Mr Peter Bedford

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart, and I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for the impassioned way in which he opened this debate. Last week, an article in The Spectator wrongly suggested that a co-sponsor of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill had softened his stance on getting assisted dying over the line. To my surprise, I was that very co-sponsor. Let me be absolutely clear to The Spectator and any journalists seeking to play games and misrepresent this sensitive issue that I continue to support the principle of a compassionate society helping those at the end of their lives to slip away peacefully and on their own terms. I do so in part because of my own lived experience, having witnessed at first hand the cruelty that a terminal diagnosis can bring. I think back to the Christmas of 2019 at the dinner table with my late nan, who was unable to eat and in considerable pain. She turned to me and said simply that she was “ready to go”. Those words have never left me. They have forced me to confront some deeply uncomfortable truths: as a society, we too often shy away from death and in doing so we allow those whom we love the most to suffer for perhaps too long. However, I am a pragmatist and a realist about parliamentary realities. I have concerns that if a similar private Member’s Bill were introduced in future, it would face the same filibustering in the House of Lords, even if a clear and absolute majority in the Commons voted for it on Third Reading. As a Conservative, I value tradition, respect procedure and recognise that the conventions of this House—and indeed of the other place—are central to making our Parliament one of the finest democratic institutions in the world. However, as has been well established, Britain’s unwritten constitution provides the agility to modernise our procedures for the world we now live in, rather than our merely sticking by some of the more arcane procedures of times gone by. It was therefore disheartening to see the ability of a small number of peers to table quite literally hundreds of amendments to frustrate the democratic will of an absolute majority in the Commons. I am well aware of “Erskine May” and I understand the historical precedents that allow for such tactics, but we must ask ourselves: do they show Parliament at its best? This place is at its best when real debates take place, and when arguments are made, tested and challenged. Even when I disagree about something, I recognise the quality of debate. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) in the main Chamber; although I do not agree with his conclusions, I respect the clarity and conviction with which he made his case. In the other place, Baroness May set out her opposition in a similarly considered and coherent manner. On my own side of the argument, colleagues such as the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) spoke with equal seriousness and compassion when they made their speeches. That is Parliament at its best. Parliament is not at its best when Bills such as the assisted dying Bill are simply spoken out; it is not at its best when process replaces principles; and it is certainly not at its best when debate is prevented. The Bill, whatever one’s position on it, certainly did not lack scrutiny. It passed through the House with numerous amendments; each one was debated and voted on. It was considered for more than 100 hours in the Commons alone. That is longer than for most pieces of legislation, which often receive just a few hours of debate at the fag-end of a plethora of urgent questions or ministerial statements. And it was right that it received that attention.