Keir Starmer signals support for assisted dying as MPs prepare for crunch vote
Keir Starmer said his position on the highly sensitive issue of assisted dying 'is long-standing and well-known' after he voted in favour of changing the law last year
Keir Starmer has suggested he backs a bid to change the law on assisted dying as MPs prepare to cast their final vote.
Tensions have been mounting in Parliament over the landmark bill, as more than 50 Labour MPs urged Commons Leader Lucy Powell at the weekend to intervene to delay the crucial third reading vote to allow for more scrutiny.
MPs voted by 330 to 275 in favour of legalising assisted dying in November - but it is unclear whether some MPs will switch sides when they vote on the bill in full. The Prime Minister said his position on the highly sensitive issue "is long-standing and well-known" but he stressed it was a matter for individual MPs as the government remains neutral.
At November's historic 'yes' vote, when a majority of 55 supported the principle of assisted dying in England and Wales, Mr Starmer voted in favour. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has since gone through line-by-line scrutiny in tense debates in the Commons chamber.
Spearheaded by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, the Bill proposes to allow terminally ill adults with less than six months to live to apply for an assisted death.
It is expected MPs will hold a key vote on Friday which could either see the legislation progress to the House of Lords, or fall.
Speaking to reporters, Mr Starmer said: "It is a matter for individual parliamentarians, which is why I've not waded in with a view on this publicly, and I'm not going to now, it's coming to a conclusion.
"There has been a lot of time discussing it, both in Parliament and beyond Parliament, and quite right too it's a really serious issue. My own position is long-standing and well-known in relation to it, based on my experience when I was chief prosecutor for five years, where I oversaw every case that was investigated."
His comments came as the ex-Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged MPs to reject the Bill, saying it had "fundamental flaws".
Mr Brown said: "It has become clear that whatever views people hold on the principle, passing the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) bill into law would privilege the legal right to assisted dying without guaranteeing anything approaching an equivalent right to high-quality palliative care for those close to death."
But the daughter of terminally ill broadcaster Dame Esther Rantzen said England and Wales must "catch up with the rest of the world" in changing the law. Rebecca Wilcox told Sky News: "We need to show that we are an empathetic country that appreciates choice at the end of your life."
She added: "It's a Bill for the terminally ill. It's a Bill for adults, and in every jurisdiction where they've had a similar Bill with such strict safeguards it is not extended to anybody else. It has not widened the scope of it. The slippery slope doesn't exist.
"So what we have here, what Kim Leadbeater has brought forward and has pushed through Parliament so gracefully and so carefully and empathetically, is a really safe, clever piece of law that will stop the cruel status quo that exists at the moment where nobody knows what they can do, where people are dying in agony every single day."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
23 minutes ago
- New Statesman
A perilous age
We go to print this week at a moment of deep peril, uncertainty and, it has to be said, shame. In the Middle East, Israel and Iran are engaged in an existential battle for supremacy which, at the time of writing, threatens to spiral out of control, causing unknown death and destruction. In Ukraine, Vladimir Putin's assault continues, and in Gaza, the suffering of millions intensifies even as their fate falls down the global agenda. We do not live in a world bending towards justice, but one being bent out of shape by those with power. While all this was happening, the leaders of what was once thought of as 'the West' looked on in Canada, paralysed in the face of the spectacle unfolding. Is there even such a thing as the G7 any more, you wonder? What we have, it seems, is an increasingly incongruous G6 – a gathering of half a dozen mid-sized powers, once loyal to the US, but now seemingly powerless to do much about anything. As the likes of Keir Starmer and Mark Carney put their names to another communiqué, the strongmen of the world did as they pleased. Naturally, much of this week's magazine is devoted to the unfolding crisis and the new world we now seem to have entered. Lawrence Freedman provides a masterly account of the grand strategy – and grand gamble – behind Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to attack Tehran, as well as the possible consequences in the days and weeks ahead. Freddie Hayward, our US correspondent, reports on the fractious world of Maga, where some of Trump's most ardent supporters are now watching with alarm as the one-time candidate of peace finds himself drawn ever closer to another foreign war. Katie Stallard reports from Washington and the strange spectacle of Trump's birthday parade, considering what it reveals about the uncertainty of the world now. In this world of strongmen, the personalities of those in power is crucial: what they believe and why. For this reason, we have delved into the personal history of Netanyahu, a pariah figure in much of the world today (justly) who, nevertheless, looks set to remake