‘I hope you can see that, as your voice in the House, I acted with diligence, probity and integrity.’

I have a varied inbox each week – covering a wide range of issues from buses, planning, anti-social behaviour, GPs, car parking, even the standard of British potatoes in crisps – but by far the most sensitive topic is the assisted dying bill.

You may have read that MPs had a free vote on the second reading of this bill last week. I voted against it. I think it’s important you know where I stand on this, and how I came to my decision.

You may also be wondering: ‘Wait a minute, didn’t Parliament discuss this before?’ And you’re right. We did. But as this is a private members’ bill and Parliament ran out of time to pass the legislation in the last ‘term’ if you like, the bill has to begin again, from the start, in this new ‘term’.

So the bill returned – but the substance of it had not changed.

At the second reading last year, I voted in favour the bill – not because it was a perfect piece of legislation. It wasn’t. But I wanted to allow the national debate to continue and I hoped that Parliament would be able refine parts of the legislation that worried me at the committee stages.

Following that work, at the third reading last year and upon its return last week, I voted against it. That may look inconsistent but let me explain why.

I voted against this bill not because I am anti-freedom of choice on assisted dying. I’m not. I do believe in freedom of choice on this issue. But I think if we are going to introduce such an important new law it must be precise and unambiguous.

I voted for the bill at the second reading because I hoped Parliament would refine the inconsistencies in this legislation before the third reading and passing the bill to the House of Lords. I don’t believe it did – not enough, anyway.

Since I became your MP in July 2024, I have received more than 1200 pieces of correspondence from constituents on assisted dying on both sides of the debate in addition to significant correspondence from organisations. 

I’d like to thank everyone who took the time to contact me before this vote. I took time to consider your personal accounts and lived experiences. I appreciate, too, how difficult it would have been to share those personal stories with me.

I am your voice in these sessions and it’s a responsibility I do not take lightly. 

Ultimately, I am not against assisted dying in principle, if there can be appropriate safeguards put in place. I believe the terminally ill should have the right to choose how they decide to end their life. 

However, we must also ensure that terminally ill patients are able to make the decision that is right for them without feeling any pressure from health professionals or loved ones, whether implicit or explicit. The law has to be precise here.

I know various colleagues had done a significant amount of work to try to do that, to bring forward a thorough piece of legislation and my decision does not detract my thanks to them for the work they have done.

But the questions I had at the start of this process still remained. They had not been answered.

I know safeguards were put in place to protect those under the age of 18 – but those safeguards don’t extend to properly protect vulnerable people or those who might feel they’re a burden to others. I understand that it’s difficult to legislate around these sensitive areas but I didn’t feel the bill addressed this effectively.

There was no expectation that a person seeking an assisted death should be asked about conversations with their loved ones before a decision was made. That just doesn’t feel right. Such a conversation could also provide a valuable indication of someone’s mental capacity to make that decision.

The bill, as it stood, also gave the Secretary of State for Health the power to override the NHS Act of 2006. Is it right that the Health minister, whoever he or she might be, can override primary legislation without parliamentary scrutiny? I’m not sure it is.

I worry there may be a gap here where the private sector may be able to slide its way in. I don’t think commercial interests should have any role – big or small – in assisted dying.

So that’s where I am. I think it’s important you can see my working out here on a bill of such importance and sensitivity.

I appreciate that some of you will be disappointed with my decision to vote against the bill and that it did not pass its second reading this ‘term’.

Rest assured, though, that as your voice in the House, I hope you can see I acted with diligence, probity and integrity.