Latest news with #Lords
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Health
- Yahoo
MPs may have passed the assisted dying bill, but the debate is just beginning
Now that the assisted dying bill has passed its momentous third reading in the House of Commons, it may seem like legalisation in England and Wales is a done deal. But despite this significant milestone, the bill is not yet law and its journey through the House of Lords is far from a formality. While the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill is now closer than ever to becoming law, both the Commons and the Lords must agree on its final wording. And just like in the Commons, there are passionate supporters and vocal opponents in the Lords. Peers are expected to focus their attention on a number of outstanding, and controversial, issues. One of the biggest concerns that surfaced during both the report stage and today's third reading relates to the speed and process of drafting the legislation. Because this is a private member's bill, introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, it was subject to strict timelines. Leadbeater had just 85 days to work with legal drafters and set out a policy framework before the bill was published ahead of its second reading in November 2024. Despite this, the democracy-supporting charity the Hansard Society has noted that the bill is 'among the most heavily scrutinised in recent times', and it could ultimately receive up to 200 hours of parliamentary debate, especially now that it has moved to the Lords. Still, the fast turnaround meant that many important decisions, such as what medications will be approved for use in assisted dying, have been left for the secretary of state to determine later through what's known as delegated legislation (secondary laws made without a full parliamentary vote). One area likely to receive particular scrutiny is the bill's inclusion of so-called 'Henry VIII clauses'. These are controversial powers that allow ministers to make changes to existing primary legislation, effectively altering acts of parliament without needing a new law. A key example is clause 38 that would let ministers revise the NHS Act 2006 to formally include assisted dying within NHS services. Several amendments aimed at strengthening the bill's safeguards were supported during the Commons stages. These included the introduction of independent advocates, a new disability advisory board, and additional protections for people with learning disabilities, mental health conditions, or autism. An amendment from Labour MP Naz Shah was also supported at the third reading, ensuring that a person who chooses to stop eating and drinking will not automatically be considered terminally ill. This is a protection designed to prevent the system being used inappropriately. Yet despite these measures, concerns remain. Critics worry about the risk of coercion, both from others and self imposed. There is particular unease about people feeling pressured to choose assisted dying because they consider themselves a burden. Questions have also been raised about whether those with conditions like anorexia might qualify for assisted dying under the current wording of the bill. Even with the new safeguards, including mandatory training for doctors to detect coercion and assess mental capacity, many feel the bill needs tighter definitions and clearer criteria to protect the most vulnerable. The impact on palliative and end-of-life care continues to be a major point of debate. Today, MPs backed an amendment from Liberal Democrat MP Munira Wilson that would require the government to assess the state of palliative care services within one year of the law being enacted. Peers in the House of Lords may push further on this issue. Some may argue that before a person can request assisted dying, they should first be referred to a palliative care specialist to fully understand their options. Others may want the law to spell out more clearly who is qualified to assess these requests. Another key question is who should provide assisted dying services. The British Medical Association has previously suggested a model where assisted dying operates outside the core NHS system. This would be a kind of parallel service overseen by the health secretary but delivered by independent providers. This would be similar to how early medical abortions are offered in some parts of the UK. Time is tight in the Lords, so peers will probably focus on a few high priority areas. Any amendments will need to be proposed, debated and approved quickly if the bill is to continue progressing this session. Even if the bill passes, it includes a four year implementation period to allow for the development of more detailed policies, including training for professionals, protocols for medication and clearer guidance on safeguarding. The passing of the bill in the Commons is historic. But the national conversation on assisted dying is not over. And the next phase will determine how this sensitive and deeply personal issue is handled in practice. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Suzanne Ost has previously received funding from the AHRC for her assisted dying research. Nancy Preston receives funding from Horizon Europe, Horizon 2020 and the NIHR
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Spectator
Diane Abbott's masterful Assisted Dying speech will come back to haunt us
