
Fears assisted dying bill could be defeated as MPs warn ‘tide is turning'
There are growing fears Kim Leadbeater's assisted dying bill could be defeated when it returns to the Commons next week, as MPs claim confidence in it is rapidly being lost.
The warning comes as Ms Leadbeater suffered her first major defeat on Friday, after MPs voted to introduce new safeguards to prevent health professionals raising the subject of assisted dying with children.
They voted 259 in favour and 216 against an amendment tabled by Labour MP Dame Meg Hillier stating 'no health professional shall raise assisted dying with a person under 18'.
It is understood Ms Leadbeater didn't support the amendment because she agrees with the British Medical Association, which has said doctors should not be put in the position where they are barred from raising it with patients.
It comes amid concerns that if people under 18 with terminal illnesses are unable to get the advice they want from their doctor, they will turn to the internet, where they are more likely to be subject to misinformation.
Labour MP Paul Waugh told The Independent that today's voting shows the bill has 'rapidly lost the confidence of MPs', adding that the 'strong momentum against it is now clear'.
'It had a Commons majority of 56 last November. That was cut to 36 last month on a key amendment. Today, we saw a further cut of the majority to 21 and 26 on amendments. And the final vote - a big defeat for the proposer of the bill by 43 votes - just underlined how uncomfortable MPs are.'
Mr Waugh added: 'The more the scrutiny of this particular bill, the more MPs have deep concerns about its lack of safeguards for the vulnerable.'
But sources close to Ms Leadbeater insisted there is no reason to believe momentum is being lost, pointing out that the decline in majorities came as a result of fewer MPs attending the debate overall. It is understood that Ms Leadbeater is confident that support for it remains strong.
Kit Malthouse, who supports the bill said: "The evidence from today is that our numbers held strong. Our majority proportionally was the same. On one vote, where a fine judgment was required, obviously views of colleagues differed. But if anything, that would probably strengthen their conviction to vote for the bill, having supported us in other votes.'
Danny Kruger, who has been a vocal opponent of the bill, said he is 'increasingly hopeful' it will be voted down next week.
'The tide is turning on the Assisted Suicide Bill', he said. While he described the success of the amendment to prevent health professionals from raising the subject of assisted dying with children as a 'big victory', he warned that the bill is 'still way too open to abuse'.
Rachael Maskell, who is against the bill, added: 'It is clear that now MPs are engaging in the detail of the Bill that they can see the cracks and are losing confidence'.
'A very different picture was painted today to when the Bill passed with 56 votes in the autumn to an amendment passing by 43 votes today against the will of the Bill's sponsor. MPs now need to engage with the evidence which clearly sets out why this particular Bill is not fit for purpose', she told The Independent.
But pro-assisted dying sources pointed out that people on both sides of the debate voted to support the extra safeguards for children.
Debating the amendment, Dr Neil-Shastri-Hurst MP, a medical doctor, said: 'Those who have had the privilege of meeting a young person living with a terminal illness will know that they often display a maturity and a depth of understanding far beyond their years.
'To deny them the opportunity of a considered conversation about their future upon reaching adulthood is not an act of compassion, in my view; it is to abandon them.
'It is to leave them isolated, navigating a complex and deeply personal journey through the filter of online forums, rather than in dialogue with trusted, qualified professionals. We owe them better than that.'
Opinion in the medical community has been divided over the bill, with the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) and Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) expressing concern, while some MPs who are doctors are among the Bill's strongest supporters.
Seven RCPsych members, including a former president and vice president, have written to MPs to distance themselves from their college's concern, instead describing the Bill as 'workable, safe and compassionate' with a 'clear and transparent legal framework'.
Meanwhile, Claire Macdonald, director of My Death, My Decision said 'no-one should be forced to suffer, and the British public wants politicians to change the law on assisted dying'.
In a letter to MPs this week, Ms Leadbeater said supporters and opponents appear in agreement that 'if we are to pass this legislation, it should be the best and safest Bill possible'.
She added: 'I'm confident it can and will be.'
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.
MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill and any amendments, meaning they vote according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
Hashtags

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


The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trooping the Colour 2025: When Royal Family will appear on Palace balcony for flypast and how to watch
King Charles will celebrate his official birthday with the Trooping the Colour parade on Saturday. Military pomp and pageantry will be on display in central London to mark the milestone, with the Queen, the Princess of Wales and the Duchess of Edinburgh expected to be among the royal party watching the event. The day will end with the Royal Family gathering on Buckingham Palace's balcony for the traditional RAF flypast - with royal fans hoping Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis will join them as they did last year. The family are expected to emerge onto the balcony at 12.55pm, with the flypast at Buckingham Palace shortly after 1pm. The King has requested that the event also remember those killed in the Air India plane crash with a minute's silence to be observed in tribute to the 241 passengers and crew killed, and others affected, when a Boeing 787 Dreamliner bound for Gatwick Airport came down on Thursday in the Indian city of Ahmedabad. Black armbands will also be worn by the head of state and senior royals riding in the ceremony, also known as the King's Birthday Parade, staged in Horse Guards Parade in Whitehall. On horseback and wearing the armbands will be the Royal Colonels – Prince of Wales, Colonel of the Welsh Guards, the Princess Royal, Colonel Blues and Royals, and the Duke of Edinburgh, Colonel Scots Guards. Members of the royal family not taking part in the parade and who normally watch events from the Duke of Wellington's former office will not wear black armbands. A Buckingham Palace spokesperson said the King requested amendments to the Trooping the Colour programme 'as a mark of respect for the lives lost, the families in mourning and all the communities affected by this awful tragedy'. In 2017, Trooping was held a few days after the Grenfell Tower blaze and the loss of life was marked by a minute's silence, a decision taken by Queen Elizabeth II. The King issued a written message soon after the Air India plane crash, saying he was 'desperately shocked by the terrible events' and expressing his 'deepest possible sympathy'. He was kept updated about the developing situation on Thursday, and it later emerged there was a sole survivor, UK national Vishwash Kumar Ramesh. Trooping the Colour will see more than 1,000 servicemen taking part in the military display who, when not performing ceremonial duties, are fighting soldiers. The colour – regimental flag – being trooped this year, is the King's Colour of Number 7 Company, Coldstream Guards, a prestigious regiment known as the sovereign's bodyguard which is celebrating its 375th anniversary this year. The entire ceremony will be broadcast live from 10.30am on BBC One and BBC iPlayer. Highlights of the day's events will also be shown on BBC Two and iPlayer from 7pm.


The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
More than 900 people arrived in small boats on Friday
More than 900 people crossed the Channel in small boats on Friday, according to Government figures. Data from the Home Office indicated 919 people made the journey in 14 boats on June 13, taking the provisional annual total to 16,183. This is 42% higher than the same point last year and 79% up on the same date in 2023, according to PA news agency analysis. It is not the highest daily number so far this year, which came on May 31, when 1,195 people arrived. People thought to be migrants were pictured being brought into Dover on an RNLI lifeboat on Friday, while others were brought ashore by the Border Force. Rachel Reeves announced earlier this week that the Government will end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this parliament. Unveiling her spending review on Wednesday, the Chancellor set out how funding will be provided to cut the asylum backlog. She told MPs: 'I can confirm today that led by the work of the Home Secretary, we will be ending the costly use of hotels to house asylum seekers in this parliament. 'Funding that I have provided today, including from the transformation fund, will cut the asylum backlog, hear more appeal cases and return people who have no right to be here, saving the taxpayer £1 billion a year.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We all want to end dangerous small boat crossings, which threaten lives and undermine our border security. 'The people-smuggling gangs do not care if the vulnerable people they exploit live or die as long as they pay, and we will stop at nothing to dismantle their business models and bring them to justice. 'That is why this Government has put together a serious plan to take down these networks at every stage, and why we are investing up to an additional £280 million per year by 2028-29 in the Border Security Command. 'Through international intelligence-sharing under our Border Security Command, enhanced enforcement operations in northern France and tougher legislation in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, we are strengthening international partnerships and boosting our ability to identify, disrupt and dismantle criminal gangs whilst strengthening the security of our borders.'


