Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Andrew Sparrow (now) and Martin Belam (earlier)

Assisted dying: MPs back bill to give some terminally ill people right to end lives in England and Wales – live

Louise Haigh Transport Police United Kingdom Sir Keir Starmer

How MPs voted on assisted dying bill, by party affiliation

Here are the number of MPs voting by party.

For the bill

Conservatives: 23

Independent: 1

Greens: 4

Labour: 234

Lib Dems: 61

Plaid Cymru: 3

Reform UK: 3

SDLP: 1

Against the bill

Alliance: 1

Conservatives: 92

DUP: 5

Independents: 14

Labour: 147

Lib Dems: 11

Plaid Cymru: 1

Reform UK: 2

TUV: 1

UUP: 1

Did not vote

Conservatives: 3

Deputy Speakers: 3

Labour: 18

SNP: 9

Sinn Fêin: 7

SDLP: 1

Speaker: 1

The division list for the vote is now on the Commons’ website.

Keir Starmer was seen having a chat with Nigel Farage in the chamber as the division was taking place. This is from the i’s Eleanor Langford.

Keir Starmer is now in the Chamber having just cast his vote on the assisted dying bill

He had a quick chat with Nigel Farage before taking his seat on the front bench

Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, says the Commons is now moving on to deal with a bill about ferrets (the animal welfare [import of dogs, cats and ferrets] bill – another private member’s bill, tabled by Danny Chambers) and he suggests some MPs might want to leave the chamber.

Kim Leadbeater, sponsor of the bill, is moving a motion saying the public bill committee for the bill should have the power to take evidence.

That goes through on the nod.

(Normally government bills committees have this power, but not committees dealing with private members’ bills.)

MPs vote for assisted dying bill by majority of 55

The Speaker is reading out the results:

Ayes: 330

Noes: 275

Keir Starmer has voted for the bill.

The tellers for the ayes are Sarah Owen and Bambos Charalambous.

And the tellers for the noes are Harriett Baldwin and Florence Eshalomi.

MPs vote on assisted dying bill

MPs are now voting.

This is the second reading division.

Kit Malthouse stood up and moved “that that question now be put”. That is a closure motion. When MPs are debating private member’s bill, supporters often have to call a closure motion vote to stop the debate being talked out and to ensure that the house can move on to a proper vote.

Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, called the closure motion by acclamation. No one opposed it, and so he moved on immediately to the second reading vote.

Alex Davies-Jones, a justice minister, is winding up now the government.

She says she is speaking not as a constituency MP, but as a minister in the department responsible for the administration of the law. She will not express her personal views now, she says. But she will be voting, she says.

If MPs vote for the bill, the government will “respect its duty to the statute book” and ensure any bill is workable.

She pays tribute to the way Kim Leadbeater has campaigned on this, and argued her case with respect and dignity.

Two frontbenchers are now winding up.

Kieran Mullan, a shadow justice minister, is summing up for the opposition. But it is a free vote, so there is no party position to sum up. Mullan says even the best pain relief cannot help some people who are dying.

But he also acknowledges that opponents of the bill, who place a premium on the sanctity of life, have a good argument.

He says MPs should vote with humility, and with respect for each vote cast, in whichever direction.

If you want to read the debate, Hansard will have full transcript online here.

At this point the online version covers all speeches up to Kit Malthouse’s. The transcript is normally about three hours behind proceedings in the Commons. The whole thing should be up by 5.30pm.

Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, calls Vikki Slade, the Lib Dem MP. He says hers will be the final speech before the wind-ups.

Kim Leadbeater makes a point of order. She says she wants to correct the record. She says in her speech earlier she said she had consulted the medical profession and the judiciary at the highest levels. She says she has been in correspondent with the Judicial Office. But she says the serving judiciary have not expressed a view on the bill, and she wants to make that clear.

The Labour MP Florence Eshalomi said that she was opposed to the bill in part because minority groups would be particularly vulnerable. She explained:

We must recognise the hard truth that health inequalities are wide and persistent. We know that black and minority ethnic disabled people have far worse health outcomes than the national average.

I’ve seen this first-hand, caring for my mother who suffered with sickle cell anaemia.

As a teenager, I would be by her side when she was in excruciating pain, explaining to a doctor who would not believe her when she told them she needed lifesaving medication, and sadly this is still the reality today.

I am reminded of the death of Evan Smith on April 25 [2019] at North Middlesex Hospital.

Evan suffered from sickle cell too. He was in so much pain that he had to ring 999 from his hospital bed because he was denied oxygen and basic care by the doctors.

Put simply: we should be helping people to live comfortable, pain-free lives on their own terms before we think about making it easier for them to die …

How can we be possibly satisfied that this bill would deliver equality and freedom in death when we do not yet have this in life?

The Green party MP Siân Berry told MPs in the debate that she was in favour of the bill.

While we don’t have to choose between this Bill and better palliative care, we do have to give dying people the right to choose which ending is right for them, so please, please vote for this bill today.

