
Assisted dying: All you need to know following the crunch Commons vote
Here, the PA news agency takes a look at the Bill and what happens next after a significant moment in its journey to become law.
– 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.
On Friday, MPs voted 314 to 291, majority 23, in favour of legalising assisted dying as they completed the mainstay of their work on the Bill.
It will now face further debate in the House of Lords.
– 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, the point it is rubber stamped into law, 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?
On Friday, MPs bolstered the Bill so people with eating disorders are ruled out of falling into its scope.
Another amendment, requiring ministers to report within a year of the Bill passing on how assisted dying could affect palliative care, was also approved by MPs.
Previously, a High Court safeguard was dropped, with the oversight of judges in the assisted dying process replaced with expert panels.
The change was much criticised by opponents, who said it weakened the Bill, but Ms Leadbeater has argued it 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.
Amendments added earlier this month during report stage in the Commons will also see assisted dying adverts banned if the Bill becomes law, and a prohibition on medics being able to speak to under-18s about assisted dying.
– 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 647 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 and £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 MPs have since voted to insert a new clause into the Bill extending that to anyone.
The wording means 'no person', including social care workers and pharmacists, is obliged to take part in assisted dying and can now opt out.
Amendments to the Bill were debated on care homes and hospices also being able to opt out but these were not voted on.
Ms Leadbeater has previously said there is nothing in the Bill to say they have to, nor is there anything to say they do not have to, 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 will happen next?
Friday's vote in the Commons makes it more likely for the assisted dying Bill to become law, now that it has the backing of a majority of MPs.
But this is not guaranteed, and first it must continue on a journey through Parliament.
The Bill now heads to the House of Lords, as both Houses of Parliament must agree its final text before it can be signed into law.
During the next stages, peers are expected to put forward amendments to the Bill. If the Commons disagrees with these amendments, this will spark a process known as 'ping pong' which will continue until both Houses agree over its text.
– Will the Bill definitely become law?
There is a risk that the Bill could be stuck in a deadlock between the House of Commons and House of Lords, as it goes back and forth in disagreement.
If this continues until the current session of Parliament ends, then the Bill would fall.
Ms Leadbeater told journalists on Friday she hoped there were no attempts to purposefully wreck it by peers.
'I really hope there are no funny games, because the process has been extremely fair,' she said.
The Spen Valley MP said she did not know when the current parliamentary session would end, but suggested it could stretch into late 2025, giving her Bill the best part of six months to complete the full parliamentary process.
Speaking about the end of the session to reporters, Ms Leadbeater said: 'I am not imagining that is going to be imminently, but it could be before the end of the year.'
One member of the House of Lords, Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally, has already indicated she is against it.
The Church of England bishop said peers 'must oppose' the assisted dying Bill when it reaches them because of the 'mounting evidence that it is unworkable and unsafe'.
– What about assisted dying in the rest of the UK and Crown Dependencies?
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) in May 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 become law only 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.
