‘Painful family deaths made me sure assisted dying is needed’, says Kit Malthouse

It has been a long battle to change the law on . But senior Kit Malthouse is now cautiously optimistic that it will be won. The MP for North West Hampshire delivered one of the most powerful speeches of the Commons debate which saw .

That is perhaps no surprise when you hear him recall the heartbreaking end of life experiences that have only strengthened his belief in this reform. Speaking in his Westminster office, Mr Malthouse, 58, says his views on the sensitive topic were formed as a teenager.

“I thought this would be something that I would contemplate myself, a choice I would want,” he says. “Over the years, life experience has confirmed me in that view. Both my family and my wife’s family have had members who died painful or undignified deaths.”

Mr Malthouse’s sister-in-law died of breast cancer 13 years ago in . He previously told a meeting of the London Assembly – on which he served from 2008 to 2016 – the family had “moved heaven and earth” so she could die at home.

“My wife and I witnessed her final few days and that made me think about these issues quite profoundly,” the father-of-three adds. My uncle died of MND. He went from zero to dying in about six months, which is a pretty horrific thing, but I wasn’t close to his end to witness it.”

The Liverpool-born businessman was elected to the Commons in 2015, just four months before MPs voted against a private members’ bill from Rob Marris to introduce assisted dying.

Reflecting on that vote, Mr Malthouse says it was not a surprising outcome and the Bill “took the House a bit by surprise”. “We felt that we were on a bit of a sticky wicket and, in truth, we weren’t organised in the way we have been before.

“But there was such a pressing need that in many ways, you have to take the opportunity when it arises. It became clear on the day pretty quickly that we weren’t going to get it over the line.”

In the years since, Mr Malthouse has worked closely with like-minded colleagues and campaigners to turn the tide in Westminster. He became a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Choice at the End of Life and co-sponsored Ms Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

As campaigning by both supporters and opponents reached fever pitch in the run-up to November 29, he was present at almost every event organised by Ms Leadbeater, including evening sessions where doctors, palliative care specialists and legal experts gave evidence to wavering MPs.

When the issue came before the Commons again, Mr Malthouse felt more confident “because we’d made a huge effort to have extensive conversations with almost every member of Parliament about the vote and what their intentions were”.

“We felt like we had made a better argument,” he explains. “We had lots of meetings here with experts from overseas, groups that supported a change in the law.

“And critically we had some very high profile support. Three former Directors of Public Prosecutions came out in support, obviously the House of Lords had shown itself supportive at various votes in the past, and Dame Esther Rantzen, Prue Leith.

“That made a big difference but we were never quite certain. Everything can turn in a debate in the House, particularly one where there’s no party whipping.”

The five-hour second reading was one of the best-attended debates in recent memory. Several MPs were moved to tears as emotions ran high.

Mr Malthouse used his time to firmly rebut the argument that assisted dying would add to the burden on the NHS and the courts, demanding to know whether the agony of terminally ill people was really “too much hassle” for the health service and judges to deal with.

Looking back, he is pleased that the debate was “very measured and respectful”, and praises standout speeches from opponents including Florence Eshalomi and Danny Kruger, as well as cautious supporter Dr Marie Tidball.

“I thought it showed that the House can handle complicated issues of humanity and morality in a sensitive and intelligent way,” Mr Malthouse says.

“It was an emotional day. Obviously I had put a lot of thought into my speech, but also I had in my mind over the last 10 years of campaigning the dozens and dozens of dying and bereaved people that I had spent so much time with.”

The former Westminster City Councillor was also acutely aware that a number of terminally ill people – whose future options may be determined by the Bill’s success or failure – were watching from the public gallery. “I was very conscious of our obligation to them as well,” he adds. “It was one of the standout Parliamentary moments of the last 10 years.”

When Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle announced that the ayes had it, there was a rare moment of silence in the House. The absence of any cheers or even murmurs of approval was “a sign of general respect for the debate but also that we’re dealing with an issue which, either way, is profoundly sad,” Mr Malthouse says.

“We’re talking about death and the manner of people dying, and whichever way you vote, someone’s death is not a cause for celebration. So I think the House acknowledged that in the way it greeted the result.”

The former Education Secretary has now been appointed to the committee which will undertake line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. He sits alongside 13 other MPs who voted in favour, and nine who voted against.

Mr Malthouse said he hoped the committee would continue in the spirit of the “decent, reasonable debate” that took place in November.

He added: “We recognise there are some people who just in principle are against the idea but even they, I hope, will recognise that we have a duty to the British people to do this in a constructive and civilised way. The scrutiny will be thorough and testing, but constructive.”

Only time will tell whether the Bill will clear its next hurdle when MPs vote again at third reading, likely to take place on April 25. Assessing its chances of passing, Mr Malthouse says: “I’d like to think they’re pretty good.

“Obviously we can’t take anything for granted and there were a number of MPs who said they were happy for the debate to continue but they would take a view at third reading.

“We’ll have to see what amendments are suggested to try and improve the Bill and what comes from the committee stage.

“But I think the broad principle has been accepted. It’s now about making sure we’ve got the right mechanics for the UK. We have to get it right for us, as we have done with other legislation in sensitive areas.”