As I wrote in my speech for the debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the final debate as it has currently turned out to be, on the 11th of September:
'Over the past two years, I’ve listened carefully to my colleagues on both sides of the House as they made their personal arguments for and against; I’ve read the many briefings sent to me by charities, organisations and groups from representatives right across our society; I have heard from over a thousand of my constituents - whom I deeply thank for sharing their own stories and thoughts; and I’ve reflected back on my own experience'
In the run up to this last debate, I received around additional 500 emails from my constituents with just over 75% of constituents urging me to vote against the Private Members Bill. This was up from the 2/3 against, 1/3 for split that has been consistent throughout the two-year campaign.
For those of you who have read my statements on this issue over the past two years, you will know that I have thought deeply about both the principle and the practice of this Bill. As I wrote in my March update:
‘Making good law that works properly is a very serious, detailed and often time-consuming job which is why bills of such societal consequence as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill do not usually make their way through parliament in the form of a Private Members Bill – the preparation and time needed in the House of Commons is simply not available.’
I am providing links to all that I have written on this subject at the end of this final statement for those who wish to read them.
I was enormously grateful to be given special dispensation (as a member of the Shadow Cabinet) by Mr Speaker to participate although, due to the numbers of MPs who had put their names down to speak, in the event, I was only able to deliver part of my speech due to time constraints increasing throughout.
Mims Davies MP presents heartfelt speech on Assisted Dying Debate in Parliament | Mims Davies
Below is the text I would have used to inform my full speech had I been given the time and I have highlighted in bold all that I did share in the House:
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me.
It’s a pleasure to follow……
There is no conscience issue more capable of dividing our constituents, family or indeed this House than that of assisted dying.
We can all agree - no one wants to suffer unnecessarily at the end of their life and no one wants to witness their loved ones suffering. We are all, here in this place, doing what we believe is best to achieve that end.
This debate means the subject of death as a process is again - out of the shadows - where we as a society have thrust it over the many years, unwilling to confront our own mortality, avoiding ‘difficult’ discussions even with our own families until reality finally hits us, as it always does- we just don’t know how.
It is a truth that the death of loved ones and our own inevitable decline can sometimes arrive with real fear and deep pain, with sadly too much unnecessary and unsupported suffering but it does come to us all and it would be wiser for us all to be ready to face it, to prepare for it and to be able to live with it as individuals, as families and as a society. And for those of us here today - as lawmakers.
In reality - a change can happen in all our lives – whether a bolt from the blue. Accident, incident, a tragedy, a violent attack, a diagnosis or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time - can mean life changes in an instant and who you are, what you are capable of and what your life is now, and onwards, comes into focus.
My Dad and our lives changed in an instant. He was attacked at work, punches thrown and fell and hit his head on kerb. Saved by a passing man on his lunch break with first aid training. I was 11. He didn’t recognise us for several months and as a result of financial impact we eventually lost our home, the family business and the surety that his hard work he had given us.
So disablement can begin at birth, be acquired or come with a health condition. All impacting what happens next. Yet we are legislating and potentially fundamentally changing every person in the country’s relationship today with the state, with their doctor and the NHS depending on their health and their preparedness for what is next and support they may or not have.
Over the past two years, I’ve listened carefully to my colleagues on both sides of the House as they made their personal arguments for and against; I’ve read the many briefings sent to me by charities, organisations and groups from representatives right across our society; I have heard from over a thousand of my constituents - whom I deeply thank for sharing their own stories and thoughts; and I’ve reflected back on my own experience with my father and other friends and loved ones which, as it does with all those who are witness to accident, incident or health condition and eventually the death of a loved one. And know and have met many people fighting for better lives, more treatment, updated drugs and better knowledge and empathy often living and living well for very much longer than the initial prognosis they have been given. My father lived a longer life then my mum who became his main carer.
As someone who had previously the honour of being the Minister for Disabled People, Heath and work. I roundly appreciate that some of our most vulnerable too often feel under acknowledged undervalued, unheard and screened out or life, work and wider society. And in this role, I had to learn and be ready to not just base policy making on my own thoughts and family experiences but put good law making at the heart of all I did.
People must never feel pressured, worthless or be subject to coercion – defined solely by what they can’t do. My Dad felt too often worthless. Long term - he felt less of a man - no longer a provider and business owner and trying to back to his farming roots and with a head and neck injury was not sustainable. This unseen disability saw him succumbing to early onset dementia with trauma induced epilepsy and diabetes. He said far too often he was worth more often he was worth dead than alive to us. This was long before the realm of social media and all the addition pressures that entails.
So, I still believe this process is, sadly, completely the wrong vehicle for a bill of such societal consequence which aims to fundamentally to change the relationship between patient and doctor, individual and state, and will change significantly our connection with the NHS.
Hugely significant bills like this do not usually make their way through parliament in the form of a Private Member’s Bill – for it’s recognised the preparation and time needed in the House of Commons is simply not available for such wide-ranging Bills. Government bills on the other hand, are extensively well drafted by specialist lawyers and gone through with a fine-tooth comb by civil servants and Ministers before being presented to the House.
We’re here to make good laws and must be clear that today’s vote is not simply on the principle of the Bill but on the detail within. Good intentions are not enough. We are voting for not what we want to happen because of this bill - we are voting for what will happen and we cannot continue to divorce this from reality. It will impact right across government and our communities and intwine us swiftly into new challenges. Too often in this place we have been good intentioned but without a delivery plan. This cannot continue.
The Bill’s own sponsor in the other place, himself felt the need to table more than 70 amendments for consideration to address this lack of detail.
