logo
The assisted dying Bill appeared to have unstoppable momentum. Now it's on shaky ground

The assisted dying Bill appeared to have unstoppable momentum. Now it's on shaky ground

Telegraph14-05-2025

It was always going to be divisive. For the past nine weeks, MPs have been debating a piece of legislation so significant that it is, quite literally, a matter of life and death. If it becomes law, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which reaches the next stage in Parliament this week, will allow adults diagnosed with a terminal illness and a six-month prognosis to be provided with assistance to end their own life.
There are persuasive – and emotionally charged – opinions on both sides of the debate, but at one point it seemed as though the assisted dying bill had unstoppable momentum.
Introduced as a Private Member's Bill by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP for Spen Valley, last autumn, it was approved in a historic vote on November 29. The last time Parliament voted on assisted dying was a decade ago, in 2015, when a proposed change to the law was overwhelmingly rejected. This time, it was voted through, albeit by a reasonably narrow margin of 330 MPs in favour to 275 against.
On that wintery afternoon, a crowd of dozens of Dignity in Dying campaigners in Pepto-Bismol pink, the charity's signature colour, cheered, cried and embraced in Parliament Square, hailing a historic victory.
Crucially, Leadbeater's Bill seemed to be building on a solid foundation of public and political support. YouGov polling has suggested that three quarters of Britons support handing the terminally ill the right to end their own lives. While the Government itself has remained neutral on the issue, the Bill has the tacit backing of the prime minister and a series of senior Cabinet ministers, all of whom voted in favour.
However, as the Bill winds its way back to the Commons on May 16 – when all MPs will have the opportunity to propose and vote on further changes – there is a sense that it is on increasingly shaky ground. Critics have raised concerns that key safeguards have been removed from the legislation since the last time it was debated.
A recent poll conducted by Whitestone Insight on behalf of the campaign group Care Not Killing suggested that more parliamentarians now oppose the Bill than support it. Of 100 backbenchers polled in March and April, 42 per cent said they intended to vote against the legislation at the third reading, while 36 per cent said they would back it. Another 13 per cent were undecided, 5 per cent said they intended to abstain, and 8 per cent preferred not to say.
In November, the Bill was passed with a majority of 55, meaning only 28 MPs need to change their minds or abstain from voting for it to fail. A number are said to have decided to do so.
Two Labour MPs and critics of the legislation told The Telegraph they know of several colleagues who have changed course and will vote against the legislation, but none has yet said so publicly. Reports on Wednesday suggested at least five unnamed MPs who had previously abstained will now oppose it. Three others were said to be considering changing their position.
To date, only Reform MP Lee Anderson and Independent Rupert Lowe, who supported the Bill last year, have publicly declared they will reverse course and vote against the Bill.
Adding to the sense of uncertainty over its prospects, research published on Wednesday showed that GPs are deeply divided on the issue. The BBC surveyed 5,000 practitioners, 500 of whom said they were against the law change, calling it 'highly dangerous' and 'cruel'. 'We are doctors, not murderers,' one said. (Four hundred GPs told the BBC they supported the legislation.)
The Bill's second reading, which MPs voted on last November, was in fact only the first major hurdle it had to pass to become law. The next challenge was the committee stage, where the highly emotive debate around this issue would be translated, clause by clause, into the letter of the law.
For a little over two months, the Bill has been painstakingly scrutinised by a representative committee of MPs selected by Leadbeater. It has been a gruelling process, with sittings lasting until 9pm and, on one occasion, past midnight. Leadbeater and her supporters say the Bill's safeguards have been strengthened. But after 90 hours of debate and 150 amendments, opponents argue that what has emerged from the committee meeting is far more dangerous than the Bill that went in.
Unsurprisingly, the atmosphere has been charged. One member describes the mood in the committee meeting room as 'superficially courteous, but in reality quite fractious'. A Labour source close to the proceedings says: 'The 'pro' side have been running this like a campaign, so the legislation is a mess. There's a real sense it hasn't lived up to the promise.'
One of the key critics is Tory MP Danny Kruger, who sat on the committee. He says the process has only solidified his strong opposition to the legislation. 'One Bill was sold at the second reading; another has emerged from the committee,' he tells The Telegraph, citing the removal of the High Court judge's role in overseeing each case, a key safeguard.
Kruger claims a number of his colleagues supported the Bill in November only to see whether it could be strengthened at the committee stage, many of whom could now change their minds. 'I hope there will be a fair few who recognise that hasn't happened,' he says.
Kruger has been strongly opposed to the legalisation of assisted dying from the start. But others, such as Sean Woodcock, the Labour MP for Banbury and a fellow committee member, were 'on the fence' before determining that the current Bill was unworkable.
'It took me a long time to make up my mind on how I would vote,' Woodcock says (he ultimately voted against). 'In principle, I am not opposed to assisted dying, but having worked on the committee, I have come to the conclusion that the Bill that is emerging is deeply flawed. All I've seen is that vital safeguards have been removed, and significant new risks have also emerged.'
The most controversial change to the legislation is the scrapping of its requirement for a High Court judge to approve each assisted dying application, a provision which Leadbeater argued would make her Bill 'the most robust in the world'.
