Statement: Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Today, Parliament heard the debate for the Second Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. 

This draft Bill has been a matter of great public concern for many months, and I received hundreds of messages, many drawing upon their experiences with loved ones, or deeply held personal convictions. I have read each one and I’d like to thank you for writing to me with your thoughts. 

I have attended more than a dozen briefings organised by specialists, faith leaders, lawyers, opponents and supporters of the draft Bill. I have listened to many suggestions about changing different elements and indeed whole sections of the draft Bill. I attended the whole of today’s debate. 

Having listened to everything I could, I voted yes at Second Reading. The votes in the House of Commons today were 330 for, and 275 against. 

My vote reflects my personal belief that on principle, there is good reason to enable the start of an essential process of extensive scrutiny of the Bill, with the votes which will be of greatest impact taking place in the spring and summer of 2025.

Whichever way I had chosen to vote, there would be constituents who are disappointed. So I think it is important to explain some of the reasons for my decision, emphasising what that means in practice. I will also set out the process, address some concerns, and highlight my priorities for the next stage.

As the attached diagram shows, there is no guarantee that the final version of this Bill will become law. The draft Bill goes forward for a period of intense scrutiny over several weeks before its final form is voted upon by the Lords, then MPs. 

In the Bill committee, MPs debate every word and line, offering amendments and voting on each suggested change before the Bill progresses to Report Stage, then Third Reading. 

There will then be a similar process in the House of Lords. Once that scrutiny is complete, then MPs will consider any amendments made by the House of Lords in the House of Commons and the Bill can ‘ping pong’ back and forth between the Houses of Commons and Lords and back again before the final wording is agreed and MPs vote. Only then, if it’s successful, will the Bill be given Royal Assent – and become law.

Kim Leadbeater MP, who introduced this Bill, has committed to ensuring MPs on the Bill Committee reflect a wide range of viewpoints, ensuring proper challenge. Government Departments will assess the impact and workability of the draft wording, no doubt leading to further amendments.

In this context, I believe the public interest is best served by exploring the issues thoroughly through this process, rather than closing down debate completely by voting against the Bill at this stage. 

In particular, I am mindful that hastening the end of life happens already, although the law is confused and exposes some to prosecution. We know those with the means can travel abroad, and there are many cases where, very sadly, patients act to take their own lives whilst they can, rather than continuing to live in pain. It seems right that we try to address these realities.  

I anticipate we must consider protecting medical professionals from the current inadequate legislation, patients from coercion - both for and against making a choice to end their lives when they want - and respect deeply held convictions amongst patients and health professionals.

I want to be sure that the protections and safeguards are robust, workable or can be made so during the Bill’s passage through Parliament.

As you would expect, I see today’s vote as only the start of this process, and in the coming months, anticipate using the time to engage in a more structured way across the constituency, to follow up on suggestions made in constituents’ correspondence, and continue to listen to those with professional expertise. 

To those who were concerned that time was too short for such an important debate, I would offer the following reassurance. 

A Private Member’s Bill was predicted at this stage in the new Parliament and a lot of thinking had already happened. The Health and Social Care Select Committee held an inquiry in 2023 - 2024 on Assisted Dying with the express intent of preparing evidence for a future debate. It received 68,000 responses from the public and 380 formal written responses.

The publication of the draft Bill on 11th November allowed a balance between time spent developing the detail of the Bill and providing opportunity for MPs to prepare for the debate. As I emphasise above, today’s vote is the start of this process, not a final decision.

The five hours allowed for debate today is consistent with the duration for many Second Reading debates. Indeed, on Tuesday the Tobacco and Vaping Bill, with several contentious clauses had 3.5 hours debate. 

Looking ahead, I will push hard for adequate time for the next stage, and engage with suggestions that constituents have made, especially around protections. For example, I want to explore how someone with a fundamental personal conviction against shortening their life (maybe because of a religious belief), could formalise this on the  record, so that it could not be over-turned through coercion or an Attorney acting contrary to this.

It goes without saying that my Lib Dem colleagues and I will continue to push for everyone to have access to the best health and social care at the end of their life, especially palliative and hospice care. It must not be that a person seeks to shorten their life purely because the State has failed in its responsibility to provide the best care possible. 

I hope that now you may have a better understand of the decision I made today, and especially that this is not the end of my engagement on a matter so important to so many of us. 

Thank you for sharing your perspectives and offering suggestions, often at such personal cost. I appreciate this greatly.

Kind regards,

Tessa