Chaos over dying Bill as more MPs say it's too flawed
Fury erupted last night over the 'rushed' and 'fundamentally flawed' plan to legalise assisted dying as two more MPs turned against it.
Politicians on all sides condemned the handling of the Bill as it returned to the Commons for just a few hours – with speeches cut short and nine of those who put forward proposals not even given time to speak.
The debate on dozens of suggested changes was then stopped after two votes when Bill supporters called for it to end, rather than being allowed to continue next month.
One change was approved, to ensure no one including pharmacists and social workers is forced to help people to end their lives, but an attempt to prevent staff doing so against their employers' wishes was rejected.
The architect of the legislation, Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, also faced anger for leaving the chamber during the debate, and for suddenly accepting a new safeguard to protect people with anorexia.
Naz Shah described the process as 'fundamentally flawed' during the debate and added later: 'This Bill is profoundly important and this chaos does a disservice to Parliament and to our constituents. We shouldn't be playing games with people's lives like this.'
Former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said afterwards: 'Today's debate showed that there is significant movement against the Bill amongst MPs, and that the movers are keen to close down debate and avoid scrutiny. As expert opinion grows against this dangerous Bill, you can see why.'
Labour's Mike Reader said: 'No matter your views on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, people must agree that the time that's been allocated to debate the proposed amendments is not adequate. I'm disappointed that there appears to be a campaign to rush this through, backed by significant and well-funded lobby groups.'
Scottish Tory MP John Lamont said: 'It is outrageous that the debate has just been shut down in the House of Commons – we need proper time to consider these plans.' Fellow Conservative Rebecca Smith said: 'I didn't get to speak to my amendment highlighting the concerns of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
'We could have continued today's debate on June 13 but the pro [assisted dying] side said no.'
Meanwhile, Labour's Jonathan Hinder became the latest MP to announce on social media that he would vote against the Bill at the third reading stage next month, having supported it at the first Parliamentary stage last year.
He said: 'We were told that the proposed safeguards were the strictest in the world, only for the approval of a High Court judge to be removed shortly after the second reading. To me, this is the most obvious indicator that this Bill has been rushed.'
And Labour MP for Crawley Peter Lamb, who previously abstained, said he would now vote against.
It means at least nine MPs who either backed the Bill or abstained last time will now vote against or abstain next month.
With a majority of 55 at Second Reading, only 28 of those MPs need to change sides for it to be defeated. In the vote yesterday on an amendment by an opponent of the Bill, there was a majority of 36.
Speaking outside Parliament yesterday, Dame Esther Rantzen's daughter Rebecca Wilcox said: 'We should be able to have a pain-free, caring, compassionate death. I only wish I could get that for my mother... the peace of mind that would come with that would be huge.'
Dame Esther, who has terminal cancer, supports assisted dying and has backed the Bill.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
35 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
The public sector sicknote epidemic: They're 60% more likely to be off than staff who work for private firms
Public sector workers are 60 per cent more likely to be off work due to illness than employees in the private sector. The extent of Britain's sick note epidemic is exposed in Office for National Statistics figures that reveal 148.9 million working days were lost last year, equivalent to 4.4 days for each worker. And the share of such absences among public sector employees was 2.9 per cent, significantly higher than the private sector's 1.8 per cent. The ONS claimed it could be explained by differences in types of jobs in the sectors and that workers in state-funded jobs were more likely to be paid for being off than those in private employment. But John O'Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'Taxpayers are fed up with footing the bill for a public sector that's far more likely to be off sick. 'It reflects poor management and weak accountability. In the private sector, this would raise serious questions – in the public sector, it's too often ignored. Ministers must set clearer expectations, better oversight and ensure taxpayers aren't left footing the bill for unchecked absenteeism.' Sick rates have been higher in the public sector for every year on record, the ONS said. But in both cases, rates were lower last year than in 2023. The overall number of working days lost last year was 14.9 million down from 2023 but still 9.9 million higher than pre-pandemic levels in 2019. The sickness absence rate of 2.5 per cent for women was higher than for men, at 1.6 per cent. James Cockett, from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, said some public sector roles – healthcare, education, social care and policing – could increase exposure to illness and also often be 'physically and emotionally demanding'. He said this could lead to greater rates of stress-related absence He added more public sector employers offer occupational sick pay compared with private sector employers.' Len Shackleton, of the Institute of Economic Affairs think-tank, said: 'Private sector workers are more likely to be employed in small workplaces where absence is more noticeable and they may feel obliged not to let colleagues down. 'Their jobs may also be less secure than those in the public sector, again a motive for 'presenteeism' [where employees go to work despite being sick] which public sector workers don't feel to the same extent.'
