Tom Gordon MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 27 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  At PMQs yesterday, we were joined by my constituent Harry Brown and his family, who were in the Speaker’s Gallery. Harry battled childhood cancer and overcame it. After PMQs, I spoke to him about his experience. He told me how, throughout his treatment, he had to travel from the Royal Victoria infirmary in Newcastle to Great Ormond Street. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on how we can better support childhood cancers and treat people closer to home?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am just trying to wrap my head around the argument. We already know that integrated care boards and other commissioning bodies have incentives given to them when they commission services, so it would be in their interests to diagnose or produce a demand for a service in a particular area. There is already an analogous situation within the NHS; I do not see how that is any different.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I rise regretfully to speak in opposition to amendment 548, which would extend the implementation period from two to four years. I start by saying that I have had complete and utter admiration for the hon. Member for Spen Valley throughout this process, and I appreciate that she said herself that she had tabled the amendment in disappointment—I will echo a lot of what she said. We are here today because we acknowledge that there is an injustice—that the current law for assisted dying is failing people. It forces people who are terminally ill and in unbearable pain to make impossible choices; it compels them to travel overseas, away from the comfort of home, to die in unfamiliar surroundings; it punishes grieving families by forcing them to endure police investigations for simply standing by their loved ones; and it denies dignity in death and peace in grief. We have recognised that as unacceptable, and that is why we are here debating the Bill. The delay brought about by the amendment would tell those same people that they must wait. People have already been waiting far too long. The amendment would tell them that their suffering is not seen as important enough and that their right to a peaceful death has to be postponed. It is not justice, and we must not allow it. We know that the British public overwhelming support a change in the law. People want to see assisted dying laws in place during this Parliament, not in some uncertain future. They will not accept delay, and I do not think they will be particularly forgiving of excuses. If we allow the implementation period to be extended to four years, we will be seen to be kicking the can down the road. Comments have been made about how the implementation would potentially be before the next general election, but there is no guarantee or certainty of that. It is in the gift of the Prime Minister to decide when the next general election is called. I cannot think of a more worrying instance of a newly elected Government having to implement a big societal change, but the amendment could make that a possibility. No Parliament can bind the next, and legislation that has been passed but not enacted could be quickly abandoned. We cannot allow that to happen; the cost would be too great. For people out there who have been campaigning for years, that would be a catastrophe. This is not an abstract policy debate; it is about real people who are suffering right now and cannot afford to wait. A number of people have been in touch to make clear their views on the amendment. Tim Wardle, a terminally ill man from Devon with bladder, prostate and lung cancer, said that “even a slight delay beyond the two years currently proposed is not fair or reasonable. I hope the proposal is defeated.” Clare Turner, a mother of two with stage 4 breast cancer, made it even clearer, saying, “This is outrageous for terminally ill people like me. Every delay means more suffering, more people forced to endure unbearable pain against their will. This Government needs to stop dragging its feet and act now.” I appreciate that it is not the Government who are promoting the Bill, but that is the reality for people and, as uncomfortable as it is to hear those stories, we must hear them and we must listen. It is not just people who are terminally ill who are anxious about a change in the law. Every time that I have spoken to my mum on the phone during this Committee process, she has asked me how it is going, what the process is and what the end date will be. It popped up on Facebook yesterday that it is eight years since she received her all-clear from breast cancer, but it still hangs over her. When she was diagnosed, she had two independent tumours, and her mum and her sister—my gran and my aunt—had both had breast cancer too. While there was no genetic testing to show a link, the doctor said, “This is probably going to come back, and you will probably end up with breast cancer again.” My mum had post-traumatic stress disorder from that experience of going through cancer treatment—through the mastectomy and the recovery. It was prolonged and, to this day, there are complications as a result of the procedure and the chemotherapy. It was traumatic for the entire family, and my mum has long said that, if she had to go through something like that again, or if she ended up with secondary breast cancer at a later date, she would want this option. Every time I have spoken to her, she has been really heartened to hear the progress that the Committee has been making on the Bill, and when we spoke about this delay, it crushed her heart—and it has mine, too. Just having the option would give her—someone