Robert Jenrick claims bill will be changed 'fundamentally' by 'activist judges in Strasbourg' if it's passed

Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, told MPs that he was opposed to the bill and that, if it passed, “activist judges in Strasbourg” would change it. He explained:

Let’s think about the role of judges. The test which is to be applied is a low one, it’s the civil law threshold, this is a balance of probabilities. This means a judge could see real risk of coercion and still sign-off this individual for assisted death; if the threshold was not reached of 50% or more, the judge would sign-off the individual.

I worry, in fact I am as certain as night follows day, this law if passed will change. Not as a result of the individuals in this chamber or in the Lords, but as a result of judges in other places.

We’ve seen that time and again. It may be on either side of the debate but it will happen. This act, if passed, will be subject to activist judges in Strasbourg [where the European court of human rights is based]. They will change it fundamentally and we have to be prepared for that. I don’t want to see that happen.

Jenrick was speaking from the backbenches, not as a party spokesperson. But when he was standing to be Conservative leader, calling for withdrawal from the ECHR was his most important policy proposal.

John Hayes (Con) told MPs that he was against the bill because it would change the relationship between patients and doctors.

This bill changes the relationship between clinicians and patients forever. It says to the NHS, your job is not only protect and preserve life, it is sometimes to take life. I am not prepared for our NHS to be changed in that way, and beyond that it changes society’s view of what life and death is all about.

There are many cruel and spiteful and ruthless and unkind people in the world and there are many vulnerable and frail people, and when those two collide, it’s not a good outcome for the second of those groups.

Alicia Kearns (Con) told MPs that her mother’s experience of cancer made her support assisted dying.

Imagine a situation where you have cancer that day by day is breaking every individual vertebrae on your body, one by one. There is nothing that can take away the pain, and that is a situation in which my mother lost her life, her last words were ‘I cannot go on like this’.

And thankfully for her, there were only a few more days of pain. But for others, there are months, and before they get to that six months, they will have suffered from years of excruciating agony that palliative care cannot resolve.

To deny choice to others, especially those with only six months to live, where their personal choice does no harm, is wrong.

And the Labour MP Rachel Hopkins said her grandfather, Harold Hopkins, “suffered greatly” as he was dying from cancer.

It was the haunted look on my father’s face when he arrived home – having spent the final few days with Harold in terrible pain and suffering before he finally died – that had a lasting impression on me, and that surely in a modern society, if we are able to live a good life, we must be able to have a good death.

The head of the race equality thinktank has warned of ‘devastating consequences’ if assisted dying bill is allowed to pass.

Jabeer Butt, chief executive of the Race Equality Foundation, pointed to the Liverpool Care Pathway, which was abolished a decade ago, where a government review heard that hospital staff wrongly interpreted its guidance for care of the dying, leading to stories of patients who were drugged and deprived of fluids in their last weeks of life.

Butt said:

The assisted dying bill represents a dangerous slippery slope. For decades, the NHS has struggled to protect life adequately. Framing assisted dying as a ‘better solution’ exposes a health system failing to provide the care and support people need for a reasonable quality of life.

My own experience with the Liverpool Care Pathway showed the devastating consequences when appropriate care is denied—loved ones were lost needlessly.

Instead of embracing this approach again, which has proven flawed in the past, we must focus on fixing the system. Where are the safeguards? Even clinicians who initially supported these measures often later express doubts. We cannot afford to repeat mistakes that cost lives.

No 10 hints Louise Haigh's resignation linked to breach of ministerial code

Downing Street are refusing to be clear about the circumstances around Louise Haigh’s resignation but at the lobby briefing this morning No 10 appeared to be hinting that she might have broken the seven principles of public life or the ministerial code.

The prime minister’s spokesperson repeatedly told reporters this morning:

Following further information emerging, the prime minister has accepted Louise Haigh’s resignation.

When asked what Starmer knew about Haigh’s spent conviction, what the further information was that emerged, and why he appointed her to cabinet, the spokesman gave the same scripted line over and over again.

Asked about what she had declared to the government, the spokesman said:

[There are] clear rules around declarations and that on appointment to office ministers must provide their permanent secretary with a full declaration in writing of private interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict actual or perceived ...

The permanent secretary will review the minister’s declarations in light of their responsibilities and in discussion with the minister advise on actions needed to manage any interests. The interests must be shared with the independent adviser and this must occur within 14 days ...

Ministers must record in writing what action has been taken as a result of advice received from the permanent secretary and the independent adviser and provide the permanent secretary and independent adviser with a copy.

Many MPs have been using social media to say how they will vote in the debate today. Here are some of their messages posted this morning.

Shaun Davies, Labour MP for Telford, is voting for.

Saqib Bhatti, Conservative MP for Meriden and Solihull East, is against.

Tonia Antoniazzi, Labour MP for Gower, who spoke in the debate earlier, is for

Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader, who is now an independent MP, says he cannot support the bill.

Charlie Maynard, Lib Dem MP for Witney, is for (at least for now).

Lee Anderson, the Reform UK MP for Ashfield, says his constituents are in favour (but he does not say here how he will vote).

Kirsteen Sullivan, Labour MP for Bathgate and Linlithgow, says she cannot back the bill.

