Last chance for MPs to think again on assisted dying
The assisted dying bill has split voters and MPs
TOLGA AKMEN/EPA
I n November, when the assisted dying bill had its second reading in the House of Commons, its sponsor Kim Leadbeater reassured fellow MPs that a vote in favour was only 'to continue the debate' and ' to subject the bill to line-by-line scrutiny'. That conversation — which permitted wavering MPs to interrogate their decision further — is drawing to a close. Today, MPs will vote on the third and final reading of the bill, after which it could go to the House of Lords. What has emerged from that 'line-by-line scrutiny', however, has chilled many legislators and observers to the core.
Firstly, there is the nature of the scrutiny itself. Because this was not a government bill, but a private member's one, Ms Leadbeater was able to handpick the committee and exercise control over the witnesses called. It did not boost confidence in an impartial process. Indeed, four Labour MPs raised concerns that the committee's evidence was 'weighted towards those who were known to be supportive of the bill'.
Of eight witnesses called from foreign jurisdictions with an assisted dying law, for example, not one was critical of how the legislation had played out — despite there being numerous experts with misgivings, such as Theo Boer of the Dutch Health Council. Formerly pro-euthanasia, he became horrified by the steady expansion of the system and its eligibility from what was first intended. Although the UK bill is being sold on the basis that it is strictly limited to those with a terminal diagnosis of less than six months, Mr Boer has warned that 'our safeguards were presented that way too.' In the Netherlands, assisted dying provision now includes children over 12 years old and those with psychiatric disorders.
If the passage of this bill has been distinguished by procedural ruthlessness, that has been matched only by its intellectual woolliness. The absence of tight, ethical safeguards to protect the vulnerable — in particular those with mental health problems — has caused deep anxiety in organisations at the sharp end of patient care: the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Association for Palliative Medicine, and the Royal College of Physicians have all raised serious concerns.
Tellingly, the two ministers whose departments would be most involved in the bill's implementation, the health secretary Wes Streeting and the justice secretary Shabana Mahmood, are both opposed. Many safeguarding amendments have been shrugged aside. MPs who vote yes on Friday will be voting to permit doctors to raise the subject of ending a patient's life, including with people who have learning disabilities. The door is open for private contractors to get involved in running the service with no transparency obligations or cap on profits. And as the former prime minister Gordon Brown argues, the legal right to assisted dying would not be matched by any equivalent right to high-quality palliative care, making a cruel nonsense of real choice for many of those in extremis.
Sir Keir Starmer has repeated his support for the principle of the bill, while distancing himself from the legislation. But should its proposals take full effect in 2029 as stipulated, close to the next general election, troubled voters who consider it a deal-breaker will inevitably connect it to the prime minister. There are many others, too, who back assisted dying in good faith, but this flawed bill delivers a far greater number of dangers than it does solutions. Before it is too late, its parliamentary supporters can, and must, think again.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Will Starmer have to agree to war?
👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈 Is Donald Trump about to join Israel in attacks on Iran, and will he ask Keir Starmer to help him out? If he does - would it even be legal? A lot has happened since Beth, Ruth and Harriet last got together, with further significant developments expected before a big NATO summit next week - a gathering we don't even know if the US president will turn up to. So how did we get to the point where we're asking whether the UK will allow its ally - the US - to use its airbases? And how does the current situation compare to the invasion of Iraq in 2003?
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
US weighs in with concerns over China's proposed ‘super-embassy' in London
A US intervention over China's proposed new embassy in London has thrown a potential resolution 'up in the air', campaigners have said, amid concerns over the site's proximity to a sensitive hub of critical communication cables. The furore over a new 'super-embassy' on the edge of London's financial district was reignited last week when the White House said it was 'deeply concerned' over potential Chinese access to 'the sensitive communications of one of our closest allies'. The Dutch parliament has also raised concerns about Beijing's ideal location of Royal Mint Court, on the edge of the City of London, which has so far failed to gain planning permission. The ultimate decision lies with the government, which has taken control over the stalled decision after permission was initially rejected on security grounds two years ago. Labour is expected to make a decision over the proposed 2-hectare (5-acre) site opposite the Tower of London after an inquiry was held earlier this year. Those who have long campaigned against the move over security concerns have criticised the row's revival, saying it has sidelined their views. 'They seem to be struggling to make the right decision,' said Dave Lake, the chair of the local residents' association and lead of the local campaign. 