Further to the reintroduction of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, I do not believe any legislation has excluded all of the risks or dangers that I believe are inherent in such proposals, nor do I believe it is feasible for any legislation to fully protect the most vulnerable. Experience in many European countries suggests that safeguards do not always operate in the way intended. I am personally opposed to assisted suicide in principle. Nonetheless, there are serious considerations concerning the reintroduction of this Bill.
As you will know, Kim Leadbeater MP’s previous Private Member’s Bill to legalise assisted suicide did not pass both Houses of Parliament before the end of the parliamentary session in April 2026.
Extensive debate in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords highlighted a number of serious concerns about the Bill and its practical application. Amendments proposed by MPs and Peers to strengthen safeguards, including provisions to exclude particularly vulnerable groups, such as people with disabilities and those suffering from eating disorders, were not accepted by the Bill’s sponsor. I was also concerned by the removal of the requirement for a High Court judge to verify a person’s eligibility before an assisted death could proceed.
Further questions were raised by the proposed delay to implementation until at least 2029, which pointed to a lack of detailed planning and assessment of the wider impact on public services. In addition, the Bill did not command the confidence of key NHS medical bodies, and there were legitimate concerns about the potential strain on NHS resources and the risk of diverting support away from palliative and end of life care.
In light of these issues, I have concerns that Lauren Edwards MP has chosen to reintroduce the Bill following her success in the Private Member’s Bill ballot. It is scheduled to be debated in the House of Commons on Friday 11 September. At a time when there are significant challenges facing the country, I believe Parliament’s focus should remain on addressing these pressing issues.
I am also troubled by suggestions that the Parliament Acts could be used to advance the legislation while limiting opportunities for amendment and scrutiny. Such arguments appear to assume that consideration by the House of Commons alone is sufficient to resolve the complex questions arising from the Bill’s provisions and safeguards. However, the parliamentary process is designed to draw on the strengths of both Houses. The House of Lords plays an important role in scrutinising legislation in detail, identifying practical difficulties and proposing amendments where concerns arise. Given the significance and sensitivity of this issue, it is essential that both Houses are fully engaged in examining any proposed legislation and ensuring that it is workable, coherent and contains robust safeguards.
There is a possibility that the Parliament Acts could be applied. However, the use of such a mechanism in a matter of this significance would be highly contentious. In the last Parliament, only a slim majority was in support of the Bill, and since then a number of those who either abstained or voted in favour have expressed concerns about its structure and provisions. Ultimately, the Government would have to back such an approach, which would set a precedent for the use of similar procedures in other circumstances.
There is not a lot to go on yet. This Bill will not make any attempt to improve the previous legislation, as it must remain the same. It is still a flawed Bill with serious consequences.
It should be noted that the Health and Social Care Committee carried out an inquiry in 2024. However, it is important to remember that the cross-party Committee deliberately did not take a position on assisted suicide.
Andy Burnham has also recently indicated that he wants to see palliative care and social care fixed first before any change to the law.
While it remains open for future legislation on this matter to be brought forward, the level of opposition to the previous Bill demonstrates the need for careful consideration, thorough scrutiny and broad consensus before any such fundamental change to the law is made.
I am opposed to the concept in principle because, in my view, countries that have introduced assisted suicide have invariably seen the scope of such legislation expand over time, and many vulnerable people have subsequently come under pressure from the system. Whatever an individual's views on assisted suicide may be, I do not believe this is the right time or the right legislation to introduce such a change. I therefore hope that both the House of Commons and the House of Lords will vote against it.
