Meeting of the Parliament 17 March 2026 [Draft]
Like others, I recognise the incredible work that Liam McArthur has put into the bill in the last week, the last month and this entire parliamentary session. When I heard that an assisted dying bill was being introduced for a third time, before I knew the make-up of the Parliament this session and the views of individual members, I thought that it had the best possibility of passing this time because of the member in charge. Liam McArthur is the rare politician who it is very difficult to dislike. He works across the political spectrum and is compassionate, empathetic and absolutely committed to this cause. No matter how the vote goes tonight and no matter the fact that, less than two hours away from the vote, many of us are still unsure of how it will go, the fact that the bill has come this far is down to his efforts and the efforts of his team and of the non-Government bills unit. I want to put on the record, as someone who will not be supporting the bill, my complete admiration for what Liam McArthur has done to get this very passionate and difficult issue to the floor of the chamber and the way in which he has done it.
I will not be supporting the bill, but it has caused me more trouble than any other vote that I have taken part in. As Liam McArthur said when he was quoting Lisa Fleming, we have all had constituents—many hundreds or thousands—who have written to us about their personal experiences. They have been some of the most difficult and distressing emails and letters to read and respond to. You would have to have a heart of stone not to understand the pain and suffering that those constituents’ loved ones have gone through and how much they want to alleviate that for themselves or their loved ones in the future.
Others have spoken about their family connections, and I thought that George Adam, once again, spoke very passionately about his wife and his family. In my family, my wife takes a completely different view from me; she has always been very much in favour of the bill, and she cannot understand why I would not be. Therefore, this is an issue that splits not just parties; it splits families and couples, too, and there is no right answer. At the end of today, each and every one of us will cast a vote, and we will be able to defend it, one way or another.
For me, it all comes down to what is not in the bill. The fact that conscientious objections were taken out of the bill—for understandable reasons and because of the requirement for a section 104 order—concerns me. It also concerns the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which moved from a neutral position to a position of opposition to the bill, as well as the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, which similarly said that, because the bill did not contain vital protections for pharmacists and other healthcare professionals with conscientious objections, it could no longer remain neutral on the bill and urged members to vote against it.
Another issue that I have wrestled with a lot is that of coercion, which we have heard many members talk about tonight. If we cannot be absolutely certain—absolutely sure—that no one will feel coerced into taking their own life, because they feel a burden, or because of the efforts of others, we cannot support the bill.