Labour MP behind assisted dying laws says British public ‘wants a change’ as Commons begins debate ahead of crunch vote – with Tory leader Kemi Badenoch to vote against historic Bill_Nhy
The Labour MP pushing assisted dying legislation has told the House of Commons the British public wants ‘a change in the law’ as she opened today’s historic debate.
Kim Leadbeater told fellow MPs that her Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will give people ‘choice, autonomy and dignity at the end of their lives’.
The Commons this morning began a scheduled five hours of debate before they vote this afternoon – around 2.30pm – on whether to proceed with Ms Leadbeater’s proposed legislation.
It will be the first time MPs have voted on the issue of assisted dying since 2015. MPs of all parties have been given a ‘free vote’ and the Government has taken a neutral stance on the Bill.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer could vote in favour of the Bill – having backed a law change in 2015 – but Tory leader Kemi Badenoch will oppose the legislation after claiming it had been ‘rushed’.
At the opening of today’s second reading debate on her Bill, Ms Leadbeater said: ‘Let me say to colleagues across the House – particularly new colleagues – I know this is not easy.
‘It certainly hasn’t been easy for me. But if any of us wanted an easy life I’m afraid we are in the wrong place.
‘It is our job to address complex issues and make difficult decisions. And I know for many people this is a very difficult decision.
‘But our job is also to address the issues that matter to people, and after nearly a decade since this subject was debated on the floor of the House, many would say this debate is long overdue.’
Kim Leadbeater told fellow MPs that her Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill will give people ‘choice, autonomy and dignity at the end of their lives’
At the opening of today’s second reading debate on her Bill, Ms Leadbeater said: ‘Let me say to colleagues across the House – particularly new colleagues – I know this is not easy’
The Commons this morning began a scheduled five hours of debate before they vote this afternoon – around 2.30pm – on whether to proceed with Ms Leadbeater’s proposed legislation
Long-serving Labour MP Diane Abbott, known as the ‘Mother of the House’, told the Commons that ‘the state should not be involed in taking a life’
The Spen Valley MP went on to recount stories she had been told by members of the public, as she opened what is likely to be an emotionally-charged debate in the Commons.
She also pointed to polling showing a majority of the British public want assisted dying to be legalised.
‘It may not be that surprising that most people believe, as I do, that we should all have the right to make the choices and decisions we want about our own bodies,’ Ms Leadbeater added.
‘Let’s be clear, we are not talking about a choice between life or death, we are talking about giving dying people a choice of how to die.’
But Conservative MP Danny Kruger said Ms Leadbeater’s Bill was ‘too flawed’ for the Commons to support.
‘My view is that if we get our broken palliative care system right and our wonderful hospices properly funded we can do so much more for all the people that we will hear about today, using modern pain relief and therapies to help everybody die with a minimum of suffering when the time comes,’ he said.
‘But we won’t be able to do that if we introduce this new option. Instead we will expose many more people to harm.’
Mr Kruger argued that ‘almost anybody with a serious illness or disability’ could fit the definition of terminally ill under the Bill.
The East Wiltshire MP said: ‘Because all you need to do to qualify for an assisted death, the definition of terminal illness under this Bill, is to refuse treatment – like insulin if you’re diabetic.’
He added: ‘In the case of eating disorders you just need to refuse food and the evidence is, in jurisdictions around the world and in our own jurisprudence, that would be enough to qualify you for an assisted death.’
Long-serving Labour MP Diane Abbott, known as the ‘Mother of the House’, told the Commons that ‘the state should not be involed in taking a life’.
‘In 1969, Parliament voted to abolish the death penalty for murder,’ she said.
‘Public opinion was actually against it, but MPs believed [as] a point of principle that the state should not be involved in taking a life.
‘It was a good principle in 1969, and it remains a good principle today.’
Sir Keir’s Cabinet and all the major political parties are heavily divided on changing the law to allow medics to help the terminally ill end their lives without fear of prosecution.
More than 100 MPs are expected to try to speak during today’s debate. But critics of the law change have suggested it is being forced through too quickly.
If approved, the Bill would allow terminally ill, mentally competent adults to seek an assisted death with the approval of two doctors and a High Court judge.
