MPs to discuss ban on assisted dying adverts as Bill returns to Parliament
A ban on advertising assisted dying is to be debated as the controversial Bill returns to Parliament.
The regulation of substances to be used by a terminally ill person to bring about their death is also due to be discussed by MPs in the Commons on Friday.
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is undergoing a second day of report stage, with various amendments likely to be debated and possibly voted on.
Its third reading – where a vote is taken on the overall Bill – could take place next Friday.
The Bill passed second reading stage by a majority of 55 during a historic vote in November, which saw MPs support the principle of assisted dying.
Various reports have indicated some MPs who voted in favour last year could withdraw their support amid concerns around safeguards and how much scrutiny the proposed legislation has received, while others might switch to supporting a Bill that backers argue has been strengthened over time.
Opinion in the medical community has been divided, with the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) and Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) expressing concern, but some MPs who are doctors are among the Bill's strongest supporters.
Seven RCPsych members, including a former president and vice president, have written to MPs to distance themselves from their college's concern, instead describing the current Bill as 'workable, safe and compassionate' with a 'clear and transparent legal framework'.
Meanwhile, the Children's Commissioner for England has repeated her call for children's voices to be heard in the conversation.
Dame Rachel de Souza said: 'Children's views have at best been side-lined, at worst written off entirely simply because they would not fall within the scope of the current scope of legislation.
'They have spoken passionately about their worries that this Bill could be extended further. We need only to look to other models, such as Canada, where proposals for assisted death to be expanded to 'mature minors' – children – are a live issue, to understand the source of their concern.
'This Bill has raised the level of debate on important and challenging subjects in England – but children have raised very real concerns with me about their opportunity to shape this legislation, which could impact them as they reach adulthood, or impact them in indirect ways through the deaths of loved ones.'
Demonstrators are once again expected to gather outside Parliament to make their views known on the Bill.
Disability campaigner George Fielding, representing campaign group Not Dead Yet UK, argued the Bill 'risks state-sanctioned suicide'.
He added: 'It risks making people feel like a burden while ignoring the social, economic and systemic pressures that deny people the treatment and dignity they need to live.
'This is not choice. This is coercion, masquerading as compassion.'
But Claire Macdonald, director of My Death, My Decision, which is in favour of assisted dying, said the public mood is clear that change is needed.
She said: 'We hope MPs strike the careful balance between creating a law that is strong and safe, with a system that works for dying people, giving them choice and compassion at the end of life.
'What is clear is that no-one should be forced to suffer, and the British public wants politicians to change the law on assisted dying.'
In a letter to MPs this week, Labour's Kim Leadbeater, the parliamentarian behind the Bill, said supporters and opponents appear in agreement that 'if we are to pass this legislation it should be the best and safest Bill possible'.
She added: 'I'm confident it can and will be.'
Among the amendments to the Bill expected to be discussed on Friday are a ban on advertising an assisted dying service were the law to change, with Ms Leadbeater previously saying it 'would feel inappropriate for this to be something which was advertised'.
But Bill opponent Labour MP Paul Waugh warned of 'unspecified exceptions, which could make the ban itself worthless', adding that he had put forward a tighter amendment to 'strengthen the Bill on this issue and to better protect the vulnerable'.
Ms Leadbeater said other possible amendments include ensuring 'any approved substance used for assisted dying is subject to robust regulation and scrutiny', which she said is 'essential for clinical safety, public confidence and ethical integrity'.
Earlier this week, a group of charities wrote to MPs to express 'serious concerns' about what they described as an 'anorexia loophole', arguing people with eating disorders could end up qualifying for assisted dying because of the physical consequences of their illness.
However, an amendment preventing a person meeting the requirements for an assisted death 'solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking' – tabled by Labour's Naz Shah – was accepted by Ms Leadbeater without a vote last month.
Ms Leadbeater said this, combined with existing safeguards in the Bill, would rule out people with anorexia falling into its scope.
As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill and any amendments, meaning they vote according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
SNP 'working with Tories to weaken Land Reform Bill', MSPs say
The Greens' Mark Ruskell and Labour's Mercedes Villalba both told the Sunday National that the SNP Government was using Tory votes to keep effective measures out of the new legislation. The Land Reform (Scotland) Bill will this week pass 'stage two' at Holyrood, where amendments to the initial wording are proposed by MSPs and voted on for inclusion or rejection by members of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. However, last week, MSPs on the committee – which has three SNP, two Tory, one Labour, and one Green member – voted against measures including putting a public interest test on the proposed buyer of Scottish land. Rural Affairs Secretary Mairi Gougeon speaking to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee in a meeting held on June 17 (Image: Holyrood TV) The amendment, proposed by Villalba and rejected by the SNP and Tories, would have forced ministers to take into account things like a potential landowners' tax residence when deciding if a sale would be in the public interest. MSPs and the Government did support dropping the threshold for estates covered by the legislation from 3000 to 1000 hectares – but the SNP and Tories voted together to reject an amendment to push that down further to 500 hectares. There are around 2.5 acres to a hectare, and 1.6 acres to a standard football pitch. Villalba had tabled a more radical proposal that would have prevented anyone in Scotland from owning more than 500 hectares of land unless it could be shown to have environmental or community benefits. This was also voted down by the SNP and Tories. READ MORE: Rachael Revesz: The Land Reform Bill is only tinkering round the edges Changing the threshold at which estates are covered by the bill from 3000 to 1000 hectares means that the number of estates which will be required to publish Land Management Plans, support wild places, and comply with the Scottish Outdoor Access Code has been doubled to a total of about 700, covering just over 60% of Scotland's land, the John Muir Trust said. Villalba said that 67% of Scotland's countryside is owned by 'just 0.025% of the population' and that the 1000-hectare threshold would do nothing to change this. Further questions surround whether land must be contiguous to be considered a single 1000-hectare estate. The SNP put forward a rule saying that plots of land are a single holding if their borders are within 250 metres. The Greens had been set to table an amendment to make this 10 miles, but it was not moved. Ruskell said this was due to a shared understanding that the 250m limit was too low – and that it would be addressed at a later stage. However, Ruskell further said that the bill in its current state was 'fundamentally not going to lead to a solution to the growing inequalities in land ownership that we have in Scotland'. Scottish Green MSP Mark Ruskell in the parliament chamber (Image: Holyrood TV)'This bill does not tackle that, full stop,' he went on. 'It gives communities a bit more power, it provides a bit more scrutiny as to what landowners are currently doing, but it's not clear that this is going to make any major difference in terms of getting a more diverse pattern of land ownership and really changing the answer to 'Who owns Scotland?'. 'Things will continue broadly as they have been for centuries, but with a wee bit more community involvement. It's a bill that's tweaking around the edges of existing systems rather than having a big bold vision.' He told the Sunday National that the Scottish Government could 'easily put forward a more radical vision into this bill and get support from Labour and the Greens, easily'. 'Every amendment would pass. Every single amendment would be unchallengeable. So it's their call because they have the votes for it and they have the consensus on the left – but they don't want to play to that. 'So they're getting support from the Tories to defeat anything that's taking a bill into a more radical place.' READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: Scotland needs real action on land reform Villalba went a step further, saying the bill was not fit for purpose and would entrench inequality across Scotland. The Scottish Labour MSP went on: 'The SNP have demonstrated that their true allegiance is not with the Scottish people, but rather with wealthy private landowners who manage their property not in the public interest but to maximise their own profits. 'Scotland's land should belong to the people, and benefit both local communities and the natural environment. It's high time the SNP stopped deferring to lobbyists and empowered Scots to take back control of their land.' She added: 'By voting against the inclusion of a presumed limit on ownership over 500 hectares in the bill, the SNP risk allowing land to be sold or managed in ways that benefit private interests at the expense of the public good, entrenching the very problems their proposals seek to correct. 'What's more, by aligning with the Conservative Party to reject the inclusion of a robust public interest test, rather than stand up for Scots, they have rolled over for the wealthy – and not for the first time.' The SNP and Scottish Government were approached for comment.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Ruth Wishart: Anti-abortion movement is well-funded and gunning for us
Her doctors and a midwife said such a course of action would be illegal under the then Irish law whilst a foetal heartbeat was detectable. Savita was just 31 when she died of sepsis in 2018. In the furore which followed, Ireland voted overwhelmingly to ditch the legal clause which prevented abortion. But it took six long years to pass the new amendment which did so. It became part of the Irish Republic's journey to unlock the stranglehold the church had previously held over the law, and subsequently, in 2015, another amendment endorsed same-sex marriage. READ MORE: Scottish Government announces £3 million in funding for 14 festivals More recently, when the US Democratic legislator Melissa Hortman and her husband were murdered by a self-styled evangelical 'Christian' earlier this month, police found a list of some 70 other potential victims in his vehicle. The link they shared is that they had all been vocally pro-choice. You might imagine it was enough for these ultras that they had killed off Roe v Wade in 2022, the landmark ruling which gave federal rights to termination in every US state. Evidently not. Since that ended, we have had tragic instances of rape, child and incest victims being forced to carry to full term, women bleeding to death in hospitals, and the better-heeled having to take flights to that handful of states which didn't take advantage of the new legal landscape and kept women's rights safe. It's almost as if all the male legislators who hollered loud and long for women to stay pregnant no matter the circumstances, collectively believed that all these pregnancies were somehow the result of immaculate conceptions. Unsurprisingly, there is not a four-deep queue of rogue fathers volunteering their financial or indeed any support. Men rule OK? Last week in the Commons, the weaker of two possible amendments was passed which 'allowed' women who self-terminated pregnancies, perhaps via online medication, to avoid prosecution. It did not exempt any medical staff who may have been involved. The author of the second, stronger amendment wrote in The Guardian that the House had chickened out of proper reform and had been altogether too timid. Yet again, some of the loudest voices raised in defence of the legal status quo belonged to men. Blokes like Tory Edward Leigh, whose features have always looked as if he were on the verge of apoplexy or worse. These men also have one thing in common. They will never, ever be pregnant. Which doesn't prevent them from telling women what they should think, or whether or not they should control their own fertility. So there is absolutely no reason to suppose that Scotland or the UK is safe from American lobbying. Just look at what happened when a modest law from Gillian Mackay MSP was passed stopping the Texan-based 40 Days For Life group assembling nearer than 200 metres from any facility offering terminations. Some commentators have suggested all they were doing was praying. Puleeze. Some of the professional posters displayed had come straight from the source of the protesting. Including pictures of aborted foetuses. And there was much shouting, not just at women but at the medical staff who worked there. READ MORE: Kate Forbes: Numbers prove that the world is ignoring those who talk Scotland down When a woman in her 70s was arrested, but never brought to court, she was immediately given heroine status by some US 'freedom of speech' groups. She had been picketing near Glasgow's Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, though not, to be fair shouting, and was demanding her 'right' to go to court despite the Procurator Fiscal recommending no further action. This is all of a piece with the well-funded, Europe-wide anti-abortion protesters who all demand their day in court to rubbish any laws to which they've taken exception. Rose Docherty's arrest, following police warnings about trespassing in buffer zones, came just days after the US vice-president, JD Vance, made a series of totally false accusations about the Scottish laws, including the assertion that people could be in trouble for privately praying in their own home. And referencing 'thought police'. All garbage of course, but not atypical of the current US administration's legendary inability to check their facts before their mouth is engaged. People who think getting rid of Donald Trump would herald a new relationship with the truth might consider that Vance is the constitutional heir apparent. Which is not to say that legitimate protest should ever be outlawed, including protests with which we fundamentally disagree. The Scottish legislation on buffer zones mentions the where of protest, but not the why. Its principal proposer received both death threats and abuse despite being pregnant herself. Nevertheless, it was the Irish nation rising up and voting for change which brought about two civilising laws in that country where the church had long held too much sway. Even in America, there are signs that decent folks are awakening from the slumber which brought us a second Trump term with all the many and increasingly obvious dangers that represents. Non-Elon-Musk-related social media is awash with images of a poorly attended military parade which 'happened' to coincide with the president's 79th birthday and contrasting these images with the millions across the USA who turned out for No Kings Day. The latter was a public riposte to Trump supposing that his presidential status gave him monarchical powers to do as he pleased. An assertion which followed a Time magazine cover this month featuring a back view of 'Trump' looking into a mirror where he wore a crown and lots of ermine. By long-standing Time artist Tim O'Brien, it was entitled King Me. The idea that the man who treats executive orders like bulk-bought confetti should be left to his own fantasies managed to unite and enrage millions of people, some of whom had sat on their hands on the day of the election. Hell mend them. It's become difficult enough to vote in America as it is without ignoring the hard-fought right to vote for which people once died. These barriers to polling rights have also crossed the pond, with new demands to present ID at polling stations despite there being minimalist evidence of voter fraud. No prizes for guessing which group is least likely to have a passport or driving licence. So we must stay alert at all times to prevent our own rules, regulations and values from being altered by foreign voices. Apart from Vance, Musk has also weighed in with his views on the UK Prime Minister and much else. The irony is that Musk himself is a migrant from South Africa, but the breath is not being held for those cuddly chaps from the US Immigration and Enforcement agency to deport him as they now have so many long-standing Americans who 'look foreign' (which is ICE speak for being brown.) If you think they're licensed thugs, you're not wrong. Meanwhile round about us, the world appears to be hellwards bound in any available handcart. There are many theories about why Trump is planning to take a fortnight before deciding whether or not to give more support to Israel by providing the necessary aircraft and their so-called 'bunker-busting' bombs to reach buried Iranian nuclear sites. I know the US president isn't much of a reader, but could I recommend several tomes which detail the effect of unleashing radio active materials from such sites? Not that he cares. It's a reasonably safe bet that the prevailing winds won't carry the nasties to the eastern seaboard in America. The bit that houses hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Like Gaza, really.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Inside Westminster there's a problem for Scottish Labour
I joined them on Wednesday and heard MPs discuss the scourge of poverty. But while I am immersed in politics every day, I could not have anticipated the mood of this lobby day. Built for kings, Westminster Hall is the oldest part of the UK parliamentary estate. It is a far cry from the realities facing millions of people every day. In 2024, almost three million emergency food parcels were delivered - the equivalent to one every 11 seconds. In Scotland, more than 239,000 were distributed. Every week, hundreds of MPs pass through this corridor on the way to the Commons chamber. They hold the power to make a difference - but will they? I met up with the Scottish volunteers just before we entered Westminster Hall. They were excited to take their campaign to politicians; hopeful that the urgency of their message would be listened to. Campaigners, from all across Scotland, including Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee, told their representatives how their food banks were pleading for donations for new born babies, asking supermarkets for milk formula and nappies. After an hour though, their enthusiasm had waned. The MPs and their staffers were willing to listen but there was a growing worry among campaigners that the "warm words" would be left behind in the ancient halls of Westminster. To be fair to the Scottish MPs, there is no doubt they meant well and it would not be fair to suggest they were not moved by the accounts of poverty they heard. It was clear many were aware of the hardship in their constituency. Read more: Speaking of the Scottish Labour MPs she had met, one campaigner told me: "Every MP we've spoken to here are sympathetic to the problems - although it is evident some are more than others. "But they are new backbenchers. The chances of them standing up and leading a rebellion in the Commons is pretty slim." At the same time as MPs gathered to meet with campaigners, a major event was looming in the House of Commons. MPs were due to debate the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) proposed welfare cuts. This was the day that Liz Kendall unveiled her green paper on the changes to Personal Independence Payments (PIP), where changes to the eligibility threshold would cut disability payments for millions. Since then, we have witnessed the resignation of one Labour MP, frontbencher Vicky Foxcroft, a Lewisham North representative. She resigned the whip, stating that she could not in good conscience advocate for these reforms. When campaigners raised their concerns that these changes would push more people towards food banks, the MPs told them reform on the broken system was crucial - but other MPs were quick to share that they too had concerns. But here is how that went down. Another campaigner said: "The MPs who met with us today are saying all of the right things and that is really encouraging and welcome to hear. "But the thing is: when it comes to standing up in parliament, or standing up against decisions being made by the government or the Prime Minister, will they do it? "I'm worried that what we're hearing is just warm words. We want the MPs to mean what they say and I'm just not sure that they do." When I put these concerns to some of the Scottish Labour politicians in attendance at the lobby event in Westminster Hall, they hit back. "Whether during my time as a councillor or as an MP, I always try to take on board the concerns of my constituents and where possible, I raise them in the chamber. That is exactly what I am doing here." Coatbridge and Bellshill MP Frank McNally was also adamant his track record of supporting children in poverty while a councillor in North Lanarkshire would reflect in the Commons. "Before I became an MP, I created the first food programme in the UK that feeds kids 365 days a year," he said. "It's an area that is really important to me. We've got a child poverty strategy that is going to be published very soon, and I think that we want to see real, tangible actions within that because there is no one magic bullet. 'We need that comprehensive approach that goes across all aspects of government, from decisions that are taken here at Westminster and decisions that are taken in the Scottish Parliament. 'There needs to be a holistic approach to addressing some of these issues and that is what I'm focused on.' Mr McNally was one of the MP's who expressed "concern" at the welfare proposals but was not ready to say how he would vote on it either way, while stressing the government should abolish the two-child benefit cap when "economic circumstances" allow it. After speaking with campaigners, Glasgow South MP Gordon McKee said: "Nobody wants any food bank to exist. Unfortunately this is a legacy of 14 years of Conservative government, where more and more people were struggling to afford the basic necessities." But the MP, described within his party as a "rising star", also said his party had delivered "nearly" the biggest increase in the national minimum wage 'in history'. READ MORE: Dr Zubir Ahmed, the Glasgow South West MP, told The Herald he understood what it was like to be disadvantaged. "I grew up in a family and in a close where my dad was the only person that had decent work coming in. 'I know what it's like when government essentially puts you on the scrapheap, limits your potential and tells you this is as good as it is going to get. 'I don't want to be part of any government that does that. I want to be part of a government that enables work and solves those kind of issues, where people in work don't need to use a food bank because they've got a decent income coming in and job security.' The next few weeks facing Scottish Labour MPs could be career defining. Having the courage to oppose decisions being made by senior party figures can be harmful for their place amongst colleagues. It was fair to say that this was the main concern from campaigners in Westminster last week: stand up for you constituents or stand up for your party - sometimes there cannot be both. There was clearly a nervous energy in the Scottish Labour camps in London and I sensed that the campaigners there almost felt sorry for them. Big decisions are coming - and perhaps there is no easy path for a Labour MP.
