I believe that a change in the law is needed, which is why I chose to vote in favour of the assisted dying bill at Third Reading.

Since this bill was first tabled, I have received a huge number of emails from constituents about this issue, some of whom have shared deeply personal experiences of death and loss with me.

I have listened carefully to all sides of this debate and thought long and hard about the weight of responsibility I hold as your Member of Parliament when voting on this bill. In making my decision, I have given deep consideration not just to the principle of wanting to give people more choice and control over the end of their lives, but also the specific content of this proposed law.

Having read carefully all the views that have been shared with me by constituents and listening to expert opinions on Kim Leadbeater MP’s bill, I remain convinced that this bill represents a vital opportunity to afford more people dignity in death, which is why I chose to vote in favour of it at ‘Third Reading’.

This is of course a highly emotive and sensitive subject, but I know that those on opposite sides of this can agree on the need to place the wishes and interests of those experiencing the immense trauma and suffering of terminal illness at the centre of this debate. I want to commend all those who have engaged in this deeply sensitive discussion with respect and compassion for opposing views, including those in North Warwickshire and Bedworth who have remained cordial and respectful even when they disagree passionately with my own position on this issue.

This is not a new question in our politics. When he was the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer published legal advice that made clear that those who assisted someone with a terminal illness to die who had freely chosen to end their life would not face prosecution, provided they were motivated by compassion. I believe that was absolutely the right guidance, and I think that same spirit of compassion and understanding should continue to guide our policy in this area.

Despite that change in the way the law is applied, the law remained fundamentally unchanged, meaning those with the financial resources to do so are currently able to circumvent the law by travelling to Switzerland to end their lives, while for others that simply isn’t an option. This present situation does not feel just or fair to me.

I have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised about the need for robust safeguards, and I want to be absolutely clear that I would never have voted for a bill that I did not believe afforded strong protections to the vulnerable. As part of the robust scrutiny process the bill has gone through in parliament, a number of amendments have been added that would make this new law the most secure of any in the world.

Ultimately, I want to see those suffering the trauma of a terminal illness given the ability to make their own decisions about the time and manner of their death, subject to strict safeguards, and that is why I voted in favour of this bill at ‘Third Reading’.

Now that the Bill has passed to the House of Lords for further scrutiny and possible amendment, I will continue to watch its passage closely. There remain significant further steps in the parliamentary process for this Bill before it can be passed into law, but I remain hopeful that we will soon have secured this important change in the law.