Statement: The Third Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Statement from Paul Foster MP  The Third Reading of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 

---

After much reflection, I have concluded that I cannot, in good conscience, vote in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in its current form.

I firmly believe in the fundamental principles behind this Bill. I am pro-choice, and I hold a deep conviction that if someone is enduring immense pain and distress due to a terminal illness at the end of their life, they should have the dignity and autonomy to decide when to end it.

However, the detail matters, and the Bill must be right.

I have always been clear that I wanted the Bill to progress through committee stage so that the finer points could be thoroughly examined and strengthened through amendment. Now that this process has taken place, I have carefully studied the Bill and the changes made. Regrettably, I cannot support it in its present state for the following reasons:

• Replacement of the High Court Judge with a panel: A single High Court Judge provides independent, impartial judicial oversight, free from political, governmental or medical pressures, and acts as a vital safeguard for vulnerable individuals, ensuring that each decision upholds human rights and legal standards. Replacing this with a panel risks weakening these protections and introduces the possibility of inconsistency and reduced independence.

• Rigidity of a fixed-term implementation: The proposed fixed four-year implementation period is too rigid. It risks unnecessarily rushing the legislation if more time is needed. I believe it would be far better to allow the law to come into force only once all the necessary safeguards and systems are fully and properly in place — however long that takes.

• Concerns raised by professional bodies: This legislation is not supported by a number of key medical professional bodies, several of which have described it as unworkable and potentially unsafe in its current form. It does not provide sufficient safeguards for those with serious mental health challenges or conditions such as anorexia. In my view, this Bill should have been shaped and led by health professionals, with politicians then voting on recommendations developed with their full support and expertise.

• Introduction as a Private Member’s Bill: In my view, this Bill deserved the full weight, time and scrutiny of a Government Bill. Private Members’ Bills simply do not receive the same level of detailed committee work and expert evidence. For a reform of this magnitude and sensitivity, it would probably have been better brought before Parliament in a different way.

For such a sensitive and far-reaching change, the Bill must be watertight. As it has progressed, I feel it has been diluted rather than strengthened. It lacks the robust safeguards and detailed provisions required for a change that touches so deeply on individual rights, medical ethics and societal values.

For these reasons, with regret, I cannot vote in favour of the Bill as it stands today.

---