Callum Anderson, the Labour MP for Buckingham and Bletchley, says he is in favour.

Ruth Jones, Labour MP for Newport West, is against.

Tulip Siddiq, a Treasury minister, is for.

Nigel Huddleston, the Conservative co-chair, is against.

Rachel Taylor, the Labour MP for North Warwickshire and Bedworth, is for.

David Reed, Conservative MP for Exmouth and Exeter East, is against.

Polly Billington, Labour MP for East Thanet, is against.

Nia Griffith, a Welsh Office minister, is against.

Zubir Ahmed, Labour MP for Glasgow South West, is against.

Steff Aquarone, Lib Dem MP for North Norfolk, is in favour.

Carla Lockhart (DUP) says the safeguards against coercion in the bill are not adequate. The bill will change the way society values life. And it will put vulnerable people at risk. That is why she and her DUP colleagues will be voting against the bill.

Anna Dixon (Lab), another MP who signed the reasoned amendment saying the bill should not get a second reading to allow time for a full policy review, said she did not believe the procedure for private member’s bill was adequate for an issue of this complexity. In line with the precautionary principle, the bill should be blocked until there has been a proper public consultation, she says.

David Davis backs bill, but says government should allocate four days for its report stage debate

David Davis, the former Conservative cabinet minister, says he has changed his mind on this bill. He will vote for it today, he says. But this is only second reading, he says. If he is not happy with the bill, he could vote against at third reading, he says.

If the bill looks as if it will create a Belgian version of assisted dying, or a Canadian version, he would vote against, he says. But if the bill follows the Australian model, he will vote in favour.

But he does urge the government to allow more time for debate. He says the report stage, where all MPs (not just the MPs serving on the public bill committee) get the chance to vote on amendments, should last for four days. (Under the normal procedure, it would just get a few hours on a Friday.) He says this bill is more important to constituents than most of the bills in the Labour manifesto.

Marie Tidball (Lab) says today’s decision is the hardest she has had to make during a career in disability law and policy. She says she did not expect to be voting for the bill, but she will be doing so. She says she thinks it is right that people should have the option of assisted dying, but she says she would like to see stronger safeguards introduced as the bill goes through parliament.

UPDATE: Tidball said:

When I was six years old I had major surgery on my hips. I was in body plaster from my chest to my ankles, in so much pain and requiring so much morphine that my skin began to itch. I remember vividly laying in a hospital bed in Sheffield Children’s Hospital and saying to my parents ‘I want to die, please let me die’.

I needed to escape from that body that I was inhabiting. That moment has come back to me all these years later. That moment made it clear to me that if the bill was about intolerable suffering I would not be voting for it.

Tidball said she had since lived a “good life”, but added:

That moment also gave my a glimpse of how I would want to live my death, just as I have lived my life. Empowered by choices available to me. Living that death with dignity and respect and having the comfort of knowing that I might have control over that very difficult time.

Updated

Back in the Commons, Tim Farron, the former Lib Dem leader, says is he opposed to the bill. It will create a space for coercion, he says.

He recalls what happened when his mother was told she was terminally ill. A doctor said terminally ill people often suffer from depression. That is why they would be vulnerable to coercion, he says.

He says the government’s own suicide prevention adviser is against this bill.

And he says he is opposing this bill as a liberal. He is a liberal, not a libertarian, he says. He says people should not have a freedom if it encroaches on someone else’s freedom, and giving people the right to assisted dying would stop people from being free from coercion to die, he says.

According to Jessica Elgot’s assisted dying backgrounder yesterday, Heidi Alexander was being lined up as the government minister appointed to sit on the committee dealing with the next stage of the assisted dying bill, if it passes this afternoon. That is because, until yesterday, she was a justice minister. If the bill passes second reading, another minister will have to take up this responsibility.

Nusrat Ghani, the deputy speaker, asks MPs to stick to a five-minute time limit in subsequent speeches.

Back in the Commons Peter Prinsley (Lab) is speaking. Prinsley is a doctor, and he says he is in favour of the bill. He says better palliative care and assisted dying can go together.

Heidi Alexander becomes transport secretary

Heidi Alexander has been appointed transport secretary, replacing Louise Haigh, Downing Street has announced. Alexander had been a justice minister.

She first became a Labour MP in 2010, but left parliamment in 2018 to work for Sadiq Khan as deputy London mayor for transport. She became an MP again at the 2024 election.

Edward Leigh (Con), father of the house, goes next. He co-wrote an article with Diane Abbott opposing the bill

He says people support this measure because they are terrified of dying in pain. But there is no need for that, he says. He claims there is no limit to how much morphine a patient can take. But he says some doctors will not give patients morphine beyond a certain amount. There should be a royal commission to clear this up, he says.

Meg Hillier (Lab) says she agrees with the arguments made by Diane Abbott. (See 10.53am.) She recalls her daughter being seriously ill with acute pancreatitis as a teenager, and says for some days she did not know if her daughter would live or die. During that time she saw what good pain relief could achieve.

