
Starmer hints he will back assisted dying Bill ahead of crunch vote
The result of Friday's expected vote could see the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill either progress to the House of Lords or fall completely.
Sir Keir Starmer, who voted yes in November and also supported a 2015 attempt to legislate for assisted dying, said his position on the issue is 'long-standing and well-known' – giving no suggestion his mind had changed on the matter.
Friday will be the first time the Bill has been voted on in its entirety since last year's historic yes vote, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55.
MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
While supporters of the Bill say it is coming back to the Commons with better safeguards after more than 90 hours of parliamentary time spent on it to date, opponents claim the process has been rushed and that changes to the Bill mean it is now weaker than it was when first introduced.
This week, dozens of Labour MPs opposed to the Bill urged a delay to the vote.
Asked whether he thought they were wrong to do so, Sir Keir told reporters in Canada: '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.'
While the Prime Minister is among the high-profile supporters of the Bill, both Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood voted against it in November.
Meanwhile, Dame Esther Rantzen's daughter said she is 'really hopeful' the Bill can pass the major vote, as she warned against 'scaremongering' by opponents.
Dame Esther Rantzen has been an outspoken campaigner on the assisted dying Bill (Esther Rantzen/PA)
Rebecca Wilcox, the daughter of the terminally ill broadcaster and Childline founder Dame Esther, said: 'We are really hopeful that we have the numbers (in the Commons).
'We obviously want people to keep writing to their MP, saying that they support the Bill, because we know that nationally the numbers are with us.'
Ms Wilcox described the Bill as a 'really safe, clever piece of law' and insisted its safeguards would ensure it is not extended beyond its current scope of terminally ill adults while it would improve on the 'cruel status quo that exists at the moment'.
Responding to warnings from opponents around those with depression or eating disorders being more vulnerable to being caught up in a new law, Ms Wilcox urged people against 'scaremongering'.
She said: 'Yes, you may be depressed because you have a terminal diagnosis, but that's not to do with it. You can't just be depressed. You can't just have an eating disorder.
'And this is an example of some of the scaremongering that has been going on on the other side of the debate, and I completely understand that they are desperate to stop it, but if you are desperate to stop it, please don't exaggerate the truth. Please don't exaggerate a lie.'
Speaking during a debate on amendments to the Bill last week, Labour MP Rupa Huq warned that 'in a cost-of-living crisis, assisted dying could be quite attractive', as she pledged to be a 'voice of the voiceless'.
She said while she probably would have supported such a Bill in her younger years, '10 years of being an MP has exposed me to coercion, duress, the millionaire price of London property and elder abuse'.
She added: 'We know that Esther Rantzen wants this. We know Jonathan Dimbleby wants this. But our role is to be the voice of the voiceless as well.'
Asked about her mother – who has terminal cancer and has been outspoken in campaigning for a change in the law – Ms Wilcox said Dame Esther is 'coping' as she nears her 85th birthday this weekend.
She told Sky: 'She's coping. This has been a long slog, and we're hoping that we can maybe have a rest this weekend, particularly as it is her birthday on Sunday.
'So we are so grateful and so appreciative of all the time that we have with her, particularly as she turns 85 looking rather fabulous.'
Gordon Macdonald, chief executive of opposition campaign group Care Not Killing, said their polling had suggested the public 'is deeply concerned that this Bill could put pressure on vulnerable people to end their lives prematurely'.
He added: 'These problems will be compounded if Parliament continues to rush this legislation, fails to restore safeguards such as the scrutiny of the High Court and fixing palliative and end-of-life care in the UK, which is in crisis.
'This is why, day by day, more and more disabled people, doctors, nurses, lawyers and campaigners are urging MPs to kill the Bill, not the sick and vulnerable.'
As it stands, 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, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
Hashtags

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


New Statesman
7 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
11 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
12 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.