The change was made after senior judges warned that courts would not be able to handle the increased workload. Instead, it is envisaged that a three-personnel panel of experts composed of a legal figure, a psychiatrist and a social worker will review each case.
Meanwhile, plans for a two-year rollout have been extended to four years – reportedly a request from the Department of Health, headed up by one of the Bill's key opponents, Wes Streeting – amid fears that it would put further strain on an already overburdened NHS.
Streeting, who voted to legalise assisted dying in 2015, has said that if the Bill becomes law, he is concerned that people may choose to end their lives prematurely because of the current state of the NHS. He has argued that Britain's palliative care system is unfit to support the change.
Leadbeater has also faced criticism for rejecting amendments designed to put stronger protections in place for people with anorexia, among other vulnerable groups. There is still no process in place for family members to be involved in decision making, and significant questions remain over capacity and coercion.
Equally crucial is the question of how, practically, assisted dying would actually work. It is still unclear whether private firms would be contracted, or all services would be provided by the NHS. The long-awaited impact assessment – published at 4pm on the Friday before the early May bank holiday weekend – states that legalising assisted dying would save the NHS up to £10 million in the first year of its legalisation, rising to up to roughly £60 million in its 10th year. It also predicts how many people would choose to die this way: between 164 and 787 in the first six months, rising to between 1,042 and 4,559 in the 10th year of its legalisation.
Prof Louis Appleby, the Government's adviser on suicide prevention and mental health, described the report as 'stripped of moral values'. Seeing a cost-saving figure put on the plans will do nothing to reassure those who fear that people will be pushed into an assisted death as they feel they are burdening their loved ones or the state.
Kit Malthouse, the Tory MP for North West Hampshire, sat on the committee selected by Leadbeater and is a key supporter of the Bill. 'It's a sensitive, complex issue of humanity and morality, and for some people, spirituality, and so it was never going to be easy,' he says.
As the legislation progresses to the report stage and subsequent third reading, when MPs will have their say on it for the final time, Malthouse hopes those who disagree are able to do so respectfully. 'We just hope that it stays civilised,' he says.
But it seems the gloves may already be off.
Online, the debate swiftly spiralled out of control, with MPs on both sides being subjected to vitriolic abuse on social media. Leadbeater, who is the sister of Jo Cox, the MP who was murdered by a terrorist in 2016, told the BBC that sponsoring this Bill had exposed her to a new level of online hate. 'There are people on the extremes of the debate, people who do not want to see any version of a change in the law, and there are people on the other extreme of the debate who would want a much broader law,' she told the BBC. 'Sadly, that has led to more abuse than I've probably had on anything.'
Meanwhile, some critics have called the integrity of the scrutiny process into question, arguing that their concerns have been dismissed and that the committee's evidence was weighted towards those who are backers of the Bill. (The Royal College of Psychiatrists, which opposes the legislation, was initially excluded from giving evidence because of an alleged shortage of time, before the decision was reversed.)
Allan House, a liaison psychiatrist and emeritus professor at the University of Leeds, was invited to give oral evidence to the committee on January 29. 'You were asked to share whether you were 'for' or 'against' [assisted dying], which I remember thinking was very odd, as I thought people were called because of their expertise, not their opinion,' he says. House claims he was one of only a small number called who were outright opposed to the legislation. Moreover, he says, the Bill, as it stands, 'does not resemble best practice in any other area of health care.'
As events have progressed, the issue has formed unlikely alliances in some corners of Westminster, where MPs who may agree on very little else have stumbled on common ground. Diane Abbott and Edward Leigh, the current mother and father of the House, have united from their opposite benches to write a joint op-ed for The Guardian, warning of the legislation's 'dangerous' unintended consequences. Within the committee itself, Kruger and Naz Shah, the Labour MP for Bradford West, have found themselves on the same side of the debate despite having very different politics.
'I'm very clear that I've spoken to colleagues who voted for it [in November] who are not going to vote for it now,' says Shah, who voted against. 'I am one of those who could have been convinced to vote for it had the Bill's safeguards genuinely been strengthened… I'm not convinced it has the mandate it had. The process has been haphazard at best, it has been rushed.'
Supporters maintain this is not the case. Malthouse, for example, argues that the Bill has been 'very significantly strengthened'. 'MPs are looking again at [it], as they should, and thinking about its implications for a second time, but we haven't seen any significant shift in opinion about the principle,' he says. 'If anything, there are more people who are reassured.' One of them is Marie Tidball, a Labour MP born with a congenital disability, who had tentatively voted in favour but said she would push for considerable amendments to the legislation. Now, she says, her concerns have been allayed.
Leadbeater does not believe that those who backed the Bill in November will rescind their support, despite the growing sense that her Bill is on borrowed time.
'If they look at it in detail, which I really hope they do and believe colleagues will do, they will see the things that have been added that really enhance the safeguards,' she says.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Women will no longer be prosecuted for aborting own child at any stage of pregnancy under changes to the law set to be passed next week
Women will no longer be prosecuted for aborting own child at any stage of pregnancy under changes to the law set to be passed next week

