Prime Minister Andy Burnham has said the funding of palliative care and social care should be "fixed" before assisted dying is considered in England and Wales. It is the first time he has said where he stands since becoming Prime Minister.

Palliative care is the medical care given to people with serious illnesses when they are nearing the end of their life. Social care covers the practical help people get with daily tasks — washing, dressing, eating — when illness, disability or old age makes that difficult.

Speaking to reporters on 29 July 2026, Burnham said: "I take the view that that debate … personally, I think there's something that needs to happen first. That is the fixing of the funding of palliative care and social care" (BBC News).

His remarks came as he announced plans to reform the social care system, with the aim of creating a national care service and reaching political agreement on how to pay for it.

The timing matters because another attempt to legalise assisted dying is coming. Labour MP Lauren Edwards is preparing to bring forward a bill when Parliament returns in September. Assisted dying, in this context, means allowing a terminally ill adult to receive medical help to end their own life. Her bill is identical to one that failed to pass earlier this year.

That earlier bill was proposed by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater. It would have allowed people over 18 expected to die within six months to receive help to end their own life, subject to safeguards. MPs voted in favour of it in 2025, but the House of Lords — the unelected upper chamber of Parliament that reviews and can amend proposed laws — did not pass it. Numerous amendments delayed its progress until it ran out of time in April 2026 (BBC News).

Burnham's framing of the issue suggests he personally will not back the bill Edwards intends to introduce. The government is likely to remain officially neutral, however. This follows a convention on conscience issues — matters where parties do not tell their MPs how to vote, leaving each MP to decide for themselves. That stance differs from his predecessor, Sir Keir Starmer, who voted in favour of the previous attempt to legalise assisted dying and set aside parliamentary time for the debate (BBC News).

Burnham's personal record on the question has shifted over time. When he was previously an MP, he abstained — meaning he chose not to vote either way — from a 2015 vote on another assisted dying bill, citing concerns over safeguards and people feeling under pressure. In 2024, before the first Commons vote on the Leadbeater bill, he told BBC Manchester he would "probably vote in favour of it" if he was in Parliament, referencing changed views due to family experience (BBC News).

His latest comments mark a shift from that 2024 position. He is now saying his support depends on a prior agreement on care funding — something that has eluded successive governments for years. The order he proposes — fixing palliative and social care finance before Parliament legislates on assisted dying — would, if adopted as a government rule, push the debate well beyond the current parliamentary session. There is no indication that ministers intend to apply such a rule formally. Burnham spoke as an individual MP expressing a personal view, and the government's expected neutrality means his stance does not set official policy.

The wider picture is that the political situation has shifted since the Leadbeater bill's failure. Edwards's decision to reintroduce identical legislation in September shows supporters want to keep the issue in front of Parliament rather than wait for a new version of the bill. Whether Burnham's public stance changes how MPs vote is uncertain. His abstention in 2015 and his 2024 lean towards support placed him in the middle of the debate. A prime minister publicly naming a condition for his support, even a personal one, gives undecided MPs something to point to.

The link to social care reform adds another layer. Burnham's plans for a national care service speak to a long-running goal that has defeated multiple governments, Labour and Conservative alike. If that reform moves forward, it could change the conditions in which an assisted dying bill is discussed. If it stalls, the argument that care funding must be sorted first could delay the legislation indefinitely.

For MPs and campaigners on both sides, the September return now carries two linked questions: whether Parliament will legislate on assisted dying, and whether the Prime Minister's own threshold for support has been met.