Hashtags

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


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The Lords must now revise this dreadful assisted dying Bill
Britain is a less civilised country today. Seldom has the House of Commons enacted legislation with such potentially calamitous consequences as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which has passed its third reading by a majority of 314 to 291. The narrow margin of victory for the assisted dying Bill indicates that opinion had turned against the legalisation of euthanasia during the process of scrutiny, but not in sufficient numbers to defeat it. The only hope of mitigating its worst aspects now lies with the House of Lords. The Lords is a revising chamber and it should now do the job that the Commons failed to do: proper scrutiny. In this case, the revision required to make this legislation workable and safe will have to be radical. This Private Member's Bill was not in the Labour manifesto and so the Upper House is much less limited by convention in the scope of possible amendments. Peers are not generally eager to correct the follies of MPs, but this time their Lordships' duty is to make root and branch changes to the Bill, even if this risks confrontation with the Commons. In particular, the bishops of the Church of England have a responsibility to speak out much more clearly on a matter of such moral gravity. We know that in countries where euthanasia has been legalised, a large and growing proportion of all deaths are now assisted by doctors. In Canada, for example, some studies suggest up to 10 per cent of all lives will end in this way. Surely the Lords Spiritual should be leading the national conversation about what is likely to become reality here, too, in the very near future. Many people will rightly feel a sense of dread at the prospect of death on the NHS. When the new law takes effect in 2029, our health service will be obliged to offer assisted suicide as though it were just another form of care. Palliative care (already the Cinderella of the NHS) will now compete for resources with the new 'service'. As we report, assisted death is likely to overwhelm the NHS and finally break its budgets. Doctors will have to offer lethal drugs to any and all patients who are deemed to be terminally ill, as long as they have mental capacity. Those who meet the criteria could include patients with all kinds of disabilities, people with Down's Syndrome and those with eating disorders. The panels that will decide whether to authorise assisted dying do not need to have personal knowledge of the patient, nor to inform families or friends. They need only decide on the balance of probabilities that the patient is not being coerced. How did Britain find itself saddled with such a 'bad Bill', as the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called it, on a matter of such cardinal importance? The Prime Minister must carry much of the blame. Unwilling to shoulder responsibility, he chose to pass the buck to Kim Leadbeater, a backbench MP with more zeal than sagacity. A Government Bill would have allowed much more time to examine the practical costs and benefits of shoehorning the provision of medicalised death into a service designed to preserve life. One of Sir Keir Starmer's predecessors, Gordon Brown, rightly observed that in the name of autonomy the Bill sets up a false choice. Patients who request assisted dying will in future have a legal right to receive it, 'without guaranteeing anything approaching an equivalent right to high-quality palliative care for those close to death', he said. The refusal of the Commons to acknowledge this glaring injustice now places the onus on the Lords to enable physicians to offer terminal patients a genuine choice. Whatever one's views about the principle of assisted dying, this Bill is a case of legislating in haste and repenting at leisure. Posterity will have to live with its lasting impact on the relationship between the public and the medical profession. But it is not too late for peers to remedy some of the Bill's flaws.

The National
an hour ago
- The National
SNP councillor forces Labour to take action against Israeli arms sales
SNP councillor Naz Anis-Miah's pro-Palestinian motion was passed by Fife Council despite opposition from the ruling minority Labour administration. Labour councillors dropped their amendment to the motion halfway through the debate. The full motion called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, an end to UK arms sales to Israel, a commitment to upholding international law, and support for increased humanitarian aid to the region. READ MORE: Scottish Labour drop below Alba and Greens in Highlands by-election It also committed the leader of Fife Council, Labour councillor David Ross, to write to Keir Starmer, Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds over ending arms exports and instead increasing humanitarian aid. 'Obviously [Benjamin] Netanyahu and Israel are not going to listen to what Fife Council are going to say, but what Fife Council can do is apply pressure to the British government,' Anis-Miah told The National. The debate on the motion was held on Thursday, with councillors going back and forth over Labour's amendment which Anis-Miah said would have 'watered down' the SNP's motion. Speaking in the Chamber, Anis-Miah (below) told fellow councillors: 'We can't claim to champion human rights abroad while fuelling destruction with our exports. 'We can't preach peace while we enable war. We cannot turn a blind eye to the death of innocent children while our industries build machines that kill them. If we can't stop the bombs let's stop building them. If we can't end the war let's refuse to fuel it. (Image: SNP) 'If we can't undo the suffering, let us not be the ones who prolong it. I urge every member of this chamber to support the motion. "Let's send a clear message to the Prime Minister and Westminster that the people of Fife and Scotland will not be complicit in supplying arms that cause genocide.' Ross told councillors that members of the Labour group were still 'uncomfortable' with some parts of the motion. 'I think undoubtedly we are all horrified and really totally concerned about what is going on and we recognise the need to make a statement,' he added. 'In the interests of speaking with one voice from the council we're prepared to withdraw our amendment with a slight concession on the wording from the SNP motion.' The SNP group agreed to remove a call for the motion to be shared with Cosla and other councils across Scotland. READ MORE: UK scrambles to charter flights out of Israel for British citizens 'We're comfortable that we can share it with our Cosla delegates at the SNP Council group nationwide, and we've also obviously got a network of Councilors across the country, so we're comfortable that we'll share the motion ourselves,' Anis-Miah explained. We previously told how in the last quarter of 2024, the Labour Government licensed exports of more military equipment to Israel than the Tories did for all of 2020-2023 combined. This led to Lammy claiming that The National's article was 'clickbait' as he dismissed the report, which was based on UK Government figures. Several high profile celebrities, including Paolo Nutini and Ncuti Gatwa, have joined calls urging Starmer to suspend arm sales to Israel.