who does not have a terminal diagnosis or anything, necessarily, just yet—peace and comfort. Supporters of amendment 548 will say that we need four years to get this right, but I want to know where the evidence for that claim is. It has not been clearly set out. Other countries have managed to implement similar laws in far less time. Spain implemented its law in just three months after the passage of a Bill; Jersey and the Isle of Man are aiming for an 18-month implementation period. Indeed, no country has taken longer than two years. The only example of a particularly protracted and prolonged process was in Oregon, and that was because of legal challenges. The NHS has demonstrated time and again, particularly during covid, that when there is a need, it can act swiftly and decisively. When we set a deadline, civil servants will work towards it. We have some of the best civil servants in the world, and I commend them for their work. Throughout this process, we have examined the Bill line by line to ensure that it is the strongest, most robust assisted dying legislation in the world. We have strengthened its safeguards and refined the eligibility criteria, although I appreciate that I have had different views from some on the Committee about that. We have embedded rigorous oversight mechanisms and ensured that every step is guided by medical expertise. We have drawn from the best of international practices. We have learned from the experience of jurisdictions that have successfully implemented assisted dying laws with compassion and care. The Bill is not a rushed or reckless piece of legislation; it is carefully crafted, and it balances the right to choose with the need for stringent protections. To delay its implementation from two years to four years, after such thorough debate, scrutiny and refinement, would undermine the very care and diligence that the Bill has been shaped by. Delaying implementation is not simply a neutral decision; it is a decision to prolong the lack of choice for people with terminal illnesses. It is a decision to deny them the ability to die on their own terms. It is a decision to force more families into impossible situations—watching their loved ones suffer, facing investigations for simply accompanying them abroad, being unable to grieve properly because they cannot even bring the body home. That is the reality of such a delay, and we have the power to stop it. We cannot allow interference from Government, or wherever this has come from, at the last moment. This is my frustration: the amendment was tabled at the very last moment, without an explanation of where it has come from. We must listen to the people who are at the heart of the Bill. We must listen to the public and all the people who have given us input, to make sure that we end up with a Bill that takes into account the need for compassion and does not prolong the timetable for people. It is therefore with regret that I will vote against amendment 548.

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  Harrogate relies on tourism too. Local businesses that used to employ people coming over from the EU say that they are now struggling to recruit, so they have had to shut up and close early, which has cost jobs. Does the right hon. Lady agree that a return to freedom of movement to allow those opportunities would benefit those businesses, which might help the Chancellor with the mission for growth?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Support for Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  Harrogate is a proud armed forces town and the location of the Army Foundation College, and Menwith Hill and Catterick are nearby. North Yorkshire as a whole plays an important part for our armed forces. Veterans in my constituency have told me that they often move back there after postings throughout their careers, but they then have problems accessing housing through the local authority. What conversations is the Minister having with local government colleagues to ensure that local authorities have a better understanding of how to listen to what veterans say about the adaptations they need?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Support for Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  19. What steps he is taking to ensure that veterans receive adequate support after leaving the armed forces.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The point that the hon. Gentleman is making is actually one that I made yesterday. I appreciate that we are on entirely different sides of the debate, but that is exactly why I was talking about ensuring wider eligibility—the point he makes in relation to My Death, My Decision—and ensuring the provision of assistance for people who might have illnesses such as motor neurone disease. We have had to put a cut-off somewhere, and some people fall outside it, but does he accept that fundamentally this is about making sure that there are safeguards? That is the key point: that we should ensure safeguards. What the hon. Gentleman is talking about is exactly that.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Health and Disability Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  In recent weeks, I have been inundated with messages from constituents who are worried sick about changes to the disability benefits system, but yesterday’s announcement goes further than even the Conservatives managed, or dared, to. Disabled people already face systemic barriers in society, including in accessing health, transport and housing. Inadequate financial support already means that some of the most vulnerable have to access food banks. These cuts will exacerbate their pain, and fuel hunger and debt. What assessment has the Department made of the cuts, the impact on finances, and the harm that they will cause?