She says palliative care needs to be much better, and that she has been campaigning on this for years. She urges MPs to oppose the bill, saying it would put vulnerable people at risk.

Ben Spencer (Con), one of the cross-party group of MPs who tabled an amendment opposing the bill to allow time for a full debate, confirmed that he would vote against the legislation. He said he was particularly concerned about the risk of people being coerced into assisted dying.

Badenoch says she's against bill, citing teenager gender treatment as example of why NHS safeguards too weak

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, has confirmed that she will vote against the bill. In interviews in recent weeks she has expressed strong reservations about the bill, but in an article for the Times she explains why she is definitely voting against.

She cites the experience of teenagers given medical treatment to change gender as one of the reasons why she does not think the NHS should be allowed to supervise assisted dying.

I fundamentally believe that giving people a level of control over how they die can be a sacred thing in and of itself, is the right thing to do and something we must get right. Yet, I find myself unable to support this bill as it stands today. That is because of experience of the state’s ability to deal with this sort of complexity.

During my time as a government minister, it became clear to me that our healthcare system is not able to cope with complex issues requiring serious safeguarding. I learnt this when clinicians, parents, whistleblowers and children came to me raising serious concerns of safeguarding failures in our gender identity development service.

None of the safeguards purportedly in place did anything to prevent young, often gay or autistic, children from receiving irreversible and damaging treatments. I saw a culture in which patients and parents felt unable to challenge medical professionals, and medical professionals were fearful of questioning patients.

And she says she took the final decision to vote against the bill when Keir Starmer seemed to rule out allowing extra time for its report stage in the Commons.

The moment I knew I could not personally support the bill was at prime minister’s questions, when Sir Alec Shelbrooke asked the prime minister whether he would allow MPs two days of debate to examine the details of the bill and any amendments.

The prime minister swiftly dismissed him, saying five hours was “sufficient time”. I knew that this same bureaucratic indifference to the sincere concerns raised by MPs would be reflected in the judicial and healthcare systems responsible for carrying out assisted dying for the most vulnerable in our society.

Layla Moran (Lib Dem), chair of the Commons health committee, says she will be voting for the bill because “I want this conversation to continue”.

To those saying the bill crosses the Rubicon (like Danny Kruger – see 10.44am), she says she respects their views.

And to those MPs with concerns about the bill, she says they should vote for it today so amendments to the bill can be debated later. MPs can vote for the bill today, but vote against it at third reading if they don’t like the final version, she says.

Rachael Maskell (Lab) says MPs should be focusing on improving palliative care. That is what the public wants, she says.

She says she is worried about people feeling coerced into assisted dying.

Disabled people would be particularly vulnerable, she says.

The safeguarding measures in the bill are flawed, she says. She says the bill is wrong and rushed. And there won’t be time to fix it, she says.

Death, for many, is 'misery, torture and degredation', not something noble, says Kit Malthouse, backing bill

Kit Malthouse (Con) is a co-sponsor of the bill, and he says he has been supporting this campaign for years.

When I was a child, my parents shielded me from death, and centuries of art and literature and religion taught me that death was something noble or even slightly romantic.

When I became an adult, I learned quickly that that was not the case. For far too many, it is anything, but certainly not noble. The death bed for far too many is a place of misery, torture and degradation, a rain of blood and vomit and tears.

Malthouse says he wants to address some objections to the bill. Referring to Canada (see 10.53am), he says

I’m married to a Canadian, and I can tell you, they love their children just as much as we do. The idea that they, the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Spanish the Austrians, care little for their relatives, or indeed for the wider society in which they live, is offensive, and we should not pretend that somehow here we are special or different.

Malthouse says people also claim this bill would lead to the NHS or the court system being overwhelmed. He goes on:

These people are already dying. They are already in the National Health Service. They already are entitled to care. And even if you think there is an impact, are you seriously telling me that my death, my agony, is too much for the NHS to have time for?

Even the claim that it would overload the judges – that I should drown in my own fecal vomit because it’s too much hassle for the judges to deal with. We send things to the NHS and the judges from this house, all the time. Is anyone suggesting that we should be creating new offense of spiking because the judges are overworked? Just come through this week? Of course not.

Malthouse says MPs have a duty to help people who want the option of assisted dying. Referring to people in the public gallery who suppor the bill, he says:

We are 1,000-year-old democracy. It’s not beyond us to design legislation that gives them what they want and protects those who we feel need to be protected.

I want this choice for my constituents, but profoundly, I want it for myself, and I want it for those people in the gallery who have been working so hard over the last decade to get us to change our minds.

Please be clear that, whatever happens today, terminal people will still take their own lives. All we are deciding today is how.

Andrew Slaughter (Lab) tells MPs that at the moment people who are terminally ill who want to end their life have three options; they can go to Dignitas, which could mean dying alone; they could try to kill themselves, which might be unsuccessful; or they could ask a friend or relative to help, but those people would risk prosecution, and the ill person might have to die too soon.

Under this bill, Slaughter says, a terminally ill person would have to consider their decision to die at least eight times.

He says the safeguards in the bill are strong, and he urges MPs to back it.

