Martin Vickers MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Understandably, we have heard some passionate and courageous contributions, such as the one from the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who is no longer in her place. She made a remarkable contribution to the debate. In this House, we discuss a whole range of issues week in, week out. Many of them are rather mundane, but nothing is more important than issues of life and death. To be honest, I would have thought that the mountain of briefings, reports and individual letters, particularly from a number of clinicians, would have been sufficient to persuade most people that this is an unsafe Bill, but I want to speak about the wider implications. Other Members have mentioned the impact on society. I claim no particular insight; indeed, I see through a glass darkly. Some of us believe that life is God-given, and others do not, but I am sure we can all agree that it is uniquely precious and that we should do all we can to preserve it. I do not in any way question the motives of hon. Members or members of the public who take a different view. As we have heard today, many will have reached their conclusions having witnessed the slow and sometimes painful death of a loved one. I am of the firm view that if assisted dying is legalised, we will be poorer as a society. We will have crossed a line. We will have accepted that, to adapt the phrase I used earlier, life is not uniquely precious and, importantly, we will have changed the relationship between doctor and patient. That relationship is crucial, and it could be compromised if a patient was anything other than 100% certain that their doctor or clinician was striving to maintain life. When we are old, weak and seriously ill, we need compassion and support, not the nagging doubt that the treatment that we are receiving is not entirely—

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

  More

  No, I cannot give way. There is no time for interventions. As society has evolved and civilisation has advanced, care of the vulnerable, those who are sick and those who need comfort as they near the end of their lives has become a higher priority, and rightly so. In preparation for this debate, I re-read an article that the former Supreme Court Justice, Lord Sumption, published in the Sunday Times in November 2024. We cannot produce legislation that meets every circumstance. Lord Sumption stated that “the decision to allow doctors to help bring about the death of a human being crosses a major moral threshold.” I think that is sufficient warning that we should be very confident that the Bill has the necessary safeguards, and I do not believe it does. As I say, we cannot produce legislation for every individual circumstance, so we are left with the alternative: to include sufficient safeguards. Even for those who support the Bill in principle, it does not have those safeguards. If one is old, frail, weak and seriously ill, one needs help, support and compassion, not the added worry and the nagging doubt over whether everything possible is being done to preserve one’s life. Both of my parents died of cancer and suffered in their final months. I well remember the telephone call from the consultant after the tests on my father, when he said, “We must hope that God is merciful and does not allow him to suffer for too long.” Although he did suffer, he lived for a further six months after I received that fateful call, and in that six months I saw him enjoying life and sharing time with his then four-year-old granddaughter. In his final weeks, he spent time in St Andrew’s hospice in Grimsby. I saw then what comfort could be offered through palliative care. No longer did he suffer the periods of pain that he had had in earlier weeks. That happened as long ago as 1988, and things have improved dramatically since that time.

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

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point. Let me go back to St Andrew’s hospice in Grimsby. My mother died in hospital on the day that she was due to be moved into that hospice—how I wish that only a day or two earlier she had been able to do that, and to receive the care that I know from subsequent visits the hospice has provided. We all have to cope with the loss of loved ones, and such experience raises in the mind of any right-thinking person the question of how we minimise suffering. If someone has previously indicated their wish to hasten their death, I acknowledge that it is extremely difficult to say, “Sorry, that is not possible.” However, I believe that moves to legislate for assisted dying would be yet another step that lessens the value that we as a society place on human life. I suggest to the House that the expert opinions and personal stories we have all received must, even if Members favour assisted dying in principle, make us think seriously about whether this Bill is the right vehicle. In my view, it is not. Too many safeguards are lacking, and the Bill must be rejected. Life is precious, and we should recognise that.

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

  More

  I will take one intervention.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier this week, I spoke in a Westminster Hall debate about the isolation of coastal communities. I had prepared a five-minute speech, but we were only allowed two and a half minutes—so here’s the other two and a half minutes. The More in Common research group recently produced a report, commissioned by Associated British Ports, about understanding British coastal communities. The report is a wake-up call for Westminster. It surveys those living on our coasts, and the message is clear: 79% of coastal residents feel that the Government in Westminster do not understand their area. I have to say that I disagree with that to some extent, because many people, such as myself, live, work and were brought up in coastal communities. It is easy to knock Westminster for not understanding coastal communities or industrial areas when, in fact, many of us work hard to argue the case for the communities in which we live. Young people in coastal communities can see the potential for their areas, but they need a reason to stay. Currently, 58% of young people in coastal communities are considering leaving because they feel they have no choice or because of a lack of decent jobs. In my area, we have Immingham, the biggest port in the country, right on the doorstep. If we unlock investment in port infrastructure, we can reverse the brain drain. Turning from our economic future to the immediate health of our communities, I must raise deep concerns regarding NHS England’s proposed boundary changes for the integrated care board in our region. Neighbouring MPs and I have written to the relevant Minister and the ICB to argue the case. Services across North Lincolnshire, North East Lincolnshire and the wider Humber are deeply interconnected, and we need a single health ecosystem. If NHS England proceeds to break up our current footprint, it will directly undermine the viability of Scunthorpe and Grimsby general hospitals. Furthermore, 300,000 people from the Humber and North Yorkshire ICB footprint are threatened by the financial stability of the entire system. The proposals will dilute support and services in our area. My speech would not be complete if I did not raise my long-running campaign to restore direct train services from Grimsby and Cleethorpes through to King’s Cross.