“this is exactly the sort of question that should be settled by conscience”

I never thought so much of my time as an MP would be taken up by the issue of assisted dying, writes Andrew Pakes MP.

There are many issues I thought would come up as an MP before I was elected. Assisted dying was not one of them. Yet the proposed law returns to Parliament this week for a second go at becoming law. This is not a party matter. It's a free vote, and I'm grateful to the Prime Minister for treating it that way, because this is exactly the sort of question that should be settled by conscience rather than whip. Since the Terminally Ill Adults Bill was first tabled, I've had hundreds of emails from constituents on every side of the debate, and I've tried to read every one of them properly.

Alongside the many letters and emails I’ve read, I've also met with experts and campaigners on every side of the debate. As with the previous bill, I will be voting against it this week. I don't take this position lightly. Years ago, my family sat with my brother in hospital as he was kept alive by life support after an accident. He never got the chance to choose anything for himself; that choice was taken from him. I think about that often when this issue comes round, and it's part of why I understand, deeply, why so many people want the right to choose how their own life ends.

But understanding that instinct isn't the same as being satisfied that the safeguards are strong enough. I voted against the bill at Second and Third Readings, and at Report Stage I tabled New Clause 4 with colleagues from across the House, which would have put independent monitoring and annual reporting on how the Act operates in the hands of the Chief Medical Officer rather than a new Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner. I also backed changes to guarantee a substitute doctor could step in if one became unavailable. Those changes mattered, but they didn't resolve my underlying worry: that vulnerable people could feel pressured into a decision, whether through family, isolation, or a healthcare system that isn't always there for them when they need it most. Until I'm confident those risks are properly closed off, I can't support the bill.

Instead, I will be arguing that Parliament should spend its energy on something nearly everyone agrees on: proper investment in palliative and hospice care.

I've spent time with Sue Ryder staff and Macmillan nurses here in Peterborough, and with families who've cared for loved ones at the end of their lives, often without enough support. Too many people facing a terminal diagnosis are choosing between poor options because good end-of-life care isn't available or affordable where they live. That should trouble us far more than it currently does, and it's where I think the real, achievable change lies.

I know not everyone in Peterborough will agree with my vote, and I respect that this is a matter people feel strongly about on both sides. What I can promise is that I've listened, that my views are based on constituents' experiences as much as my own, and that whatever happens with this bill, I'll keep pushing for the palliative care investment that should have come long before this debate returned to the Commons.