Edinburgh Reporter
an hour ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
Senior Edinburgh councillors back giving themselves a pay hike
Senior Edinburgh councillors have backed giving themselves a pay hike, with only one member speaking out in opposition. In February, Edinburgh Council agreed to freeze pay for senior councillors – including political group leaders and committee conveners – at the previous year's levels. But at Thursday's meeting all political groups except the SNP voted in favour of raising pay for senior councillors, with most getting an uplift of £4,637 to their annual pay packets – an 11.6% jump. Council committee conveners, as well as the SNP, Conservative and Liberal Democrat group leaders, will all get £4,637 added to their annual pay, bringing them to £44,644 per year, up from £40,027 from the previous year. And the depute council leader, Labour's Mandy Watt, will also get a £4,637 pay hike, bringing her total compensation to £52,669, up from £48,032 before. A council spokesperson said the increase in pay for senior councillors was intended to match the pay hike given to non-senior councillors by the Scottish Government. While local authorities have the power to set the pay of senior councillors, the rates for all other councillors are set by the Scottish Government, including the council's leader and Lord Provost, based on the fidings of the Scottish Local Authorities Remuneration Committee (SLARC). Earlier this year, it mandated that the salary for most councillors be raised to £25,982 per year, up £4,637 from their previous pay of £21,345, which stood unchanged for several years. Labour councillor and council leader Jane Meagher is paid £71,519 per year, while Lord Provost Robert Aldridge is paid £53,640. Depute council leader, Labour councillor Mandy Watt, said: 'I sat down and read the guidance, and it does say that in your approach to this, you should be doing councillor remuneration from the bottom up, not the top down. 'I very much appreciate the support that I've had [from officers] to get all this together.' An SNP source said: 'Councillors have been chronically underpaid for decades, and normally I'd take the view that we remunerate the position held, rather than the individual holding it. 'But the current crop of administration conveners are so inept that we could not support them getting a pay hike.' A council spokesperson said: 'While we don't set the rates of pay for non-senior councillor roles it's appropriate that we publish them and provide elected members with the opportunity to scrutinise rates for full transparency. 'The increase in Senior Councillors' remuneration was agreed by Council yesterday, and now includes the increase to the Councillor basic pay set by the Scottish Government.' Only one member, Labour councillor Katrina Faccenda, spoke out against the pay hikes. She said: 'I think you should take note of which councillors are getting extra money, and you should work out whether you are getting value for money from those councillors. 'Since this is public money, and I don't think anyone in here would support the misuse of public money, I'd ask the public to have a look at that, and work out if they think that in Edinburgh Council, the extra money they have to spend to subsidise councillors is being used in the right way.' Cllr Faccenda, who will not financially benefit from the pay increase for senior councillors, voted to support the hike. Meanwhile, independent councillor Ross McKenzie voted with the SNP to oppose the pay hike. Green co-convener, councillor Chas Booth, said: 'Greens think it is right that people are paid appropriately for the work they do, and we welcomed the recommendations of the Scottish Local Authority Remuneration Committee around councillors' salaries. 'Pay is a significant barrier to people from marginalised groups entering politics, and if we want to see more diversity in our councillors to reflect the rich diversity of the communities we serve, then we need to ensure people without independent income can become elected representatives. 'However, we acknowledge that while so many people in Edinburgh continue to face a cost-of-living crisis caused by years of austerity which is now being continued by the Labour government at Westminster, the Labour council administration doesn't feel that big increases in senior councillor pay were not appropriate. 'Therefore Green councillors were happy to support their proposals around this.' By Joseph Sullivan Local Democracy Reporter Like this: Like Related