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Health and Disability Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  1. Whether she has had discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the upcoming health and disability Green Paper on the finances of disabled people.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member mentioned that down the line the Bill could be changed through guidance. I do not think there would be any scope or ability to do that. Does he agree that that point might be a little bit beyond what we all think might be possible under the terms of guidance?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I speak in support of this group of amendments, which address the issue of fairness and accessibility in the Bill. The amendments seek to ensure that those who are physically unable to self-administer the approved substance due to their condition are not excluded from the choice of an assisted death. The principle at stake here is equity: making sure that this opportunity would be available to not only those with the physical ability to self-administer but all eligible individuals, regardless of their condition. The Motor Neurone Disease Association made it clear in its written evidence that conditions like motor neurone disease can be cruel, devastating and progressive, locking people inside their own failing bodies. More than 80% of people with MND lose the ability to speak. Many lose all limb function, leaving them unable to lift even a glass of water, let alone self-administer medication. There is a common theme here that relates to a point I made in an earlier sitting, when we debated the period of time for eligibility. For these individuals, the Bill in its current form creates a barrier. It states that the final act of ingesting or administering an approved substance must be taken by the person themselves. For someone with advanced MND, that may simply not physically be possible. The MND Association’s evidence highlights that in other jurisdictions, such as Queensland in Australia, allowances have been made for people unable to swallow or self-administer. If we fail to include such provision here, we risk excluding some of the most vulnerable people or, even worse, creating a perverse incentive for them to seek an assisted death earlier, possibly abroad, when they may still have physical function. These amendments are not about lowering safeguards in any way, shape or form. As we know, the Bill has robust safeguards, which these amendments would maintain. It would only be applicable in instances where doctors deem it necessary, and it would not be open to more than those with conditions restricting their ability to self-administer. If the Bill is about compassion, then we must ensure that that compassion extends to everyone; if it is about choice, then we should not deny that choice to those with severe physical limitations; and if it is about justice, then we should not allow injustice to be written into the law.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I completely understand where the hon. Member is coming from, but the reality is that although that may well be the case in urban areas, where there are lots of care homes and people can make that choice, in rural areas in particular terminally ill people might have to move to access an assisted death. Does he acknowledge the problem with that?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 350, in clause 18, page 12, line 34, at end insert— “(d) subject to subsection (6A), provide additional assistance to administer the substance in the presence of an independent witness. (6A) The coordinating doctor may provide the additional assistance under subsection (6)(d) when— (a) the coordinating doctor is satisfied that the person is permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer the substance due to— (i) significant risk of choking as a result of dysphagia, or (ii) the loss of use of the limbs; and (b) the person has authorised that the additional assistance be provided.” This amendment would define the eligibility criteria for those who are permanently and irreversibly unable to self-administer the substance and are therefore eligible for additional assistance to administer the substance.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will keep it short and sweet. I had not intended to push the amendments to a vote and will not be doing so. A lot of important points have been raised. Irrespective of whether the amendments were going to be pushed to a vote or would have been successful, it is important that we listen to and take into account the voices of people with different diseases who might wish to access an assisted death. We must also take into account the evidence that organisations have submitted, because it is important that those voices are heard too. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady has highlighted a few different legal cases from around the world; is she aware of the case currently going on in Spain, where a family member is challenging his daughter’s wish to have an assisted death? That challenge has been funded by religious groups—Christian groups—and is not actually going through the parent. He had the option and ability to raise the case, and it has then been funded and hijacked by outside groups. How would the hon. Lady see her amendment as helping to protect against that sort of thing?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me, because I am a relatively new MP and there are still bits of parliamentary procedure that I have not yet got my head round, but is it not the case that MPs will have a say on Report, when they can table amendments to take the Bill back to how it was? That point could therefore be debated on Report.