I wanted to give my thoughts on the upcoming vote on The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
This vote has weighed heavily on me and I have taken the process very seriously. I have studied the legislation as well as competing arguments both for and against, I have met many constituents about the issue, and I have also used my own personal experiences to come to a decision on how I will vote on Friday. Quite simply, this will be the most important and challenging vote in my political career to date.
The Conservative Party and the Government have made clear that this will be a free vote. This means that there is no “whip” and that each MP can vote with their own conscience and personal views. I believe that is the right decision as with all votes on important issues such as this.
Having studied the legislation, I am going to vote against it on Friday.
Whilst I hugely sympathise with the situation that many people find themselves in and have had personal experiences of loved ones with terminal illnesses, I do not believe that the scrutiny and parliamentary mechanisms for this Private Member’s Bill are significant enough, and I believe that more time should be given to a decision such as this.
For example, the legislation banning fox hunting had 700 hours of debate and legislative time. This bill is likely to have five hours debate with each MP only being able to speak for two and a half minutes. I believe that the Government should offer its own time in the House to have a proper debate on this issue.
With the NHS and courts system under significant strain, I am worried that the provisions of the proposed legislation will add to that strain, whether it be the two doctors sign off rules or the necessity to have a High Court Judge adjudicate. I am concerned that safeguards will not be followed as set out within the legislation and that it will become easier for the law to fail, despite its good intentions. I also deeply worry about the potential safety nets not being strong enough to stop manipulation of the new legislation.
Fundamentally, I do not believe that the provisions set out in the bill are secure enough to make sure that its good intentions are borne out in practice. I am also worried about coercion, which despite the best efforts of this bill, can happen behind closed doors and not seen, as we see with coercive and controlling behaviour in everyday convictions. I believe that the system proposed will not address this and therefore the worries I have are not satisfied with the clauses in the bill.
This decision has been one of the hardest since my election to Parliament in 2019. I want everyone to know that this decision is not based on a whim and that I have taken this decision seriously, I would like to see progress made in this area but the “what if” left in my mind after reading this bill still remains. It is for that reason that I must oppose it.
I know this issue is controversial and that opinion is widely varying. That is the nature of democracy and policymaking, but I must act in Parliament in free votes according to my conscience and that is why I have come to this decision.
I do hope that residents in Hamble Valley, whether or not they agree with me, will see the genuine and principled nature of my decision.
