On the 20th June 2025, Parliament voted on the Third Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. I want to be clear with Rushcliffe residents about where I stand.
Since the Second Reading in November, I’ve focused on the details of the Bill rather than the headlines around it. While there have been some welcome improvements to the legislation, several important concerns remain unresolved.
I have explained some of the key items below and hope that people will understand why I believe they matter and why I could not support the Bill at Third Reading.
I know views on this topic are deeply personal, and I respect those who come to a different conclusion. But my responsibility is to look at the legislation as it stands – and, ultimately, I was not convinced it strikes the right balance. Below is my letter:
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
(written on the morning of 20/06, before voting)
I hope that most constituents who have engaged me about policy or legislation over recent months know that I take my role as a lawmaker seriously. It was for this reason that last November, I published a detailed note about the pros and cons of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at Second Reading. You can read this again here: views from November 2024
I believe that the UK will introduce assisted dying. It is the direction of travel given public sentiment. So for me, the focus has always been on the legislation itself. How workable is it? How safe is it? What does it mean in practice for those involved?
Six months or so later, I welcome many changes to the Bill. Unlike many MPs, I always felt that the high court judge approach was impractical. It is right that this has been removed. It is sensible that assisted dying won’t be discussed with under 18s. It is reassuring that “no person is under any duty to participate in the provision of assistance in accordance with this Act” (NC10). There has been a strengthening of how medication and devices are regulated. From this perspective, the Bill Committee and parliament has done a good job and I applaud my colleagues for that. More safeguards are likely to be added this morning before the Third Reading vote.
That said, in line with my focus on workable legislation, I won’t be supporting New Clause 16 this morning which seeks to preclude people from assisted dying if they are, among other things, “not wanting to be a burden on others or on public services”. As much as I don’t want anybody to feel this way and to think assisted dying is the best option in this scenario, practically, I have concluded that you can’t define something like “burden” in law. We can’t legislate against people making choices that make us uncomfortable – either assisted dying is available for those who, in sound mind, meet the criteria of the Bill, or it isn’t.
Nonetheless, there are still some issues that parliament hasn’t managed to iron out in my view. For example, given the wide-ranging impact of the Bill, a lot still isn’t known about its implementation – so there are multiple instances where the Bill delegates power to the Secretary of State (there are 38 delegated powers in total, I believe). On this matter, it changes the balance of power between parliament and the Secretary of State who, in some cases, could amend primary legislation without further acts of parliament. This is significant power and there is no guarantee that a future Secretary of State would always act in a way that reflects parliament’s wishes.
The impact of assisted dying on minority groups also isn’t clearly understood at this stage. The Equality Impact Assessment produced recently focuses on barriers to access assisted dying which is commendable, but the impact of assisted dying legislation on the choices of, say, ethnic minority and disabled groups that already have poorer health outcomes, is unclear. I know more work here would reassure many colleagues and campaign groups.
A further area of concern is the four-year backstop for implementation. This has doubled from two years at Second Reading which seems sensible. I hope the backstop won’t be needed and that any assisted dying service can be brought forwards before the end of this parliament (which, I believe, is the key driver of the four-year commitment). However, given we don’t know what is on the horizon for the NHS and our country (the world is extremely volatile at the moment, as we all know) and at least one medical body (the Royal College of Psychiatrists) has said that it may not have enough qualified psychiatrists to support the proposed process in this timeframe, I question the wisdom of attaching a fixed delivery window to complex, far-reaching legislation. The proverbial can definitely shouldn’t be kicked-down the road if it’s parliament’s wish to introduce an assisted dying service; but we also shouldn’t legislate for putting rushed or bad systems in place.
Finally, there are still some unresolved tensions in my mind around devolution. While the Bill only applies to England and Wales, at the Bill Committee stage, it was recognised that the Welsh government should have a separate say on when the Welsh health service was in a position to implement assisted dying. While this would mean inconsistencies across the UK, it aligns with the principles of devolution (the Welsh government making its own choices about the Welsh health service). While we still haven’t voted on this item and will do so this morning, an amendment has been tabled to change this. I believe that where powers have been devolved, they should be respected. I am not clear that this legislation is doing that.
As I have said before, I believe that the UK will introduce assisted dying. I understand that many constituents have very strong, principled and deeply personal reasons for wanting to change the law now. I’ve read back what I wrote in November and was struck by this phrase: “You aren’t human if you don’t feel the tears of elderly men and women as they sit in front of you, describing the last wonderful – or painful – moments of a loved one’s life, and instinctively want to support their perspective”. This is still true. I feel very sad this morning that for Hilary, David and many others across Rushcliffe, I am not wholeheartedly embracing this Bill which will give them greater agency as they approach end of life.
But I am not a commentator or a campaigner in this scenario. I am an MP – a lawmaker. And as a lawmaker with a free vote, I have to ask myself three simple questions:
- Do I believe that this Bill is the best version that it can be? Honestly, no, not yet.
- Do I believe there are amendments on the table, unlikely to be discussed, that would have made it better? Yes, I do.
- Am I 100% clear on what the revised Bill is proposing and what the consequential impacts might be? Unfortunately not.
And so, while I reserve my right to vote differently once this morning’s votes on more amendments have taken place, I still feel uncomfortable with parts of this Bill and, despite improvements, don’t feel able to support it. I am sorry to those who feel let down, including many people I care about and instinctively want to support given their genuine and well-meaning beliefs on this topic.
Last November, I said: “Above all… I hope that it is clear from this note how I have tried to approach this matter fairly and objectively. And I will continue to do so in order to produce the very best law, irrespective of the outcome of the Second Reading vote”. I believe, and hope that it is clear, that I have continued to work in this spirit.
I remains an honour to serve you all in parliament.
