Historic vote brings assisted dying closer to becoming law in England and Wales
A majority of MPs backed a Bill that would allow terminally ill adults with a life expectancy of less than six months to end their lives.
Despite warnings from opponents around the safety of a Bill they argued has been rushed through, the proposed legislation took another step in the parliamentary process.
MPs voted 314 to 291, majority 23, to approve Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at third reading.
Kim Leadbeater has been the MP behind the assisted dying bill (Jonathan Brady/PA)
This means the Bill has completed its first stages in the Commons and will move to the House of Lords for further debate and scrutiny.
Both Houses must agree the final text of the Bill before it can be signed into law.
Due to the four-year implementation period, it could be 2029 – potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's Parliament – before assisted dying is offered.
Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years.
Supporters of assisted dying have described the current law as not being fit for purpose, with desperate terminally ill people feeling the need to end their lives in secret or go abroad to Dignitas alone, for fear loved ones will be prosecuted for helping them.
Public support for a change in the law remains high, according to a poll (James Manning/PA)
Friday was the first time the Bill was debated and voted on in its entirety since last year's historic yes vote, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55 at second reading.
Labour MP Ms Leadbeater has argued her Bill will 'correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it'.
During an hours-long date on Friday, MPs on both sides of the issue recalled personal stories of loved ones who had died.
Conservative former minister Sir James Cleverly, who led the opposition to the Bill in the Commons, spoke of a close friend who died 'painfully' from cancer.
He said he comes at the divisive issue 'not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance', and was driven in his opposition by 'concerns about the practicalities' of the Bill.
MPs had a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decided according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
Campaigners in Parliament Square, central London, ahead of the vote (PA)
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. Public support for a change in the law remains high, according to a YouGov poll published on the eve of the vote.
The survey of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, suggested 73% of those asked last month were supportive of the Bill, while the proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle stood at 75%.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The Lords must now revise this dreadful assisted dying Bill
Britain is a less civilised country today. Seldom has the House of Commons enacted legislation with such potentially calamitous consequences as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which has passed its third reading by a majority of 314 to 291. The narrow margin of victory for the assisted dying Bill indicates that opinion had turned against the legalisation of euthanasia during the process of scrutiny, but not in sufficient numbers to defeat it. The only hope of mitigating its worst aspects now lies with the House of Lords. The Lords is a revising chamber and it should now do the job that the Commons failed to do: proper scrutiny. In this case, the revision required to make this legislation workable and safe will have to be radical. This Private Member's Bill was not in the Labour manifesto and so the Upper House is much less limited by convention in the scope of possible amendments. Peers are not generally eager to correct the follies of MPs, but this time their Lordships' duty is to make root and branch changes to the Bill, even if this risks confrontation with the Commons. In particular, the bishops of the Church of England have a responsibility to speak out much more clearly on a matter of such moral gravity. We know that in countries where euthanasia has been legalised, a large and growing proportion of all deaths are now assisted by doctors. In Canada, for example, some studies suggest up to 10 per cent of all lives will end in this way. Surely the Lords Spiritual should be leading the national conversation about what is likely to become reality here, too, in the very near future. Many people will rightly feel a sense of dread at the prospect of death on the NHS. When the new law takes effect in 2029, our health service will be obliged to offer assisted suicide as though it were just another form of care. Palliative care (already the Cinderella of the NHS) will now compete for resources with the new 'service'. As we report, assisted death is likely to overwhelm the NHS and finally break its budgets. Doctors will have to offer lethal drugs to any and all patients who are deemed to be terminally ill, as long as they have mental capacity. Those who meet the criteria could include patients with all kinds of disabilities, people with Down's Syndrome and those with eating disorders. The panels that will decide whether to authorise assisted dying do not need to have personal knowledge of the patient, nor to inform families or friends. They need only decide on the balance of probabilities that the patient is not being coerced. How did Britain find itself saddled with such a 'bad Bill', as the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called it, on a matter of such cardinal importance? The Prime Minister must carry much of the blame. Unwilling to shoulder responsibility, he chose to pass the buck to Kim Leadbeater, a backbench MP with more zeal than sagacity. A Government Bill would have allowed much more time to examine the practical costs and benefits of shoehorning the provision of medicalised death into a service designed to preserve life. One of Sir Keir Starmer's predecessors, Gordon Brown, rightly observed that in the name of autonomy the Bill sets up a false choice. Patients who request assisted dying will in future have a legal right to receive it, 'without guaranteeing anything approaching an equivalent right to high-quality palliative care for those close to death', he said. The refusal of the Commons to acknowledge this glaring injustice now places the onus on the Lords to enable physicians to offer terminal patients a genuine choice. Whatever one's views about the principle of assisted dying, this Bill is a case of legislating in haste and repenting at leisure. Posterity will have to live with its lasting impact on the relationship between the public and the medical profession. But it is not too late for peers to remedy some of the Bill's flaws.