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I speak only one language and it is definitely not Welsh, even though I did have a stint working in Wales. With any language, things can be lost in translation. When we are talking about something like assisted dying, does the Minister acknowledge that even with very skilled interpreters, there would have to be a suitable level of training to make sure that everything was fully thought through and there were no cracks—that nothing would slip through the net. That is not covered under the Welsh Language Act currently, and that is why the amendment has been tabled. Does she appreciate the severity of that?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The point that the hon. Member makes is, I think, exactly the case—raising this conversation and talking about it is probably not in anyone’s best interests in the first instance. I think about my own situation. If I were to find myself terminally ill and falling within the scope of this law, and my mum had passed away, then my dad, who I have not spoken to in over a decade, with whom I have a very difficult and estranged relationship, would have to be notified and we would have to have a conversation about it. On my deathbed, the last thing I want to be thinking about is some childhood trauma being brought back before me in the confines of that terminal illness. Does the hon. Member agree that, while the intention might be good, the consequences could be damaging to the patient and their best interests?

• 11 Mar 2025 · North Sea Vessel Collision · Hansard source

  More

  I have been in communication with Liberal Democrat councillors in the East Riding of Yorkshire and also the Liberal Democrat administration in Hull. Yesterday, the leader of the council, Mike Ross, raised the call for a rapid response from Government, and I really push the Minister to provide clarity on what exactly we should be seeing from a tactical co-ordination group and whether there is Government commitment to cover any environmental or economic impact. Moreover, what more support will we see down the line if there are long-term consequences as a result of the pollution?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I recently visited the beautiful village of Burton Leonard in my constituency for the 100th anniversary of its women’s institute branch. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating the fact that it has made it to 100 and hope that it has many more years to come? Will she also consider whether there is time for a Government debate on the importance of local community organisations and how we can ensure that they have funding support?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Type 1 Diabetes and Disordered Eating Services · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my friend, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), on securing this debate. As was mentioned, I used to work for the type 1 diabetes charity JDRF, as it was then—it is now Breakthrough T1D. We used to regularly have meetings with Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care. One of the key things that I and, I am sure, Members across the House would like to see is the new Government taking up the recommendations of the report by Theresa May and Sir George Howarth. Will the Minister agree to meet the APPG for diabetes to talk about how those recommendations can be implemented?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I recently met volunteers who run the Harrogate Competitive Festival for Music, Speech and Drama, a charity that has been going for almost 90 years. It has over 250 different classes and categories, 800 entries to its competitions, and more than 1,300 children taking part every year. I heard about how it gives confidence, and boosts people’s skills and ability to speak and perform in front of large audiences. The charity used to receive funding from the local authority, but that has been stopped since 2016. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time on the importance of supporting the performing arts?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I think there is already broad consensus in this country: people would like the option of assisted dying. Polling shows overwhelming support for it. I accept that there are disagreements about what the option looks like, but this is not something that people have never thought about before and would suddenly pop into their minds; they have been talking about it for decades and decades. What would the hon. Gentleman say to that?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  When people are in what is often termed a “crisis”, that would indicate that they are not in a situation where they have capacity. I do not see how the hon. Gentleman can think that it is reasonable to make a comparison between these two things; they are entirely different, and I am sure everyone here would broadly agree with that—I think, on this one, he is sort of on his own. Would the hon. Gentleman be able to offer any further insight into why he thinks that two wildly different situations are analogous—one is in a medical context where people have all the safeguards, and that layer of security and checking, and the other is someone who might be doing something in a moment of desperation?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Child Maintenance Service · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister mentioned that the taskforce would look at all options. Would that include scrapping the two-child benefit cap?