the Middle East to Israel's advantage through raw military power and violence. Ami Dror, who was the head of Netanyahu's secret service security detail between 1996 and 1999, provides a startling insider account of the prime minister who became a warlord. And Israeli-American journalist Joshua Leifer explains why Netanyahu has been waiting for this showdown with Iran for most of his adult life. At home, meanwhile, the government continues to flail, subcontracting its most difficult decisions to others. The Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, recently completed the government's latest U-turn by announcing that there would be a national inquiry into the euphemistically named 'grooming gangs' scandal. As Hannah Barnes writes, it beggars belief that after months of obfuscation, the government has finally been forced into this position by the findings of Louise Casey. I have sat in meetings with some of the most senior Labour officials in this government who have spoken passionately about the moral stain of what happened in Rotherham and elsewhere, raging against the Labour councils which failed to act. And yet still nothing happened until someone else outside the government ordered them to change course. Voters – and, I suspect, New Statesman readers – want a government that knows what it stands for and is prepared to set it out in clear, unambiguous terms. From the protection of young girls in Britain to the rights of Palestinians in Gaza, Britain expects a government that leads, not one that follows. It's not all doom and gloom though. In the New Society, Tina Brown takes a look at Princess Diana's contested legacy, Zoë Huxford explores modern Britain through Alexander McQueen's most famous shows, and Kate Mossman meets a growling Brian Cox. Not a big fan of the prime minister, it seems. Enjoy the issue, and please do get in touch to let us know what you think. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe [See also: Kemi Badenoch sinks further into the mire] Related
Western Telegraph
27 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Tougher sentences for criminals who abuse LGBT people ‘vital step forward'
Jacob Collier called for new aggravated offences as part of the Government's Crime and Policing Bill, as he warned many LGBT+ people 'don't feel safe in reporting hate'. More than 100 cross-party MPs backed the proposed amendment, originally put forward by Rachel Taylor, which would create the new offences if violent crimes are motivated by hostility toward's a person's sexuality, transgender identity or disability. Mr Collier said: 'I know what it means to think twice how you walk down the street, to pause before holding somebody's hand, to wonder whether that shout from across the road is something you can ignore or something you can't afford to. I think it's also fitting that we are introducing this amendment in Pride Month, and in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling which has caused so much anguish amongst the trans community. Jacob Collier MP 'And I know that I'm not alone in that. 'I've spoken to my constituents and people from far beyond who tell me that they don't feel safe in reporting hate when it happens. They don't believe that they'll be taken seriously and there's a profound failure of trust, and one that we in this House have a duty to repair.' The Burton and Uttoxeter MP also told the Commons: 'I think it's also fitting that we are introducing this amendment in Pride Month, and in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling which has caused so much anguish amongst the trans community.' He said the move 'represents a vital step forward in the protection of some of the most marginalised people within our society' and added: 'Too many victims still believe that the system is not on their side and this new clause gives us the opportunity to change that. It gives police and prosecutors a clear route to charge and convict offenders in a way that truly reflects the nature of these crimes.' Mr Collier said the proposed change was 'about dignity, about recognising that whether you're a trans teenager being punched in the park, a gay couple being spat on on the Tube, or a disabled man being harassed on his way to work, all people deserve the full protection of the law'. Aggravated offences would also offer 'vital protection for disabled people, who often remain far too invisible in the public conversation around hate crime', he added. The law already provides for aggravated offences, if they are motivated by hostility towards a victim's race or religious group membership. 'That discrepancy cannot be right. We cannot as a society say that some forms of hatred are more evil than others,' Ms Taylor told the Commons. The Labour MP for North Warwickshire and Bedworth added she was 'at university when section 28 was introduced', part of the Local Government Act 1988 which banned town halls from promoting or teaching 'the acceptability of' homosexuality in schools. 'I remember it vividly, it was more than the law, it was an attack on the right of people like me to live openly,' she said. 'It stigmatised lesbians, gays and bisexual people, it pushed us out of public life. 'I got into politics to fight that cruel law and everything it represented.' Ms Taylor said her amendment would be 'an important step forward for equal rights'. Marie Tidball, the Labour MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge who also backed the amendment, said the proposal 'would foster respect and equality for all by ensuring justice for disabled victims of hate crime'.
