
MP behind assisted dying Bill defends it as medical body adds voice of concern
The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) said it believes there are 'concerning deficiencies' with the proposed legislation as it stands.
Its statement follows one earlier this week from the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych), which said it has 'serious concerns' and cannot support the Bill in its current form.
MPs in the House of Commons will have a further debate on Friday (Stefan Rousseau/PA)
That statement was branded by one opponent of the Bill as a 'blow to its foundations'.
Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the Bill, said it was coming back 'even stronger' when it returns to the House of Commons on Friday for the first time since a historic yes vote in November.
She said the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which relates to England and Wales, goes 'further than any other around the world in its safeguards, oversight and regulation' and that the Government's impact assessment has confirmed this.
'The law as it stands is not working for dying people or their loved ones; that much is clear,' Ms Leadbeater wrote in The Mirror.
'A majority of MPs recognised this when they backed my Bill in November.
'When they come to debate it once again today, they can be confident that it returns even stronger.'
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who voted for the Bill last year, has indicated he remains supportive of the proposed legislation and that it has 'sufficient time' in Parliament amid claims from some it is being rushed through.
In a boost for the Bill, new Reform MP Sarah Pochin has confirmed she will support it.
Mike Amesbury, who she replaced in the Runcorn and Helsby constituency earlier this month, had voted no last year.
Reports speculating on the numbers of MPs who had supported the Bill last year but are now considering voting against it have been dismissed by the Bill's backers who reject the idea the proposed legislation is at risk of collapse.
But the RCPsych statement prompted MPs, some with medical and clinical backgrounds, who back the Bill, to urge their colleagues in Parliament to support it.
A statement, signed by supportive MPs including doctors Neil Shastri-Hurst, Simon Opher and Peter Prinsley, insisted 'most healthcare professionals understand that the current law is not working', that it 'criminalises compassion', places clinicians 'in an impossible position' and cannot be tolerated or defended.
In their position statement on Thursday, the RCP said despite changes to the Bill in recent months which supporters argue have strengthened it, the college believes 'there currently remain deficiencies that would need addressing to achieve adequate protection of patients and professionals'.
It said there are 'key factors' which must be in place should assisted dying be legalised.
These include decisions around a patient's prognosis to be informed by 'expert clinical professionals including those who know the patient', decisions on capacity, and safeguards around coercion to be informed by face-to-face assessments of 'relevant and appropriately skilled health and care professionals', regulations of medicines and a guarantee resources will not be diverted from other end-of-life care.
Their concerns follow those from RCPsych which said it has 'unanswered questions' about the safeguarding of people with mental illness, and warned of a shortage of consultant psychiatrists to meet the demands of the Bill.
Both colleges said they remain neutral on the principle of assisted dying.
The RCP's clinical vice president, Dr John Dean, said: 'The ultimate decision on assisted dying rests with society through Parliament, but professional and clinical issues are integral to legislation, regulation, guidance and safe and effective implementation.
'Our members and fellows who we represent have a wide range of views on assisted dying. While the RCP neither supports or opposes a change in the law on this matter, the Bill in its current form has concerning deficiencies.
'Notably, the proposed mechanisms of decision making are not in line with good clinical and professional practice. Further statutory guidance is also required to ensure effective regulation of drugs, providers, and the involvement of clinicians.
'Parliament must address these critical issues in the legislation or risk failing to protect vulnerable patients and uphold the integrity of clinical practice.'
The chairwoman of the Royal College of GPs, Professor Kamila Hawthorne, also told the BBC this week that doctors have 'real concerns about the practical and legal implications of a change in the law on assisted dying', which she said 'must be acknowledged and addressed, so that any legislation is watertight'.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer signalled that his support for the assisted dying Bill has not changed (House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA)
Speaking during a visit to Albania, Sir Keir was asked if his views on assisted dying had changed during the passage of the Bill.
He told broadcasters: 'My views have been consistent throughout.'
In a later interview he reiterated the Government's neutrality on the Bill and said it was facing 'a lot of scrutiny, both inside Parliament and outside Parliament', adding that he was 'satisfied' it had 'sufficient time' in Parliament.
Some opponents have claimed proposals are being rushed through as a private member's bill and that it has not had the same level of scrutiny had it been a Government Bill.
Dozens of amendments have been tabled and many could be debated and voted on during a five-hour sitting in the Commons on Friday.
It is not yet clear whether time will allow for a third reading vote, with the possibility that the report stage could instead run into a second day next month because of the large number of further amendments proposed.
As it stands, the Bill would allow only 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 the three-member expert panel featuring a psychiatrist, social worker and senior legal figure.
