Andrew George MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to be called to speak in this debate. Indeed, it is the first time that I have. I am a sponsor of the Bill and a member of the Health and Social Care Committee. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) on how she introduced this debate, and the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) on her outstanding work and championing of this issue over all this time. If this Bill is defeated today, it will leave us with a significantly unsatisfactory and dangerous status quo. All the legitimate concerns about safeguards and coercion raised by those who oppose the Bill will simply continue, but problems will probably be increasingly driven behind closed doors, as things will, I fear, only get worse. Defeating the Bill would also reward the worst of the reprehensible behaviour of those in the other place who blocked this legislation last time. If the purpose of the shocking behaviour of a small minority of peers towards this Bill earlier this year was simply to make a powerful case for their own abolition, they certainly hit the jackpot. If we reward them with victory today, we weaken the relationship between the two Houses and cede more power and influence over our democracy than is healthy or wise. A theme that has run through the debate is the implication that the Bill is insufficiently perfect. Indeed, “perfect is the enemy of the good” syndrome runs through this and a lot of our other debates and legislation. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) described it, the concept of a 100% perfect Bill is simply in the minds of those who believe it possible to get to that point. When have we ever had a perfect piece of legislation?

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry, but because of time, I will not. If the hon. Member wants, he can send me a postcard with the answer to my question: when have we ever had a perfect piece of legislation? We would be perpetually restrained from making progress if perfect legislation was the aim, because we only produce compromises, not the utopian perfection that we all want. If we were all sent off at the beginning of this process two years ago to look at how best to handle end-of-life considerations, and given a pen and paper and put in a room without a mobile phone to draft a piece of legislation, we would have 650 “perfect” Bills, written according to the opinions of each of us in this Chamber.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot give way, because of the time constraints. All Bills are necessarily a compromise. That does not mean that we simply have to make do with bad legislation, but the Bill that was sent down to the other place was in fact an excellent compromise that actually achieved all of the matters—

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to be stirring up Members at this stage of the debate, particularly as time is very short. Another theme is that people somehow believe that there is a binary choice available to us on palliative care: that we should either have 100% palliative care, or can go down the route of backing the Bill—or rather, that we should not support such a Bill until we have 100% perfect wraparound universal palliative care around the country. The Health Committee, of which I am a member, has produced a report on this issue, and it is clear that it will actually help the case for improvements to palliative care if this option is also available—a point a number of Members have made. The point about the limitations of palliative care has been made very strongly by others, as have the points around coercion and safeguarding. After all, the current situation regarding coercion and safeguarding is certainly not satisfactory. The Bill provides safeguards where presently there are none. It is irresponsible and scandalous that some people promote scare stories about risks to disabled people, anorexic children, Down’s syndrome children and the vulnerable, when in fact those risks currently exist, and the Bill actually provides the safeguards that I think many people want. Last time we had a vote on this issue, on Third Reading, I thought it was this Chamber at its very best. There was no choreographing of the response. You could hear a pin drop when the result was announced. It was a very good debate, followed by MPs coming together in silence. People on both sides of debate embraced behind the Chair in tears, because they understood the gravity of the decision. I do not think that was respected by the way the Lords treated the Bill. That is why it is vital that we send the Bill back to the Lords and do not allow them to have the victory that they seek.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Summer Health and Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State mentioned the 10-year plan, and central to that plan is the shift from hospital to community. One of the things she will have no doubt noticed in the quarter of a century since she was last a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care is the dramatic cut in acute hospital beds, and the resulting pressure that that is putting on frontline services. As summer pressures become winter pressures—in Cornwall, at least, the pressures are all year round, with 98% bed occupancy most of the time—the result is dysfunctionality and crisis on the frontline. Will she look again at this issue and ensure that hospitals are stabilised before that shift? Otherwise, further dysfunctionality and crisis will occur. I recommend that she comes to Cornwall and sees what it is like on the frontline in order to understand what I am talking about.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Timms Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), I welcome the broad direction of the review. I acknowledge that this is happening in the context of some people attempting to create a hostile environment—I hope Count Binface will deal with one source of that hostile environment in the weeks to come—but there is also the issue of language, as I think the Minister acknowledges. We should use less of the language of “welfare benefits” and “dependency”, and more of the language of “investment in people”, particularly investment in mental health services. Will he work with Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that people are supported before they need benefits, and that we invest in people so that their talents can be enjoyed in the workplace?