Statement: The Third Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Today we have voted on the Third Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which has passed through the House of Commons with a majority of 23. The Bill will now proceed to be considered by the House of Lords.

This has been a challenging, complex debate and today was no exception. I have continued to read the emails being sent to me with interest and engage with individual constituents and experts.

My starting point is that we should understand and engage with the real circumstances that people are facing at the end of their lives, and how the law and policies interact with this to aid, or worsen, their situation. The argument that was ultimately most persuasive to me starts from an examination, not just of the new systems proposed in the Bill, but of existing pathways and practices that govern the process of dying.

The protections against coercion that have been created within this Bill seem far stronger to me than those that exist elsewhere in our health service, including within existing palliative care practices. To me, this is the fundamental point. Right now, under the banner of palliative care or withdrawal of treatment, assisted deaths already take place with restrictions that are far weaker than those proposed in the Bill.

When it comes to withdrawal of treatment, which in some cases is the only available option in the absence of an actively assisted death, this can involve very serious suffering that sadly cannot be fully ameliorated by palliative care.

These points have been confirmed through the conversations I have had with palliative care and other doctors, and with constituents who have witnessed terrible processes of dying under existing law.

I absolutely share the very serious concerns about the accessibility of high-quality palliative care, and this must be something we take forward strongly both locally and nationally. However, I simply do not see that such improvements can prevent all the appalling suffering, and indeed coercion and abuse, that we witness currently. Rather, I believe we can prevent more of this suffering if we improve palliative care at the same time as reforming the law to give some people the option of an actively assisted death.

For this reason, I have made the judgement that, as well as supporting numerous amendments to improve the Bill throughout its progress, it was right for me to vote for the Bill today. I will again carefully consider any amendments that are made in the House of Lords.

Given the range of views I have received, I recognise that there will be very different responses to my decision within Leyton and Wanstead, but I have been encouraged by the breadth and depth of engagement with this issue. When I held an in-person discussion event on this in the constituency last year, the views expressed were understandably very strongly held, but perspectives were shared with respect for one another.

I hope we can come together in recognition that all of us want to live in a society where there is more recognition of the suffering and terribly difficult choices that individuals, families, and clinicians can face at the end of life, and find more effective ways of addressing this. Improved palliative care is absolutely essential, and I believe we can join in advocating for this, locally and nationally.

Thank you again to everyone who has engaged with me throughout this process. This has been an extremely difficult decision, and there is more we must do to address these issues.