'It's got too political now. It was a straightforward inquiry but because of this, that and the other, particularly the Americans getting involved, it's made it all up in the air.' The intervention comes after the signing of a US-UK trade deal with Donald Trump at the G7 summit in Canada this week. Before the deal was signed, a US official told the Sunday Times: 'The United States is deeply concerned about providing China with potential access to the sensitive communications of one of our closest allies.' In the Netherlands, MPs have raised similar security concerns. A state department official said they had full faith in the UK to ensure the safety and security of their diplomatic mission in London. Nevertheless, for those who have long opposed the embassy site, what was once a campaign focused on security concerns from local residents and communities in exile has been overtaken by geopolitics. Lake has lived near the proposed site, bought by the Chinese government in 2018 for £255m, for 35 years. On Saturday he attended the latest demonstration there, fearing that building an embassy could attract further demonstrations and political attacks. Recent concerns have shifted to cables underneath the sites, which serve as an arterial link between the City of London and Canary Wharf, London's two financial centres. Lake said: 'We know there are cables running underground, and we know the capabilities of the Chinese. In the early conversations it was never part of it, it was just completely our security.' Charles Parton, who spent 22 years working in and on China as a UK diplomat and has advised the UK parliament's foreign affairs committee, said it was 'a big problem' if there were very sensitive cables running directly under the site. He said: 'There are two ways to be seen with it: one way is to say, well, you can't use the site; the other is to say reroute the cables. How difficult is it to reroute the cables? I don't know the answer to that question.' Parton said the British embassy had been wanting to rebuild its Beijing site for as long as he could remember. The building had not been fit for purpose for several decades, he said, and the wishes of both countries for newer embassies was 'normal diplomatic business' as relations had greatly expanded. 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 'There are many things we should worry about with the Chinese,' said Parton, mentioning Beijing's geopolitical agenda and strangle on rare earth exports. 'But we need to choose the important ones and not the unimportant ones. And all goes back to the nature of these cables. What is crucial is the security issue. If that is resolved satisfactory, then why shouldn't we both go ahead and build new embassies?' The government, which has said it is committed to 'robust' and 'evidence-based' decision-making, is expected to issue its verdict by 9 September. Among those worried that the embassy plans will go ahead is Rahima Mahmut, a leading Uyghur activist. 'It is really unbelievable when not only the US government but also the Dutch government express their concerns,' said Mahmut, who lives in exile in the UK. Also concerned over increased surveillance and espionage is Simon Cheng, the founder of Hongkongers in Britain and a former Hong Kong consulate worker. Cheng, who in 2023 had a bounty issued for his arrest, said: 'The UK government need to think twice because it's not only just the closest ally that has given a warning and grave concern, but also that to many other people, especially us as part of the exile community … we have concerns about our security here.' A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy said the planning application had taken UK policy into consideration as well as the views of all relevant parties. Building a new embassy would help them 'better perform' the responsibilities of 'mutual beneficial cooperation' between the two countries, they added. The spokesperson said: 'Anti-China forces are using security risks as an excuse to interfere with the British government's consideration over this planning application. This is a despicable move that is unpopular and will not succeed.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Airline staff being trained to bar people without visas from flights to UK
Thousands of European airline staff are being trained to stop people boarding flights to Britain without valid visas, in a move billed by the foreign secretary as a digital upgrade to border controls. David Lammy said the measures marked a step towards 'more secure, more digital and more effective' borders, but the move could raise questions about human rights safeguards. More than 9,000 airline workers at carriers including Wizz Air, Jet2 and Lufthansa, have undertaken training to verify UK visa documents at departure gates in 39 countries, including those on major transit routes for irregular migration such as Greece, Malta, Italy and Albania. The scheme, delivered by the Foreign Office, deputises airline workers as frontline immigration officers, blocking passengers from even attempting to travel without the correct paperwork. The training is part of the broader rollout of the Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) and eVisa system, which requires travellers – including many EU citizens – to pre-register before entering the UK. It represents a significant overhaul to UK border controls and is now being touted as a key aspect of Labour's immigration crackdown. Lammy said: 'Tackling irregular migration demands cooperation across borders and industries to disrupt the pathways used by those attempting to enter the UK illegally. We're sending a clear message – air travel simply isn't an option without proper authorisation and registration.' The initiative could attract scrutiny from civil liberties groups that express concern over legitimate travellers, especially asylum seekers, and would outsource critical immigration decisions to private airline staff. It comes as Labour seek to outflank Reform UK on border control and respond to what the party believes is public anxiety over uncontrolled immigration. Keir Starmer is seeking to maintain a hard rhetorical line, with returns and enforcement appearing to be central to his government's approach. The eVisa system, which replaces physical ID with digital status checks, allows the government to update and track individuals' immigration status in real time. Ministers say this will make it easier to take enforcement action against overstayers and enable landlords, employers and service providers to verify people's rights in the UK more easily. British Airways said the training had been helpful for its staff, making them feel 'more confident and prepared' to implement the system. But campaigners said the policy raises questions about accountability, particularly in cases where boarding is denied in error. According to official statistics, 30,000 people have been returned under current policies, with a 23% rise in enforced returns and a 14% increase in deportations of foreign offenders since the 2024 general election. Diplomats have been instructed to promote the ETA scheme directly to European governments, while a public information campaign is being rolled out to alert EU citizens about the new travel rules. A British Airways spokesperson said: 'As a carrier, this kind of insight is extremely useful and absolutely critical for us as it will guide us in how to process our customer whilst complying with the UK laws. Our stations feel more confident and prepared in using the ETA/eVisa system.'
