Assisted Dying Bill

Assisted Dying Bill - Update, September 2026

I wanted to provide an update on the Assisted Dying Bill debate which took place on the 11^th of September.

Throughout the morning & early afternoon, I was in the House of Commons’ Chamber hoping to be called to speak and listening to colleagues from across the House debating this important issue. I voted against the Bill, as I have done on previous occasions after concluding, when the Bill first came to the Commons in 2024, that it was not fit for purpose.

The vote took place at 2:30 pm and the Bill was lost by 286 to 270. This means it has been defeated and will not progress. I know the outcome will be a relief to some & disappointment to others. I have always maintained I would communicate with my constituents throughout the process & listen to the view points of all sides.

Having spoken in the previous debate I was warned that I probably would not get a chance to speak but tried to do so nonetheless. Had I been given the opportunity to do so I would have made the point that as a liberal, I believe in individual autonomy and have no religious nor philosophical objections to someone choosing to end their own life. However, that choice must be genuinely free and because of both the current state of palliative care in this country and the absence of adequate safeguards in the proposed legislation, the choice offered by the Bill was not a free one. I have included my full draft speech below. 

I want to thank all those who have contacted me on this topic over the last two years. I remain committed to continuing to listen to those with views on this important subject.

My proposed speech:

Let me be clear: I support assisted dying.

As a liberal, I believe in individual autonomy and have no religious nor philosophical objections to someone choosing to end their own life.

However, that choice must be genuinely free.

Sadly, because of both the current state of palliative care in this country and the absence of adequate safeguards in the legislation before us today, the choice offered by this Bill is not a free one.

Almost a year ago my business partner, the godfather of one of my daughters, and a close friend of nearly forty years, Gordon Anderson, died of Multiple System Atrophy.

MSA is a cruel, rapidly progressive neurodegenerative disease for which there is no cure. When Gordon was diagnosed in 2020, he like so many do, consulted Google and was told he faced an increasingly painful decline and an untimely, and probably harrowing, death.

He did not want to die like that and told me he would end his days at Dignitas before the suffering became too much to bear.

By then, however, Gordon was living in Italy, having married his wonderful Italian wife, Mariarita, a few years before his diagnosis. In that country the Doctrine of Double Effect, whereby sufficient palliative medication can be given to alleviate pain, even if it has the unintended consequence of hastening death, is well established. It is rooted in the teachings of Thomas Aquinas and upheld by both the Italian Legal System and the Catholic Church.

Gordon’s palliative care doctor was therefore able to reassure him that he would be able to die peacefully at home.

When I asked Mariarita, yesterday evening, for permission to tell his story, she told me the doctor’s words meant Gordon "lived his final months with greater peace of mind" and ultimately "died peacefully in our bed", with sufficient morphine to control his pain in the arms of the women he loved.

It grieves me to say the palliative care so critical to Gordon’s final months is often not available in this country.

Since the Harold Shipman case, there have been persistent, albeit unwarranted, concerns among many British clinicians about the extent to which analgesics may be prescribed, if doing so might hasten death. One survey of UK doctors, for example, found that 46% of respondents were now uncertain about prescribing opioids.

That should concern every Member of this House.

As the member for West Lancashire made clear, in the most moving speech I have had the honour to witness in this chamber, if terminally ill patients cannot be confident their pain will be adequately treated, then the choice between living and dying is inevitably distorted. Faced with the prospect of unmanaged pain, some will choose an earlier death not because they truly wish to die, but because they fear how they will be required to live.

That is not a free choice.

Our priority should therefore be to fix end-of-life care. We need more palliative care specialists, better training for non-specialists, including robust advice on the legality of giving sufficient pain relief to alleviate suffering, buttressed by more explicit guidance from the DPP and the Lord Chief Justice.

As both the Royal College of Physicians and the Association for Palliative Medicine have argued, it is premature to legislate for assisted dying before we address the shortcomings in palliative care. Until we do that, the choice facing anyone given a terminal diagnosis will not be free.