Andrew Mitchell, the former Tory cabinet minister, goes next. He says he has completely changed his mind on this subject and is now in favour.

I’ve sat in my advice surgery, and I have had tears pouring down my face listening to listening to constituents who have set out so clearly speaking with such emotion about how their mother, brother, father or child has died in great pain and great indignity. And I strongly support this bill …

I believe that we should give our constituents, our fellow citizens, this choice. I want this choice for my constituents. I want it for those whom I love, and indeed, I want it perhaps one day for myself.

The status quo is “cruel and dangerous”, he says.

And he says there won’t be a slippery slope unless MPs agree to one.

Diane Abbott says she worries about people feeling they have to die because they're burden,

Diane Abbott, the Labour MP and mother of the Commons, is speaking now. She is opposed to the bill, for reasons she set out in a recent Guardian article.

She says people need to be protected from themselves.

There will be those who say to themselves, they don’t want to be a burden. And I can imagine myself saying that in particular circumstances.

Others will worry that assets they are going to leave for their own children are being eroded by the cost of care. And there will even be a handful who will think they should not be taking up a hospital [bed].

Abbott says, if passed, this bill can be amended in the future.

And she says in Canada an assisted dying bill has been extended. It was introduced originally for people with a terminal illness, then extended to people without a terminal illness, and in March 2027 will be extended to cover people with a serious mental health problem.

She says she is not against assisted dying in all circumstances. But she goes on:

If this will passes, we will have the NHS as a fully funded 100% suicide service, but palliative care will only be funded at 30% at best …

We can come back. We can have a commission. We can craft a better bill, but I will not be voting for this bill this morning.

Kruger urges MPs not to back 'state suicide service' and 'worse world, with different idea of human value'

Kruger says that, although the bill covers coercion, it does not address the danger that people coerce themselves – because they feel under pressure to take their life.

He says he is often accused of imposing his view on others.

But with this bill real choice would narrow, he says, because there would be less focus on palliative care.

And he says everyone would be affected by a change to the law like this.

What about the safeguards for people who are vulnerable? Kruger goes on:

I’ll tell you – we are the safeguard this place, this parliament, you and me. We are the people who protect the most vulnerable in society from harm, and yet we stand on the brink of abandoning that role.

The Rubicon was a very small stream, but on the other side lies a very different world, a worse world, with a very different idea of human value, the idea that our individual worth lies in our utility, valuable only for so long …

Let us do better than this bill. Let today not be a vote for despair but the start of a proper debate about dying well in which we have a better idea than a state suicide service.

An MP raises a point of order to complain about Kruger using the term suicide. That is not the correct language, she says, and it is offensive. Kruger says the bill amends the Suicide Act, and so he says using the word is appropriate.

Richard Tice (Reform UK) says Kruger seems to be making an argument for the bill to get a second reading. He says, by querying the specifics of the bill, Kruger is showing why it should be debated in detail in committee.

Kruger says he is sure Kim Leadbeater is pleased to have Tice’s support.

John Hayes (Con) says detailed consideration of the process should have taken place earlier.

Kruger is now going through the detail of the bill.

He says he is particuarly concerned by the provisons saying the bill should only apply to people who are terminally ill. He says this phrase has “great elasticity, almost to the point of meaninglessness”. He says it is a “purely subjective judgment”.

The bill says it should apply to people expected to die within six months.

But that is uncertain, he says.

Wera Hobhouse (Lib Dem) says all medical assessments involve some uncertainty.

Kruger says almost anyone with a serious illness could fit this definition.

For example, a diabetic could refuse insulin, he says. Or someone with an eating disorder could refuse food.

Danny Kruger urges MPs to vote down bill if they have reservations, as he gives opening speech from its opponents

Danny Kruger (Con) is speaking now. He is making the opening speech for opponents of the bill, and so he is not covered by the unofficial eight-minute limit on speeches imposed by the Speaker. He says he expects to speak for about 15 minutes.

He pays tribute to Leadbeater for the way she has campaigned on this with respect and sensitivity.

Using the phrase coined by Leadbeater’s sister, the late Jo Cox, he says they have more in common than might appear.

We all share a deep concern about the experience of people dying or fearing death, fearing pain and suffering.

He says he wants to see the “broken palliative care system” repaired.

He says the bill is “too big for the time it’s been given”. He says it is unlikely to be amended, beyond “minor tweaks”, as it goes through that committee. And for that reason, if MPs have doubts, they should vote against, he says.

Andrew George (Lib Dem) intervenes. He says he disagrees; if MPs are not sure, they should allow the bill to go through today, so it can be amended. He says the final decision should be taken at third reading.

Leadbeater rejects claims bill will be 'slippery slope', leading to scope of assisted dying being expanded

Leadbeater says the UK can look at 31 jurisdications around the world where laws of this kind are in place. She says she has followed best practice. And she accepts there are some assisted dying laws that Britain should not follow.

She quotes an Australian MP talking about their legislation, and saying “none of the fears that were put forward as reasons not to change the law have been realised”.

She goes on:

People talk about a slippery slope, but the health and social care select committee found that not one jurisdiction which passed laws on the basis of terminal illness has expanded its scope.