Daily Mail​

time6 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Women will no longer be prosecuted for aborting own child at any stage of pregnancy under changes to the law set to be passed next week

Women will no longer face prosecution for aborting their own baby under changes set to be passed by MPs next week that would herald the biggest overhaul of abortion law for half a century. Under the proposals abortion would effectively be decriminalised and women would no longer face prosecution if they ended their own pregnancy after 24 weeks or without approval from doctors. The changes are said to have the backing of more than 130 backbench MPs meaning it is likely to be approved when MPs are given a free vote on amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill next week. Six women have appeared in court in the last three years charged with ending or attempting to end their own pregnancy outside abortion law - a crime with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Last month Nicola Packer, 45, was acquitted of taking abortion medicine at home when she was about 26 weeks pregnant. Under the new proposals she would not have been prosecuted for this. The MPs behind the proposed amendments say that reform is long-overdue as the current law leads to vulnerable women being prosecuted, some of whom may have had a miscarriage or stillbirth. However anti-abortion campaigners have criticised the proposals, which they warn would be the most extreme liberalisation of the law since the 1967 Abortion Act and could allow abortion 'up to birth'. Abortion is a criminal offence in England and Wales unless it takes place under strict conditions, including that it is before 24 weeks into a pregnancy and with the approval of two doctors. New laws passed during the pandemic allow abortion pills to be taken at home in a system known as 'pills by post', however this is only allowed up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy. There are very limited circumstances allowing a woman to access an abortion after 24 weeks, such as when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability. But two amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill would radically alter abortion law in England and Wales. One of the amendments, by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, would mean that a woman would no longer be committing an offence by ending her own pregnancy. However under this amendment anybody else, including a medical professional, who assisted a woman in accessing an abortion outside the law could still be prosecuted. Ms Antoniazzi has described it as a 'small change to the law but one that will have a huge impact on the lives of women', adding that it would protect women from prosecution while retaining the criminal law against abusive partners who end a woman's pregnancy without her consent. A second, rival amendment, put forward by Labour MP Stella Creasy, goes further still and would repeal swathes of legislation and make it a human right for a woman to have access to an abortion. The decision to select one or both amendments for a vote, expected on June 17 and 18, lies with Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle. However it is expected that Ms Antoniazzi's amendment would receive the backing of MPs after a leading pro-choice group yesterday came out against Ms Creasy's plan, warning it is being rushed through without enough scrutiny. Rachael Clarke, head of advocacy at the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), said Ms Creasy's amendment does not have the backing of abortion providers whereas Ms Antoniazzi's is supported by more than 50 pro-choice organisations. 'Abortion law is incredibly complex. It governs 250,000 women's healthcare every single year,' she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. 'Because of that, it is essential that any huge change to abortion law is properly considered. 'That means involvement with providers, medical bodies, regulators - and proper debate time in Parliament.' 'For us, unfortunately, although we truly believe that we need overwhelming and generational change for abortion law, Stella Creasy's amendment is not the right way to do it,' she added.

