Latest news with #SafetyofRwandaBill
Daily Mirror
7 hours ago
- Health
- Daily Mirror
What happens next after historic assisted dying vote - 'not over yet'
MPs backed a landmark Bill that will allow assisted dying in England and Wales - but it still has to undergo scrutiny in the House of Lords, which could prove tricky MPs today backed historic legislation that will legalise assisted dying. A Bill put forward by Labour backbencher Kim Leadbeater narrowly passed through the Commons after an intense debate. But opponents say "this is not over" as there are still hurdles to overcome before it can become law. Ms Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was supported by 314 MPs from across the political spectrum and opposed by 291. It was a huge victory for campaigners who have lobbied for decades to change the law and give terminally ill people control over how they die. Throughout the day the Commons heard passionate pleas from both sides of the argument. READ MORE: Terminally ill gran's heartbreaking message to MPs ahead of assisted dying vote What happens next? The Bill has passed its third reading, which means elected MPs support it. As is routine, it will now be sent to the House of Lords to scrutinise. Although the Lords is unelected, and there have long been calls to abolish it, it does have a crucial role in passing legislation. Peers will go through the Bill line-by-line and outline any parts they are unsure about. Members can table amendments, and if the House backs them these will be sent back to the Commons to have another look. So can they block the Bill? The main danger for supporters will be that the Bill runs out of time. The legislation will fall if it isn't completed in the current session of Parliament, which does give disgruntled peers the power to throw a spanner in the works. Sessions usually last a year, and the current one began last July after the general election. But there's no fixed rule, meaning it could still run for a few more months. The problem will come if there's a long back-and-forth - known as "ping pong" between the Lords and the Commons. The last time this happened was with Rishi Sunak's botched Safety of Rwanda Bill, which kept being sent back to MPs as peers tried to make changes. If the same happens again, the process could take several months. And a lot of MPs are expecting this - during today's debate there was a lot of talk of scrutiny in "the other place" - meaning the House of Lords. Baroness Finlay, a palliative care doctor who opposes the Bill, told the BBC: "Our role is not to rubber stamp whatever has happened in the Commons, particularly when we know that so many amendments put down in the Commons that would have improved the Bill have gone undebated." So is there still a fight to come? Potentially, depending on the mood of the Lords. It's not gone unnoticed that the majority this time around was lower than it was in November, when the legislation was last in the Commons. Lib Dem MP Tim Farron, an opponent of the Bill, posted: : "Wow! Majority slashed. At the risk of sounding like Jeremy Corbyn … we clearly won the argument there! With a tiny majority and growing opposition from expert groups, the Lords will now rightly feel that they have the right to disagree. To my pleasant surprise, this is not over!" Do Lords amendments have to go in the Bill? No. As we saw with the Rwanda Bill, peers can suggest changes to legislation, but it is the Commons that decides. If MPs think suggestions from the Lords are helpful, they can accept them. If they don't - as the Conservatives decided with the proposed changes on Rwanda - they can vote them down. So when will it actually become law? Once both Houses are satisfied, or when MPs throw out amendments by the Lords. As we saw under Mr Sunak, having a lot of unhappy peers does not have to stop legislation going through. Once it gets through the Lords it will receive Royal Assent, meaning it is on the statute books. When can the first assisted dying case happen? There are a number of safeguards put into the Bill to ensure this is not rushed. The Bill as it stands - although peers may try to push for changes - says it will take up to four years. This means it could be late 2029 by the time the first person is able to choose to end their lives this way. In each case there will be a panel of experts who will have to give their consent to each assisted death, along with doctors. This process will take time to set up, and it remains to be seen whether there are any big legal hurdles to overcome. But Ms Leadbeater has indicated that the four year timeframe is not a target but a "backstop" - meaning it could be sooner.
Saudi Gazette
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Saudi Gazette
UK returns over 24,000 migrants as Starmer scraps Rwanda deportation plan
LONDON — British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced Monday that more than 24,000 individuals with no legal right to remain in the UK have been returned since Labour came to power — the highest figure in eight years. Speaking at the opening of the Organized Immigration Crime (OIC) summit in London, Starmer said the record-breaking figure included four of the largest return flights ever conducted by the UK. The prime minister also confirmed the termination of the controversial Rwanda deportation policy championed by the previous Conservative government, criticizing it as expensive and ineffective. Starmer revealed that despite spending £700 million on the plan, only four asylum seekers had voluntarily relocated to Rwanda. "Even if the scheme had started working properly, only about 300 people a year would have gone to Rwanda," he said, noting that it would have taken 80 years to reach the current figure of 24,000 returns. The Rwanda deportation policy faced strong legal and political opposition after being ruled unlawful by the UK Supreme Court in late 2023. It was followed by the introduction of the Safety of Rwanda Bill, which sought to bypass domestic and international legal protections for asylum seekers — a move Starmer firmly rejected. Highlighting gaps in national border security, Starmer said he was 'shocked' to find disjointed coordination between the police, Border Force, and intelligence agencies upon entering office. "It should have been fixed years ago," he added. — Agencies
