My statement ahead of the Third Reading of the assisted dying bill:

As we consider whether to put this Bill into law, now is the time for us to reflect on our solemn duty as legislators to protect the wellbeing of our communities and safeguard them from harm.

I have heard from nearly a thousand constituents, nearly all of whom oppose the Bill for a range of reasons.

I opposed the Bill at Second Reading. I set out my reasons, including those of principle, but also of a major concern about safeguarding that I could not see a way to being addressed through amendments to the Bill.

Far from issues of safeguarding being improved in Committee, many of the provisions have been weakened.

My concerns about the Bill are very clear.

I am greatly concerned that despite the early insistence on the importance of the High Court stage safeguard, it has been removed from the Bill, fundamentally altering the basis on which Members voted at Second Reading.

Both the panels that would replace the Court approval stage, and the Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) Commissioner who would oversee them, are new and untested concepts. They would not have the powers or functions of a court or tribunal. They would not be required to question witnesses and could not compel them to attend. The doctors who are intended to have assessed people’s capacity and freedom to choose an assisted death would not give evidence on oath, and there would be nobody to cross-examine them. The new VAD Commissioner would run the assisted dying system and, at the same time, be responsible for monitoring, investigating, and reporting on its work, replacing the role previously given to the independent Chief Medical Officers.

The very definition of “terminal illness” has proved to be seriously flawed, as it would allow people with anorexia to qualify once their physical condition deteriorates to the point where they are considered to have less than six months to live. Many people have written to me about this point.

At the very beginning of the Committee Stage, amendments were tabled to introduce an enhanced test of a person’s mental capacity to make the choice to die. These amendments recognised the need to protect vulnerable people such as those with learning difficulties or dementia, and even people with no prior vulnerabilities who are at risk of shock and depression upon learning they have a terminal illness. At Second Reading, Members were assured that our existing laws in the Mental Capacity Act were tried and tested. However, in February, the Chief Medical Officer wrote to the committee to clarify that there is no enhanced test for life and death decisions under this Act. The amendments had been rejected three days earlier.

Unlike other legislation, this Bill completed its Committee Stage without Members being given information about its impact. This means they have been unable to consider either the costs or additional pressures that the Bill would place on the NHS. The potential impact on equalities – the impact on disabled people, ethnic minority communities, those on lower incomes and victims of domestic abuse – had not been published either.

Only once we reached Report Stage was an impact assessment produced, which makes the point that disabled people are at a high risk of feeling like a burden and being subtly influenced into choosing to die.

The Committee voted to allow a future Health Secretary to change the Act of Parliament which established the founding principles of our NHS at will. This language, first passed into law in 1946, established an NHS to “secure...the physical and mental health of the people of England, and...in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of physical and mental illness.” However, because this does not include assisting people to end their own lives, the Bill as amended now contains a power for these foundational words to be changed by secondary legislation.

Following the Committee Stage, I chaired a session titled “Committee of the Unheard,” to hear from experts who had not been invited to give oral evidence at Committee Stage.

At this Committee, we discussed the impact of excluding family and loved ones which is this Bill’s position too. Importantly, it gave an opportunity to explore issues around people with disabilities, people from other jurisdictions and BAME communities. There were also impacts on suicide prevention and the anorexia ‘loophole’; evidence regarding coercive relationships and of palliative care. Had the Committee received this oral evidence, it may well have come to different conclusions.

Medical professionals and associations continue to have serious concerns and reservations about this Bill. The Royal College of Psychiatrists say they cannot support the Bill.

One thing the Bill has highlighted for me is around the promise of choice.

For choice to be real, there must be options to choose from. For many, there are no options now and wouldn’t be if the Bill came into force. What has been highlighted is that palliative care provision is woefully inadequate. The worst served are also the most disadvantaged from the most deprived communities. Worse, should the Bill come into force, the provision of palliative care is likely to be compromised without hospices having a legal right to opt out of assisted dying. There is no such proposed opt-out in the Bill.

This brings me back to our role as legislators.

The question for us now is “after all the consideration through to Third Reading, can we be satisfied that our duties towards people to protect their well-being and safeguard them from harm are fulfilled if we pass this Bill?”

From everything I have seen, heard and read, the answer must be “no”.

Watch my speech here: