Assisted dying law faces crunch Commons vote as MPs switch sides

The outcome on Friday could see the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill either clear the House of Commons and move to the Lords, or fall completely.
The relatively narrow majority of 55 from the historic yes vote in November means every vote will count on Friday.
As an example, the Bill would fall if 28 MPs switched directly from voting yes to no, but only if all other MPs voted exactly the same way as they did in November, including those who abstained.
In what will be seen as a blow to the Bill, four Labour MPs confirmed on the eve of the vote that they will switch sides to oppose the proposed new law.
Labour's Paul Foster, Jonathan Hinder, Markus Campbell-Savours and Kanishka Narayan wrote to fellow MPs to voice concerns about the safety of the proposed legislation.
They branded it 'drastically weakened', citing the scrapping of the High Court Judge safeguard as a key reason.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch also urged her MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide'.
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.
Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater has insisted the replacement of High Court judge approval with the multidisciplinary panels is a strengthening of the legislation, incorporating wider expert knowledge to assess assisted dying applications.
Ahead of confirmation of the four vote-switchers, Ms Leadbeater acknowledged she expected 'some small movement in the middle' but that she did not 'anticipate that that majority would be heavily eroded'.
She insisted her Bill is 'the most robust piece of legislation in the world' and has argued dying people must be given choice at the end of their lives in a conversation which has seen support from high-profile figures including Dame Esther Rantzen.
MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
Ms Leadbeater has warned it could be a decade before assisted dying legislation returns to Parliament if MPs vote to reject her Bill on Friday.
A YouGov poll of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, surveyed last month and published on Thursday, suggested public support for the Bill remains high at 73% – unchanged from November.
The proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle has risen slightly, to 75% from 73% in November.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Western Telegraph

30 minutes ago

• Western Telegraph

MPs share their own stories as assisted dying debate continues

Debating the proposal to roll out assisted dying in the UK, Sir James Cleverly described losing his 'closest friend earlier this year' and said his opposition did not come from 'a position of ignorance'. The Conservative former minister said he and 'the vast majority' of lawmakers were 'sympathetic with the underlying motivation of' the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, 'which is to ease suffering in others and to try and avoid suffering where possible'. I have seen someone suffering – my closest friend earlier this year died painfully of oesophageal cancer and I was with him in the final weeks of his life. So I come at this not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance Sir James Cleverly But he warned MPs not to 'sub-contract' scrutiny of the draft new law to peers, if the Bill clears the Commons after Friday's third reading debate. Backing the proposal, Conservative MP Mark Garnier said 'the time has come where we need to end suffering where suffering can be put aside, and not try to do something which is going to be super perfect and allow too many more people to suffer in the future'. He told MPs that his mother died after a 'huge amount of pain', following a diagnosis in 2012 of pancreatic cancer. Sir James, who described himself as an atheist, said: 'I've had this said to me on a number of occasions, 'if you had seen someone suffering, you would agree with this Bill'. 'Well, Mr Speaker, I have seen someone suffering – my closest friend earlier this year died painfully of oesophageal cancer and I was with him in the final weeks of his life. 'So I come at this not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance.' Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh spoke int he assisted dying debate (House of Commons/PA) Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden Dame Siobhain McDonagh intervened in Sir James's speech and said: 'On Tuesday, it is the second anniversary of my sister's death. 'Three weeks prior to her death, we took her to hospital because she had a blood infection, and in spite of agreeing to allow her into intensive care to sort out that blood infection, the consultant decided that she shouldn't go because she had a brain tumour and she was going to die. 'She was going to die, but not at that moment. 'I'm sure Mr Speaker can understand that a very big row ensued. I won that row. 'She was made well, she came home and she died peacefully. What does (Sir James) think would happen in identical circumstances, if this Bill existed?' Sir James replied: 'She asks me to speculate into a set of circumstances which are personal and painful, and I suspect she and I both know that the outcome could have been very, very different, and the the moments that she had with her sister, just like the moments I had with my dear friend, those moments might have been lost.' He had earlier said MPs 'were promised the gold-standard, a judicially underpinned set of protections and safeguards', which were removed when a committee of MPs scrutinised the Bill. He added: 'I've also heard where people are saying, 'well, there are problems, there are still issues, there are still concerns I have', well, 'the Lords will have their work to do'. 'But I don't think it is right and none of us should think that it is right to sub-contract our job to the other place (the House of Lords).' Mr Garnier, who is also a former minister, told the Commons he had watched 'the start of the decline for something as painful and as difficult as pancreatic cancer' after his mother's diagnosis. 'My mother wasn't frightened of dying at all,' he continued. 'My mother would talk about it and she knew that she was going to die, but she was terrified of the pain, and on many occasions she said to me and Caroline my wife, 'can we make it end?' 'And of course we couldn't, but she had very, very good care from the NHS.' Conservative MP Mark Garnier said he would back the Bill (PA) Mr Garnier later added: 'Contrary to this, I found myself two or three years ago going to the memorial service of one of my constituents who was a truly wonderful person, and she too had died of pancreatic cancer. 'But because she had been in Spain at the time – she spent quite a lot of time in Spain with her husband – she had the opportunity to go through the state-provided assisted dying programme that they do there. 'And I spoke to her widower – very briefly, but I spoke to him – and he was fascinating about it. He said it was an extraordinary, incredibly sad thing to have gone through, but it was something that made her suffering much less.' He said he was 'yet to be persuaded' that paving the way for assisted dying was 'a bad thing to do', and added: 'The only way I can possibly end today is by going through the 'aye' lobby.' If MPs back the Bill at third reading, it will face further scrutiny in the House of Lords at a later date.

