Updated - Friday 11th September 2026
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill returned to the House of Commons today, and I was in Parliament to vote against it, consistent with my previous votes on the Bill.
The final vote was 286 against and 270 for so the Bill was defeated and will now not proceed this session of Parliament.
I hold the view that when Parliament considers legislation which would allow the state and medical professionals to assist in ending somebody’s life, the safeguards have to be exceptionally strong. I was not persuaded that the specific wording of this Bill met that test.
Like its predecessor Bill, this was criticised for leaving too much important detail to be decided later, while serious questions were raised about coercion, remote assessments and whether those considering an application would have enough information to identify domestic abuse or other pressures. The Government’s own equality assessment also recognises particular risks for disabled people, older people and others who may already feel dependent upon, or a burden to, those around them.
I also remained concerned about the way such a major change in the law is being pursued through a Private Members’ Bill. This would create an entirely new legal and medical system governing decisions over life and death. Parliament must get that right before passing it, rather than voting for the principle and hoping weaknesses can be fixed later.
Some have argued that MPs should vote for the Bill simply to allow further scrutiny. I do not agree and that is not how votes in Parliament work. A Second Reading vote is a vote on the principle of the legislation itself. Given that the fundamental concerns which led me to vote against the previous Bill remained, I felt it would be wrong for me now to vote in favour and have that misrepresented as support for the wording of this Bill.
I continue to believe that we should instead be doing much more to improve access to good palliative and hospice care. People approaching the end of their lives should know that excellent care, pain relief and support will be there for them and their families.
I know constituents hold strong and sincerely felt views on both sides of this debate. I have always taken my responsibility seriously and listened carefully over several years and will continue to do so. But on the Bill before Parliament today, my conclusion remained the same. If there are future Bills with different proposals and safeguards in the future, I will look at those afresh at the time.
Updated - Monday 22nd June 2026
I continue to follow developments surrounding the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill and understand that Lauren Edwards MP intends to submit an identical Bill as her Private Members Bill in the current session of Parliament.
Given that the Bill currently remains identical to the one on which I voted previously, my vote will not change. As you can read further below, I approached my decision in a reasoned way after taking account of many perspectives and listening to the debate in Parliament.
I know some constituents will have been disappointed that the previous Bill did not make it through the House of Lords and in frustration seek to ‘blame’ peers for this. However, in my experience, parliamentary procedure is a two-way street. The House of Lords works by compromise, and peers are entirely entitled to scrutinise legislation and to table amendments. It is helpful if the promoters of a Bill engage with them constructively rather than dismissing them and that did not happen here.
As this legislation is brought back to Parliament, I will continue to monitor its progress closely. In the meantime, something which was often raised during debates on this subject was the need to strengthen and properly fund palliative care. I have no signs of the government doing that.
Updated - Friday 13th June 2025
I was in Parliament today for the continuation of the Assisted Dying debate.
I myself voted FOR three amendments:
New Clause 1 - No Health Professional Shall Raise Assisted Dying First
Protects vulnerable individuals from potential coercion or undue influence by medical staff. It reinforces patient autonomy and ensures that the decision to explore assisted dying originates solely from the individual.
New Clause 2 - No Health Professional Shall Raise Assisted Dying with a Person Under 18
Establishes a clear age threshold for engagement in assisted dying discussions, reinforcing the Bill’s focus on adult autonomy and safeguarding minors from exposure to such decisions.
New Clause 14 - Prohibition on Advertising
Prevents the commercialisation or promotion of assisted dying services.
Only the second of these was carried. Parliament will discuss this further on Friday, the 20th June.
Updated - Friday 29th November 2024
We debated and voted on the Assisted Dying of Terminally Ill Adults Bill in the House of Commons today.
The debate was emotive with powerful speeches from Members across the House. I was in Parliament to hear the debate in person. Many speakers recounted personal stories of end-of-life moments as well as the experiences and views of their constituents and of medical and legal professionals.
Over the last few months, I have fully engaged in correspondence with thousands of constituents, conducted a dedicated local survey and held my own well-attended meeting which any constituent who wished to could have attended. In short, I have listened diligently and made up my mind only after a thorough process.
The upshot is that whilst trying to remain open minded on the principle, I was convinced that this Bill was rushed in its drafting, has been afforded too little Parliamentary time for real scrutiny or to amend and it has too many deficiencies even to achieve its own objectives. When changing the law, it is right to apply the precautionary principle and to put the burden of proof on those seeking to make the change. For these reasons my vote today was against the Bill.
I fully sympathise with those who wish to see a change in the law, especially to provide relief from suffering that no palliative care can entirely eliminate. However, on something of such great magnitude I looked for the most rigorous safeguards and narrowly defined use cases. The legislation presented to the House for debate contained only limited safeguards, and those it does contain have been found by many experts to be severely lacking.
The legislation asked for each case to be overseen by the High Court. However, it does not even specify which division of the High Court should be assessing these cases. Leading members of the judiciary, including the former president of the Family Division, have highlighted that if it is limited to the Family Division, where only 19 judges currently sit, it will result in a large backlog and significant delays in a system that is already under significant pressure.
Moreover, the Bill does not mandate that any legal hearings be conducted in person, and leaves open the likelihood that most are decided remotely as a paper exercise with no actual investigation as to whether there may have been coercion or suggestion. A decision and then the subsequent death itself could be conducted without any next of kin or close relatives being informed. The issue of coercion is one I give great weight to, and it seems to me entirely probable that if this Bill passed, we would see some cases where at best individuals felt their death was ‘relieving loved ones of a burden’.
Many of the arguments in favour of the Bill, seemed to me to overlap significantly with legal issues around end-of-life care pathways and access to palliative care. I have heard many heart-rending cases about end-of-life experiences but many upon close investigation were failings of compliance with existing procedures which this Bill would not have helped with. I have learned for example that, post-Shipman, there would be benefit to all for better legal and medical clarity around the administration of pain relief. I hope that this now happens.
On palliative care, it is common ground in today’s debate that it would benefit from greater and more certain forms of funding. I strongly support this much as I also support the Dilnot reforms on long term care. The fact that palliative care is often delivered outside of the NHS is a strength: hospices and charity nurses seem to find it easier to deliver genuinely patient centric care at these moments than the busy and NHS might be able to. There is no reason why much greater public funding could not follow the patient, thus preserving the independence of the sector and choice for the patient and their family. In terms of funding, I would rather that the government properly fund palliative care for all than some other areas of public spending. There are choices to be made.
Finally, the rushed timetable of this significant legislation did not give Parliament sufficient time to debate something of such magnitude. As a private members bill, it was allocated only five hours to consider. In today’s debate alone more than 160 Members of Parliament sought to speak, and many others would have liked to but recognised there was little chance of being called. For a piece of legislation that changes the entire approach of the legal system and the NHS this in my view was wholly insufficient. No impact assessment has been conducted to reveal the impact on our courts and GP’s and identify the practical challenges to be overcome. Notably the current Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, who is well placed to assess the impact upon the NHS, has been vocal in his opposition. It would also be wrong to ignore the fact that so many newly elected MPs voting have barely weeks of experience in how Parliament works and the proper legislative process. It would be far better for the advocates of this Bill to come back in a future session and for the government to have allocated proper time for Parliament to do its job properly.
I’d like to thank every constituent who has contacted me on this issue and who attended my consultation. Whether or not they agree with my ultimate position, I hope all feel that I engaged properly, and that all were given their chance to have their say and to be heard respectfully.
Andrew