ITV News
28 minutes ago
- ITV News
Kim Leadbeater expects a majority of MPs to back ‘the most robust assisted dying bill in the world'
Kim Leadbeater told ITV News' Talking Politics podcast she was confident the bill would pass Kim Leadbeater has told ITV News' Talking Politics podcast she is 'positive and optimistic' that a majority of MPs will support 'the most robust assisted dying bill in the world' in this week's critical vote. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will get its crucial third reading and vote in the House of Commons on Friday, with MPs choosing to either pass it onto the House of Lords or kill it off. Despite a growing number of MPs declaring they will vote against the legislation in recent months, the Labour MP and architect of the bill said she expected 'some movement in both directions' in the next 48 hours but anticipated 'it will be relatively minor'. Speaking exclusively to the podcast, Leadbeater said: 'If that proves to be the case, it means we've still got a good majority and the bill will go forward." MPs have fiercely argued for and against a bill which will allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life. ITV News understands - as of Wednesday evening - 152 MPs are planning to vote in favour, 141 plan to vote against it, 21 remain undecided, and 21 are due to abstain. The bill passed its first reading in the House of Commons with a majority of 55 votes (330 to 275) back in November, paving the way for months of scrutiny of the life-defining legislation. Leadbeater told podcast host Paul Brand: 'It's been a long journey, a tiring journey, but I'm feeling positive and optimistic, and hopefully we can get the bill over the line on Friday. 'Obviously lots of people are very clear about their positions, lots of people are very supportive of the bill, and there are people who are fundamentally against the bill, and I think in the middle there's potentially a small number of people who might change their mind either way, but if that proves to be the case, it means we've still got a good majority and the bill will go forward. 'So that's how I feel at the moment, but, you know, it's up to every MP to do what they feel is the right thing to do on Friday, and the debate will continue as it should.' Asked by Brand if she thought the vote would be tighter than November, Leadbeater replied: 'It's impossible to say, to be honest… I'm not keeping that close an eye on it, to be honest. 'But I think there'll be some movement in both directions. Certainly, a few colleagues have come out saying that they are going to support, having either abstained or voted against last time, and then other colleagues have done the same the other way. So, I think if there is any movement, it will be relatively minor.' She also defended the debate process, which saw significant changes to the original proposed legislation. 'Look, this is how we make laws. Are there things that I would change about the entire parliamentary process? Yes, there probably are,' she said. 'But if we start on pulling that thread at this stage, we've got a long way to go. So I think the bill has gone through a very robust process. 'If you think we started this back in November, so it's been a long period of time, the hours of scrutiny that it has had has been more than most government bills, lots of detailed exploration of the content, amendments looked at and tabled and taken and changes made, and that's quite right too. 'I've tried to engage with colleagues, whatever their views are, including on the bill committee, some very strong opponents of a change in the law, and I've tried to do that as collaboratively and as collegiately as I possibly can, and I think as a result of that, what Parliament will be presented with on Friday will be an even stronger piece of legislation and certainly the most robust assisted dying bill in the world." It has lost some support from the medical profession since it was first put to Parliament, with the Royal College of Psychiatrists saying in May that they could not back it.
