Assisted dying law faces crunch Commons vote as MPs switch sides
The outcome on Friday could see the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill either clear the House of Commons and move to the Lords, or fall completely.
The relatively narrow majority of 55 from the historic yes vote in November means every vote will count on Friday.
As an example, the Bill would fall if 28 MPs switched directly from voting yes to no, but only if all other MPs voted exactly the same way as they did in November, including those who abstained.
In what will be seen as a blow to the Bill, four Labour MPs confirmed on the eve of the vote that they will switch sides to oppose the proposed new law.
Labour's 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 also 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.
Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater has insisted the replacement of High Court judge approval with the multidisciplinary panels is a strengthening of the legislation, incorporating wider expert knowledge to assess assisted dying applications.
Ahead of 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 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 are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
Ms Leadbeater has warned it could be a decade before assisted dying legislation returns to Parliament if MPs vote to 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 high 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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Iraq made Blair a pariah – Starmer risks the same with Iran
Then, as now, America was acting as virtually a rogue nation giving no thought to the different opinions of its allies. Then, as now, the American president had a skewed vision of the situation in that part of the world and no clear idea of the forces which would be unleashed by his actions and how to restore peace. Then, as now, Labour were in power and had demonstrated they were willing to support America in any course of action they decided upon no matter what the consequences might be. Today those consequences look even more terrifying than they appeared when America, with support from Britain's armed forces, invaded Iraq in 2003. This time the threat of nuclear annihilation hangs more heavily in the air. READ MORE: Casual threats of annihilation from Trump are not reality TV stunts And this time America's president is even more unpredictable and reckless than George W Bush, even more unlikely to apply logic to any decision as to his future course of action. Bush's justification for taking action against Iraq had nothing directly to do with the terrorist atrocity of 9/11. There was no suggestion, far less evidence, that Iraq was in any way linked to the plane hijackings which led to the demolition of the north and south towers of the World Trade Center in New York. America was so desperate to take action – any action – in what it had dubbed the 'global war against terror' in the aftermath of 9/11 that it alighted on the claim that Iraq had in its armoury weapons of mass destruction that posed a potential threat to the US and its allies. There was, in fact, no evidence to back up that claim. Most of the Western world regarded Bush's claim with justified scepticism. However, Britain pledged its support. It's important to remember that in Bush's State of the Union address in 2002, in which the president started to put together the case for action to remove Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, he railed against the so-called 'axis of evil' which included Iran as well as Iraq. The US grudge against Iran has deep roots so it's no surprise that it could one day lead to the possibility of military action. Americans have been easily persuaded by presidential warmongering even without any compelling evidence it was needed. Even before that State of the Union address, a survey suggested that 73% favoured military action to oust Hussein. The government was not willing to let the small matter of there being no evidence of the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction deter it from waging war. Then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told CNN: 'The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he [Hussein] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.' The British people were less easily fooled, but, alas, the same cannot be said for their government at Westminster. Its Prime Minister Tony Blair ignored the millions in his country marching against the invasion of Iraq and ploughed on regardless. There was some opposition within his own party. Robin Cook, then the leader of the Commons and a former foreign secretary, resigned from Blair's government in March 2003 over Iraq. He said at the time: 'I can't accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support.' However, Blair brushed off the resignation and most of his ministers and Labour MPs watched in acquiescence as the invasion proceeded. At the time, the Prime Minister was fond of telling us that if we could see the evidence that was on his desk proving that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction then we too would back his decision. Some time after Hussein was deposed and executed, when the weapons of mass destruction theory had been well and truly dismissed, I watched Blair tell a private meeting of Scottish editors that there was at that time no further evidence of the existence of those weapons but he still supported the invasion anyway. Today I'm still not clear what motivated Blair. READ MORE: The facts are clear. So why won't the BBC report on Israel's nuclear weapons? Did he really believe Iraq posed a threat to the rest of the world, despite all the evidence to the contrary? Or did he support Bush in a bid to cement the relationship between his government and Bush's Republican regime? A Guardian column by Steve Richards queried this interpretation. He suggested that both Blair's support for the invasion and David Cameron's decision to call the Brexit referendum were the result of a lack of prime ministerial depth and experience. Whatever the answer, history will judge. The big question now is whether Keir Starmer will duplicate Blair's blind allegiance to a US president's decision, no matter how crazy. And secondly, will anyone in his government have the guts to advocate standing up to Donald Trump and tell him that joining Israel's bombing of Iran is not only immoral but will move the world closer to nuclear destruction? The answer to that first question looks dangerously close to Starmer hitching his future of Trump's insistence on supporting Israel in all matters, from the unrelentingly inhumane genocide in Gaza to buying into the president's paranoia about Iran's alleged closeness to developing nuclear weapons. That claim has already led to a split between Trump and his director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who testified in March that Iran was not building a nuclear bomb. The president's annoyance was clear in his dismissal of her opinion this week, when he snapped 'I don't care what she said.' Starmer said on Tuesday that Trump has said nothing to indicate he would direct US missile strikes on Iran. Nothing that is apart from confirming on Wednesday that he has approved a plan to do just that. He told CBS that he has not yet made a decision on whether to enact