If yours is a sentimental bent, you'll have been terrifically moved by the spectacle of Jess Phillips MP giving Kim Leadbeater a big hug after the Assisted Dying Bill was passed. Ms Leadbeater has a tendency to look agonised at the best of times. When MPs paid tribute to her in the course of the debate for her compassion, she looked as if she was on the verge of bursting into tears. Now, it'll be tears of joy – at least for her. I should right now retract all the unkind things I have ever said about Diane Abbott Quite how this reaction, and the hugs, can be elicited by a measure which will mean people can be given lethal drugs courtesy of the state is beyond me – because that's actually what it entails – but you can dignify almost anything in our politics if you designate it as being motivated by compassion. There was one contribution to the debate which will stay with me. It was made by Dr Neil Hudson, one of those Tory MPs who looks as if he'll never rouse a rabble; he was in his previous incarnation, a vet. Almost apologetically, he declared that he had been involved in participating in euthanising various animals, large and small, in that job, and while he absolutely wasn't comparing human beings with animals, he wanted to make the point that the substances and procedures were very similar to those used for humans. 'The final act,' he said, 'doesn't always go smoothly'. What a vista that conjures up. All very different from the talk in the chamber, which was all about dignity. Hudson isn't the first person to make this point. Several months ago, I talked at some length to parliament's premier palliative care practitioner, Professor Ilora Finlay. Her verdict? Assisted suicide 'was not a Hollywood death'. Not clean, not quick. Or as she observed, the length it takes actually for the drugs to work – from the experience of those countries which have euthanasia – varies enormously, from under half an hour to over a day. The debate has glossed over this kind of gritty stuff. In the Lords at least, where the bill goes to next, Finlay will have the chance of pointing out how the thing works in practice. She can also say that the agonising deaths that pro-euthanasia MPs described graphically, as a sort of clincher, during the debate are not necessary with proper palliative care. It took the daughter of a male hospice nurse, Labour's Lola McEvoy, to point out that this choice, between dying with hospice provision or without it is not universally available. Making assisted suicide a ready option will, she said, 'deprioritise good palliative care'. Masterly understatement there. It was, moreover, the odd philosophical basis of Leadbeater's speech as the bill's sponsor which was most striking. Passing over her insistence that this bill wouldn't mean more deaths (yes, Kim, we all know that everyone must die eventually, one way or another), she waxed lyrical about the way some patients could already, all by themselves, without any supervision, opt to have their life support or ventilation turned of. Yet, she suggested, MPs were making a fuss about euthanising people who did have the benefit of a supervisory panel. Look, if we can't tell the difference between not doing something (like not opting for artificial life support), and actually – and actively – giving someone drugs that would kill them, it's hard to know how to argue about these things at all. But the MPs who really undermined the cant about choice were those who talked about coercion. I should right now retract all the unkind things I have ever said about Diane Abbott, Mother of the House. She was brilliant, even though she was panicking a bit when she couldn't read her speech on her phone (go for paper!). She was utterly convincing when she dismissed witheringly the notion that, in approved cases of assisted suicide, there would have to be no police evidence of coercion. 'There wouldn't be!' she said. 'In the family the most powerful coercion is silent.' Abbott went on to observe that 'if the police can't spot coercion dealing with domestic violence, why should they spot it in assisted dying?' Her most powerful point was to look at the assembled parliamentarians and observe that every single one of them was 'confident in dealing with authority and institutions. But what about choice for all those who all their lives have lacked agency, particularly in a family situation?' That needed saying. It's one thing for Esther Rantzen to say that she'll die in a fashion of her choosing; quite another for some poor put upon individual being made to feel that they're selfishly taking up other people's time and money (if we're sinking to the level of emotional anecdote, my mother, with Parkinson's, said just that about herself). But it's the wretched Rantzens who dominate this debate, people who've never been pressurised by anyone. There was another unexpectedly brilliant contribution on coercion, Labour's Jess Asato, who works with victims of domestic abuse. She declared that coercion was 'a certainty' – it would be 'the most vulnerable people who will experience wrongful death…as a self-perceived burden'. As she pointed out, other family members will only find out about these deaths when it's too late. She warned that 'there can be no room for doubt, and no room for error'. Except there will be errors, but who'll be complaining, and how? On a Ouija board? It's been quite the week in parliament for life and death. The vote earlier this week – for Tonia Antoniazzi's amendment to allow mothers to abort unborn babies up to birth without criminal sanction – was to do with one end of the life spectrum; the victims being the foetuses who will die. Today's vote was about the end, rather than the beginning of life. But allowing doctors to give drugs to ill people to bring about their death is a similarly warped notion of choice. It's been a good week though for the hooded man with the scythe.