What would a Tory spending review look like? With Badenoch, nobody knows
What would a Tory spending review look like? With Badenoch, nobody knows

The Independent

time9 minutes ago

  • The Independent

What would a Tory spending review look like? With Badenoch, nobody knows

It would be an exaggeration to claim the nation eagerly awaits the invention of 'Badenomics' but Conservatives are certainly impatient with Kemi Badenoch 's apparent inability to create a narrative on the economy, land blows on a weakened Labour government, or compete with Nigel Farage's Reform UK on a key electoral issue. This week's Labour announcements on winter fuel payments and the spending review offer some prime opportunities to 'punch through'. What is the problem? It's hardly confined to today's Conservatives; every political party that has been in power and badly loses an election finds it difficult to get a hearing. Policies the party are most closely identified with are the ones recently and decisively rejected by voters. How far should a heavily defeated team try to claim that they were right all along and that the electorate made the wrong decision? This might be termed the 'blame the voters' approach; while some buyer's remorse may have set in, it's rather futile to attack the electorate. Alternatively, a party can admit mistakes as a means of resetting voter appeal, but that means upsetting former colleagues and handing your enemies an easy win. What are the Conservatives doing about it? Making speeches, for now, rather than policy… and trying to plot a path to redemption. Last week, perhaps in response to internal concerns, shadow chancellor Mel Stride came as close as possible to apologising for the Liz Truss mini-Budget without actually saying 'sorry'. 'Contrition' is the preferred term. Truss has proved to be a potent political weapon, but for the Labour Party, scarcely a day goes by without Keir Starmer or Rachel Reeves making a scathing reference to that disaster. Stride was critical of it at the time, having left the government and as chair of the Treasury select committee; his apology-adjacent speech won't stop Labour deploying Agent Truss (and she keeps popping up, unhelpfully) but it might blunt the attacks somewhat. What are the Tories saying about the rest of their record? Still fairly proud of it. Badenoch says the Tories made 'a lot of good things happen', such as reforms to social security, plus 'near full employment' and raising school standards. 'But people remember the most recent period … and I think the most recent period was the most difficult,' she concedes. So it is Rishi Suank's fault for 'talking right, governing left' as she has put it. So Badenoch is sorry-not-sorry? The Tory mistakes she points to, such as on Brexit and net zero, actually come from the right, not the centre, and don't necessarily chime with public opinion. A passionate and now obdurate Eurosceptic, she seems to want more Brexit at a time when the voters have concluded it was a flop; as the years go on, she'll need to say if she would reverse Starmer's 'Brexit reset' that builds closer, easier relations with the EU. She will also be asked if she would scrap planning reforms that boost growth, stop skilled migration, bring back zero-hours contracts, reduce VAT on private school fees, and so on. She will also need to eat many of her own words as a minister on climate change and green growth, now she's a 'net zero sceptic'. She may hope to win back some Reform voters by tacking to the right, but she can never out-Farage Farage. Indeed, she's ridiculed him for promising economic fantasies, so how can she now embrace them and return to Boris Johnson-era cakeism? Where are the Tories with winter fuel payments for pensioners? They are demanding an apology from Labour. But Labour's present policy is identical to Badenoch's – restore the payment for all now, but try to means-test it later – so she is disarmed, and cannot even claim credit for forcing the U-turn, which was obviously down to Labour panic after local election losses. And what do the Tories say about the spending review? Badenoch's line is that there would not be a black hole in public finances if they'd won the last election, and taxes would be lower. The latter part is true, but equally a hypothetical Tory government would now be imposing an even more painful squeeze on social security and public services, to the point where the numbers would simply not be credible, leading to strikes. Voters sensed this unreality last July, and as time passes the Tories will have to come up with credible plans of their own rather than relying on Jeremy Hunt's pre-election claims. Anything else? Plenty. Stride may be doing his best, but Badenoch seems more interested in 'culture wars' than macroeconomics, which is a problem. Her shadow frontbench team is surprisingly lacking in talent and Labour ministers, despite their relative inexperience, mostly run rings around their opponents. Can the Conservatives forge the 'Right Approach' again? In truth, the Tories are on a long march back to the centre and sooner or later will have to accept climate change and exorcise the ghosts of Truss and Johnson. They need to show themselves trustworthy and realistic, and willing to compromise with their lost voters. These are the kinds of radical, symbolic 'unthinkable' things Tony Blair had to do to make Labour electable in the 1990s, and Starmer did afresh in recent years. Only then will voters lend their ears. Badenoch isn't the leader for that task.

