Assisted dying Bill MP confident Parliament will vote yes
The Labour MP was joined by bereaved and terminally ill people on the eve of the vote, as they recounted the emotional toll the current law has had on them and their loved ones and pleaded for change.
Since introducing her Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in Parliament last year, Ms Leadbeater has argued dying people must be given choice at the end of their lives, but opponents of her Bill have warned it fails to guarantee protections for society's most vulnerable.
Making her case for a change in the law, Ms Leadbeater said: 'We have the most robust piece of legislation in the world in front of us tomorrow, and I know that many colleagues have engaged very closely with the legislation and will make their decision based on those facts and that evidence, and that cannot be disputed.
'But we need to do something, and we need to do it quickly.'
Friday will be the first time the Bill has been debated and voted on in its entirety since last year's historic yes vote, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55.
MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
The relatively narrow majority means every vote will count on Friday, to secure the Bill's passage to the House of Lords for further debate and voting.
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.
Asked how she is feeling ahead of the vote, Ms Leadbeater acknowledged there could be some change in the numbers, but insisted she is still confident the Bill will pass the third reading stage and move through to the Lords.
She told reporters on Thursday: 'There might be some small movement in the middle, some people might maybe change their mind one way, others will change their mind the other way but fundamentally I don't anticipate that that majority would be heavily eroded so I do feel confident we can get through tomorrow successfully.'
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has indicated he will continue to back the Bill, as he did last year, saying earlier this week that his 'position is long-standing and well-known' on assisted dying.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting, while describing Ms Leadbeater's work on the proposed legislation as 'extremely helpful', confirmed in April that he still intended to vote against it.
Ms Leadbeater warned: 'If we don't pass this law tomorrow, it could be another decade before this issue is brought back to Parliament.
'It's 10 years since we last had a vote, 2015, if we leave it now, I worry it could be a heck of a long time and in that time how many more stories (of suffering) will we hear?'
Ms Leadbeater was joined for the press briefing by surgeon, barrister and MP Neil Shastri-Hurst and former lord chancellor Lord Charlie Falconer.
Also present were terminally ill patients Sophie Blake, a single mother with terminal breast cancer, and Pamela Fisher, a Church of England lay preacher.
While supporters of the Bill say it is coming back to the Commons with better safeguards after more than 90 hours of parliamentary time spent on it to date, opponents claim the process has been rushed and that changes to the Bill mean it is now weaker than it was when first introduced.
Ms Leadbeater said she felt the need to 'strongly push back' on the accusation of the legislation being rushed.
She said: 'This is not being rushed through, this is not a quick thing that's happened overnight, it has gone through hours and hours and hours of scrutiny.'
She added she also finds it 'difficult' to accept that the process itself for someone to have their application approved is 'quite lengthy', but said this is necessary because of the 'thorough' safeguards.
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.
Significant changes since it succeeded in the initial vote in Parliament include the replacement of a High Court safeguard with the expert panels, and a doubling of the implementation period to a maximum of four years for an assisted dying service to be in place should the Bill pass into law.
Academic and disability campaigner Miro Griffiths has sent an open letter to MPs asking them not to endorse the 'perilous piece of legislation' even if they support assisted dying in principle.
He wrote: 'I would ask you to devote your energy to improving ethical and progressive forms of support: blanket suicide prevention, palliative care, and measures that create a more just and inclusive society for disabled people. This is the better way forward.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
Can Starmer afford to join Trump in an open-ended war?
