
All you need to know as the assisted dying Bill returns to Parliament
The assisted dying Bill is back in the House of Commons on Friday, where MPs will once again debate the controversial issue.
Here, the PA news agency takes a look at the Bill and how the process might work.
– What is in the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill?
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.
This would be subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
The terminally ill person would take an approved substance, provided by a doctor but administered only by the person themselves.
– When would assisted dying be available if the Bill became law?
The implementation period has been doubled to a maximum of four years from royal assent, rather than the initially-suggested two years.
If the Bill was to pass later this year that would mean it might not be until 2029, potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's parliament, that assisted dying was being offered.
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who is the parliamentarian behind the Bill and put forward the extended timeframe, has insisted it is 'a backstop' rather than a target, as she pledged to 'hold the Government's feet to the fire' on implementing legislation should the Bill pass.
The extended implementation period was one of a number of changes made since the Bill was first introduced to the Commons back in October.
– What other changes have there been?
The High Court safeguard has been dropped and replaced by expert panels – a change much-criticised by opponents who said it weakened the Bill, but something Ms Leadbeater has argued strengthens it.
At the end of a weeks-long committee process earlier this year to amend the Bill, Ms Leadbeater said rather than removing judges from the process, 'we are adding the expertise and experience of psychiatrists and social workers to provide extra protections in the areas of assessing mental capacity and detecting coercion while retaining judicial oversight'.
Changes were also made to ensure the establishment of independent advocates to support people with learning disabilities, autism or mental health conditions and to set up a disability advisory board to advise on legal implementation and impact on disabled people.
– Do we know much more about the potential impact of such a service coming in?
A Government impact assessment published earlier this month, estimated that between 164 and 787 assisted deaths could potentially take place in the first year of the service, rising to between 1,042 and 4,559 in year 10.
The establishment of a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and three-member expert panels would cost an estimated average of between £10.9 million to £13.6 million per year, the document said.
It had 'not been possible' to estimate the overall implementation costs at this stage of the process, it added.
While noting that cutting end-of-life care costs 'is not stated as an objective of the policy', the assessment estimated that such costs could be reduced by as much as an estimated £10 million in the first year and almost £60 million after 10 years.
– Do healthcare staff have to take part in assisted dying?
It was already the case that doctors would not have to take part, but Ms Leadbeater has also confirmed she will propose a clause to ensure 'anybody who does not want to be involved in the assisted dying process should not be forced to do so', meaning pharmacists and others will have the right not to participate.
On organisations such as hospices however, Ms Leadbeater said she wanted to give them 'the time and space to think about if and how they choose to have assisted dying as part of what they do'.
There is nothing in the Bill to say they have to, nor is there anything to say they do not have to, she said, adding on the Parliament Matters podcast that this is 'the best position to be in' and that nobody should be 'dictating to hospices what they do and don't do around assisted dying'.
– What is happening on Friday?
The Bill is at report stage – where MPs will debate and vote on various amendments.
It is the first time the Bill is returning to the Commons since it passed second reading in a historic vote in November, when MPs supported it by a majority of 55.
With so many amendments proposed for debate during the five-hour sitting, report stage could possibly run into a second day next month.
That would mean a Third Reading vote – where MPs vote yes or no and decide whether to send the Bill on to the House of Lords – might be delayed for another time.
– What about assisted dying in the rest of the British Isles?
The Isle of Man looks likely to become the first part of the British Isles to legalise assisted dying, after its proposed legislation passed through a final vote of the parliament's upper chamber in March.
In what was hailed a 'landmark moment', members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) on Tuesday voted in favour of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, backing its general principles.
It will now go forward for further scrutiny and amendments but will only become law if MSPs approve it in a final vote, which should take place later this year.
Any move to legalise assisted dying in Northern Ireland would have to be passed by politicians in the devolved Assembly at Stormont.
Jersey's parliament is expected to debate a draft law for an assisted dying service on the island for terminally ill people later this year.
