What happens next after historic assisted dying vote - 'not over yet'
MPs backed a landmark Bill that will allow assisted dying in England and Wales - but it still has to undergo scrutiny in the House of Lords, which could prove tricky
MPs today backed historic legislation that will legalise assisted dying.
A Bill put forward by Labour backbencher Kim Leadbeater narrowly passed through the Commons after an intense debate. But opponents say "this is not over" as there are still hurdles to overcome before it can become law.
Ms Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was supported by 314 MPs from across the political spectrum and opposed by 291. It was a huge victory for campaigners who have lobbied for decades to change the law and give terminally ill people control over how they die.
Throughout the day the Commons heard passionate pleas from both sides of the argument.
READ MORE: Terminally ill gran's heartbreaking message to MPs ahead of assisted dying vote
What happens next?
The Bill has passed its third reading, which means elected MPs support it.
As is routine, it will now be sent to the House of Lords to scrutinise. Although the Lords is unelected, and there have long been calls to abolish it, it does have a crucial role in passing legislation.
Peers will go through the Bill line-by-line and outline any parts they are unsure about. Members can table amendments, and if the House backs them these will be sent back to the Commons to have another look.
So can they block the Bill?
The main danger for supporters will be that the Bill runs out of time. The legislation will fall if it isn't completed in the current session of Parliament, which does give disgruntled peers the power to throw a spanner in the works.
Sessions usually last a year, and the current one began last July after the general election. But there's no fixed rule, meaning it could still run for a few more months.
The problem will come if there's a long back-and-forth - known as "ping pong" between the Lords and the Commons. The last time this happened was with Rishi Sunak's botched Safety of Rwanda Bill, which kept being sent back to MPs as peers tried to make changes.
If the same happens again, the process could take several months. And a lot of MPs are expecting this - during today's debate there was a lot of talk of scrutiny in "the other place" - meaning the House of Lords.
Baroness Finlay, a palliative care doctor who opposes the Bill, told the BBC: "Our role is not to rubber stamp whatever has happened in the Commons, particularly when we know that so many amendments put down in the Commons that would have improved the Bill have gone undebated."
So is there still a fight to come?
Potentially, depending on the mood of the Lords. It's not gone unnoticed that the majority this time around was lower than it was in November, when the legislation was last in the Commons.
Lib Dem MP Tim Farron, an opponent of the Bill, posted: : "Wow! Majority slashed. At the risk of sounding like Jeremy Corbyn … we clearly won the argument there! With a tiny majority and growing opposition from expert groups, the Lords will now rightly feel that they have the right to disagree. To my pleasant surprise, this is not over!"
Do Lords amendments have to go in the Bill?
No. As we saw with the Rwanda Bill, peers can suggest changes to legislation, but it is the Commons that decides.
If MPs think suggestions from the Lords are helpful, they can accept them. If they don't - as the Conservatives decided with the proposed changes on Rwanda - they can vote them down.
So when will it actually become law?
Once both Houses are satisfied, or when MPs throw out amendments by the Lords.
As we saw under Mr Sunak, having a lot of unhappy peers does not have to stop legislation going through. Once it gets through the Lords it will receive Royal Assent, meaning it is on the statute books.
When can the first assisted dying case happen?
There are a number of safeguards put into the Bill to ensure this is not rushed.
The Bill as it stands - although peers may try to push for changes - says it will take up to four years. This means it could be late 2029 by the time the first person is able to choose to end their lives this way.
In each case there will be a panel of experts who will have to give their consent to each assisted death, along with doctors. This process will take time to set up, and it remains to be seen whether there are any big legal hurdles to overcome.
