Monica Harding MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  This Bill is not safe, and today the responsibility for this Bill falls on us and only us. If we vote yes today, unless the movers, who accepted no critical amendments in Committee last time, have a 180-degree change of heart, we can expect this Bill to become law as it stands. Despite hon. Members saying that they will press their own amendments, we have no assurance from the Government that Government time will be allocated for that. The only question we are left with is not whether we are in favour of the principle of assisted dying; it is whether we are 100% content with this Bill. We no longer have the prospect of the second Chamber making it any safer. As somebody who is against an unelected second Chamber, that is a responsibility that I am determined to accept; but it is a daunting prospect, far more daunting than when we debated this Bill the last time, because the responsibility is now ours and ours alone. We cannot ignore the fact that none of the expert witnesses at the Lords Select Committee could confirm that the Bill was safe—none. Of the warnings, the one that resonated most from me came from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which stated: “Currently, needs can be identified but not necessarily met”, and that somebody could proceed to an assisted death “where they may have made a different decision had those needs been met.” During the passage of this Bill, two of my siblings, who suffered with poor mental health throughout their lives, have died. I witnessed their struggle and the terrible fear and pain of cancer while their mental health worsened. In both cases, the medical staff could not get their mental health medication right because of poor handover between practitioners—a service design issue; because of the difficulties in assessing the mental health of patients in a palliative state—a clinical issue; and because the psychiatry resource was not available—a resource issue. None of those issues will have been resolved when this Bill becomes law. This Bill is not contingent on making palliative care provision or mental health provision better, and there is no provision in this Bill to assess unmet psychological medical needs at any stage, nor to consult others involved in the patient’s care historically or involved through their life—family members like me, who had seen them failed by systems and processes throughout their life, and was desperately concerned that those systems and processes might also fail them at the end of their life. It is our duty to design the systems and processes that are safe for people like my brother and sister, and on this occasion I do not think that we have done so. Many professional bodies are clearly warning us that we have not. There will be no amendments to protect people like my brother and sister. I would have wanted them protected. It is down to us now. The other place cannot help us or hinder us. The responsibility sits squarely on our shoulders. This is no longer about the principle—we have had that debate. It is about the practice of this Bill, which the movers have shown time and again that they will not permit to be amended. The experts, the clinicians, the groups speaking for the most vulnerable in our society are overwhelmingly telling us that this Bill is not safe. The offer of assisted dying to people in the position my siblings were in is the very opposite of autonomy. Today, we must accept our grave responsibilities as MPs to those most at risk. Today is not about the principle; it is about the practice, and the Bill is not safe. Today, we must vote no.

• 9 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all the young people, particularly in my constituency, who have completed GCSEs, A-levels, BTECs, T-levels and degrees, and all the brilliant teachers who got them there, and will he wish them all the best for the summer holidays and a well-deserved rest? The brilliant Esher sixth-form college in my constituency has been hit by the underfunding of post-16 education, as compared to lower secondary brackets, and also by the fact that the confirmed base rate of funding for post-16 is well below inflation. This means that high-achieving post-16 institutions may be forced to cut their academic cloth. Will the Leader of the House give time for debate on this sector, which is so important to our country’s prosperity?