that plan. The truth is that no one, probably including the president himself, knows what Trump will do next. Things don't look good. According to a 'senior intelligence source', the president has held off from strikes to see how Iran responds to his demands for 'unconditional surrender', which seems to translate as an abandonment of its nuclear programme. The heat was turned up even further yesterday when Israel's defence minister said Iran's supreme leader 'can no longer be allowed to exist' after an Iranian missile attack hit a hospital. It's hard to overestimate the damage done to Israel's claims of moral superiority in this conflict by the damage caused by its missiles hitting hospitals in Gaza. What is clear is that Israel and Iran are nowhere near a solution to their dispute and the pressure is mounting on Trump to make a decision. Starmer has admittedly advocated further negotiations rather than American bombs but if Trump goes ahead with military action it looks more likely that Britain will support him, at the very least by allowing him to use the Diego Garcia UK military base in the Indian Ocean. The record of Labour MPs – and particularly Labour MSPs in the Scottish Parliament – of standing up to their Prime Minister's folly on other matters is poor. READ MORE: David Lammy heads to US as Donald Trump considers whether to strike Iran The party's leader in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, has urged Starmer to do more for Scotland after its by-election win in Hamilton but any criticism of his performance after major U-turns on election promises has been either missing or heavily coded. That's not going to change if he moves to back Trump's action. Blair's support for Bush moved many former Labour supporters to ditch the party and embrace the SNP and independence because of the urgent need for Scotland to develop its own foreign policy. That urgency has increased rather than faded. John Swinney really has to capture that renewed urgency with real passage and focus, together with an indication of a route to independence, at the SNP's national council meeting tomorrow.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Assisted dying bill set for crunch vote after months of debate over controversial legislation
Why you can trust Sky News A controversial bill which would give some terminally ill adults the right to end their lives is facing a crunch vote in the Commons today. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, more commonly known as the assisted dying bill, will be back for its third reading, which is the first time MPs will vote on the overall piece of legislation since the yes vote in November. That vote, during the bill's second reading, saw MPs vote 330 to 275 to approve the bill - a relatively narrow majority which means every vote will count later. If the new amendments are voted through, the bill to give some terminally ill adults the right to end their lives will get closer to becoming law as it will go through to the next stage in the House of Lords. Speaking at a news conference on Thursday, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who introduced the assisted dying bill in October last year, said she felt confident the vote will be successful. She said: "There might be some small movement in the middle, some people might change their mind or will change their mind the other way. Ms Leadbeater said if MPs fail to vote the legislation through, "it could be another decade before this issue is brought back to parliament". She added: "It works and it is safe, and it provides dignity to terminally ill people. "This is not an either or when it comes to palliative care or assisted dying. It is about choice for people." But on the eve of the vote, four Labour MPs confirmed they were switching their vote from yes to no as they branded the bill "drastically weakened", citing the scrapping of the High Court Judge safeguard as a key reason. Ms Leadbeater has insisted the replacement of High Court judge approval with the multidisciplinary panels is a strengthening of the legislation, incorporating wider expert knowledge to assess assisted dying applications. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults, 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. A new YouGov poll found 72% of Britons supported the bill as it stands, including 59% of those who say they support assisted dying in principle but oppose it in practice, and 67% were opposed to the principle of euthanasia but are willing to back it in practice. Recently, the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP), the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Physicians have raised concerns about the bill. The RCP said the bill, in its current form, did "not meet the needs of patients". It has also expressed concern over the shortage of qualified psychiatrists to take part in assisted dying panels.
Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Iran and Israel conflict can only be settled with cool heads
The conflict between Israel and Iran is deeply worrying for anyone who cares about world peace. Two of the most influential powers in a turbulent region are attacking each other and it is hard to see the end in sight. Israel claims their attacks were designed to snuff out Iran's nuclear ambitions, while Tehran insists they were acting in self-defence. The international community needs to respond to this crisis with cool heads and the goal of de-escalation. What we do not need is leaders of influence inflaming an already delicate situation. President Trump's actions so far are further proof – if any was needed – that he is intent on making matters worse. It has been reported he has approved plans to attack Iran but has not made a final decision to go for war. The US record in the Middle East has largely been one of dismal failure. The invasion of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster and Trump has failed to rein in Israel on Gaza. Trump should look to one of his predecessors for lessons on how to handle Iran. President Obama was instrumental in signing a deal that put the brakes on Iran's nuclear programme. He used diplomacy and international muscle to get the deal done, rather than launching rockets into a country. In an act of petulance, Trump ripped up the agreement and relations have been strained ever since. The acts of war need to stop and all parties must get round the table. Jobs blame game John Swinney was accused of doing 'nothing' to save the Scottish jobs at Alexander Dennis. The First Minister was blasted by Anas Sarwar for saying he only found out about the bus manufacting firm's issues despite being warned a year ago. Labour have been blaming the Scottish Government, while the SNP has been blaming the UK Government. There is a huge number of jobs at risk as the factories in Camelon and Larbert are set to close. And this is an area which has already been rocked by the closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery. Scotland needs a proper industrial strategy that will provide good jobs and make the things we need. But, instead, what we are getting is politicians pointing fingers at each other and playing the blame game. This does nothing to help the workers facing hardship. Our politicians need to knock their heads together and find solutions to keep jobs, like those at Alexander Dennis, in Scotland.
