Shivani Raja MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  Respectfully, I will not take interventions. Many colleagues wish to speak, and I am mindful of time—please forgive me. I am disappointed and concerned that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) has reintroduced an identical Bill to the House and ignored all the issues revealed, even the ones admitted to by the noble and learned Lord Falconer in the other place. This Bill’s failure is not just a sign of how inadequate the private Member’s Bill process is for a Bill of this magnitude; it is an alarm over the lack of safeguards for vulnerable people—the very demographic that we in this House are supposed to protect and support. The purpose of this House is to legislate well. We are here to advocate for our constituents, share our differing opinions and use our privileged positions of influence to impact the outcome of legislation, but the methods and attitude of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood completely discount the hours of debate that took place on the assisted suicide legislation in the last Session. The amendments tabled in the other place were not unreasonable; they were legitimate safeguards to protect those in our society who are vulnerable. Many of those amendments were from external organisations, and 26 amendments were from the Law Society. Those amendments would have ensured the safety of those with eating disorders and Down’s syndrome and increased the chance of catching abusive situations in which an individual is being pressured to end their life. There were amendments from trade unions to protect the compensation rights of families of workers suffering from occupational or industrial diseases who seek an assisted death. The Leader of the House told MPs before summer that lessons needed to be learned about how we take the public with us and build consensus, rather than just keep ploughing on. He said that Members should consider if the PMB route is really appropriate, but it seems that his words fell on deaf ears. We stand here in the mother of Parliaments as representatives of the millions of British citizens throughout our constituencies, and we have the right to debate issues, because generations before us fought tirelessly to secure that right. The threat of the use of the Parliament Acts to drive through this legislation completely disregards safeguards for vulnerable people. It requires us not to care if no further changes are made to the Bill. I am well aware that this subject of debate is not easy or straightforward, and that it is painful for a lot of our constituents and distressing for Members across the House. Let me come to my last point. One of my many concerns with the concept of assisted suicide relates to coercion. As we have heard in the House, coercion can come in many forms. Members across this House will know that my constituency of Leicester East has one of the highest concentrations of non-white British and multi-ethnic populations in the country, and I will say again that I am enormously proud of that, but I will not support any Bill that leaves them vulnerable to coercion. Legal experts gave evidence to the Bill Committee during the previous Session stating that in some cultures, “decision-making is a collective process involving family and community members.” We cannot allow the fear and distress of people experiencing palliative care, end of life care or simply struggling with the prospect of living another day to be taken advantage of. It is dangerous that this House would consider creating legislation that would allow space for people to be encouraged and, in some instances, forced to take a decision to end their life when at their most vulnerable. Let me conclude by reminding the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood that 59% of voters in her own constituency agree that this Bill should not be the priority of this Government. Does she sit here today to truly represent her constituents? If she does, and if she takes into account the situations of those in her constituency who are vulnerable, she will acknowledge that it would be morally void to support this Bill any further.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  At the 2024 general election, just 52% of overseas postal ballots were returned in time to be counted. That is a shocking systemic failure of our democratic process. It means that nearly half of all overseas electors who took the time to register, requested a ballot and tried to exercise their democratic right were effectively disenfranchised by international mail delays. As Members of this House, our fundamental duty is to maximise participation in the democratic system we are privileged to represent. When we look around the world at regimes where the public voice is silenced or undervalued, we must redouble our efforts to prevent a democratic deficit here at home. The amendments tabled by my Conservative colleagues offer practical, common-sense fixes to the deficit we see today, ensuring that all British citizens can partake in our great democracy and that the Representation of the People Bill lives up to its name, representing all those who belong to our nation in a fair and equal way. New clause 63 would address the core logistical bottleneck by permitting in-person voting at designated UK embassies and consulates across the globe. For British citizens who cannot rely on slow, unpredictable international postal transit, this would provide a secure and reliable alternative, allowing them to put their cross in a box on election day. It would work hand in hand with new clause 64, which would mandate a comprehensive review into overseas participation to establish best practice and expand registration. New clause 65 would introduce another simple improvement, allowing citizens to register on the electoral roll when renewing their British passport, which would dramatically boost engagement among our global community. Having rightly expanded the overseas franchise in recent years, Parliament has a moral obligation to provide the administrative infrastructure to make that right meaningful. It is deeply regrettable that the Government have failed to incorporate these practical solutions into the core text of the Bill. We will continue to champion these measures to ensure that every British citizen, wherever they live, work or serve, can make their voice heard at the ballot box.