MPs switch sides to vote no to ‘drastically weakened' assisted dying Bill
Labour's Paul Foster, Jonathan Hinder, Markus Campbell-Savours and Kanishka Narayan wrote to fellow MPs to voice concerns about the safety of the proposed legislation.
The letter comes on the eve of a crucial vote on Friday which would see the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill either clear the House of Commons and move to the Lords, or fall completely.
The MPs wrote: 'The Bill presented to MPs in November has been fundamentally changed.
'This is not the safest Bill in the world. It is weaker than the one first laid in front of MPs and has been drastically weakened.
'MPs were promised the ultimate protection from a High Court Judge but that protection is missing from the final Bill.'
They said colleagues with 'any doubts about the safety of this Bill' should 'join us tomorrow and vote against it'.
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.
While the MPs cited the replacement of a High Court safeguard with the expert panels, Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater has insisted the change is a strengthening of the legislation, incorporating wider expert knowledge to assess assisted dying applications.
But concerns around the panels have also been raised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych), which announced in recent weeks that it has 'serious concerns' and cannot support the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in its current form.
The college's lead on assisted dying for England and Wales, Dr Annabel Price, expressed worry there will not be 'enough space or time to carry out proper, holistic assessments', and that the only involvement on a panel being to check decisions made by others 'is deeply troubling'.
The relatively narrow majority of 55 from the historic yes vote in November means every vote will count on Friday.
While acknowledging there could be some change in the numbers, Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater has insisted she remains confident it will pass the third reading stage and move on to be considered by peers in the Lords.
Speaking on Thursday, she said: 'There might be some small movement in the middle, some people might maybe change their mind one way, others will change their mind the other way but fundamentally I don't anticipate that that majority would be heavily eroded so I do feel confident we can get through tomorrow successfully.'
Ms Leadbeater has insisted her Bill is 'the most robust piece of legislation in the world' and has argued dying people must be given choice at the end of their lives in a conversation which has seen support from high-profile figures including Dame Esther Rantzen.
Making her case for a change in the law, she said: 'I know that many colleagues have engaged very closely with the legislation and will make their decision based on those facts and that evidence, and that cannot be disputed.
'But we need to do something, and we need to do it quickly.'
A YouGov poll of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, surveyed last month and published on Thursday, suggested public support for the Bill remains high at 73% – unchanged from November.
The proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle has risen slightly, to 75% from 73% in November.
MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has indicated he will continue to back the Bill, as he did last year, saying earlier this week that his 'position is long-standing and well-known' on assisted dying.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting, while describing Ms Leadbeater's work on the proposed legislation as 'extremely helpful', confirmed in April that he still intended to vote against it.
Ms Leadbeater has warned it could be a decade before assisted dying legislation returns to Parliament if MPs vote to reject her Bill on Friday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
33 minutes ago
- Times
Last chance for MPs to think again on assisted dying
The assisted dying bill has split voters and MPs TOLGA AKMEN/EPA I n November, when the assisted dying bill had its second reading in the House of Commons, its sponsor Kim Leadbeater reassured fellow MPs that a vote in favour was only 'to continue the debate' and ' to subject the bill to line-by-line scrutiny'. That conversation — which permitted wavering MPs to interrogate their decision further — is drawing to a close. Today, MPs will vote on the third and final reading of the bill, after which it could go to the House of Lords. What has emerged from that 'line-by-line scrutiny', however, has chilled many legislators and observers to the core. Firstly, there is the nature of the scrutiny itself. Because this was not a government bill, but a private member's one, Ms Leadbeater was able to handpick the committee and exercise control over the witnesses called. It did not boost confidence in an impartial process. Indeed, four Labour MPs raised concerns that the committee's evidence was 'weighted towards those who were known to be supportive of the bill'. Of eight witnesses called from foreign jurisdictions with an assisted dying law, for example, not one was critical of how the legislation had played out — despite there being numerous experts with misgivings, such as Theo Boer of the Dutch Health Council. Formerly pro-euthanasia, he became horrified by the steady expansion of the system and its eligibility from what was first intended. Although the UK bill is being sold on the basis that it is strictly limited to those with a terminal diagnosis of less than six months, Mr Boer has warned that 'our safeguards were presented that way too.' In the Netherlands, assisted dying provision now includes children over 12 years old and those with psychiatric disorders. If the passage of this bill has been distinguished by procedural ruthlessness, that has been matched only by its intellectual woolliness. The absence of tight, ethical safeguards to protect the vulnerable — in particular those with mental health problems — has caused deep anxiety in organisations at the sharp end of patient care: the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Association for Palliative Medicine, and the Royal College of Physicians have all raised serious concerns. Tellingly, the two ministers whose departments would be most involved in the bill's implementation, the health secretary Wes Streeting and the justice secretary Shabana Mahmood, are both opposed. Many safeguarding amendments have been shrugged aside. MPs who vote yes on Friday will be voting to permit doctors to raise the subject of ending a patient's life, including with people who have learning disabilities. The door is open for private contractors to get involved in running the service with no transparency obligations or cap on profits. And as the former prime minister Gordon Brown argues, the legal right to assisted dying would not be matched by any equivalent right to high-quality palliative care, making a cruel nonsense of real choice for many of those in extremis. Sir Keir Starmer has repeated his support for the principle of the bill, while distancing himself from the legislation. But should its proposals take full effect in 2029 as stipulated, close to the next general election, troubled voters who consider it a deal-breaker will inevitably connect it to the prime minister. There are many others, too, who back assisted dying in good faith, but this flawed bill delivers a far greater number of dangers than it does solutions. Before it is too late, its parliamentary supporters can, and must, think again.