In taking so long to respond to what is now a full-on war between Israel and Iran, Donald Trump has done the UK's prime minister a big favour. A US decision on the side of direct military intervention would present Keir Starmer with the greatest quandary yet of his year at No 10 – whether to offer UK support, and if so, how much, in what form, and for how long. The prime minister has already warned against any action that would 'ramp up the situation', that 'cooling tensions' and 'de-escalation is the priority' – and that, despite 'grave concerns' about the threat of Iran's nuclear programme, the British government is 'urging all parties to show restraint and return to diplomacy'. While Trump ponders on whether to join Israeli strikes on Iran, there is, in the words of the prime minister's official spokesman, a 'real risk of escalation'. And yet the longer the US president takes to make up his mind, the longer Starmer has to weigh up the pros and cons of the UK following its closest ally into a war that could engulf the whole of the Middle East. And the only really good option from London's perspective would be if Trump decided to keep the US, officially at least, on the sidelines. Any direct military intervention, and the UK, one way or another, has to choose. In essence, this is the dilemma that has long lurked somewhere in the nexus between the UK's departure from the European Union and the election of Donald Trump to a second term. These two developments left the UK straddled awkwardly mid-Atlantic, between an EU it no longer belongs to and a US out of sympathy with Europe on practically everything, from tariffs to collective security. Now may be the moment of truth. Were the US to decide to intervene, the UK could just about persist in its current holding pattern and do no more. That would mean repeated (vain) calls for de-escalation; new warnings to hard-pressed consumers about higher energy prices (with the blame now pinned on Iran, rather than Russia), more travel bans and terrorist alerts. The UK might also provide a much-needed channel to Tehran, given that David Lammy has, so far, kept up communications with his Iranian counterpart. Going some way, but not the whole way, to support the US – by offering facilities at UK bases in, say, Cyprus, could, however, present risks, including the risk of reprisals from Iran. The danger may be less now, given what appears to be Iran's debilitated state from Israeli air strikes. But the UK's early and categorical denial that the US had used Cyprus as a transit point for the extra air power it sent to the region showed that London clearly understood the potential risk. Not offering the US direct, or even partial, military support, however, could have costs of its own. Trump is regarded as prizing loyalty above almost anything else. Where would a passive UK stance leave the 'special relationship'? Might Trump re-consider the tariff concessions he has agreed for the UK? Might the US scale back intelligence cooperation (as it threatened over the UK's telecoms ties to China)? Might the UK lose what it sees as its privileged position in Washington to, say, Germany, whose new chancellor Friedrich Merz seemed to be auditioning for leader of Europe during his recent visit to the White House and been more forthright in support of Israel's action than Starmer? On the other hand, the balance between aiding and not aiding the United States in a new war may be finer than it may look from this single, close, vantage point. How special is that special relationship? Harold Wilson managed to keep Britain out of Vietnam without undue, long-term damage. Contrast this with Tony Blair's near-unconditional support for the US in Iraq. This bought exactly how much political capital for him or his government in Washington over the longer term? As for the damage to the domestic reputation of the UK intelligence services and the influence of the UK in the Middle East, that has been huge and lasting. At the time, however, Blair's argument was not just about security – destroying the supposed threat from Iraq's (as it turned out, non-existent) chemical weapon – but also about principle. He, like George W. Bush, was seduced by the promise of the 'freedom' and 'democracy' that were forecast to follow 'regime change', which may also be an objective of Israel's war on Iran. It is hard to believe that Starmer and Labour's leading lights today could be similarly seduced, given the experience not only of Iraq, but of Libya and Afghanistan, and of David Cameron's narrowly lost vote in Parliament over intervention in Syria. But might the current Parliament vote to support a UK military intervention on other grounds, such as the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran or the view that Israel's very existence is threatened? That cannot be excluded. But the gulf that would then be exposed between MPs voting to put the UK in harm's way for the sake of Israel, and the weight of public opinion that condemns Israel because of Gaza, could present Starmer with big political difficulties, despite Labour's majority. A parliamentary debate could also open up the bigger picture. One of the arguments that raged during my childhood was whether the UK should keep a military presence 'east of Suez'. The upshot was that it sort of did, and it sort of didn't, but the UK's interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq had the effect of deciding the issue to this day. As it happens, the Israel-Iran war has erupted barely two weeks after the government published its Strategic Defence Review, which identified Russia as the biggest threat facing the country, recommending a 'Nato-first' policy and higher defence spending to address this threat. There was no mention of the UK becoming embroiled in a new and potentially open-ended war in the Middle East. With its self-accepted status as a medium-sized power, a pared-back military, and capabilities increasingly focused on Russia, the UK is likely to find its resources severely stretched in the event that Starmer decided in favour of actively helping the US in the Middle East. However the Israel-Iran war ends, the 'east of Suez' discussion needs to be re-opened, with the UK's present capacity and priorities in mind. In the meantime, the difficulty for Trump should not be minimised. He campaigned on a pledge to keep the US out of far-away, forever wars, and prides himself on the – correct – fact that the US avoided any new wars in his first term. He is clearly in two minds about Israel and Iran. Long, Starmer and his government must hope, may his indecision continue.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Starmer urges Trump to step back from the brink of Middle East war