For that reason, I urge Honourable and Right Honourable Members to join me in the No Lobby today.

May 2026

As you will know I made the decision to vote against the Assisted Dying Bill. When the Bill left the Commons, it was not in a fit state and required thorough revision, as many of its supporters admitted at the time. I have long felt a Royal Commission is the only way to address this issue.

I am not surprised the Bill ran out of time at the end of the parliamentary session. Whilst I concede there was filibustering in the House of Lords, I remain of the view it was not fit for purpose and required root & branch revision to address its manifest failings, many of which I covered in my speeches.

At this stage, I do not support the Bill returning to Parliament until a Royal Commission has reported on how best to address this difficult & complex issue. In the meantime the NHS must adequately resource palliative & hospice care; whilst the DPP must issue firm guidance to the CPS to ensure adequate pain relief is always provided to patients irrespective of whether such treatment might be detrimental to their longevity.

June 2025

You are doubtless aware the Bill passed its latest stage in the Commons by 314 votes to 291 - a majority of just 23, down from 55 at Second Reading. In percentage terms this works out at 51.9% in favour and 48.1% against. Ironically that is exactly the same result as in the Brexit referendum and in my view represents a similarly grave error of judgement.

As I said I would, during my speech at Report Stage, I again voted against the Bill.  Despite having no religious or philosophical objection to assisted dying, neither the state of palliative care in this country, nor the safeguards against coercion in all its forms, are, in my estimation, sufficient to vote in favour of the Bill, notwithstanding the changes introduced at Committee Stage.

I tabled two amendments at Committee Stage to ensure the many safeguards everyone agrees will be required under the legislation, would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Unfortunately the Speaker did not select my amendments for a separate vote which strengthened my opposition to the Bill.

That meant the legislation before us continued to give Ministers enormous powers absent any parliamentary oversight. I consequently decided to try and speak again at Third Reading to emphasise how the Bill was granting, whosoever is in power (most likely after the next election) a blank cheque over something that will fundamentally and irrevocably change the relationship between the citizen and the state.

As I had spoken at Report Stage the chances of being called again were slim and, despite bobbing for 4 hrs I was unsuccessful.  

Despite the Bill passing at Third Reading that is not the end of the matter. It now moves to the Lords where it will go through exactly the same process as in the Commons. Unless it passes through all those stages unamended it will then come back to MPs for further consideration.

The Bill will only become law once its final form has been agreed by both Houses. Until then a process colloquially known as “ping-pong” ensues, with the Bill bouncing back and forth between the two Houses. Unless agreement is reached before the end of the current parliamentary session (which is likely to be sometime next year) the Bill will fall. 

Whether that will happen or not with this legislation is unclear at this stage. As you will recall the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a Private Members’ Bill and by convention the House of Lords does not amend or reject such Bills, where they have successfully passed all their Commons’ stages.

However there are a number of reasons why the normal convention might not apply on this occasion. It is commonly accepted by many expert bodies including the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Physicians that the Bill in its current form is not fit for purpose. Indeed, even some MPs voting for the Bill, privately admitted as such. There is consequently considerable pressure on the Lords to properly fulfil their constitutional function as a revising chamber notwithstanding the normal convention. It is even conceivable (though unlikely) the Lords might be emboldened enough to reject the Bill in its entirety as, unlike at Second Reading (when it received 331 votes) it did not receive the backing of a majority of MPs at Third Reading (where it received only 314 votes). In either of these situations the Bill will be  returned to the Commons for further consideration which, as a Private Members Bill, will again be subject to the limited time available for such legislation. 

This is, of course, all speculation at this stage but I will endeavour to keep you informed of any significant developments as and when I become aware of them. In the meantime can I assure both supporters and opponents of assisted dying I will do all I can to play a critical but constructive role in the process.