With a likely 18-month implementation period if a law is approved, the earliest it could come into effect would be summer 2027.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
4 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Just work in a cupboard, says SNP minister in row over soaring business rates
Businesses can avoid paying high rates by setting up in cupboards, the Deputy First Minister has said. Kate Forbes said the most profitable firms are 'smaller ones' which can operate from a 'cupboard, where there are no rates'. Her suggestion came during a Scottish parliament debate on whether the 'current rates regime' prevents companies from 'scaling up'. Ms Forbes admitted the rates system is 'based on an older version of the economy' which did not apply in 'our new, tech-driven environment'. Last night Scottish Tory economy spokesman Murdo Fraser said: 'Kate Forbes' view of how businesses work is so detached from reality that she might as well have claimed Narnia is at the back of the cupboard. 'She must know it's nonsense to suggest that manufacturing, hospitality, retail or a host of other businesses could operate in this way. 'And it's downright insulting to downplay the cost of rates, when the SNP withheld relief available elsewhere in the UK, putting Scottish firms at a huge disadvantage.' At Holyrood, Scottish Tory MSP Liam Kerr asked Ms Forbes: 'Does the Government think that the way in which the current rates regime is structured militates against small businesses scaling up?' She replied that it did not because of the small business bonus scheme which she said 'remains the most generous across the United Kingdom'. Ms Forbes, who is also Economy Secretary, said the 'rates system often does not take into account the fact that some of the most profitable businesses are the smaller ones'. She said: 'A start-up can be launched from a cupboard, where there are no rates, while a large and perhaps less profitable business has to pay them.' Speaking in the Holyrood debating chamber on Wednesday, Ms Forbes said the rates system is 'based on an older version of the economy, in which the size of properties was linked to profitability, and that is just not the case in our new, tech-driven environment'. Commenting last night, Glasgow-based businessman Donald MacLeod said: 'This is very disappointing – the SNP appears to have given up on business. 'Businesses in the hospitality sector are falling by the wayside and finding it really tough – and there's no support there. 'For some, a cupboard might be ok – if you were a one-person business – but clearly it doesn't work for nightclubs, bars and restaurants. 'We need to be incentivising and supporting businesses – not telling them to set up a in a cupboard. 'This is mind-boggling stupidity from Kate Forbes - it is utterly absurd. 'Businesses are on their knees - and we have a government which is economically illiterate.' It came as Ms Forbes criticised about the impact of the SNP's policies after questioning why there is an 'obsession' with income tax rates in Scotland. Following a keynote speech at economic think tank Adam Smith House, she said: 'In Scotland there seems to be an obsession with income tax as though it's the only tax businesses and individuals have to grapple with.' Scotland is the only part of Britain not cutting business rates for shops this year. The Welsh Government announced it will provide 40 per cent relief for all firms in the retail, hospitality and leisure industries. It came after Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a 40 per cent relief package for the same sectors in England as part of her Budget. But the SNP government Budget unveiled in December means retailers in Scotland businesses are receiving less support than those in other parts of Britain this year. Businesses are also struggling with the UK Government's hike in National Insurance employers' contributions, which began in April. It emerged in January that companies based in Scotland will pay £55million more tax than those in England because SNP ministers have not delivered on a promise to give them a level playing field. SNP ministers confirmed that firms based in larger premises in Scotland will pay £54.7million more in business rates than those in England in the year beginning in April. Shops will pay £9.1million more than those south of the Border, while offices will pay an additional £6.4million and hotels face an extra £2.5million bill. In its 2021 manifesto, the SNP promised to ensure that 'the largest businesses pay the same combined poundage in Scotland as in England'.


The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
Eradicating child poverty must become Labour's central mission
It is much more than a flip rhetorical cliche to say that if a nation thinks that fighting child poverty is costly, then it should try the alternative. It really should not be a matter of great controversy. The broadly warm welcome given to the government's expansion of the free school meals programme has been marred only by some noisy mumblings about how the policy will be funded. Of course, any item of public spending must be accounted for – but in the case of this and similar measures to alleviate child poverty, both sides of the ledger should be taken into account. Experience in Scotland, Wales and London – where free and nutritious meals are already available more widely – suggests that pupils perform better on a full stomach; something that surely accords with common sense. Academic studies go further, linking higher educational achievements with higher productivity and thus better living standards for those lifted out of poverty – with an obvious dividend for the nation as a whole. Official support for children, including the new breakfast clubs, a wider availability of free school meals, childcare, access to libraries, affordable housing and of course their education itself, should be treated less as 'current' spending and more like an investment. These are the kind of arguments The Independent has long put forward, as part of an award-winning campaign, and are compatible with fiscal sustainability. In essence, though it is not meant to be mercenary, money spent on rearing a healthier, more literate, more numerate and more intellectually able generation is, in the long run, as valid an investment as, say, building a new tramway or bolstering the national grid. 