The National
32 minutes ago
- The National
SNP councillor forces Labour to take action against Israeli arms sales
SNP councillor Naz Anis-Miah's pro-Palestinian motion was passed by Fife Council despite opposition from the ruling minority Labour administration. Labour councillors dropped their amendment to the motion halfway through the debate. The full motion called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, an end to UK arms sales to Israel, a commitment to upholding international law, and support for increased humanitarian aid to the region. READ MORE: Scottish Labour drop below Alba and Greens in Highlands by-election It also committed the leader of Fife Council, Labour councillor David Ross, to write to Keir Starmer, Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds over ending arms exports and instead increasing humanitarian aid. 'Obviously [Benjamin] Netanyahu and Israel are not going to listen to what Fife Council are going to say, but what Fife Council can do is apply pressure to the British government,' Anis-Miah told The National. The debate on the motion was held on Thursday, with councillors going back and forth over Labour's amendment which Anis-Miah said would have 'watered down' the SNP's motion. Speaking in the Chamber, Anis-Miah (below) told fellow councillors: 'We can't claim to champion human rights abroad while fuelling destruction with our exports. 'We can't preach peace while we enable war. We cannot turn a blind eye to the death of innocent children while our industries build machines that kill them. If we can't stop the bombs let's stop building them. If we can't end the war let's refuse to fuel it. (Image: SNP) 'If we can't undo the suffering, let us not be the ones who prolong it. I urge every member of this chamber to support the motion. "Let's send a clear message to the Prime Minister and Westminster that the people of Fife and Scotland will not be complicit in supplying arms that cause genocide.' Ross told councillors that members of the Labour group were still 'uncomfortable' with some parts of the motion. 'I think undoubtedly we are all horrified and really totally concerned about what is going on and we recognise the need to make a statement,' he added. 'In the interests of speaking with one voice from the council we're prepared to withdraw our amendment with a slight concession on the wording from the SNP motion.' The SNP group agreed to remove a call for the motion to be shared with Cosla and other councils across Scotland. READ MORE: UK scrambles to charter flights out of Israel for British citizens 'We're comfortable that we can share it with our Cosla delegates at the SNP Council group nationwide, and we've also obviously got a network of Councilors across the country, so we're comfortable that we'll share the motion ourselves,' Anis-Miah explained. We previously told how in the last quarter of 2024, the Labour Government licensed exports of more military equipment to Israel than the Tories did for all of 2020-2023 combined. This led to Lammy claiming that The National's article was 'clickbait' as he dismissed the report, which was based on UK Government figures. Several high profile celebrities, including Paolo Nutini and Ncuti Gatwa, have joined calls urging Starmer to suspend arm sales to Israel.
Edinburgh Reporter
38 minutes ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
Senior Edinburgh councillors back giving themselves a pay hike
Senior Edinburgh councillors have backed giving themselves a pay hike, with only one member speaking out in opposition. In February, Edinburgh Council agreed to freeze pay for senior councillors – including political group leaders and committee conveners – at the previous year's levels. But at Thursday's meeting all political groups except the SNP voted in favour of raising pay for senior councillors, with most getting an uplift of £4,637 to their annual pay packets – an 11.6% jump. Council committee conveners, as well as the SNP, Conservative and Liberal Democrat group leaders, will all get £4,637 added to their annual pay, bringing them to £44,644 per year, up from £40,027 from the previous year. And the depute council leader, Labour's Mandy Watt, will also get a £4,637 pay hike, bringing her total compensation to £52,669, up from £48,032 before. A council spokesperson said the increase in pay for senior councillors was intended to match the pay hike given to non-senior councillors by the Scottish Government. While local authorities have the power to set the pay of senior councillors, the rates for all other councillors are set by the Scottish Government, including the council's leader and Lord Provost, based on the fidings of the Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee (SLARC). Earlier this year, it mandated that the salary for most councillors be raised to £25,982 per year, up £4,637 from their previous pay of £21,345, which stood unchanged for several years. Labour councillor and council leader Jane Meagher is paid £71,519 per year, while Lord Provost Robert Aldridge is paid £53,640. Depute council leader, Labour councillor Mandy Watt, said: 'I sat down and read the guidance, and it does say that in your approach to this, you should be doing councillor remuneration from the bottom up, not the top down. 'I very much appreciate the support that I've had [from officers] to get all this together.' An SNP source said: 'Councillors have been chronically underpaid for decades, and normally I'd take the view that we remunerate the position held, rather than the individual holding it. 'But the current crop of administration conveners are so inept that we could not support them getting a pay hike.' A council spokesperson said: 'While we don't set the rates of pay for non-senior councillor roles it's appropriate that we publish them and provide elected members with the opportunity to scrutinise rates for full transparency. 'The increase in Senior Councillors' remuneration was agreed by Council yesterday, and now includes the increase to the Councillor basic pay set by the Scottish Government.' Only one member, Labour councillor Katrina Faccenda, spoke out against the pay hikes. She said: 'I think you should take note of which councillors are getting extra money, and you should work out whether you are getting value for money from those councillors. 'Since this is public money, and I don't think anyone in here would support the misuse of public money, I'd ask the public to have a look at that, and work out if they think that in Edinburgh Council, the extra money they have to spend to subsidise councillors is being used in the right way.' Cllr Faccenda, who will not financially benefit from the pay increase for senior councillors, voted to support the hike. Meanwhile, independent councillor Ross McKenzie voted with the SNP to oppose the pay hike. Green co-convener, councillor Chas Booth, said: 'Greens think it is right that people are paid appropriately for the work they do, and we welcomed the recommendations of the Scottish Local Authority Remuneration Committee around councillors' salaries. 'Pay is a significant barrier to people from marginalised groups entering politics, and if we want to see more diversity in our councillors to reflect the rich diversity of the communities we serve, then we need to ensure people without independent income can become elected representatives. 'However, we acknowledge that while so many people in Edinburgh continue to face a cost-of-living crisis caused by years of austerity which is now being continued by the Labour government at Westminster, the Labour council administration doesn't feel that big increases in senior councillor pay were not appropriate. 'Therefore Green councillors were happy to support their proposals around this.' By Joseph Sullivan Local Democracy Reporter Like this: Like Related