Leader Live
33 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Lammy to meet Iranian foreign minister as Trump steps back from military action
The Foreign Secretary is set to meet Abbas Araghchi alongside his counterparts from France, Germany and the EU as he seeks to negotiate a settlement before US President Donald Trump decides on whether to take military action against Tehran. In a statement read by his press secretary on Thursday, Mr Trump said there was still 'a substantial chance of negotiations' and said he would make a decision on deploying US forces 'within the next two weeks'. Mr Trump had previously said he 'may' join Israeli strikes against Iran and its nuclear programme, but added: 'I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.' Friday's meeting with the so-called E3 countries follows Mr Lammy's visit to Washington, where he met US secretary of state Marco Rubio in the White House on Thursday evening to discuss 'how a deal could avoid a deepening conflict'. The Foreign Secretary said: 'The situation in the Middle East remains perilous. We are determined that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon.' The situation in the Middle East remains perilous. We are determined that Iran must never have a nuclear weapon. Meeting with @SecRubio and @SteveWitkoff in the White House today, we discussed how a deal could avoid a deepening conflict. A window now exists within the next two… — David Lammy (@DavidLammy) June 19, 2025 Adding that a 'window now exists within the next two weeks to achieve a diplomatic solution', Mr Lammy said: 'Now is the time to put a stop to the grave scenes in the Middle East and prevent a regional escalation that would benefit no one.' Earlier on Thursday, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer had urged the US to step back from military action, saying there was a 'real risk of escalation'. It remains unclear whether the UK would join any military action, although there has been speculation that US involvement could require using the British-controlled base on Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands. The B-2 stealth bombers based there are capable of carrying specialised 'bunker buster' bombs which could be used against Iran's underground nuclear facility at Fordo. Attorney General Lord Hermer is reported to have raised legal concerns about any British involvement in the conflict beyond defending its allies, which could limit the extent of any support for the US if Mr Trump decides to act militarily. Meanwhile, two Labour backbenchers pushed for a 'fresh, tough approach' to Tehran. Jon Pearce and Mike Tapp, chairman and vice-chairman respectively of Labour Friends of Israel, said the UK urgently needed 'a multifaceted diplomatic, economic and national security plan to guard against the Iranian threat and force the regime to change course'. Writing in The Daily Telegraph, the pair called for tighter sanctions on Iran, the proscription of the country's Revolutionary Guard Corps and a 'comprehensive diplomatic solution' that 'eliminates once and for all' Iran's nuclear threat.
Leader Live
34 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Assisted dying law faces crunch Commons vote as MPs switch sides
The outcome on Friday could see the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill either clear the House of Commons and move to the Lords, or fall completely. The relatively narrow majority of 55 from the historic yes vote in November means every vote will count on Friday. As an example, the Bill would fall if 28 MPs switched directly from voting yes to no, but only if all other MPs voted exactly the same way as they did in November, including those who abstained. In what will be seen as a blow to the Bill, four Labour MPs confirmed on the eve of the vote that they will switch sides to oppose the proposed new law. Labour's Paul Foster, Jonathan Hinder, Markus Campbell-Savours and Kanishka Narayan wrote to fellow MPs to voice concerns about the safety of the proposed legislation. They branded it 'drastically weakened', citing the scrapping of the High Court Judge safeguard as a key reason. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch also urged her MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide'. 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. Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater has insisted the replacement of High Court judge approval with the multidisciplinary panels is a strengthening of the legislation, incorporating wider expert knowledge to assess assisted dying applications. Ahead of confirmation of the four vote-switchers, Ms Leadbeater acknowledged she expected 'some small movement in the middle' but that she did not 'anticipate that that majority would be heavily eroded'. She insisted her Bill is 'the most robust piece of legislation in the world' and has argued dying people must be given choice at the end of their lives in a conversation which has seen support from high-profile figures including Dame Esther Rantzen. MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines. Ms Leadbeater has warned it could be a decade before assisted dying legislation returns to Parliament if MPs vote to reject her Bill on Friday. A YouGov poll of 2,003 adults in Great Britain, surveyed last month and published on Thursday, suggested public support for the Bill remains high at 73% – unchanged from November. The proportion of people who feel assisted dying should be legal in principle has risen slightly, to 75% from 73% in November.