But Ms Leadbeater has indicated that the four year timeframe is not a target but a "backstop" - meaning it could be sooner.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
25 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Rantzen: MPs backing assisted dying Bill will protect people from ‘bad death'
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will now head to the Lords after clearing the Commons on Friday afternoon, with MPs voting 314 in favour, 291 against, majority 23. Dame Esther, a notable supporter of campaign Dignity in Dying who has stage four lung cancer, told the PA news agency: 'This will make a huge positive difference, protecting millions of terminally ill patients and their families from the agony and loss of dignity created by a bad death. 'Thank you, Parliament.' Campaigners inside Parliament and outside in Parliament Square were jubilant and tearful following the result of the vote. Some MPs lined up to shake hands with or hug Kim Leadbeater, the Bill's sponsor through the Commons. Ms Leadbeater described the vote as a 'result that so many people need'. The Labour MP for Spen Valley said: 'Thank goodness we got the result that so many people need, but I also feel that it was done really respectfully and the atmosphere in the chamber was very civilised.' Outside, a cheer erupted as the result was announced on a livestream to a crowd who had huddled together in anticipation. Many cried and hugged each other, while others popped champagne. Dame Esther's daughter, Rebecca Wilcox, called her mother in front of supporters and told her she wished she was here. Ms Wilcox came to Parliament Square following the vote and hugged fellow campaigners and friends. She told PA that she gave Ms Leadbeater's mum a 'big hug' following the result and added: 'I don't know whether to have a drink or a really big cry. 'There were a few of us in the public gallery and we were all holding hands. I felt like we were on a rollercoaster. 'It was the longest pause when everyone came in and we were waiting for the four and when I heard a three for the 'ayes' I was quite positive. 'It was quite extraordinary. I turned around and gave Kim's mum a great big hug.' Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, told the crowd: 'This is for all the people who couldn't be here today. This vote sends a clear message. Parliament stands with the public and change is coming.' Sian Berry, a Green Party MP and one of the proposers of the Bill, told PA: 'We all have experience of loved ones at the end of their lives that have influenced this. So many of my constituents have written to me telling me their stories. You really feel the importance of what you're doing this for. 'I'm confident we have made the Bill robust and I do believe this reflects public opinion.' Supporter Tim Murphy, 39, from London, said: 'My friend David went to Dignitas four years ago and he had to die sooner than he should have had there been a workable law in this country. 'This will impact so many people. So much of the [opposition] campaign has been hypothetical situations in the future but not taking into consideration the actual deaths that have occurred.' Those opposed to the Bill were visibly disappointed. People had gathered to pray before the vote but the crowd of white-shirted campaigners quickly dispersed following the result. Many packed up their signs and left the square and did not speak to the press. Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally, a former chief nursing officer for England who sits in the House of Lords, said: 'Every person is of immeasurable and irreducible value, and should be able to access the care and support that they need – a principle that I know is shared by those of all faiths and none. 'We must oppose a law that puts the vulnerable at risk and instead work to improve funding and access to desperately needed palliative care services.' Sean Redfearn, 26, representing Christian Concern, said: 'It's disappointing the nation is stepping closer for people to take their own lives.' 'There is no progress as progress suggests flourishing and there's no flourishing with allowing the ending of a life.'
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
MPs voting to legalise assisted dying is a momentous day for choice
Many of the great advances of liberal social legislation have been made in the form of bills promoted by backbench MPs under a benign Labour government. The abolition of the death penalty in 1965, by a bill sponsored by Sydney Silverman; the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967, by a bill from Leo Abse; the Abortion Act 1967, by a bill from David Steel; and the Divorce Reform Act 1969, which followed another private member's bill by Abse. To this roll call of liberal reform, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Act is now likely to be added, and Kim Leadbeater's name will join those of her illustrious predecessors. In a week in which the House of Commons has also voted to decriminalise abortion, it is good to see that progress is still being made towards giving citizens more choice in how they live their lives – including in today's case how they end them. This is a difficult subject, and, as with any step forward to a more liberal society, there are those who object that the change breaches a fundamental moral principle. We understand that there are some difficult moral issues in assisted dying, but we do not accept that today's vote in the Commons crosses some kind of Rubicon. The Independent 's starting point is that it cannot be right to treat as criminal someone who is terminally ill and who wants to decide the time and manner of their death – or the people who assist them in this decision. The only question, it seems to us, is whether the protection against pressure being put on someone to end their life was strong enough. There were those MPs who argued today that those protections can never be 100 per cent secure, and it may be that in no part of life can people be absolutely protected from malign actors. But the protections in the bill are as good as they can be. They have been significantly strengthened since the bill was first published. The main change that Ms Leadbeater has made to the bill has been to replace a High Court judge with a panel of a lawyer, a social worker and a psychiatrist as the second line of defence after two doctors have approved a patient's decision. This is a better arrangement, drawing on a wider range of expertise. There remain concerns about the bill. One of the objections we take most seriously is from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which says, among other things, that 'there are not enough consultant psychiatrists to do what the bill asks'. This is a question of whether the provisions of the bill will be adequately resourced, which is related to the worry expressed by Wes Streeting, the health and social care secretary, who is opposed to the bill on the grounds that end-of-life care in the NHS is under-resourced as it is. The Independent 's view, however, is that the issue of resources should not be a reason for blocking the bill. If, for example, there is a shortage of psychiatrists, it would be wrong to deny the right to an assisted death altogether just because it cannot be offered to all. After all, the current situation is that those with means can travel to Switzerland to take advantage of the law there, as Mary Dejevsky writes in a moving account of her husband's death. This bill will make that choice available to more people in England and Wales, and under rather stricter rules than apply in Switzerland. We welcome today's decision by the House of Commons. It was decisive, although we wish it could have been more so, because this is the kind of change that benefits from a wide consensus. We urge the House of Lords to take its role seriously as a revising chamber. Peers should not seek to block the bill, or to pass amendments designed to render it ineffective. Instead, they should look at those aspects of the bill that are most contentious and seek to improve the legislation if at all possible. Ultimately, however, the upper house should respect the democratic mandate of the Commons and pass this law, the most significant social policy shift by a private member's bill since abortion was legalised in 1967, to allow more people to make their own decisions about their lives and how to end them.
