Hilary Benn

I will not give way because of the constraints of time. I do not think we can any longer justify the contradiction that is at the heart of this debate. We know that people with terminal illnesses are already killing themselves. That happens. It is not at all covered by the protections contained in the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) has proposed. The biggest contradiction of all for me is the fact that there are those who travel abroad. We know that is happening, and I think it is a very uncomfortable fact for those who oppose the Bill for this reason: it is a gaping hole in the argument against the Bill. The truth is that the Crown Prosecution Service faced a terrible dilemma. It could see the number of people going to Switzerland, and it had to ask itself, “Are we actually going to prosecute mums, dads, spouses, lovers, friends, brothers and sisters for going with those whom they love to be with them at the end?” That is how the CPS came to draw up its guidelines. For me, they are full of common sense, because they say that in these circumstances, it is not in the public interest to prosecute someone. If we look at the figures, the vast majority of family members who have accompanied their loved ones to Switzerland have not—rightly, in my view—been prosecuted for what I would regard as a final act of love. Indeed, it would be an outrage to prosecute them. Despite those guidelines, some people are fearful, because they get questioned when they come back, and some have not gone to Switzerland with their loved ones, to hold their hands at the last, for fear of what might happen to them. The question I put to the House is this: if we have in effect legalised assisted dying for British citizens who have the money and means to do it abroad, and that is what we have done—I have heard no one in the debate criticise that—then why are we not prepared to provide the same means to people who are terminally ill to bring their lives to an end here in the United Kingdom? Coming to terms with our own mortality is about the final journey that we will make. We talk about awe and wonder; I never fully understood what awe and wonder meant until I was present at the death of those I loved most dearly. When the previous Bill was given its Second Reading, and the result was declared, there was this extraordinary moment—complete silence in the House. Why was that the case? Because we understood the significance of what we had just done and the consequence of the Bill that we would eventually vote to send to the other place. Today we are once again called on to make our choice. I have made mine. I will cast my vote to enable those who are terminally ill and who want to take control of the moment of their death, who want to be able to relieve their suffering, and who want to feel that they do not have to fear what is coming, to take that decision, if that is their choice. I urge the House not to deny those people that choice.