logo
All you need to know as the assisted dying Bill returns to Parliament

All you need to know as the assisted dying Bill returns to Parliament

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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

MP accuses government of rail funding bias as £6.6bn project excludes Wales
MP accuses government of rail funding bias as £6.6bn project excludes Wales

Pembrokeshire Herald

timean hour ago

  • Pembrokeshire Herald

MP accuses government of rail funding bias as £6.6bn project excludes Wales

David Chadwick calls for rail powers to be devolved to Wales after confirmation East-West Rail brings no funding uplift WELSH Liberal Democrat MP David Chadwick has criticised the UK Government after it confirmed that Wales will receive no additional funding from the £6.6 billion East-West Rail scheme, which runs entirely between Oxford and Cambridge in England. Mr Chadwick uncovered the detail through a written parliamentary question answered by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Simon Lightwood. The project has been classified as an 'England and Wales' scheme, despite not including any infrastructure in Wales — a classification that prevents Wales from receiving a proportional share of funding through the Barnett formula. Not happy over rail funding: Liberal Democrat, David Chadwick MP The issue mirrors the controversy over HS2, which was also designated as benefiting both England and Wales, even though the line does not extend into Welsh territory. Independent estimates suggest Wales could have received over £360 million in consequential funding from East-West Rail if it had been classified as 'England only.' Broader estimates indicate that similar misclassifications over the past decade may have cost Wales more than £4 billion in potential funding. In the House of Commons, Mr Chadwick described the decision as 'shocking,' and renewed calls for the devolution of full rail infrastructure powers to the Senedd. He argued that only through devolution can Wales prevent future misallocations and ensure investment in local lines such as the Heart of Wales Line. Speaking after the exchange, Mr Chadwick said: 'It is simply indefensible that Wales continues to be frozen out of hundreds of millions in rail funding for projects that do not lay a single centimetre of track in our country. We saw this with HS2, with Northern Powerhouse Rail, and now again with East-West Rail. Time after time, Wales is left behind.' He added: 'Wales must be able to invest properly in its own rail network. That includes delivering serious improvements to the Heart of Wales Line, which has been neglected for decades. This line is a lifeline for rural communities, supporting jobs, education and tourism, and it deserves the same level of ambition and investment as rail services elsewhere in the UK.' While critics point to a pattern of funding disparities, the UK Government maintains that major rail projects often bring broader economic benefits across the UK, including Wales — for example, through supply chains or job creation. However, Welsh politicians and transport experts have repeatedly argued that these indirect benefits do not match the level of direct investment seen in other parts of the union. The Welsh Government has long advocated for the devolution of rail infrastructure powers, which are currently reserved to Westminster. It has argued that devolution would enable more targeted investment in Wales's underfunded network — a view backed by a growing number of transport economists. Mr Chadwick and the Welsh Liberal Democrats continue to campaign for East-West Rail to be reclassified as an 'England only' scheme and for a fair funding settlement that reflects actual geographic delivery. They are also pressing for urgent investment in rural rail services, particularly the Heart of Wales Line, which connects Swansea to Shrewsbury via mid Wales.

Peers debate change to 105-year-old law so children can work on steam trains
Peers debate change to 105-year-old law so children can work on steam trains

South Wales Argus

timean hour ago

  • South Wales Argus

Peers debate change to 105-year-old law so children can work on steam trains

Labour's Lord Faulkner of Worcester proposed an amendment to the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920, which barred children from work in any 'any industrial undertaking', including in mines, construction or transport. If agreed, his change would have exempted voluntary work on heritage railways and tramways from the ban. Government whip Lord Katz cautioned there 'may be unintended consequences' by amending the 'old legislation', but Lord Faulkner indicated he could push for a vote on his proposal before the Employment Rights Bill becomes law. Supporting the proposals, independent crossbench peer the Earl of Clancarty said: 'Steam railways are an important part of this country's heritage, and as every year passes that importance surely grows. 'We are getting closer to a time when there will be no-one with a personal memory of such trains in their working life, so as well as being an enjoyable activity for interested, enthusiastic children and young people, this is also an educational opportunity for the next generation.' Lord Faulkner said the ban was from a 'very different era' and told the Lords it 'languished unknown on the statute book for many years'. He said: 'Heritage railways managers, not surprisingly, do not wish to break the law, even if it is moribund and other safeguards exist.' Training on heritage railways 'has led to many seeking careers on the national rail network and in some cases have provided training and apprenticeships appropriate to their future career choices', Lord Faulkner added. He warned that even where regulators have said they would not prosecute a child who volunteers on a heritage railway, a legal challenge 'could be brought by a local authority or by a relative of a young people, regardless of the assurances given'. Historic England chairman and Conservative peer Lord Mendoza said: 'One of the most difficult things in the heritage sector is to encourage young people to come into it, to learn the skills, to learn the trades that we need in order to keep our heritage environment going for as long as we can.' In his response, Lord Katz said 'regulators should and do take a proportionate approach to enforcement action'. He offered a meeting with peers who wanted to change the law, adding: 'The 1920 Act is old legislation and amendment of it should only be considered after a thorough review upon other areas of law, as there may be unintended consequences.' Withdrawing his amendment to the Employment Rights Bill, Lord Faulkner said he would 'take up the minister's kind offer' but added that without solution, he believed 'the House as a whole would like the opportunity to express its view on the report' as the draft new law progresses.

