How your MP voted in assisted dying bill
Assisted dying is one step closer to becoming legal in the UK following a landmark vote in the House of Commons.
A Bill that would allow terminally ill adults with a life expectancy of less than six months to end their lives was backed by a majority of MPs today (Friday). It came despite warnings from opponents, who argued it had been rushed through Parliament.
During a three hour debate on Friday, MPs on both sides of the issue recalled personal stories of loved ones who had died.
READ MORE: UK Ryanair Boeing 737 flight crashes at Greek airport
READ MORE: Why UK heatwaves feel hotter than 30C heat abroad
Former Conservative minister Sir James Cleverly, who led the opposition to the Bill in the Commons, spoke of a close friend who died 'painfully' from cancer. He said he comes at the divisive issue 'not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance', and was driven in his opposition by 'concerns about the practicalities' of the Bill.
See how your MP voted in the widget below...
Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. But the proposed legislation took another step in the parliamentary process, which means the Bill will move to the House of Lords for further debate and scrutiny.
Labour MP Kim Leadbeater has argued her Bill will 'correct the profound injustices of the status quo and to offer a compassionate and safe choice to terminally ill people who want to make it'. Due to the four-year implementation period, it could be 2029 – potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's Parliament – before assisted dying is offered.
Today's historic vote was the first time the Bill was debated and voted on in its entirety since last year, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55 at second reading. MPs voted 314 to 291, majority 23, to approve Ms Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at third reading.
They had a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decided according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
MPs may have passed the assisted dying bill, but the debate is just beginning
Now that the assisted dying bill has passed its momentous third reading in the House of Commons, it may seem like legalisation in England and Wales is a done deal. But despite this significant milestone, the bill is not yet law and its journey through the House of Lords is far from a formality. While the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill is now closer than ever to becoming law, both the Commons and the Lords must agree on its final wording. And just like in the Commons, there are passionate supporters and vocal opponents in the Lords. Peers are expected to focus their attention on a number of outstanding, and controversial, issues. One of the biggest concerns that surfaced during both the report stage and today's third reading relates to the speed and process of drafting the legislation. Because this is a private member's bill, introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, it was subject to strict timelines. Leadbeater had just 85 days to work with legal drafters and set out a policy framework before the bill was published ahead of its second reading in November 2024. Despite this, the democracy-supporting charity the Hansard Society has noted that the bill is 'among the most heavily scrutinised in recent times', and it could ultimately receive up to 200 hours of parliamentary debate, especially now that it has moved to the Lords. Still, the fast turnaround meant that many important decisions, such as what medications will be approved for use in assisted dying, have been left for the secretary of state to determine later through what's known as delegated legislation (secondary laws made without a full parliamentary vote). One area likely to receive particular scrutiny is the bill's inclusion of so-called 'Henry VIII clauses'. These are controversial powers that allow ministers to make changes to existing primary legislation, effectively altering acts of parliament without needing a new law. A key example is clause 38 that would let ministers revise the NHS Act 2006 to formally include assisted dying within NHS services. Several amendments aimed at strengthening the bill's safeguards were supported during the Commons stages. These included the introduction of independent advocates, a new disability advisory board, and additional protections for people with learning disabilities, mental health conditions, or autism. An amendment from Labour MP Naz Shah was also supported at the third reading, ensuring that a person who chooses to stop eating and drinking will not automatically be considered terminally ill. This is a protection designed to prevent the system being used inappropriately. Yet despite these measures, concerns remain. Critics worry about the risk of coercion, both from others and self imposed. There is particular unease about people feeling pressured to choose assisted dying because they consider themselves a burden. Questions have also been raised about whether those with conditions like anorexia might qualify for assisted dying under the current wording of the bill. Even with the new safeguards, including mandatory training for doctors to detect coercion and assess mental capacity, many feel the bill needs tighter definitions and clearer criteria to protect the most vulnerable. The impact on palliative and end-of-life care continues to be a major point of debate. Today, MPs backed an amendment from Liberal Democrat MP Munira Wilson that would require the government to assess the state of palliative care services within one year of the law being enacted. Peers in the House of Lords may push further on this issue. Some may argue that before a person can request assisted dying, they should first be referred to a palliative care specialist to fully understand their options. Others may want the law to spell out more clearly who is qualified to assess these requests. Another key question is who should provide assisted dying services. The British Medical Association has previously suggested a model where assisted dying operates outside the core NHS system. This would be a kind of parallel service overseen by the health secretary but delivered by independent providers. This would be similar to how early medical abortions are offered in some parts of the UK. Time is tight in the Lords, so peers will probably focus on a few high priority areas. Any amendments will need to be proposed, debated and approved quickly if the bill is to continue progressing this session. Even if the bill passes, it includes a four year implementation period to allow for the development of more detailed policies, including training for professionals, protocols for medication and clearer guidance on safeguarding. The passing of the bill in the Commons is historic. But the national conversation on assisted dying is not over. And the next phase will determine how this sensitive and deeply personal issue is handled in practice. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Suzanne Ost has previously received funding from the AHRC for her assisted dying research. Nancy Preston receives funding from Horizon Europe, Horizon 2020 and the NIHR
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Is Mark Carney turning his back on climate action?