And yet, we know the Bill’s new sponsor wants to push the same substantially unamended Bill. With no reference to doing further work here, no promise she will ensure work is done in the other place - nor to look at new evidence. This incomplete Bill, as it stands now, IS the Bill we are voting on to bring into law.
I’ve four major concerns - on funding, the assessment process, the lack of institutional opt outs and the crucially the auto-commencement clause.
There is no new budget set aside for the major changes this Bill will create. We know there will have to be a ‘reprioritisation’ of funding to pay for an assisted dying system to be installed within the NHS. Across the UK waiting lists are still long, corridor care is prevalent and GP services are stretched and stressed. Our end-of-life care and palliative services, our wonderful hospices several of which in my patch are in a challenged state even now -as demand for their services increases year on year..
So where is the money going to come from to pay for the Assisted Dying program - current NHS provision or services will be cut, sorry, reprioritised, to pay for it. We therefore cannot properly assess the financial and practical impacts of the Bill on health and social services.
The Equality Impact Assessment explicitly acknowledges disabled people and those from ethnic minorities are apparently more likely to experience pressure to end their lives, including thorough the absence of alternative support – and Holyrood voted against their Assisted Dying Bill largely because of unaddressed issues around safeguarding and coercion.
‘Somewhere in the Bill, someone has to ask why’. As raised in the other Place by the Bill’s sponsor there.
Yet - astoundingly - it seems no one does have to ask what your motivation for choosing an assisted death might be. He went on to say, ‘it might throw some light on circumstances that suggest classic coercion’. Indeed. It beggars’ belief that legislators could be so naïve as to assume asking why a person wants an assisted death as part of an assessment process is somehow unnecessary or irrelevant.
My colleague Hon member for Reigate, tabled a key amendment previously, New Clause 16 which would have blocked someone from qualifying for an assisted death - if their wish to die was substantially motivated by factors - such as feeling like a burden on others, a mental disorder, a disability, financial worries, a lack of access to treatment or support, or suicidal feelings so that vulnerable people would be as protected as they possibly could be from these unintended consequences.
Inexplicably this clause was rejected.
Worryingly, the refusal to allow hospices an institutional opt out – as it will not just impact their unique ethos of care, and violate their autonomy and foundational principles but also have a profound impact on the staff and patients, potentially undermining end of life care, staff retention and a vital source of charitable funding from the public. On the other hand, their source of government funding could be withheld - if they refuse to allow or participate in assisted dying in their end-of-life care settings.
So should faith based, charitable, voluntary-aided and private institutions be free from state mandation on this issue? How can one fervently support autonomy and choice for the individual on one side of the arrangement but nonsensically not for the individuals who choose to work in, support and make up these organisations?
My final concern. Auto-commencement. Ready or not, as the Shadow Health Secretary, Rt Hon Member for East Hampshire has said ‘Four years after Royal Assent, probably in 2031, the law would take effect regardless of whether the NHS was ready. Even if the necessary staff, training and safeguards were not in place, assisted dying would become lawful. Clinical and operational readiness would be irrelevant.’ This cannot be right and I am sure others will address this key issue in more detail.
This Bill, although well-intentioned it is – is simply a mix of naivety, idealism and wishful thinking with no delivery plan yet greatly raises hopes to some in their greatest hour of need for care, good support and understanding.
We are being asked to send this Bill back to the other place and be able to perhaps use the Parliament Act to force it through regardless of its fitness for purpose, its flaws or its workability. We are being asked to reject every amendment that has been tabled, reject any further scrutiny, any further debate.
To just get it done.
I cannot subscribe to this kind of law-making process no matter how well intentioned.
And so, grateful as I am that we are now talking properly about death, end-of-life care, focusing on the need for better palliative services and what people want and deserve for themselves and their loved ones as death approaches - I cannot support this private members Bill.
Here is the link to the full Hansard debate transcript here for those of you who would like to read the many excellent, heartfelt, often strongly argued contributions by colleagues from across the House which, ultimately, led to the narrow defeat of this Private Members Bill with 286 MPs voting against the bill and 270 voting in favour.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill - Hansard - UK Parliament
Once again, I would like to thank all those constituents who did write to me on this highly emotive and consequential Bill. This was a difficult and important piece of legislation. Not only did I greatly value the contributions, wisdom and feedback I received but I was grateful for the thoughtful and considered way in which this issue was approached. I can assure you that this is not always the case, so thank you.
I am sure assisted dying will be raised again in the future and I am determined that we use the time wisely and well to put our house in order. This campaign and this Bill have led to a greatly increased awareness of, and public discourse about, the vital importance of our palliative and end-of-life care services and providers like our wonderful hospices like St Peter & St James, and St Catherine’s here in our East Grinstead & Uckfield constituency as well as those in the wider Sussex area.
Along with my Conservative colleagues in Parliament, I hope we can work together to focus on ensuring greater investment in and equitable access to high-quality palliative, social and hospice care to provide dignity, care and a true choice for all at the end of life.
My thoughts on Assisted Dying | Mims Davies Nov 22
Mims Davies MP hears views on assisted dying | Mims Davies May 23
Mims Davies MP shares views after vote on Assisted Dying Bill today | Mims Davies Nov 24
Mims Davies MP Statement on the Assisted Dying Bill - an Update | Mims Davies Feb 25
Mims Davies MP Update on the Assisted Dying Bill's Progress | Mims Davies May 25
Mims Davies MP's vote on Assisted Dying Bill | Mims Davies Jun 25
Mims Davies MP speaks on Assisted Dying Bill with Ashdown Radio | Mims Davies Jun 25
Mims Davies MP Statement on Assisted Dying Bill | Mims Davies Mar 26
Mims Davies MP update on Assisted Dying Bill | Mims Davies Jul 26