Some MPs seem to be questioning this. But Leadbeater insists she is right.

She says the scope of the bill cannot be expanded by the courts.

And she says, if the bill gets a second reading today, she will move a motion to ensure that the bill committee can take evidence orally and in writing on its provisions.

(This is something that normally happens when government bills are being considered in committee, but not private members’ bills.)

Leadbeater winds up urging MPs to back the bill.

The text of the bill is here. And here are the explanatory notes.

Leadbeater says she is open to toughening wording of bill to protect people with learning disabilities

Leadbeater says, having set out why there is a problem, she wants to explain how the bill would work.

Daisy Cooper (Lib Dem) intervenes. She says she is worried about the impact of the bill on people who are learning disabled. She says in clause 9(3)(b), the bill says that if the certifying doctor is worried about the capacity of the person who wants assisted dying, they may refer them to for a psychiatric assesssment. Will Leadbeater agree to change that from “may” to “must”.

Leadbeater says she would be happy to consider that change when the bill goes into committee.

Leadbeater is citing more examples of terminally ill people who back the bill.

And she says some of them cannot understand why they are not being given the right to choose assisted dying if they want. She says some of them want the option, even though that does not necessarily mean they would exercise that right.

She goes on:

I know there has been much discussion about the views of people who hold religious beliefs about this subject. I fully respect those beliefs, and I do not intend to say much more about this, other than that I know there are a range of views within faith communities.

Indeed, some of the most powerful conversations I’ve had have been with people of faith, including in my own constituency. People of different religions have said, whilst they would not choose an assisted death for themselves or for their family, who are they to stop someone else who may want to make that choice?

Blair McDougall (Lab) intervenes to say he used to take the same view as Leadbeater does. But he says he is worried about disabled people being made to feel that they should take their life.

Leadbeater says it is a bill covering the terminally ill. It does not apply to people who are disabled but not terminally ill, she says.

Back in the Commons Leadbeater is giving another example of someone who suffered a terrible death.

Lucy’s husband, Tom, was 47 a music teacher with a young son. He had bile duct cancer, which obstructed his bowel, resulting in an agonizing death. Tom vomited fecal matter for five hours before he ultimately inhaled the feces and died. He was vomiting so violently that he could not be sedated, and was conscious throughout Lucy pleaded with the doctors to help. The doctor treating him said there was nothing he could do. His family say the look of horror on his face as he died will never leave them. Lucy now has PTSD, which is quite common for families who lose loved ones in such harrowing circumstances.

Leadbeater asks how parliament can allow cases like this to happen, but not a compassionate death.

Oliver Dowden, the former Conservative deputy PM, asks Leadbeater what assurances she can give that “judicial activism” won’t lead to the courts interpreting the bill in a way not intended by MPs.

Leadbeater says the courts have repeatedly said they want parliament to decide this matter. And she says her bill is strictly drafted.

Leadbeater says she wants palliative care to be better.

And so there is a requirement in the bill for the secretary of state to report to MPs on the state of palliative care.

Leadbeater talks about the safeguards in her bill.

Simon Hoare (Con) intervenes, and asks how the two doctors who would have to approve an assisted dying request under the bill would be able to know that the patient had not been coerced into ending their life.

Leadbeater says at the moment there are no checks at all to prevent coercion.

Richard Burgon (Lab) says he is concerned about societal coercion. Elderly people pay thousands of pounds a month for care. What assurances are there that someone won’t feel that they have a duty to end their life early to save the family money.

Leadbeater says we are not having these conversations at the moment. And she says coercion can happen the other way (with people feeling obliged they need to stay alive for the sake for their family, when they really want to end their life).

UPDATE: Hoare said:

[Leadbeater] references coercion and I recognise the point that she makes about the two medics, but the medics won’t be able to see or have heard anything and everything at all times. People will not be put beyond challenge because subsequent to the death, if a relative claims coercion of another relative, investigation will remain.

And Leadbeater replied:

We’re going to check for coercion in a very robust system. We don’t have any of that now, so at the moment the person will definitely be dead.

We have to look at the status quo by putting layers of safeguarding and checking for coercion. That’s got to be better than the system that we’ve got now.

Updated

Leadbeater said she wanted to tell MPs some of the stories that inspired her to take up this cause.

Warwick was married to his wife, Anne for nearly 40 years. She had terminal peritoneal cancer, which meant she couldn’t breathe properly. She spent four days gasping and choking, remaining awake throughout despite being given the maximum dose of sedatives and eventually died of suffocation. She had to get Warwick to end her life, but as he stood over her with a pillow, he could not do what she asked. He did not want that to be her final memory of him. Anne had excellent palliative care, but it simply could not ease her suffering.

Tim fell in love at first sight. When he met his wife, Louise, he proposed after just three days, but Louise got cancer twice, and at the end, the morphine simply could not control her pain. In desperation, she managed to smash a small glass bottle and tried to take her own life, not realizing that her toddler daughter had got into bed with her. Tim found her. He says, ‘You get to a point where you stop praying for a miracle and start praying for mercy.’

