the ground and in the centre.

    We want to do away with what so many people are sick of…

    …politicians pursuing vanity projects…

    …ignoring the voices of those who use and deliver public services…

    …top down expensive projects that pay no attention to what is happening on the ground.

    The Budget was the start of a new era…

    …one that values public services…

    …that invests in our NHS…

    …guaranteeing more appointments to get waiting lists and times down…

    …using technology to improve productivity…

    …and a move to community based prevention.

    A budget that recognised there is no growth without investment in our public services…

    …in our schools, our hospitals, our public transport infrastructure.

    And as part of this was the introduction of the Public Sector Reform and Innovation Fund

    …backed with £165 million to create policy differently…

    …to help us develop new partnerships in place, that use the levers of local, regional and central government to solve the big issues we face like spiralling temporary accommodation costs.

    New approaches, developed in partnership with citizens.

    That creates real change in communities.

    And help us to develop policy that delivers for communities.

    We need the help of everyone in this room.

    We want to hear what is working in your services, to shine a light on the innovation happening across the public sector.

    And to work together to renew the public services our communities rely on.

    Thank you.