Statement on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Many constituents from across Bognor Regis, Littlehampton and our villages have contacted me regarding this Bill. I want to thank everyone who has taken the time to share their views. I have followed the progress of this Bill closely as it has moved through Parliament, and I wish to explain my reasons for voting as I did.
When the Bill came before Parliament for its Second Reading on 29th November 2024, I voted against it. At that time, I set out my reasons in full here.
During May and June, following the Committee Stage, the Commons voted on a series of amendments (the detail of which I have laid out further down). At the end of this process, I did not believe that the Bill had delivered sufficient safeguards to protect the most vulnerable.
As a result, on Friday 20th June, following its Third Reading in the House of Commons, I voted against the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. The Commons, however, voted in favour of this Bill, and it will now proceed to the House of Lords for further scrutiny.
This has been an incredibly difficult debate and decision, which has, quite rightly, weighed heavily. I am acutely aware that I will not have voted in the way that many will have wished me to.
Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that this Bill has brought renewed attention to the importance of high-quality palliative care. It is essential that everyone has access to compassionate end-of-life support, and I believe strongly that better funding and support for our hospices must be a national priority.
Background to my decision
Since the Second Reading in November, I have continued to engage with residents, healthcare professionals, and local charities. It is vital that I listen to a wide range of perspectives before making decisions on such sensitive and far-reaching legislation.
The Bill returned for further debate in May and June following its Committee Stage, during which it was amended. As is the case with all Private Members’ Bills, the choice of which MPs sit on the Committee was made by the sponsoring MP. In this case, the Member for Spen Valley.
While I deeply empathise with those who support the Bill, I believe my responsibility is to protect the most vulnerable in our society, those who may not be in a position to advocate for themselves.
As I laid out after the Second Reading in November, the experience of the pandemic revealed the risks that can arise when the healthcare system and the staff working with in it are under extreme pressure. During COVID-19, many disabled patients had Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders placed on their records without their consent. I remain concerned that introducing assisted dying could create subtle but real pressure on vulnerable patients and their families - especially during times of crisis.
I have always maintained that any legislation in this area must include robust safeguards to prevent coercion and abuse. I did not believe the Bill met that standard, either at Second Reading, or at its final Third Reading. One of the key safeguards discussed in November was the requirement for High Court approval of assisted dying applications. That safeguard has since been removed. This undermines the integrity of the process and weakens essential protections.
Perhaps most concerning is the provision allowing doctors to raise the option of assisted dying with any patient over the age of 18; even if the patient has never expressed such a wish. I do not believe this is appropriate.
How I voted
Throughout the journey of this legislation, there have been several votes, both for new clauses and for amendments to the existing bill. I wish to take each one in turn.
I have already outlined above how I voted when the Bill was first brought to the Commons. I want to outline my vote on each subsequent occasion.
During the Report Stage on 16th May 2025, I voted in favour of Amendment (a) to New Clause 10. This amendment meant that if someone works for an employer (such as a hospice) that doesn’t allow assisted dying, the employee should not be allowed to take part in delivering assisted dying whilst working for that employer. The Commons rejected this amendment.
Again, during Report Stage on 13th June, I voted in favour of Amendment (b) to New Clause 14. This was a stricter ban on the advertising of assisted dying, preventing potential loopholes that could allow advertising in certain contexts, especially online, and ensure stronger safeguards. The Commons rejected this stricter amendment. However, it agreed a broader proposal to ban the advertising of assisted dying services.
I voted in favour of New Clause 1. This would have stopped doctors and other health professionals from bringing up assisted dying unless the patient mentioned it first. The Commons rejected this clause.
I voted in favour of New Clause 2 so that doctors and other health professionals could not bring up the topic of assisted dying with anyone under 18. The Commons voted in favour of this clause.
On 20th June, I voted in favour of New Clause 16. This proposed that a person would not be eligible for assisted dying if their wish to end their life was substantially motivated by factors such as not wanting to be a burden, a mental disorder, a disability, financial considerations, a lack of access to care, or suicidal ideation. The Commons rejected this clause.
I voted in favour of Amendment 24. This amendment sought to disapply the presumption that a person has capacity unless the opposite is established. The Commons rejected this amendment.
I voted in favour of Amendment 12. This would have prevented Section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which sets out the purposes of the NHS, from being amended by regulations (rather than by Parliament).
I voted against Amendments 77 and 94, as each sought to apply the legislation in the devolved administrations of Wales and Scotland, against the principle of devolution. The Commons voted in favour of each of these clauses.
On each occasion, I have taken steps to protect individuals from coercion, and to strengthen safeguards.
I remain deeply committed to working to enhance our healthcare system and end of life care so that it better treats all patients with dignity and compassion.
Finally, I would particularly like to thank everyone from across the Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency who shared their views and personal experiences with me. It has been profoundly moving. I have done my very best to consider all perspectives, and I am sorry that the binary nature of a vote means that I cannot deliver the desired outcome of everyone who wrote to me.
