As you may know, I voted against the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at Second Reading at the end of last year, and again at Report Stage on 16 May. I did so because I remain deeply concerned about the lack of robust safeguards, the risk of subtle pressure on vulnerable individuals, and the limited scrutiny that Private Members' Bills typically receive.
Following the initial vote, I outlined my concerns in more detail here regarding the premise of the Bill: https://www.davidreed.uk/news/terminally-ill-adults-end-life-bill.
While some MPs supported the Bill at Second Reading in the hope that it would be strengthened in Committee, I was disappointed to see the opposite occur. The Committee process has highlighted the Bill’s weaknesses and deepened my concerns about its viability.
The Bill’s sponsor, Kim Leadbeater MP, appointed the 23 members of the Public Bill Committee. The composition – 14 supporters and only 9 opponents – meant that proposed safeguards were routinely voted down.
One of the most significant changes was the removal of the requirement for a High Court judge to approve each case, a safeguard that many MPs relied on when initially supporting the Bill. It has been replaced with a panel comprising a psychiatrist, a lawyer, and a social worker – a change made without consulting the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The RCP has since raised serious concerns, including about workforce shortages that would make safe implementation unrealistic.
Further, the Bill now delays implementation until at least 2029, yet provides no detail on how the regime would be delivered, regulated, or held accountable.
Over 300 amendments were tabled at Committee Stage, many seeking to strengthen protections, for example, by excluding individuals with eating disorders or Down’s syndrome. The blanket rejection of such proposals, often without substantive justification, was deeply disappointing.
For these reasons, I will continue to vote against the Bill when it returns to the House on 13 June.
This is a complex and sensitive issue, and I fully respect that views differ profoundly and sincerely. While some will support my position and others will not, please trust that I have thought long and hard about my vote and it is not a decision I have taken lightly.