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
A burqa ban won't protect or unite Britain – it will divide us
It wasn't surprising to hear newly elected Reform MP Sarah Pochin call for a ban on the burqa – such calls resurface from time to time. What was surprising, however, was her decision to use her very first parliamentary question to raise this issue, rather than ask about pressing concerns such as the cost of living, NHS pressures or the rise in crime levels. Instead, she chose to single out and stigmatise Muslim women, making unfounded claims about public safety. On reflection, though, Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) provided a high-profile national platform, making it an ideal stage to stir further negativity towards Muslims. Unsurprisingly, Suella Braverman, known for her history of making disparaging remarks about Muslims, quickly added her voice. Targeting Muslims has become a convenient marketing tool for some right-wing politicians – a tactic used to gain support, attract media attention and generate publicity, regardless of the real-life consequences. Only a tiny minority of Muslim women in Britain have adopted the face veil (niqab) or the burqa – a long garment covering the entire body from head to foot, including the face. With a Muslim population of around four million, there has been no formal attempt to measure how many women wear the veil – but estimates suggest the number is likely to be only in the hundreds or low thousands. Similarly, in other European countries, estimates range from just 300 to 2,000. So why does such a small number attract so much public and political attention? The most common arguments used to justify prohibiting the veil in public are actually irrational. Tired and prejudiced tropes are used, such as suggesting women are being forced to wear the veil and need to be 'liberated', that it is a threat to public safety, that it is an obstacle to integration, or that it is simply visually offensive. Let's examine each of these claims more closely. Debates around women who wear the face veil are often driven by assumptions rather than grounded in evidence. In reality, the vast majority of Muslim women who choose to wear it do so voluntarily and for a variety of reasons – religious, cultural or personal. For many, it's an expression of faith, identity, modesty or spiritual commitment. Some even find it empowering, as it shifts the focus from appearance to character. Yes, there are cases where women may be pressured or forced to wear the veil – but these are instances of domestic abuse and coercive control, which require targeted support and awareness, not sweeping bans. I run the Muslim Women's Network Helpline, and in our 10 years of service, we've encountered only a handful of such cases. Concerns about identity concealment are often tied to public safety, yet there is no credible evidence linking the burqa to security threats in the UK. Security protocols already exist in sensitive settings (e.g. banks, airports and courts), where face coverings may need to be removed temporarily for identification purposes – and such situations are managed respectfully and without incident. This public safety narrative seems more about stoking fear than addressing real risks. Also, why is there so much anxiety about the anonymity of veiled Muslim women, especially in a world where much of our communication now happens online – through emails, social media and digital platforms – where anonymity is commonplace? Many people conceal their identities online to spread misinformation or abuse, yet this form of anonymity rarely provokes the same level of scrutiny by the same politicians. Claims that a burqa ban will promote community cohesion and integration are likely to have the opposite effect – deepening divisions instead. When any group feels threatened or pressured to conform through such hostile measures, they are more likely to become even more attached to how they express their identity. For the small minority of women who wear the veil, it may bring personal, social or economic challenges, but it remains their choice. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Muslim women who do not wear the veil continue to face significant social and economic barriers that are often overlooked. If concerns about integration and community cohesion were genuine, politicians would prioritise addressing the systemic discrimination and inequalities these women regularly experience. Some argue the burqa should be banned because it is considered offensive. Not everything that is offensive is prohibited. For example, in the UK, the right to offend is protected as part of freedom of speech, allowing the expression of unpopular or controversial views provided no harm is caused and laws are not broken. Similarly, while some may find the burqa visually offensive, the right of Muslim women to express their identity in this way must also be respected, because their clothing does not harm anyone. It is clearly a frightening time for Muslim women, especially those who are visibly identifiable by their clothing. Coded language by politicians that normalises hostility towards Muslims, fuels fear and hatred, and deepens societal intolerance, is making them feel unsafe. I therefore urge parliamentarians across all political parties to reject divisive rhetoric and commit instead to policies that address gendered anti-Muslim discrimination. Muslim women must be empowered to make independent choices about their own bodies – whatever those choices may be – and they must be able to live with dignity and equality.