The issue has crossed political demarcations – with former Labour prime ministers coming out against it and ex-Tory premiers in favour – and MPs will have a free vote allowing them to go with their conscience rather than party lines.
The splits have even affected smaller parties, with Reform leader Nigel Farage planning to vote against it, but Reform MP Rupert Lowe saying he will vote for it, after polling his constituents.
Former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron, who plans to vote against the bill, last night tweeted: ‘Tomorrow we’ll have 100+ MPs trying to speak (most for a rushed minute or two) during a ludicrously curtailed, hasty debate with hundreds more voting.
‘I just don’t think we’ve remotely considered this unspeakably serious issue in this kind of depth. We must reject this.’
If approved, the Bill would allow terminally ill, mentally competent adults to seek an assisted death with the approval of two doctors and a High Court judge
Sir Keir Starmer’s Cabinet and all the major political parties are heavily divided on changing the law to allow medics to help the terminally ill end their lives
Dignity in Dying campaigners gather in Parliament Square last month in support of the ‘assisted dying bill’
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer confirmed he would vote today, saying he has a ‘huge amount of interest’ in the issue, but he declined to specify on which side he would come down
While a majority of the MPs to publicly declare their position have come out in favour of introducing one of the most significant social changes in Britain’s history, the outcome still remains shrouded in uncertainty.
Sir Keir confirmed he would vote today, saying he has a ‘huge amount of interest’ in the issue, but he declined to specify on which side he would come down.
Ms Badenoch posted on social media this morning: ‘Despite supporting the principle of assisted dying long before I became an MP, I can’t support today’s bill.
‘It’s rightly a free vote and a matter of conscience for MPs, but the system cannot yet manage the complexity proposed and the bill is being rushed.’
Meanwhile Ms Leadbeater spoke of being ’emotionally ruined’ by weeks of campaigning and told how she can no longer walk down the street without somebody revealing a personal story.
An analysis of vote trackers suggests a majority of MPs will back the Bill, with more than 200 known to be likely to support a change in the law based on public statements or past votes. Around 150 were last night thought to be ready to vote against the Bill.
More than 80 per cent of the Commons had declared their positions yesterday, according to a Times poll of MPs which gave supporters the largest lead with 267 in favour of reforming the law.
But with a significant number of MPs not publicly declaring their position, the outcome is almost impossible to predict accurately.
The last time there was a binding vote on changing the law, in 2015, it was defeated by 331 votes to 119. But each side now accepts the debate has moved on and a series of recent polls have suggested that a majority of the public are now in favour of reform.
Speaking yesterday ahead of the debate, Ms Leadbeater said she hopes the Bill will pass and that this parliament will be remembered for its ‘major social reform’.
She added: ‘I hope parliament will show itself at its best and most compassionate and that MPs will show themselves, as they have in the past when major social reforms have come before them, ready to correct injustice and reduce human suffering.’
But others were staunch in their opposition to the Bill. Actress and disability activist Liz Carr urged MPs to vote against it as she said many disabled people are ‘terrified’ of it being approved.
Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson echoed her call and warned that disabled people are ‘really worried’.
The former athlete, who would have a vote on the Bill if it passed through to the Lords, said: ‘I can’t see safeguards that would be OK, that wouldn’t risk some people having their lives ended without them wanting to.’
Under the Bill, terminally-ill adults with less than six months to live and a wish to die would be eligible for an assisted death if signed off by two doctors and a High Court judge
It came as a number of prominent figures made their voting intentions public last night. Solicitor General Sarah Sackman KC said she would vote for the Bill out of a ‘respect for individual autonomy’.
But shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson said he would oppose the Bill, declaring that MPs are being asked to ‘vote in the dark’.
Home Office minister Seema Malhotra also said she would vote against the proposed new laws yesterday, but added that decisions should be made on a ‘secular basis’ with religion left out of the debate.
It comes after Lord Cameron, who previously voted against the practice, announced that he now intended backing the Bill.
His intervention came after Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, Theresa May and Gordon Brown all stated they are against the proposed legislation.
Meanwhile, the UK’s human rights watchdog warned the end-of-life Bill could push people into considering an assisted death because of the ‘postcode lottery’ of palliative care access.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), which said it is neutral on assisted dying, also warned there has been an ‘insufficiently detailed analysis’ of the implications for human rights.