MP: Grenfell-style mistakes could be repeated over battery storage regulation
MP: Grenfell-style mistakes could be repeated over battery storage regulation

South Wales Argus

timean hour ago

  • South Wales Argus

MP: Grenfell-style mistakes could be repeated over battery storage regulation

Liberal Democrat John Milne said there were 'alarming parallels' with the systemic failure which led to the west London tower block fire. Currently there are no laws which specifically govern the safety of battery energy storage systems (Bess), according to the House of Commons library. However, individual batteries could be subject to product safety regulations. Speaking in the Commons, Mr Milne accused the Government of being 'too complacent' as he called for enforceable regulations for the design and construction of the storage systems. The MP for Horsham said: 'The Grenfell disaster was the end result of many failings by both individuals and companies, but at its heart it was a failure of regulation. 'The rules left things wide open for exploitation by cost-cutting developers, and that is exactly what happened. 'Just as with lithium-ion batteries, a new technology, in this case cladding, was being used at scale for the first time without proper understanding of the risks. The time to act is now.' He continued: 'The Government itself has responded to all questions from myself and others to say that it considers the present regulatory regime to be robust. I am tempted to say pride comes before a fall. 'In the last few weeks a Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesman has stated that battery fires at storage sites are rare in the UK, we already have high standards in place that require manufacturers and industry to ensure batteries are safe throughout their lifespan. 'This is just too complacent. 'Fires as a result of cladding were also incredibly rare, but that did not save 72 lives at Grenfell.' Grenfell Tower (James Manning/PA) Mr Milne said the industry would benefit from clear guidance, before adding: 'Any guidance needs to cover-off a number of areas, including transport of batteries to the site, design and construction, fire-fighting, ongoing inspection and decommissioning. 'In the short term, if the Government is for any reason still reluctant to regulate, perhaps it could issue clear national guidelines which are capable of being updated annually. 'Enforcement might then take place through the insurance industry, who would be likely to insist that any new applications followed such guidelines, as no project can go ahead without insurance, it is enforcement by the back door. 'Grenfell was a wholly predictable tragedy. A similar fire at Lakanal House in Camberwell, which killed six people, should have made us understand the risk, but the warning wasn't heeded and history took its course. 'We can't go back in time to stop Grenfell, but we can act now to avoid making the same mistake again with battery energy storage systems.' Elsewhere in the debate, Conservative MP for Mid Buckinghamshire Greg Smith said there should be minimum distances between battery storage sites and housing. Mr Smith said: 'This is not a debate about the principle of energy storage, although I am in principle opposed to such schemes taking agricultural land and challenging our food security, but today's debate, which is deeply concerning, and what this House must urgently address, are the real, growing, and too often overlooked safety implications of these installations, particularly when placed in close proximity to villages, and rural road networks ill-equipped to support them.' He added: 'At the very least the Government should introduce clear national guidelines on the siting of Bess installations, including minimum separation distances from residential properties, fire resilience standards, mandatory site-specific risk assessments and restrictions on placing these facilities on, or near, rural roads.' SNP MP for Aberdeen North, Kirsty Blackman, said developers should pay towards fire mitigation measures. She said: 'If we're saying to those organisations that are creating the battery storage sites, you will need to pay for the fire safety assessment, you will need to consult the local fire and you will need to pay for the training of those local fire teams in tackling fires at battery energy storage sites, I think that would be the most reasonable way forward. 'Ask them to pay for that training, because it's them that are going to be making a huge profit off it.' Energy minister Miatta Fahnbulleh said: 'It is often claimed that there is no regulation in this sector because there is no specific law addressing battery safety. This is simply untrue. 'The safety and standards of batteries are assured throughout their life cycle. The Government is therefore confident that the safety risks posed by grid-scale batteries are relatively small and well managed.' She added there is 'scope to strengthen' the planning process.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store