EXCLUSIVE Assisted dying vote 'on a knife-edge' as another MP now says they'll vote against new laws - despite previously backing Kim Leadbeater's Bill
Another MP who previously backed assisted dying laws has now said they will vote against the legislation when it returns to the House of Commons.
In a recent letter to a constituent, seen by MailOnline, Liberal Democrat MP Brian Mathew wrote that he was 'minded to vote against the Bill' at its third reading.
He added that several of his concerns about the legislation had so far been 'inadequately answered'.
This included his worry that those who are terminally ill might apply to end their lives because they feel a 'burden' on their families.
Dr Mathew, MP for Melksham and Devizes, is among more than 15 MPs to have altered their stance on assisted dying laws since an initial Commons vote.
Opponents of the Bill have said there is now a high chance of the Bill being defeated in a 'knife-edge' Commons vote next month.
An analysis by campaigners has revealed that only two more MPs will need to move from backing the Bill to voting against it for the legislation to fall at its third reading.
At the end of November last year, the Commons backed the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill by 330 votes to 275, a majority of 55 votes.
The Bill, being spearheaded by Labour's Kim Leadbeater, aims to allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales - with less than six months to live - to legally end their lives.
Despite it initially winning MPs' support, opponents of the legislation claim momentum has now moved against the Bill as it continues its passage through Parliament.
The Bill's third reading is expected to be held on either 13 or 20 June, when the Commons will decide whether to approve or reject the overall Bill and whether to send it on to the House of Lords.
Lord Stewart Jackson, the former Tory MP and an opponent of the Bill, said: 'It does feel like things have changed in regards to the Leadbeater Bill.
'There is now a steady stream of MPs flipping against the Bill and, if this continues, it looks like it will be a knife-edge vote next month.'
Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell said the analysis 'corresponds with the conversations I've been having with many colleagues who voted for the Bill at second reading but are now having doubts'.
'Momentum is against Leadbeater's Bill and there is every reason to believe we can defeat it at third reading,' the Romford MP added.
According to the analysis, nine MPs who previously backed the Bill in November have since withdrawn their support - including eight who will now actively vote against it.
A further six MPs who did not vote in November have now said they will vote against the Bill, while there are two MPs who voted for the Bill in November but are now undecided.
In his letter to a constituent, Dr Mathew said he was sharing his position on the Bill after 'months of conversations with constituents, campaigners, friends, family members and colleagues, as well as deep, personal reflection'.
He said: 'At the second reading in November, I voted in favour of progressing the bill as I felt that the committee should have the time and opportunity to scrutinise and improve the Bill.
'Coming to the third reading, I am minded to vote against the Bill, as I have several concerns I feel have been inadequately answered by the report stage, which is when the Bill is re-considered in the House of Commons following the work of the committee stage.
'Although the Bill's proposers and the committee have done an impressive piece of technical work, and I am grateful that my suggestion of the inclusion of a social worker has been adopted, I still find myself asking whether this is enough?
'I share the concerns of many constituents that individuals facing terminal illness will take the decision based on concerns that they have become a burden upon their family.
'This is a serious concern for me; I worry that in someone's final days, this question will loom heavy when it does not need to.
'The intimate setting of bedside care should be a time to be surrounded by loved ones, but this bill risks inviting interference of the judicial process into the delicate and pressing needs of the end of life where many, who will be unlikely to have considered assisted dying, may now face worries from it.
'Additionally, we must be honest, the current state of end-of-life care cannot be described as optimal.
'The provision of hospices across our country is patchy at best, which means that for some, an assisted death might be seen as the preferred option, not as a last resort to be used when palliative care cannot alleviate pain.'
Dr Mathew added that a 'properly supported palliative care system much of the problem that this Bill seeks to deal with goes away'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
Health Secretary says Asissted dying will take 'time and money' away from the NHS
Wes Streeting has warned that legalising assisted dying would take 'time and money' away from other parts of the health service. The Health Secretary, who opposed the legislation in the Commons, said better end-of-life care was needed to prevent terminally ill people feeling they had no alternative but to end their own life. Streeting, writing on his Facebook page, said he could not ignore the concerns 'about the risks that come with this Bill' raised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Association for Palliative Medicine and charities representing under-privileged groups. The Government is neutral on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill which cleared the Commons with a majority of 23 votes on Friday. Streeting, who was one of the most senior opponents of the legislation, said: 'Gordon Brown wrote this week that 'there is no effective freedom to choose if the alternative option, the freedom to draw on high-quality end-of-life care, is not available. "Neither is there real freedom to choose if, as many fear, patients will feel under pressure to relieve their relatives of the burden of caring for them, a form of coercion that prioritising good end-of-life care would diminish.' He is right. 'The truth is that creating those conditions will take time and money. 'Even with the savings that might come from assisted dying if people take up the service – and it feels uncomfortable talking about savings in this context to be honest – setting up this service will also take time and money that is in short supply. 'There isn't a budget for this. Politics is about prioritising. It is a daily series of choices and trade-offs. I fear we've made the wrong one.' Streeting said his Department of Health and Social Care 'will continue to work constructively with Parliament to assist on technical aspects of the Bill' as it goes through the House of Lords. Assisted dying campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen urged peers not to block the landmark legislation. Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. 'They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. 'So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this Bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through.' Dame Esther, who turns 85 on Sunday and has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to 'buzz off to Zurich' to use the Dignitas clinic. Paralympian and crossbench peer Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson told BBC Breakfast: 'We're getting ready for it to come to the Lords and from my personal point of view, about amending it to make it stronger. 'We've been told it's the strongest Bill in the world, but to be honest, it's not a very high bar for other legislation. 'So I do think there are a lot more safeguards that could be put in.'