The G7 summit in Alberta, hosted by Prime Minister Mark Carney, has ended with only passing mention of fighting climate change, including a statement on wildfires that is silent on the pressing need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is puzzling. Canadians didn't opt for Conservative Pierre Poilievre, considered by some to be an oil and gas industry mouthpiece, in the last federal election. Instead, voters gave Carney's Liberals a minority government. Carney was the United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance and was behind the UN-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance, so some Canadians might have assumed he'd prioritize climate action if he won the election. Instead, Carney has described developing fossil fuel infrastructure as 'pragmatic.' But it's unclear how a country grappling with abysmal air quality due to wildfires fuelled by global warming will benefit from further global fossil fuel development and its related emissions. Read more: Canada is warming faster than most of the globe. Its leaders should be laser-focused on mitigating climate change by reducing fossil fuel use to the greatest extent possible, as soon as possible. This decades-long understanding of how to approach climate action has been repeatedly explained by experts and is well known to governments globally. Canada's prime minister was once one of those experts. Carney now has a tremendous opportunity to lead by steering Canada in a clean direction. Canada is at the forefront of clean technology, with numerous business opportunities emerging, particularly in areas like circular economy international trade. These opportunities not only support Canada's commitment to meeting its Paris Agreement targets but also help expand and diversify its global trade. Canada already has exemplar eco-industrial parks — co-operative businesses located on a common property that focus on reducing environmental impact through resource efficiency, waste reduction and sharing resources. Such industrial communities are in Halifax and in Delta, B.C. They represent significant investment opportunities. Vacant urban land could be revitalized and existing industrial parks could boost their economic output and circular trade by building stronger partnerships to share resources, reduce waste and cut emissions. Read more: Canada would benefit economically and environmentally by building on existing expertise and expanding successful sustainability strategies to achieve economic, environmental and social goals. But by continuing to invest in fossil fuels, Canada misses out on opportunities to diversify trade and boost economic competitiveness. Real diversification makes Canada less vulnerable to economic shocks, like the ones caused by the tariffs imposed by United States President Donald Trump. Fossil fuel reliance increases exposure to global economic risks, but shifting to cleaner products and services reduces climate risks and expands Canada's global trade options. China's economic rise is partly a result of this strategy. That's seemingly why Trump is so fixated on China. China today is a serious competitor to the U.S. after making smart trade and economic decisions and forging its own path, disregarding American pressure to remain a mere follower. Investing in its huge Belt and Road Initiative, China also aligned itself with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. It's building diplomatic bridges with many Belt and Road countries in southeast Asia as Trump's America alienates its partners, pulling out of the Paris Agreement and cutting foreign aid. As another one of the America's mistreated partners, Canada was poised to forge its own path under Carney. Instead, Carney is supporting American oil and gas by encouraging Canadian pipeline projects. Canadian oil and gas is a concentrated industry controlled by a wealthy few, primarily Americans. More pipelines would therefore mean more sales of fossil fuels to other countries, with the beneficiaries mostly American. Fossil fuel investments reduce Canada's diversification because the resources used to further these projects could go elsewhere — toward clean diversification. With almost unlimited clean economy options across many sectors, clean diversification would broaden Canada's economic and trade portfolios and reduce American control. Read more: This is International Business 101, and would make the Canadian economy more competitive through innovation, while reducing the country's climate risk. California, often targeted by Trump for its policies, has been a leader in clean innovation, making its economy the envy of the world. Read more: My recent research shows that clear, decisive choices like those made in California will be key to Canada's future success. Canada must make choices aligned with goals — a core principle of strategic management. My research also suggests Canada must restructure its energy industry to focus on renewable energy innovation while reducing fossil fuel reliance. Increased renewable energy innovation, as seen in patent numbers, leads to higher GDP. Contrary to common beliefs, pollution taxes boost the economy in combination with clean innovation. But when the government supports both the fossil fuel industry and clean industries, it hinders Canada's transition to a cleaner future. Do Canadian taxpayers truly want to keep funding an outdated, polluting industry that benefits a wealthy few, or invest in clean industries that boost