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Quarter of UK mental ill health benefit claimants expect to lose out from planned reforms, charity says
LONDON, June 5 (Reuters) - Around one in four British people with poor mental health who claim welfare benefits expect to lose their entitlement under proposed government reforms, according to research published by a charity on Thursday. Britain's government aims to save 4 billion pounds ($5.4 billion) a year by 2029-30 through tightening the rules for claiming a benefit known as personal independence payment (PIP) designed to cover disability-related costs, whether a claimant is in work or not. The Money and Mental Health Policy Institute said it interviewed 227 people with mental health conditions who receive PIP, which can be worth nearly 6,000 pounds a year. Some 24% of those surveyed said they expected to lose the benefit, while 39% were unsure if they would be affected. About one in five of those surveyed were in work, and nearly two thirds of them said reducing the benefit would make them work less, rather than more, due to difficulty affording transport costs or private mental health support. "Our analysis shows that these changes would actually result in many people with mental health problems who have a job cutting their hours or leaving the workplace altogether," the charity's chief executive, Helen Undy, said. PIP is paid to 3.7 million people in England and Wales, 6% of the population, and new claims have risen by two thirds in recent years. The government hopes that tighter eligibility rules will encourage more claimants to seek work. Under the government plans, claimants would need to have a severe difficulty in at least one area of daily life to qualify for the benefit, rather than a range of less severe problems. Britain's budget watchdog in March estimated that a third of claimants would be affected by the change, of whom around half would lose benefits after being reassessed. The new plans are subject to consultation until the end of the month. Finance minister Rachel Reeves has been under pressure from campaigners to reconsider, following a U-turn over a decision to scrap heating subsidies for most pensioners. ($1 = 0.7372 pounds)
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Martin Lewis's charity warns Starmer's PIP disability cuts will be ‘catastrophic'
Martin Lewis ' charity has warned that Labour 's changes to the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), a key benefit for individuals with long-term health conditions or disabilities, will have a 'catastrophic impact'. Under reforms to the country's welfare system, Sir Keir Starmer 's government plans to update the eligibility criteria for PIP and universal credit to save around £5bn a year by 2030, and get more people into work. But critics say the changes will have a devastating impact on some of those who will lose the benefits. Currently, approximately 3.7 million people across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland receive PIP, a benefit designed to assist those facing challenges due to long-term physical or mental health issues. It is estimated that 800,000 will lose their allowance under changes to the assessments. Martin Lewis, founder of has previously raised concerns over the impact of the changes on people who have no other income. On Thursday, Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, a charity founded and chaired by Mr Lewis, warned the reform to PIP would have a 'catastrophic impact' on people's finances and mental health, and will drive people out of the workplace Research by the body showed a quarter of 227 people with a mental health condition who receive PIP expected to lose the allowance. The loss of the money would impact their ability to pay for counselling and therapy, the study found. More than eight in 10 of those interviewed also said losing PIP would mean they would have to significantly cut back on grocery spending, while three-quarters said they used the money to pay for essential household bills. Helen Undy, chief executive of the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, said: 'The message to the government from this research is clear – its proposed changes to PIP will have a catastrophic impact on people with mental health problems' wellbeing, finances, and working lives. 'Getting PIP can be the difference between being able to afford the treatment, support and everyday essentials you need, or facing worsening mental health and financial hardship. Some of the people we've spoken to say they will struggle to survive day-to-day if they lose this payment and that even the prospect of it has contributed to them having suicidal thoughts. 'The government says its welfare reforms will help more people move into work. But you don't do that by depriving people of a critical financial lifeline that helps them stay well. Our analysis shows that these changes would actually result in many people with mental health problems who have a job cutting their hours or leaving the workplace altogether. 'We urge the government to ditch these plans. Balancing the books should not come at the price of causing misery and hardship for some of the most vulnerable people in society.'