North Wales Chronicle
2 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Streeting: Assisted dying will take ‘time and money that is in short supply'
The Health Secretary, who opposed the legislation in the Commons, said better end-of-life care was needed to prevent terminally ill people feeling they had no alternative but to end their own life. Mr Streeting, writing on his Facebook page, said he could not ignore the concerns 'about the risks that come with this Bill' raised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Association for Palliative Medicine and charities representing under-privileged groups. The Government is neutral on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill which cleared the Commons with a majority of 23 votes on Friday. Mr Streeting, who was one of the most senior opponents of the legislation, said: 'Gordon Brown wrote this week that 'there is no effective freedom to choose if the alternative option, the freedom to draw on high-quality end-of-life care, is not available. Neither is there real freedom to choose if, as many fear, patients will feel under pressure to relieve their relatives of the burden of caring for them, a form of coercion that prioritising good end-of-life care would diminish.' He is right. 'The truth is that creating those conditions will take time and money. 'Even with the savings that might come from assisted dying if people take up the service – and it feels uncomfortable talking about savings in this context to be honest – setting up this service will also take time and money that is in short supply. 'There isn't a budget for this. Politics is about prioritising. It is a daily series of choices and trade-offs. I fear we've made the wrong one.' Mr Streeting said his Department of Health and Social Care 'will continue to work constructively with Parliament to assist on technical aspects of the Bill' as it goes through the House of Lords. Assisted dying campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen urged peers not to block the landmark legislation. Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. 'They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. 'So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this Bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through.' Dame Esther, who turns 85 on Sunday and has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to 'buzz off to Zurich' to use the Dignitas clinic. Paralympian and crossbench peer Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson told BBC Breakfast: 'We're getting ready for it to come to the Lords and from my personal point of view, about amending it to make it stronger. 'We've been told it's the strongest Bill in the world, but to be honest, it's not a very high bar for other legislation. 'So I do think there are a lot more safeguards that could be put in.' Conservative peer and disability rights campaigner Lord Shinkwin said the narrow Commons majority underlined the need for peers to take a close look at the legislation. He told Today 'I think the House of Lords has a duty to expose and to subject this Bill to forensic scrutiny' but 'I don't think it's a question of blocking it so much as performing our duty as a revising chamber'. Lord Shinkwin added: 'The margin yesterday was so close that many MPs would appreciate the opportunity to look at this again in respect of safeguards as they relate to those who feel vulnerable, whether that's disabled people or older people.' Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who steered the Bill through the Commons, told the PA news agency she hoped peers would not seek to derail the legislation, which could run out of parliamentary time if it is held up in the Lords. She said: 'I would be upset to think that anybody was playing games with such an important and such an emotional issue.'
Rhyl Journal
2 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Streeting: Assisted dying will take ‘time and money that is in short supply'
The Health Secretary, who opposed the legislation in the Commons, said better end-of-life care was needed to prevent terminally ill people feeling they had no alternative but to end their own life. Mr Streeting, writing on his Facebook page, said he could not ignore the concerns 'about the risks that come with this Bill' raised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Association for Palliative Medicine and charities representing under-privileged groups. The Government is neutral on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill which cleared the Commons with a majority of 23 votes on Friday. Mr Streeting, who was one of the most senior opponents of the legislation, said: 'Gordon Brown wrote this week that 'there is no effective freedom to choose if the alternative option, the freedom to draw on high-quality end-of-life care, is not available. Neither is there real freedom to choose if, as many fear, patients will feel under pressure to relieve their relatives of the burden of caring for them, a form of coercion that prioritising good end-of-life care would diminish.' He is right. 'The truth is that creating those conditions will take time and money. 'Even with the savings that might come from assisted dying if people take up the service – and it feels uncomfortable talking about savings in this context to be honest – setting up this service will also take time and money that is in short supply. 'There isn't a budget for this. Politics is about prioritising. It is a daily series of choices and trade-offs. I fear we've made the wrong one.' Mr Streeting said his Department of Health and Social Care 'will continue to work constructively with Parliament to assist on technical aspects of the Bill' as it goes through the House of Lords. Assisted dying campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen urged peers not to block the landmark legislation. Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. 'They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. 'So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this Bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through.' Dame Esther, who turns 85 on Sunday and has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to 'buzz off to Zurich' to use the Dignitas clinic. Paralympian and crossbench peer Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson told BBC Breakfast: 'We're getting ready for it to come to the Lords and from my personal point of view, about amending it to make it stronger. 'We've been told it's the strongest Bill in the world, but to be honest, it's not a very high bar for other legislation. 'So I do think there are a lot more safeguards that could be put in.' Conservative peer and disability rights campaigner Lord Shinkwin said the narrow Commons majority underlined the need for peers to take a close look at the legislation. He told Today 'I think the House of Lords has a duty to expose and to subject this Bill to forensic scrutiny' but 'I don't think it's a question of blocking it so much as performing our duty as a revising chamber'. Lord Shinkwin added: 'The margin yesterday was so close that many MPs would appreciate the opportunity to look at this again in respect of safeguards as they relate to those who feel vulnerable, whether that's disabled people or older people.' Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who steered the Bill through the Commons, told the PA news agency she hoped peers would not seek to derail the legislation, which could run out of parliamentary time if it is held up in the Lords. She said: 'I would be upset to think that anybody was playing games with such an important and such an emotional issue.'