Daily Mirror
3 hours ago
- Health
- Daily Mirror
What happens next after historic assisted dying vote - 'not over yet'
MPs backed a landmark Bill that will allow assisted dying in England and Wales - but it still has to undergo scrutiny in the House of Lords, which could prove tricky MPs today backed historic legislation that will legalise assisted dying. A Bill put forward by Labour backbencher Kim Leadbeater narrowly passed through the Commons after an intense debate. But opponents say "this is not over" as there are still hurdles to overcome before it can become law. Ms Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was supported by 314 MPs from across the political spectrum and opposed by 291. It was a huge victory for campaigners who have lobbied for decades to change the law and give terminally ill people control over how they die. Throughout the day the Commons heard passionate pleas from both sides of the argument. READ MORE: Terminally ill gran's heartbreaking message to MPs ahead of assisted dying vote What happens next? The Bill has passed its third reading, which means elected MPs support it. As is routine, it will now be sent to the House of Lords to scrutinise. Although the Lords is unelected, and there have long been calls to abolish it, it does have a crucial role in passing legislation. Peers will go through the Bill line-by-line and outline any parts they are unsure about. Members can table amendments, and if the House backs them these will be sent back to the Commons to have another look. So can they block the Bill? The main danger for supporters will be that the Bill runs out of time. The legislation will fall if it isn't completed in the current session of Parliament, which does give disgruntled peers the power to throw a spanner in the works. Sessions usually last a year, and the current one began last July after the general election. But there's no fixed rule, meaning it could still run for a few more months. The problem will come if there's a long back-and-forth - known as "ping pong" between the Lords and the Commons. The last time this happened was with Rishi Sunak's botched Safety of Rwanda Bill, which kept being sent back to MPs as peers tried to make changes. If the same happens again, the process could take several months. And a lot of MPs are expecting this - during today's debate there was a lot of talk of scrutiny in "the other place" - meaning the House of Lords. Baroness Finlay, a palliative care doctor who opposes the Bill, told the BBC: "Our role is not to rubber stamp whatever has happened in the Commons, particularly when we know that so many amendments put down in the Commons that would have improved the Bill have gone undebated." So is there still a fight to come? Potentially, depending on the mood of the Lords. It's not gone unnoticed that the majority this time around was lower than it was in November, when the legislation was last in the Commons. Lib Dem MP Tim Farron, an opponent of the Bill, posted: : "Wow! Majority slashed. At the risk of sounding like Jeremy Corbyn … we clearly won the argument there! With a tiny majority and growing opposition from expert groups, the Lords will now rightly feel that they have the right to disagree. To my pleasant surprise, this is not over!" Do Lords amendments have to go in the Bill? No. As we saw with the Rwanda Bill, peers can suggest changes to legislation, but it is the Commons that decides. If MPs think suggestions from the Lords are helpful, they can accept them. If they don't - as the Conservatives decided with the proposed changes on Rwanda - they can vote them down. So when will it actually become law? Once both Houses are satisfied, or when MPs throw out amendments by the Lords. As we saw under Mr Sunak, having a lot of unhappy peers does not have to stop legislation going through. Once it gets through the Lords it will receive Royal Assent, meaning it is on the statute books. When can the first assisted dying case happen? There are a number of safeguards put into the Bill to ensure this is not rushed. The Bill as it stands - although peers may try to push for changes - says it will take up to four years. This means it could be late 2029 by the time the first person is able to choose to end their lives this way. In each case there will be a panel of experts who will have to give their consent to each assisted death, along with doctors. This process will take time to set up, and it remains to be seen whether there are any big legal hurdles to overcome. But Ms Leadbeater has indicated that the four year timeframe is not a target but a "backstop" - meaning it could be sooner.
South Wales Guardian
4 hours ago
- Politics
- South Wales Guardian
MPs debate assisted dying before crunch parliament vote
Legalisation could move a step closer for England and Wales depending on the result on Friday. The outcome will lead to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill either clearing the House of Commons and moving to the Lords, or falling completely – with a warning the latter could mean the issue might not return to Westminster for a decade. Opening her debate, Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater, said her proposed legislation is 'cogent' and 'workable', with 'one simple thread running through it – the need to 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'. She shared emotional stories from people she had met throughout the campaign to legalise assisted dying, both bereaved and terminally ill. Pressed by Conservative former minister Simon Hoare on concerns raised about the Bill by some doctors and medical bodies including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Ms Leadbeater said: 'We have different views in this House and different people in different professions have different views.' She noted that all the royal colleges have a neutral position on assisted dying. The relatively narrow majority of 55 from the historic yes vote in November means every vote will count on Friday. The Bill would fall if 28 MPs switched directly from voting yes to no, but only if all other MPs voted the same way as in November, including those who abstained. Supporters and opponents of a change in the law gathered at Westminster early on Friday, holding placards saying 'Let us choose' and 'Don't make doctors killers'. On the eve of the vote, in what will be seen as a blow to the Bill, four Labour MPs confirmed they will switch sides to oppose the proposed new law. 