Ms Leadbeater has defended the scrapping of the High Court judge safeguard which has been replaced by the expert panel.
She told LBC Radio this was a 'more holistic approach, a more patient-centred approach' and is 'much, much stronger' as a result.
Hashtags

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


Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Terminally ill man behind Church of Scotland assembly on the 'really difficult' assisted dying conundrum
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... It was a speech he never expected to make, but one that he hoped will offer insight and comfort for others living with or supporting friends and family with terminal illnesses. Now, a man who delivered a powerful address to the Church of Scotland's General Assembly about his own experience with life-limiting disease has called for a major upsurge in investment in palliative care and questioned the assisted dying legislation passing through Holyrood. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad John Williams, 71, has been undergoing dialysis treatment for the past seven years - a situation complicated by the fact he has also been diagnosed with cancer of the small bowel that has spread to his lung and spine. Such health problems have given Mr Williams cause to think deeply about assisted dying, an issue that has occupied the minds of those in the church, MSPs and wider civic Scotland in recent months. John Williams addresses the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. | Andrew O'Brien It has also made Mr Williams even more aware of the crucial and compassionate services provided by palliative care specialists, having been referred to St Columba's Hospice after being referred by Dr Tony Duffy, his palliative care consultant. Call for hospices to receive better funding package He said he wished he had been made aware of palliative care sooner, and described the resources afforded to hospices as a 'disgrace' that had to be urgently addressed. 'There just isn't the capacity there, and the number of people who die in hospices is just a tiny figure,' he said. 'The hospices are just not supported or properly funded and they need volunteers just to run things.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad As things stand, Mr Williams, who has no idea how long he has left to live, said he could not support the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill that passed an initial vote at Holyrood last month. But he said there was an opportunity to work towards 'better' legislation provided key issues were addressed. 'How are you going to square doing this with the medical profession - how is that going to work in practice?' he said. 'I think that's the really difficult one. It's not going to be easy, whatever happens, and I honestly don't know what will come next, but there has to be detailed thought given. I'm concerned the Bill is being rushed through.' Liam McArthur's assisted dying bill is currently progressing through Holyrood. | PA The Bill, brought forward by Scottish Lib Dem, Liam McArthur, will go back to the Scottish Parliament's health committee for stage two, with a deadline for amendments in the autumn. Mr McArthur intends to bring in an amendment raising the minimum age at which people should be eligible to 18. It is expected there will be moves to impose a time limit on what is defined as a terminal diagnosis. 'Why me and not other people?' Mr Williams will be among those following the Bill's progress. There have been times where the pain has been so great that he has considered stopping dialysis, and he knows that if his cancer becomes too heavy a burden to bear, that option will remain open to him. It is an option very few people have, and Mr Williams said he found it difficult to reconcile the fact that others living with terminal illness did not have such a choice available. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'You think 'why me and not other people?' he told The Scotsman. 'I can understand people who want to go down that road. I just hope that anyone who does it does so for the right reasons, and that everything else has failed. You've got to be really, really careful as to how it's worked out and what discussions take place beforehand.' Such conversations are something Mr Williams draws strength from and, for the time being, he is hopeful that he will be able to manage his cancer and continue dialysis. 'Obviously, some people will say that God will decide when it's your time, but I think it depends on how you look at it,' he reflected. 'It's like the parable of the drowning man who refuses a lifeboat and a helicopter, and when he meets God, it's explained that it was God who sent the rescuers. 'At present, the medication I'm on is not working great, which is down to the spinal cord cancer, and I can't get radiotherapy for that. It's a case of changing the medication quite drastically. If I can keep doing that with dialysis and the cancer keeps in check, I'll keep going. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'But if nothing was working, and I found that I couldn't get anything under control, would I consider stopping dialysis? Yes, I would have to consider it, because even with palliative care, I'm going to be in trouble. But now is not the time to have that conversation.' 'Sharing your story is so valuable' Since 1974, Mr Williams has played a crucial role in the assembly, working as an audio-visual technician to ensure a phalanx of cameras, microphones and screens are fully operational so as to allow those in Edinburgh and further afield to follow the proceedings. But after more than half a century behind the scenes, Mr Williams was at the forefront of this year's gathering. Although he is not a commissioner, he was invited to address the assembly by Rev Dr John Ferguson, convener of the church's working group on assisted dying. After delivering a 14-minute speech, during which he spoke candidly about his own treatment and the plight of others, he received a rousing ovation, with Moderator Rt Rev Rosie Frew thanking him for sharing his story 'so openly and so honestly', and for helping people to understand what he was going through. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad

The National
3 hours ago
- The National
Defence review dodges Britain's nuclear blind spot
Presented as a roadmap to 'Make Britain Safer', the review promised clarity and accountability, but it fails to confront the most pressing truths: that the UK's nuclear programme is financially unsustainable, strategically unbalanced, increasingly unaccountable and a real and present danger to us all. These concerns are not hypothetical. In the final months of the last Parliament, I raised them on the floor of the House of Commons, not out of party dogma, but in response to serious and public allegations from Dominic Cummings, former chief adviser to the then prime minister, remember him? He described Britain's nuclear infrastructure as a 'dangerous disaster', responsible for the secret 'cannibalisation' of other national security budgets and shielded from meaningful scrutiny. READ MORE: UK won't recognise Palestine at UN conference despite 'discussions', reports say Whatever one thinks of Cummings or the nuclear deterrent, the substance of these allegations is disturbingly familiar. The National Audit Office (NAO) has echoed similar concerns, reporting a projected defence funding gap of up to £29.8 billion, with nuclear and Royal Navy costs rising the most sharply. These are not partisan claims, they're structural failures. That day in the Commons, the then-shadow defence secretary, now the Secretary of State, was present to hear them and now in government, he has chosen not to challenge or investigate them, he's just sidestepped them entirely. Nuclear ringfencing: A cost we refuse to count The UK Defence Review reaffirms the nuclear deterrent as the UK's 'top defence priority' and explicitly commits to protecting its funding through ringfencing, yet it offers no detailed breakdown of those costs and barely acknowledges the impact this has on the rest of the armed forces. At one point, the review admits that nuclear spending 'might have forced savings in essential capabilities' – a remarkable understatement. Behind this phrase lies a wider truth: that the UK's defence strategy is being skewed by a deterrent whose costs are rising beyond control, shielded from accountability by MOD political taboo. There is no analysis in the review of how ringfencing distorts capability development, procurement planning or readiness in the conventional forces. In a document designed to show how Britain will 'balance' risk and resilience, this omission is fatal. Procurement dysfunction: Recognised, and untouched The review admits what every oversight body has said for years: defence procurement is broken. Projects are delayed, over budget and misaligned with modern threats. Yet beyond nodding at the problem, the review offers no structural reform. Cummings alleged that the MOD continued to fund 'legacy disasters' while gutting new capabilities. Those criticisms align with a long history of NAO reports, whether on AJAX, Type 26 delays or wider programme mismanagement. The review responds with little more than the promise of procurement 'measured in months, not years'. READ MORE: 'Joy, celebration and warmth' of Palestinian art to be showcased at Edinburgh Fringe Unsurprisingly, there's no serious roadmap, no new governance model, no mechanism to hold decision-makers in the MOD accountable and without these, the same dysfunction will continue to waste billions, no matter how polished the strategic language. Where is the democratic oversight? Perhaps most worrying is the review's treatment of oversight. Cummings claimed that key decisions about the UK's nuclear strategy were made through 'secret tunnel' processes that excluded even senior ministers. If true, this undermines the core principles of democratic governance of departments. The review's answer is to propose that a new National Security Council (Nuclear), a closed ministerial subcommittee, should meet twice a year to review progress; that is not oversight, it's entrenchment. There's a passing reference to potential 'enhanced parliamentary scrutiny under appropriate conditions' with no clarity on what that actually means, or how it would be applied, and no mention of expanding the role of Select Committees or publishing clearer data for Parliament as many nuclear Nato allies do. For an area of defence with the greatest cost and risk, the lack of democratic scrutiny is glaring and frankly a dereliction of duty. A missed opportunity Labour's Strategic Defence Review 2025 had a rare opportunity to correct course by managing it more transparently, more accountably and with greater strategic realism. Even those of us opposed to the nuclear enterprise in its entirety couldn't and shouldn't oppose increased scrutiny. That opportunity has been missed. READ MORE: Freedom Flotilla urges UK Government to 'protect' ship from Israel as it nears Gaza Instead of confronting the truth, the review restates familiar platitudes and leaves the public and Parliament no wiser about the scale cost, or consequences of the UK's nuclear commitment. The Defence Secretary, who heard these warnings first-hand from the opposition bench, is now in a position to act – he has chosen not to. So, the central questions remain for the UK Government: What is being done to stop the nuclear enterprise from distorting the wider defence budget? What safeguards ensure genuine democratic oversight of the UK's most dangerous and expensive defence programme? Until these are answered, Britain's defence policy will remain unbalanced, unaffordable, alarmingly unaccountable and a real and present danger to us all.


