Two more Labour MPs suggest they could vote against assisted dying bill
Two more Labour MPs have expressed significant doubts about the assisted dying bill, suggesting they would now oppose the legislation.
The former health minister Andrew Gwynne, who previously abstained, wrote to his constituents in Gorton and Denton to say: 'To date I don't think that the bill has been strengthened enough and that safeguards should go much further.'
Paul Foster, the Labour MP for South Ribble, who previously voted in favour, told constituents this week he also had serious concerns about the bill's safeguards, suggesting he too could vote against it when it returns to the Commons for its final vote next week.
He said that following the alarm voiced by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, he was 'seriously concerned about the adequacy of the revised safeguards, particularly the removal of judicial oversight and the wider implications for vulnerable individuals'.
He said: 'As we approach the final stages of this bill, I want to be clear that I will not support the legislation at third reading unless I am absolutely assured that robust and enforceable safeguards are in place to protect people from harm, pressure or coercion.'
About 14 MPs who backed the bill or abstained at its second reading in November have said they are likely to vote against it. At least two others have said they will change their positions to vote for the bill, including the technology minister Chris Bryant, who previously abstained, and fellow Labour MP Jack Abbott, who previously voted against.
Labour's Debbie Abrahams, the chair of the work and pensions select committee, and Josh Fenton-Glynn, who both abstained previously, say they will now vote against, and Karl Turner, who voted in favour, has said he will abstain.
Those who say they play to switch from voting yes to voting against also include the former Conservative minister George Freeman and fellow Tory MPs Mike Wood and Andrew Snowden. The Tory MP Charlie Dewhirst, who previously abstained, says he will vote against.
Two Liberal Democrat MPs have also switched, including the party's work and pensions spokesperson, Steve Darling, and Brian Mathew, the Melksham and Devizes MP, who said that scrutiny of the plans had left 'several concerns I feel have been inadequately answered'.
The Reform UK chief whip, Lee Anderson, and his former party colleague Rupert Lowe withdrew support publicly when the bill's sponsor, Kim Leadbeater, removed the need for a high court judge to approve each procedure, instead giving this authority to an expert panel.
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
The bill passed with a majority of 55 in November, but the numbers are expected to be significantly tighter when it returns to the Commons for third reading, scheduled for 20 June. This Friday, MPs will debate amendments to the bill for a second day.
The first day of debates on amendments drawn up during a lengthy committee stage resulted in some changes being agreed, including an opt-out for all healthcare workers from being involved in assisted dying, extending the exemption that previously would have been available only to doctors.
The bill drawn up by Leadbeater would allow terminally ill patients in England and Wales to end their lives if they have less than six months to live, contingent on the agreement of two doctors and an expert panel including a senior lawyer, psychiatrist and social worker.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Palestine Action to be banned after vandalism of planes at RAF base
The Home Secretary is preparing to ban Palestine Action following the group's vandalism of two planes at an RAF base. Yvette Cooper has decided to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action. The decision comes after the group posted footage online showing two people inside the base at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. The clip shows one person riding an electric scooter up to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine. The incident is being also investigated by counter terror police. A spokesperson for Palestine Action accused the UK of failing to meet its obligation to prevent or punish genocide. The spokesperson said: 'When our government fails to uphold their moral and legal obligations, it is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to take direct action. The terrorists are the ones committing a genocide, not those who break the tools used to commit it.' The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'. Proscription will require Ms Cooper to lay an order in Parliament, which must then be debated and approved by both MPs and peers. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company Wagner Group. Another 14 organisations connected with Northern Ireland are also banned under previous legislation, including the IRA and UDA. Belonging to or expressing support for a proscribed organisation, along with a number of other actions, are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. Friday's incident at Brize Norton, described by the Prime Minister as 'disgraceful', prompted calls for Palestine Action to be banned. The group has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire. The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) welcomed the news that Ms Cooper intended to proscribe the group, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.' CAA chief executive Gideon Falter urged the Home Secretary to proscribe the Houthi rebel group and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, adding: 'This country needs to clamp down on the domestic and foreign terrorists running amok on our soil.' Former home secretary Suella Braverman said it was 'absolutely the correct decision'. But Tom Southerden, of Amnesty International UK, said the human rights organisation was 'deeply concerned at the use of counter terrorism powers to target protest groups'. Mr Southerden said: 'Terrorism powers should never have been used to aggravate criminal charges against Palestine Action activists and they certainly shouldn't be used to ban them. 'Instead of suppressing protest against the UK's military support for Israel, the UK should be taking urgent action to prevent Israel's genocide and end any risk of UK complicity in it.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Warning over 'two tier' support for ADHD sufferers amid 'significant' rise in the use of unregulated private providers
