Today, I spoke out against Lauren Edward's reintroduction of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. I voted against this bill, as I have previously done in both 2024 and 2025, as I believe that our NHS should support people to live and die. Read the full text of my speech below:
As Members of this House, our fundamental obligation, above all political considerations, is to protect those who are most exposed, most vulnerable and least able to advocate for themselves.
I acknowledge that colleagues from all sides view this Bill as a measure of compassion, but if compassion is to truly serve the public interest, then it must be paired with rigorous scrutiny and an examination of all consequences of the intended legislation.
I voted against this bill both at its Second Reading in November 2024 and its Third Reading in June 2025, and I intend to do so again today.
I believe that government should assist people to live, not to die.
Our focus should be on providing hope and support to all those who feel who death is the only way out of a dark situation.
That is the purpose of humanity, to preserve life.
We should prioritise the improvement of palliative and end-of-life care as opposed to directing taxpayer money away from these services into assisted suicide.
Around 60% of the public agree that we should fix our NHS before even considering whether to introduce assisted suicide into law.
I note also that the Right Honourable Member for Ilford North, during his tenure as Health Secretary, concurred with this majority in June 2025, describing how it would “take time and money that is in short supply”.
And in addition, our new Prime Minister has outlined his commitment to a National Care Service and to implementing reforms to strengthen our existing services.
I welcome the fact that this Prime Minister is acting to protect the function of our health and care networks to support our constituents in life.
Because ultimately, our NHS should be saving lives, not taking lives.
Our palliative and end-of-life services are essential parts of our NHS and wider healthcare system across the country.
I want to pay tribute specifically to LOROS Hospice, who provide free and high-quality care to terminally ill adult patients across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.
They care for around 2,500 people and play an important role in our community in Leicester East not only in their direct support of patients, but also through their provision to wider families and friends that are affected by such situations.
In their evidence to the Public Bill Committee they highlighted that there should be 1 specialist palliative care bed for every 12,000 people but with just 22 beds they had 1 for every 55,000.
How can I turn round to my constituents and say they’ll have a choice other than an assisted death against that backdrop?
I am disappointed and concerned that the Honourable Member for Rochester and Strood has reintroduced this identical bill to the House, ignoring all the issues revealed – even the ones admitted by the noble and learn-ed Lord Falconer – in the other place.
This bill’s failure is not just a sign of how inadequate the PMB process is for a Bill of this magnitude, but also the alarm over the lack of safeguards for vulnerable people – the very demographic that we in this House are supposed to support.
The purpose of this House is to legislate well.
We are here to advocate for our constituents, to share our differing opinions, and to use our privileged positions of influence to impact the outcome of legislation.
But the methods and attitude of the Member for Rochester and Strood completely discounts the hours of debate that took place on the assisted suicide legislation in the last session.
The amendments tabled in the other place were not unreasonable but were legitimate safeguards to protect those who are vulnerable in our society. Many from external organisations. 26 from the Law Society alone!
Amendments that would ensure the safety of those with eating disorders and Down’s Syndrome; amendments to increase the chance of catching abusive situations, where the individual is being pressured to end their life; amendments from trade unions to protect the compensation rights of families of workers suffering from occupational or industrial diseases who seek an assisted death.
The Leader of the House told MPs before the summer that lessons needed to be learned about how you take the public with you, how to build consensus, not just keep ploughing on, and that they should consider if the PMB route is really appropriate. His words fell on deaf ears it seems.
We stand here in the Mother of Parliaments, as representatives of the millions of British citizens throughout our constituencies.
And we have the right to debate issues because generations before us fought tirelessly to secure it.
The threat of the use of the Parliament Acts to drive through this legislation completely disregards safeguards for vulnerable people. It requires us not to care if no further changes are made to the Bill.
The Hansard Society said in a recent blog: “if MPs vote to support the assisted dying bill again at Second Reading…the Commons would also be confirming its support in principle for using the Parliament Acts…”.
I am well aware that this subject of debate is not one that is easy and straightforward, but is painful for a lot of our constituents –
And I know is equally distressing for some Members across this House.
It is a democratic obligation however, that matters of this sensitivity receive full and proper debate.
In approving 77 amendments for tabling in the Lords the Honourable Member for Spen Valley admitted that there were major shortcomings in her own Bill, having previously told the House that the Bill was already robust.
And it deeply troubles me that the Honourable Member for Rochester and Strood would even contemplate forcing through legislation of this degree of sensitivity without ensuring it has fully watertight provisions.
One of my many concerns with the concept of assisted suicide relates to coercion.
This can come in many forms, from medical professionals, families and friends, and third parties.
It can happen formally in a legalistic or medical setting but also can take the form of informal pressure in simple conversation.
We cannot legislate to prevent the latter, and ultimately it would be challenging to completely impose and enforce a restriction on the former.
This leaves disabled people, older people and people from ethnic minorities all particularly vulnerable.
Members across this House will know that my constituency of Leicester East has one of the highest concentrations of non-white British and multi-ethnic populations in the country –
And I will say again and again that I am enormously proud of that.
But I will not support any Bill that would leave them vulnerable to coercion.
It cannot be morally or ethically right that people are pressured, whether subtly or otherwise, to end their lives due to social attitudes or the lack of appropriate services and support.
Legal experts gave evidence to the Bill Committee during the previous Parliament stating that in some cultures, and I quote – ‘decision-making is a collective process involving family and community members’.
We cannot allow the fear and distress of people experiencing palliative care, end-of-life care, or simply struggling with the prospect of living another day, to be taken advantage of.
It is dangerous that this House would consider creating legislation that would allow space for people to be encouraged, and in some instances forced, to take a decision at their most vulnerable to end their life.
Allow me to conclude by reminding the Honourable Member for Rochester and Strood that 59% of voters in her very own constituency agreed that this Bill should not be the priority of this government.
I ask her now whether she sits here today truly to represent her constituents.
If she does, and if she takes into account the situations of those within her constituency who are vulnerable, she will acknowledge that it would be morally void to support this Bill any further.