South Wales Guardian
40 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Rantzen: MPs backing assisted dying Bill will protect people from ‘bad death'
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will now head to the Lords after clearing the Commons on Friday afternoon, with MPs voting 314 in favour, 291 against, majority 23. Dame Esther, a notable supporter of campaign Dignity in Dying who has stage four lung cancer, told the PA news agency: 'This will make a huge positive difference, protecting millions of terminally ill patients and their families from the agony and loss of dignity created by a bad death. 'Thank you, Parliament.' Campaigners inside Parliament and outside in Parliament Square were jubilant and tearful following the result of the vote. Some MPs lined up to shake hands with or hug Kim Leadbeater, the Bill's sponsor through the Commons. Ms Leadbeater described the vote as a 'result that so many people need'. The Labour MP for Spen Valley said: 'Thank goodness we got the result that so many people need, but I also feel that it was done really respectfully and the atmosphere in the chamber was very civilised.' Outside, a cheer erupted as the result was announced on a livestream to a crowd who had huddled together in anticipation. Many cried and hugged each other, while others popped champagne. Dame Esther's daughter, Rebecca Wilcox, called her mother in front of supporters and told her she wished she was here. Ms Wilcox came to Parliament Square following the vote and hugged fellow campaigners and friends. She told PA that she gave Ms Leadbeater's mum a 'big hug' following the result and added: 'I don't know whether to have a drink or a really big cry. 'There were a few of us in the public gallery and we were all holding hands. I felt like we were on a rollercoaster. 'It was the longest pause when everyone came in and we were waiting for the four and when I heard a three for the 'ayes' I was quite positive. 'It was quite extraordinary. I turned around and gave Kim's mum a great big hug.' Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, told the crowd: 'This is for all the people who couldn't be here today. This vote sends a clear message. Parliament stands with the public and change is coming.' Sian Berry, a Green Party MP and one of the proposers of the Bill, told PA: 'We all have experience of loved ones at the end of their lives that have influenced this. So many of my constituents have written to me telling me their stories. You really feel the importance of what you're doing this for. 'I'm confident we have made the Bill robust and I do believe this reflects public opinion.' Supporter Tim Murphy, 39, from London, said: 'My friend David went to Dignitas four years ago and he had to die sooner than he should have had there been a workable law in this country. 'This will impact so many people. So much of the [opposition] campaign has been hypothetical situations in the future but not taking into consideration the actual deaths that have occurred.' Those opposed to the Bill were visibly disappointed. People had gathered to pray before the vote but the crowd of white-shirted campaigners quickly dispersed following the result. Many packed up their signs and left the square and did not speak to the press. Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally, a former chief nursing officer for England who sits in the House of Lords, said: 'Every person is of immeasurable and irreducible value, and should be able to access the care and support that they need – a principle that I know is shared by those of all faiths and none. 'We must oppose a law that puts the vulnerable at risk and instead work to improve funding and access to desperately needed palliative care services.' Sean Redfearn, 26, representing Christian Concern, said: 'It's disappointing the nation is stepping closer for people to take their own lives.' 'There is no progress as progress suggests flourishing and there's no flourishing with allowing the ending of a life.'