'Human capital' is, ironically, more precious than ever in a world where artificial intelligence will take over so many of the tasks currently undertaken by human beings. For people to enjoy socially useful and economically viable lives in the future, they will need to be smarter than the machines that will surround them. Soon enough, chancellor Rachel Reeves will be able to go further and faster, as the current ministerial catchphrase goes, in the Labour government's newfound mission to reduce child poverty. After years when the party seemed to be undeclared disciples of the austerity school of economics, Labour's conscience, albeit prompted by some shocking electoral setbacks, has been awoken. Eradicating child poverty by 2020 was the noble objective set by Tony Blair early in the last Labour government, enshrined in law during the last days of Gordon Brown's administration, revived in Jeremy Corbyn's time, but frankly neglected, beyond some necessary lip service, in more recent years. Now, it has rightly become a priority, and one that has lodged itself high on the long list of social challenges facing the chancellor. It now seems inevitable that the two-cap limit on child benefit, imposed by a Tory chancellor almost a decade ago, will be lifted, sooner or later, and perhaps 300,000 children in larger families lifted out of poverty immediately. That it will be partly under populist pressure from Nigel Farage does not make it a bad idea. Extending child benefit, like school meals, is not a total cure for child poverty. Where the Tories had a point as they downgraded the poverty targets in the past (which, to be clear, was a mistake) was when they stressed the importance of a healthy economy creating well-paid jobs. Child poverty is linked to general levels of poverty, obviously, and the creation of wealth still counts as the essential basis for a fairer society – and human capital is part of that. Even with these latest measures, continuing care will need to be taken to make sure the free school meals are nutritious and promote good physical and mental health. Other policy areas also need to be attended to. No level of child benefit or childcare will entirely compensate for being brought up in a cramped, overcrowded, mouldy, cold home. Other policies will thus have to contribute to giving every British child the best opportunities in life. In that context, the government's child poverty task force might consider how the SureStart centres could be restored. Arguably the most serious misjudgement of the coalition government of 2010 to 2014 was to scrap them. In any case, without much in the way of conscious effort, indeed almost by accident, Sir Keir Starmer's government has found itself endowed with a new, invigorating mission to pursue. For all the problems, disappointments, gaffes and missteps in their first year out of the wilderness, the Labour Party has rediscovered its raison d'etre.


The Herald Scotland
15 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
ScotRail is 'fixing' AI train announcer after voice controversy
But after prompting from Fiona Hyslop, he said: 'The Transport Secretary tells me they're fixing it, so they will be fixing it.' Ms Potter has welcomed this commitment as a 'meaningful step forward'. The issue was raised at First Minister's Questions at Holyrood, with Scottish Conservative MSP Dr Sandesh Gulhane asking if it is how the Scottish Government – which took ScotRail into public ownership in 2022 – 'supports actors'. The Tory pressed the case with Mr Swinney after Ms Potter, in a widely shared Facebook post, accused ScotRail of dismissing her concerns. She said Iona came from voice data held by Swedish-based company ReadSpeaker, who she did recordings for in 2021 – adding that by using her voice in an AI model the company had acted outside of the terms of her agreement with them. Ms Potter spoke of her 'distress' at discovering Scotland had 'installed the ReadSpeaker model 'Iona' that contains my biometric voice data as their new announcer on all their trains'. She insisted: 'I did not know. I was not asked. I did not consent.' Mr Swinney said he is 'sure' the rail operator will be 'engaging constructively with all concerned'. He added: 'I think sometimes these things do indeed need careful handling and I am sure ScotRail will be doing exactly that.' Following the First Minister's comments, a spokeswoman for Ms Potter told the PA news agency: 'We welcome the fact that the First Minister acknowledged the issue at hand and confirmed that ScotRail 'will be fixing it'. 'While the language may not be definitive at this stage, this public commitment is a meaningful step forward for Gayanne, and other artists in her position. 'That said, this case isn't just about hiring Scottish actors. It's about the use of a real actor's voice without her informed consent, and the broader need for ethical standards in the deployment of AI voice technology. 'We now hope that 'fixing it' will include direct engagement with Gayanne, proper accountability from those responsible, and a clear commitment to ensuring that consent, transparency, and fair treatment become non-negotiable in the use of AI by public bodies. 'The public sector needs to be rigorous in their procurement of AI solutions and the commercial partnerships they strike with AI companies.' Ms Potter's representative said the voice actress had been told by ScotRail earlier this week that the matter was between her and ReadSpeaker. She said they would request that ScotRail cease using 'Iona', adding: 'Any use of Gayanne's or anyone else's voice through AI must be based on her full, informed consent and agreed upon under fair conditions.' ReadSpeaker has said it has a contract to use her voice and its legal team has 'comprehensively' addressed Ms Potter's concerns.