Former police officer James waved his mum off as she embarked on her final trip to Dignitas. She had terminal vasculitis. James desperately wanted to accompany his mum and hold her hands during her final moments, but he knew, because of his job as a police officer, it was just not possible. Indeed, she insisted he must not go with her. So she went alone, no one to hold her hand, no proper goodbye or funeral.

These are just a few examples of the heartbreaking reality and human suffering which far too many people are experiencing as a result of the status quo.

Kim Leadbeater opens debate on her assisted dying bill

Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP who has tabled the private member’s bill, is opening the debate.

She says this is a complex issue, but it is MPs’ job to address complex issues.

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.

Leadbeater says she has tried to ensure this debate is “robust, of course, but most importantly, respectful and compassionate”. For the most part that has been the case, she says.

Speaker says MPs will not get vote on amendment that would have blocked bill to allow full policy review instead

The Speaker, Lindsay Hoyle, is speaking now.

He says more than 160 MPs want to speak.

It is not customary to put a time limit on speeches in these debates, he says.

But he says he will start by requesting an eight-minute limit on speeches. He says after that he may ask for shorter speeches, and he retains the right to impose a limit, he says.

He says he expects to move to the winding up speeches at about 2pm.

And he says he is not calling the reasoned amendment, that would have denied the bill a second reading to allow for a full policy review instead.

How the debate, and voting, will take place

The debate is about to start. The Speaker should announce at the very start whether he’s going to accept the reasoned amendment (not expected to as no precedent) and give guidance around how the debate will be conducted.

He cannot impose time limits but will likely appeal to people not to speak too long: 3-4 min

Kim Leadbeater and Danny Kruger will make the opening statements of 20-25 mins with interventions

There is expected to be a vote on a closure motion at 2-2.15pm and a vote on the substantive motion at 2.30pm (assuming the reasoned amendment hasn’t been called, if it has there needs to be an earlier vote on that too)

If the bill passes, Leadbeater will move a secondary motion to allow the public bill committee to take oral and written evidence. Then the bill will go to the public bill committee, not expected until the new year

Leadbeater can pick the committee membership and has committed to it reflecting a balance of views; the committee of selection has to approve the names. The govt will appoint a minister, expected to be from justice as the bill would change criminal law

If it passes the government will move a money resolution fairly soon (will check when this means) and also has to publish an impact assessment; when is up to thembut it’s likely to be before the bill goes to committee stage

The bill can’t be filibustered as the speaker can intervene and stop someone from speaking if they try (or just go on too long) and a closure motion can be brought at any point

Leadbeater will see her parents and the families of people affected by the current law who are in the public gallery for the debate; then she’ll do interviews in central lobby. She’s pleased that there has been a respectful and compassionate debate and has had messages even from people who disagree with her praising the way she’s conducted herself

Updated

What is the real view on the assisted dying bill in Downing Street?

In the run up to today’s vote on the assisted dying bill, it has been hard to work out Downing Street’s take on the debate. Keir Starmer voted for assisted dying in 2015, as director of public prosecutions he issued landmark guidance intended to clarify in what circumstances someone helping a relative to die for compassionate reasons might avoid prosecution and he has said recently he supports legislation in principle. But he has not argued publicly for the bill in recent weeks, and cabinet ministers opposed to the bill have been able to make their case forcefully.

In her excellent background ahead of today’s debate, Jessica Elgot explains what has been going on. She says:

When [Kim] Leadbeater decided she would take up the cause, there was a private approach to Downing Street to see if there were objections – and there were none.

Starmer has been studiously neutral in the lead-up to the vote, but privately he has been appalled by the public comments of his cabinet ministers – particularly [Wes] Streeting, whom he has told to stop his interventions.

The prime minister’s own view was formed during his time as director of public prosecutions: that the current law is not fit for purpose and puts families at risk of arrest and where patients take their own lives in ways that are dangerous and painful.

He will vote on Friday, though he has not confirmed which way, and there is a strong feeling among the bill’s proponents that it will be a decisive moment.

“When you watch the prime minister walk through the yes lobby, lots will think: ‘that’s good enough for me,’” said one MP.

When Leadbeater first adopted the bill, there were raised eyebrows. She had never spoken on the issue previously, though her sister Jo Cox, the former MP who was murdered by a far-right terrorist, had been a strong advocate.

But the prime minister is an outlier in his own operation. “There was no No 10 machine behind this,” said one ally. “The machine is not actually sure they want this to happen.”

Senior aides are frustrated the cause is dominating the conversation and the divisions it is causing. “It’s a nightmare,” one official said. “If it passes, it will eat up so much time. And it’s causing divisions among our MPs when we have worked so hard to try to build bonds between them.”

“Keir wanted it to happen,” another staffer said. “It’s that simple. There isn’t anyone else who thought this was a particularly great thing to do in the first months of a Labour government.”

You can read Jess’s full article here.

James Cleverly, the former Tory home secretary, has posted this on social media about why he thinks Louise Haigh’s resignation raises questions about Keir Starmer’s judgment.