Canada's economy, create better jobs and protect the environment? To differentiate Canada from the United States, it would make sense to choose the latter. Carney should consider refraining from pushing for the fast-tracking of polluting projects. If he doesn't, Canada will become more uncompetitive and vulnerable, trapped by the fossil fuel industry. Read more: Carney's support for pipelines may have stemmed from Alberta Premier Danielle Smith's implicit support for Alberta sovereignty. She made veiled threats to Canada at a critical juncture, when Trump was making repeated assertions about annexing Canada. Alberta didn't vote for Carney. But Canadians who care about mitigating climate change did. Banks that felt pressure to at least recognize sustainable finance during the Joe Biden administration joined Carney's Net-Zero Banking Alliance. But as soon as Trump came to power a second time and walked away from the Paris Agreement, many American banks abandoned the alliance. Canadian banks followed suit, and Carney remarkably missed another moment to show Canadian leadership by stopping their exit. In fact, Carney seems to have abandoned his own organization to appease Trump as the president made multiple 51st state threats. The prime minister had the chance to differentiate Canada and demonstrate his own leadership. Instead, he seems to have easily turned his back on his principles under pressure from Trump. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organisation bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Deborah de Lange, Toronto Metropolitan University Read more: 'Canada is not for sale' — but new Ontario law prioritizes profits over environmental and Indigenous rights What Liberal Mark Carney's election win in Canada means for Europe How political leaders communicate climate policy should be a defining factor this election Deborah de Lange receives funding from SSHRC and ESRC. She is affiliated with The Liberal Party of Canada and The Writers' Union of Canada.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Canada facilitating commercial flights home for citizens fleeing Israel, Iran: Anand
OTTAWA — The federal government will help Canadians in Israel and Iran to fly home once they reach neighbouring countries, Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand said Thursday. "We are planning commercial options for Canadians in Israel and Iran to leave the region through certain neighbouring jurisdictions," Anand told The Canadian Press in an interview. With airports closed across the region, Ottawa has stationed consular officials on the other side of certain crossings on the Israeli and Iranian borders to help those fleeing either country to get home. The same applies for people who manage to leave the West Bank, Anand wrote on X, and said there are officials in Jordan, Turkey and Armenia, while Azerbaijan is also allowing Canadians fleeing Iran to enter. "We have deployed additional consular services to aid Canadians who want to leave the region," she said. "We're looking at additional options, which include working with our allies." Canada has joined on allies in recent years to co-operate on everything from staging a military evacuation in Sudan to facilitating commercial evacuation flights out of Lebanon last year. Anand is urging Canadians in the region to register with Global Affairs' Registration of Canadians Abroad database, so that they can get the latest updates on ways to get home. "I am extremely concerned for all Canadians and we'll keep working on this file 24/7 to ensure their safety," Anand said. When asked whether she's calling on Canadians to leave the region immediately, Anand suggested otherwise. "We are assisting departures for Canadians who wish to leave, and we are here for you," she said. Former Conservative MP Michelle Ferreri wrote on X that she is in Israel and the outreach so far is insufficient, arguing Ottawa should provide evacuation plans for leaving Israel. Another former Conservative MP Rick Perkins also appeared to be in Israel and had similar criticism of Ottawa. "The daily emails from your department are worse than useless and have never offered to find arrangements out of the country," he wrote to Anand on X. Canada this week urged its citizens to "avoid all travel" to Israel as the country exchanges missile attacks and airstrikes with Iran. Canada has advised against visiting Iran for years. Ottawa and most of its allies have repeatedly called for de-escalation while saying Israel has a right to defend itself. On June 13, Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran, which retaliated with missiles. The two countries have a history of trading small-scale attacks and acts of espionage and sabotage. Israel said it hit Iran last Friday because the country was on the verge of producing a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency says it has no new evidence to prove this. U.S. Sen. Mark Warner said American officials also said Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons in a Monday briefing to the intelligence committee he vice-chairs. For years, Israel has urged countries to call out Iran for supporting militant groups that attack Israelis, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Prime Minister Mark Carney said during the spring election that Ottawa must be "clear-eyed" about "Iranian sponsors in the region." This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 19, 2025. Dylan Robertson, The Canadian Press