Daily Mail​

37 minutes ago

• Daily Mail​

Labour's work to devise official definition of 'Islamophobia' should be suspended IMMEDIATELY as it risks worsening grooming gangs scandal, report warns

Labour moves to draw up an official definition of Islamophobia would shut down efforts to combat grooming gangs, a new report warns. The Policy Exchange think-tank said the work of the Government's 'Anti-Muslim Hate/Islamophobia Definition Working Group', set up earlier this year, should be immediately suspended. Devising a government-backed definition of Islamophobia – even though it would not initially have any force in law – would 'almost certainly turbocharge cancel culture ', it said. Policy Exchange's warning came days after a long-awaited review by Whitehall troubleshooter Baroness Casey found public bodies covered up sickening evidence about Asian grooming gangs 'for fear of appearing racist '. Councils, police forces and the Home Office repeatedly 'shied away' from dealing with 'uncomfortable' questions about the ethnicity of rapists preying on thousands of vulnerable girls. In the wake of the Casey review, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper promised to 'root out' the grooming gang 'scourge'. But Policy Exchange's report warns: 'At the same time, ministers are pursuing a policy which will have the opposite effect. 'It would have made exposing the grooming scandal even harder and slower than it already was. It will make rooting out the scourge more difficult. It will give perpetrators a new place to hide.' Ministers said in March that the move to devise a definition would 'seek to provide the government and other relevant bodies with an understanding of unacceptable treatment and prejudice against Muslim communities'. It would not carry statutory power, at least initially, but there have been widespread concerns that it would lead to Islam being given protections beyond those afforded to other religions. The work is being led by former Tory attorney general Dominic Grieve KC. Policy Exchange senior fellow and former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sir John Jenkins, said in a letter to Mr Grieve: 'Whatever form of words is chosen, and whatever legal status it has to start with, any definition will have serious consequences. 'It will almost certainly turbocharge 'cancel culture'. 'Even without the force of an official definition, claims of Islamophobia are already used to close down legitimate debate and deter investigation of alleged wrongdoing, as in Rotherham or Batley, with disastrous results all round, including for the wider Muslim community itself.' He added: 'Unless it literally restates the existing legal protections covering all faiths, any official Islamophobia definition will be an undeniable act of two-tier policy, creating special status and protection for members of one faith alone. 'It is unlikely to alleviate Islamist discontent – it will stoke it, creating new opportunities for grievance politics, challenge and attack in every institution and workplace.' Sir John said the working group 'may have begun its work with its conclusions pre-determined', adding that he had 'little confidence' it would approach key issues with an open mind. The report said the government's work should be put on hold until the end of a national inquiry on grooming gangs, which Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer belatedly ordered in the wake of the Casey review. Dr Paul Stott, head of security and extremism at Policy Exchange, said: ''A danger going forward is that the proposed 'Islamophobia' definition could shut down discussion on grooming gangs and if accepted by Government restrict debate on this and on other issues vital to our social cohesion.' He added: 'This week has demonstrated the need to move on from the view that concern about grooming gangs is in some way racist, Islamophobic, or a far-right issue. 'It is clearly not and it never was.'

Edinburgh Reporter

40 minutes ago

• Edinburgh Reporter

Council agrees to trial a four day working week

After Thursday's meeting of the full council, councillors have agreed to consider moving to a four day week to improve the wellbeing of employees. Cllr Claire Miller who proposed the idea suggested it would also help to tackle overuse of agency workers, and boost the council's productivity. Supported overwhelmingly by the Green, SNP, Labour and Liberal Democrat council groups, officers have been instructed to prepare a report outlining how this innovative policy could be adopted for the capital. Cllr Miller said: 'When faced with the need for budget cuts every year, it's a joy to find a proposal which helps to save money while also being beneficial rather than detrimental. And the four day week is just that. 'The four day week is one where services remain as-is – there are no changes as far as residents are concerned, either in opening hours or what's provided – but our workers deliver in a reduced working week. Studies of four day weeks show that productivity remains the same, or in some cases even improves, when the number of hours worked is reduced down and a greater proportion of the week is given back to people for their other responsibilities, for rest and for leisure.' In a written deputation to the Council meeting, the Campaign Director of the 4 Day Week Campaign cited a trial undertaken by South Cambridgeshire District Council: 'The key takeaway from South Cambridgeshire's experience is that a well-structured four-day week can improve productivity, boost recruitment and wellbeing, and—crucially—save taxpayers money. With hundreds of companies across the UK already successfully adopting a four-day week, and the results of the Scottish Government's public sector pilot out next month, now is a great time for the council to embark on this journey.' Representatives from both Unite and Unison trades unions, who represent council staff, also spoke in favour of the motion and urged councillors to prioritise this long-held ask of workers' rights organisations. Like this: Like Related