MSPs vote in favour of scaled-back social care reforms
MSPs vote in favour of scaled-back social care reforms

BBC News

time10 minutes ago

  • BBC News

MSPs vote in favour of scaled-back social care reforms

MSPs have unanimously passed legislation which will allow people in care homes to receive visits from a named loved one even in restricted Care Reform (Scotland) Bill will also introduce changes to social care procurement and a new right to breaks for unpaid legislation was backed by 116 votes to to introduce a national care service, which were initially part of the bill, were dropped in January after unions withdrew support and a number of health boards and care organisations expressed concerns. What changes to social care are planned? One of the big changes planned under the new law is a legal right to breaks for unpaid mean councils will have a duty to decide whether a carer is able to take sufficient breaks from their caring they are not, then the local authority will provide support to enable this, such as providing funding for short respite policy, given Scotland has around 700,000 unpaid carers, will cost between £196m and £315m by 2035/36, according to the Bill's financial it remains a fraction of the £13.9bn that unpaid care is currently saving Scotland every to the way information is shared in health and social care - to make it less likely that people will have to repeat their information - as well changes to procurement rules in the sector are also up the powers that watchdogs can take against failing care providers is also part of the most high-profile part of the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill is Anne's Law, which allows people in care homes to receive visits from a named loved one even in restricted is named after Anne Duke, who died aged 63 in November 2021 after being cut off from her family while battling early-onset dementia during the Covid pandemic. Why was the National Care Service ditched? The original proposal for a National Care Service, inspired by the NHS, was to take social care provision and staff away from local authorities into a new national was then dropped in favour of creating a national care board to supervise service delivery and improve consistency - but this failed to win over a growing number of body Cosla and trade unions then withdrew their support for the project, while a number of health boards and care organisations also expressed plan, which was also subject to a series of delays, was eventually scrapped in January after £30m was spent on the Care Minister Maree Todd said at the time she was "still committed to the ambitions of the National Care Service" but added the SNP no longer had the support it needed in parliament to pass its original plans into law.

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