NHS waiting lists for ADHD diagnosis and support have led to a 'significant' rise in the use of unregulated private providers, a report has said. The ADHD Taskforce, commissioned by NHS England with the support of the Government, has published an interim report calling for the system of diagnosing and managing the neurological condition to be overhauled. ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) is characterised by patterns of restlessness, impulsivity and difficulty concentrating on one thing, with assessment and treatment typically provided by highly specialised doctors. But the report warned: 'Inability to access NHS services has led to a significant growth in the use of private providers that are not regulated, resulting in two-tier access to services, diagnosis and treatment; one for those who can pay and another for those who cannot. 'This drives health inequalities and links to disproportionate impacts and outcomes in the education and justice systems, employment and health.' Experts said waiting times for NHS ADHD services 'have escalated and are unacceptably long', with demand on services 'very likely' to continue to rise. Professor Anita Thapar, chair of the ADHD Taskforce, said: 'We need to get this right – to make sure people get early diagnosis and support.' A Department of Health and Social Care spokesman said: 'The report into the state of the NHS laid out how severe the delays have become for people waiting for an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
This ticking timebomb of an assisted dying Bill will lead us to a moral abyss, writes professor DAVID S. ODERBERG
The passing of the euphemistically named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a terrible milestone in the decline of medicine and medical ethics in the UK. MPs voted for it by a very narrow margin after some withdrew their support following the second reading, and the Bill will now head to the Lords, where it is unlikely to be significantly amended. Much of the impassioned debate revolved around crucial questions regarding safeguards against abuse, worries about possible coercion, and the need to focus more on palliative care, among many other legitimate and serious concerns. What seems largely to have escaped scrutiny is this simple fact: our MPs have approved a piece of legislation that is a euthanasia Bill in all but name. Let me explain why. The Bill makes it clear in multiple places that the person's death must be 'self-administered'. Clause 23 is explicit that the 'coordinating doctor' is not authorised by the Bill to administer the lethal substance. All they are allowed to do is 'prepare' the substance for self-administration, 'prepare a medical device' to enable the patient to self-administer, or 'assist' the patient to do so. The death-dealing act itself must be performed by the patient. Hence there is, technically, no euthanasia – no killing by the doctor of the patient. There is, however, the smallest of hints that all is not quite as it seems. According to clause 11, the 'assessing doctor' must 'discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance'. What could that mean? Well, the patient may, quite simply, find it difficult to self-administer. They might bungle it, as should be expected in such a fraught and stressful situation. Suppose they fail to self-administer despite making all the right requests at the right time. Or, even worse, suppose they partly self-administer but do not finish the job, and they are writhing in agony, not dead but in a terrible state. What then? I am no prophet, and I will not put a precise timeline on the following – save to say that it will all become clear in a handful of years. This Bill will be modified to allow active killing. Imagine a patient with motor neurone disease, or advanced multiple sclerosis, or late-stage Huntington's disease. Suppose, as is likely, they cannot self-administer, yet their request for 'assisted dying' is lucid, fixed, and follows the procedures in the Bill. By the letter of the law, their request must be denied. Yet surely this, from the viewpoint of the legislation's supporters, would be a perverse outcome. Here is a person in an awful state, who fits the Bill's definition of someone who is terminally ill (death reasonably expected within six months). Their circumstances are no different from anyone else entitled to request assisted dying except for the fact that they are physically unable to kill themselves. Should they be denied the right to a so-called 'peaceful death'? If so, the supposed injustice would be obvious: they would be, effectively, punished for their own misfortune. Through no fault of their own, they do not meet the Bill's criteria. Yet their medical condition could be, in terms of disability and subjective suffering, much worse than that of someone who does fit the bill and is allowed an assisted death. Could such an 'unjust' outcome be what Parliament intended? Clearly not. So what will happen is that euthanasia advocates will, as sure as night follows day, bring a test case involving someone with a dreadful affliction such as one of the ones I just mentioned. They will say to the court: 'Your Honour, it is simply unjust and perverse that my client can have no access to assisted dying, simply through no fault of their own, and even though their suffering is among the worst imaginable.' A judge will then do one of two things. They might appeal to clause 11 and 'read into' the legislation an implied legislative intent to allow active killing – euthanasia – in such a 'rare' case, and in similar ones. But I think this would be a stretch too far, judicially speaking. It is more likely that they will disallow euthanasia in the case before them but refer the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration, so as to remedy the unfair and unreasonable outcome of a badly drafted Bill. Badly drafted with intent? That is not for the judge to decide. So it will go back to Parliament, the boosters of euthanasia will storm the gates (metaphorically), and a sympathetic MP will table an amendment to remedy the injustice. And, hey presto, you will have euthanasia. The active killing of patients will be the law of the land. Our legislators, who once presided over a system that was the envy of the world for its palliative care, its hospices, its help for the most vulnerable to live out their days with dignity, should hang their heads in shame. The fact that yesterday's decision followed Tuesday's appalling vote to decriminalise abortion up to birth means we have descended yet further into the moral abyss.