New Statesman
a day ago
- New Statesman
The eco-centrists want the Green Party back
In last year's General Election, the Green Party quadrupled its representation in parliament (from one in 2019 to four in 2024, albeit). Caroline Lucas, elected in 2010, was for a long time the party's only MP. After years of the Green's representation in Parliament resting solely on Lucas's shoulders, July 2024 was a turning-point. 'I spoke in the House of Commons five times yesterday, on a range of topics,' Ellie Chowns, the Green MP for Northwest Herefordshire told me when we met on a drab evening at a café in St James's Park. 'We as Greens have got a much stronger voice [in Parliament] speaking day in day out on the issues that really matter,' Chowns said. Alongside her, Adrian Ramsay, the Green MP for Waveney Valley nodded. During our 45-minute interview, we were all variously forced to dodge the pigeons who kept flying dangerously close overhead. Ramsay has been the current co-leader of the party, alongside Carla Denyer, the Green MP for Bristol Central since 2021. But their term is almost up; the party will hold a leadership election later this year. While Denyer has decided not to re-contest, Ramsay, who has been a Green Party politician since 2003 felt he isn't done yet. He is running once again to be co-leader of the party once again, with Chowns as his co-star. Chowns and Ramsay's pitch to Green Party members is simple: a vote for them is a vote for two experienced leaders, who already have a position inside parliament and a proven track-record of winning elections .'We're the only candidates in this [leadership] election who have won under first-past-the-post,' Ramsay told me, 'and we want to build on that success, it is about substance.' He added: 'Anyone can say that they want to be popular,' Ramsay said, 'we've shown how you actually do it.' Chowns agreed: 'The only way to change politics is by winning more seats in the system,' she said, 'and Adrian and I have shown how to do that. You build the biggest possible coalition of voters.' The pair have received backing for precisely this reason from Green Party Grandees such as Lucas and Baroness Jenny Jones. This is all no uncertain dig at the pair's main competition: current deputy leader, Zack Polanski. Shortly after the May local elections, in which the party won an additional 181 councillors, current Polanski, launched a (not so surprise) solo-leadership campaign. His platform of 'eco-populism' has exposed a split in the party between the radical left wing (which Chowns and Ramsay indirectly describe as 'loudhailer politics') and those who want to appeal to a wider base, including former Conservative voters. Ramsay is irked by Polanski's decision to run. The current co-leader, who wrote the Green Party's handbook on how to win council elections, has spent most of his political career working out how to turn the party from a fringe group into a force capable of winning Parliamentary elections. The election of an additional three Green MPs last year, was the culmination of this, or so he says. Polanski's wants to position the Greens as a left-wing mirror to Nigel Farage and Reform. In fact, when I spoke to him shortly after he launched his leadership bid in May, Polanski said he may even actually 'agree' with some of 'Nigel Farage's diagnosis of the problems' . Chowns and Ramsay think this is the wrong approach. 'We've already demonstrated how ecological ideas can be popular,' Chowns said. She added: 'I don't aspire for the Green Party to ape Reform in any way neither in its content, not its style…We can't out shout Reform.' Polanski is a member of the Greater London Assembly, but if he is elected he will sit outside the machinations of Westminster; an arrangement which could cause more trouble than it's worth. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe 'There are some major pitfalls that would need to be addressed here,' Ramsay said, 'journalists look to what's happening in parliament to see where each party stands on the issue of the day because parliament is the centre of British political debate.' Having a leader outside of Westminster could become particularly troublesome if there is a disagreement between the party's leadership and its MPs. In some ways, this has already happened. Polanski has said the UK should withdraw from NATO, a policy which neither Ramsay nor Chowns support. 'If on that day you had the leader, who was outside parliament, speaking for the party saying I want to leave NATO and then our foreign affairs spokesperson in Parliament saying that the Green party want to stay there and reform NATO, then who do you look to as giving the Green Party's position?' This could get messy. Members of other parties are looking at this race, curious about where it could leave the Green Party (one sympathetic Labour MP told me they thought it would be a 'disaster' and would alienate much of the party's more moderate base). Polanski did not inform Ramsay or Chowns of his intention to run before going public with his campaign. When I ask the pair how things will work if Polanski does win, Ramsay said: 'I think that's for Zack to set out… he's certainly had no conversations with the MPs about whether that would work or how he would make it work.' As I went to ask my next question, Ramsay shot back, 'he's made no attempt to talk to us about it at all.' Though Chowns and Ramsay's campaign may not have landed as loudly as Polanski's, they have election-winning credentials. As Ramsay said, it took time to build the 'broad coalitions' which have pushed the Green Party to where it currently sits. With polling for the leadership election opening in a matter of months, the pair may need to ramp up the volume in order to win the fight; it won't take much time for that 'broad coalition' to be unpicked. [See more: Did Zia Yusuf jump, or was he pushed?] Related