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 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. Ms Leadbeater has insisted the replacement of High Court judge approval with multidisciplinary panels is a strengthening of the legislation, incorporating wider expert knowledge to assess assisted dying applications. Before 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 that 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 have a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines. There is no obligation on MPs to take part in the vote, and others present on Friday could formally abstain. Ms Leadbeater warned that choosing not to support the assisted dying Bill is 'not a neutral act', but rather 'a vote for the status quo'. She said: 'It fills me with despair to think MPs could be here in another 10 years' time hearing the same stories.' All eyes will be on whether Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and senior colleagues continue their support for the Bill. Sir Keir indicated earlier this week that he had not changed his mind since voting yes last year, saying his 'position is long-standing and well-known'. Health Secretary Wes Streeting described Ms Leadbeater's work on the proposed legislation as 'extremely helpful', but confirmed in April that he still intended to vote against it. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has voiced her continued backing of the Bill, saying she she hopes it can clear the Commons and continue its progress to becoming law. She told Sky News she has a 'long-standing personal commitment to change the law on assisted dying with appropriate safeguards' and praised the 'very considered and respectful debate over the last few months on all sides'. A vote must be called before 2.30pm, as per parliamentary procedure. Friday's session began with considerations of outstanding amendments to the Bill, including one to prevent a person meeting the requirements for an assisted death 'solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking'. The amendment – accepted without the need for a vote – combined with existing safeguards in the Bill, would rule out people with eating disorders falling into its scope, Ms Leadbeater has said. Another amendment, requiring ministers to report within a year of the Bill passing on how assisted dying could affect palliative care, was also approved by MPs. Marie Curie welcomed the amendment, but warned that 'this will not on its own make the improvements needed to guarantee everyone is able to access the palliative care they need' and urged a palliative care strategy for England 'supported by a sustainable funding settlement – which puts palliative and end of life care at the heart of NHS priorities for the coming years'. Ms Leadbeater has warned it could be a decade before legislation returns to Parliament if MPs 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 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.
Leader Live
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Leader Live
MPs debate assisted dying before crunch parliament vote
Legalisation could move a step closer for England and Wales depending on the result on Friday. The outcome will lead to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill either clearing the House of Commons and moving to the Lords, or falling completely – with a warning the latter could mean the issue might not return to Westminster for a decade. Opening her debate, Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater, said her proposed legislation is 'cogent' and 'workable', with 'one simple thread running through it – the need to 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'. She shared emotional stories from people she had met throughout the campaign to legalise assisted dying, both bereaved and terminally ill. Pressed by Conservative former minister Simon Hoare on concerns raised about the Bill by some doctors and medical bodies including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Ms Leadbeater said: 'We have different views in this House and different people in different professions have different views.' She noted that all the royal colleges have a neutral position on assisted dying. The relatively narrow majority of 55 from the historic yes vote in November means every vote will count on Friday. The Bill would fall if 28 MPs switched directly from voting yes to no, but only if all other MPs voted the same way as in November, including those who abstained. Supporters and opponents of a change in the law gathered at Westminster early on Friday, holding placards saying 'Let us choose' and 'Don't make doctors killers'. On the eve of the vote, in what will be seen as a blow to the Bill, four Labour MPs confirmed they will switch sides to oppose the proposed new law. 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 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. Ms Leadbeater has insisted the replacement of High Court judge approval with multidisciplinary panels is a strengthening of the legislation, incorporating wider expert knowledge to assess assisted dying applications. Before 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 that 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 have a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines. There is no obligation on MPs to take part in the vote, and others present on Friday could formally abstain. Ms Leadbeater warned that choosing not to support the assisted dying Bill is 'not a neutral act', but rather 'a vote for the status quo'. She said: 'It fills me with despair to think MPs could be here in another 10 years' time hearing the same stories.' All eyes will be on whether Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and senior colleagues continue their support for the Bill. Sir Keir indicated earlier this week that he had not changed his mind since voting yes last year, saying his 'position is long-standing and well-known'. Health Secretary Wes Streeting described Ms Leadbeater's work on the proposed legislation as 'extremely helpful', but confirmed in April that he still intended to vote against it. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has voiced her continued backing of the Bill, saying she she hopes it can clear the Commons and continue its progress to becoming law. She told Sky News she has a 'long-standing personal commitment to change the law on assisted dying with appropriate safeguards' and praised the 'very considered and respectful debate over the last few months on all sides'. A vote must be called before 2.30pm, as per parliamentary procedure. Friday's session began with considerations of outstanding amendments to the Bill, including one to prevent a person meeting the requirements for an assisted death 'solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking'. The amendment – accepted without the need for a vote – combined with existing safeguards in the Bill, would rule out people with eating disorders falling into its scope, Ms Leadbeater has said. Another amendment, requiring ministers to report within a year of the Bill passing on how assisted dying could affect palliative care, was also approved by MPs. Marie Curie welcomed the amendment, but warned that 'this will not on its own make the improvements needed to guarantee everyone is able to access the palliative care they need' and urged a palliative care strategy for England 'supported by a sustainable funding settlement – which puts palliative and end of life care at the heart of NHS priorities for the coming years'. Ms Leadbeater has warned it could be a decade before legislation returns to Parliament if MPs 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 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.