Downing Street is urging Donald Trump to exercise restraint and avoid a direct strike on Iran, emphasizing the need for de-escalation. Sir Keir Starmer and his spokesman have stressed that de-escalation is the priority, warning of a real risk of escalation in the Middle East. The UK government is actively trying to persuade the US against launching a strike on Iran, with David Lammy set to discuss the situation with Marco Rubio in Washington. The potential US involvement follows days of exchange of fire between Israel and Iran, with Israel stating its strikes aim to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Concerns remain about Iran's nuclear program, which the UK considers a clear threat to international peace and security, but diplomacy is advocated over conflict.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Esther Rantzen and terminally ill preacher make case for assisted dying Bill
A terminally ill Christian preacher has criticised the 'nonsensical' religious argument against assisted dying that suffering must be part of life, as Dame Esther Rantzen urged MPs to pass a Bill she said could 'transform the final days of generations in the future'. The broadcaster made a plea to parliamentarians on the eve of Friday's vote to change what she branded a 'current, cruel, messy criminal law'. The House of Commons will have a debate and vote on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday, which will see it either progress to the House of Lords or fall completely. Dame Esther, a staunch supporter of Kim Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, has been a prominent voice in the conversation on assisted dying. Last week, Labour MP and Bill opponent, Rupa Huq, pledged to be a voice for the voiceless, noting that the Childline founder and others' views are already well-known. She added: 'We know that Esther Rantzen wants this. We know (broadcaster) Jonathan Dimbleby wants this. 'But our role is to be voice of the voiceless as well.' Dame Esther, who is terminally ill with cancer, said the 'truly voiceless' are the terminally ill who face ' an agonising death' and their relatives. She told the PA news agency: 'This is a crucial debate for the truly voiceless. 'They are the terminally ill adults for whom life has become unbearable and who need assistance, not to shorten their lives but to shorten an agonising death – and their loved ones who under the current law will be accused of committing a crime if they try to assist or even stay alongside to say goodbye. 'These are the truly vulnerable and voiceless who depend on our lawmakers to change our current, cruel, messy criminal law. 'All this Bill allows is choice for desperately ill adults who are dying anyway but want the confidence of knowing that they can ask for help to choose what we all hope for; a quick, pain-free death with good memories left behind as their legacy for those they love. 'Please allow us terminally ill the dignity of choice over our own deaths. A change in the law cannot come in time for me, but will transform the final days of generations in the future. Those who disagree with assisted dying under the new law will have the right to their own choice, please allow the rest of us to have the same right.' Dame Esther's words came as a group of terminally ill and bereaved people shared their stories at a press briefing alongside the Labour Bill sponsor, Ms Leadbeater, on Thursday. Church of England lay preacher Pamela Fisher, who is terminally ill with cancer, made an impassioned speech against the religious arguments made by some who oppose assisted dying. She said: 'I completely reject the assumption that the sanctity of life requires terminally ill people to undergo a distressing and painful death against their will. I disagree with those that say it is God alone who decides how and when we die. 'Yes, life is a gift from God to be honoured, but it's nonsensical to say that assisted dying is wrong because suffering is part of God's plan for us.' The Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Vincent Nichols – who is opposed to assisted dying – has previously argued that the suffering of human beings is 'an intrinsic part of our human journey, a journey embraced by the eternal word of God, Christ Jesus himself'. Meanwhile, Anil Douglas, whose father took his own life having suffered with multiple sclerosis, recalled the trauma of finding him. He said a six-month police investigation followed, and told the press conference: 'The law in this country failed my father.' He added: 'The (current) law leads people like my father to make lonely and dangerous decisions. It does not protect against coercion. It does not offer protections or choice for dying people. 'It does not offer terminally ill, mentally competent adults with six months or less to live, the chance to choose a safe and compassionate death when even the very best palliative care is not enough. It leads to lonely, dangerous, traumatic deaths.' Bill opponents have argued it is not robust enough to protect the most vulnerable against coercion, and others who might choose assisted dying because they feel they are a burden. 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.