Questions about Starmer’s judgement

If the conviction was unacceptable to him why did he appoint Haigh to ShadCab after she told him about it?

If it was declared to Proprietary & Ethics on her appointment to Cabinet (must have been), why is he throwing her under the bus now?

MPs to start debating assisted dying bill at 9.30am

MPs will start debating the assisted dying bill – or the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill, to give it its proper name – at 9.30am. We will be focusing on the debate most of the day, while continuing to cover the repercussions of the Louise Haigh resignation.

Here is Jessica Elgot’s overnight story about the vote.

And here is a 125-page Commons library briefing on the bill, and the issues it tackles. If you want to read about this in detail, it’s invaluable.

The vote will take place at 2.30pm.

Some Labour figures have been paying tribute to Louise Haigh on social media.

This is from the MP Toby Perkins.

Very sad to see Lou Haigh stand down, she was doing a great job as Transport Secretary. I very much hope she will be back in the cabinet in the future. She was doing a great job and will be a real loss.

And this is from the former MP Ben Bradshaw.

George Eaton from the New Statesman says Louise Haigh’s place in cabinet may have been at risk anyway following the incident last month when she condemned DP World, the parent firm of P&O Ferries, shortly before it was due to attend a government investment conference.

Some in Labour already expected Louise Haigh to be moved at the next reshuffle following the DP World row.

Mick Lynch, general secretary of the RMT rail union, has paid tribute to Louise Haigh. He said:

Louise achieved a great deal during her time as transport secretary including laying the foundations for the public ownership of our railways – a landmark achievement that prioritises the needs of passengers and workers over private profit.

Her vision and dedication have set the stage for a fairer, more efficient, and publicly accountable transport system.

I want to thank her on behalf of RMT and wish her every success in the future.

Grant Shapps, the former Conservative cabinet minister, has complained the BBC is not giving enough prominence to the Louise Haigh resignation. He posted this on social media.

🚨NEWS ALERT gone missing?

Whenever a Conservative minister resigned there was always a BBC news alert. Yet Starmer loses his first Cabinet Minister and somehow the BBC doesn’t think it’s relevant enough to send out an alert!

Andrew Fisher, who was head of policy for Jeremy Corbyn when Corbyn was Labour leader, told the Today programme that Louise Haigh was having to go because Keir Starmer “panicked” in response to a media attacked.

Her departure was “ a real loss in terms of the effectiveness of government”, he said.

Fisher said that Haigh had been one of the most effective ministers in government, and he said the incident that led to her resignation was a “fairly trivial matter” which had been disclosed to Starmer four years ago.

He said it was not clear whether Haigh chose to go voluntarily, or whether Starmer made it clear to her that she had to resign. But it was a mistake, he suggested. He said Starmer had “panicked in the face of a media attack”.

Fisher’s decision to speak out publicly in support of Haigh is indicative of how she was seen as one of the more leftwing members of the cabinet.

Haigh says her conviction based on 'genuine mistake', and claims court accepted this

In her resignation letter Louise Haigh said little about the past conviction, now spent, that led to her resignation. But she gave a fuller statement yesterday when approached by reporters about the story. She said:

In 2013 I was mugged while on a night out. I was a young woman and the experience was terrifying.

I reported it to the police and gave them a list of what I believed had been taken - including a work mobile phone that had been issued by my employer.

Some time later I discovered that the mobile in question had not been taken. In the interim I had been issued with another work phone.

The original work device being switched on triggered police attention and I was asked to come in for questioning. My solicitor advised me not to comment during that interview and I regret following that advice.

The police referred the matter to the CPS and I appeared before Southwark magistrates. Under the advice of my solicitor I pleaded guilty - despite the fact this was a genuine mistake from which I did not make any gain.

The magistrates accepted all of these arguments and gave me the lowest possible outcome [a discharge] available.

The Daily Mail and the Times both put this story on their front page. Haigh’s resignation was not announced until this morning, but her resignation letter is dated 28 November, implying the decision to go was taken last night.

Tories say Starmer's decision to put Haigh in cabinet when he knew of her conviction 'obvious failure of judgment'

The Conservative party is suggesting that Keir Starmer should never have appointed Louise Haigh to the cabinet in the first place given he knew about her past fraud conviction. And it is calling this an “obvious failure of judgment”. A Conservative spokesperson said:

Louise Haigh has done the right thing in resigning. It is clear she has failed to behave to the standards expected of an MP.

In her resignation letter, she states that Keir Starmer was already aware of the fraud conviction, which raises questions as to why the prime minister appointed Ms Haigh to Cabinet with responsibility for a £30bn budget? The onus is now on Keir Starmer to explain this obvious failure of judgment to the British public.

The gov.uk website has just published the exchange of letters between Louise Haigh and Keir Starmer in full.

There is already a little bit of early response from political commentators and reports on social media this morning to Louise Haigh leaving government.

Kevin Maguire says “Lou Haigh was doing a great job and was the unofficial leader of the Left in the Cabinet. That’s why opponents wanted to take down ‘Red Lou’”.

Mikey Smith, a deputy political editor at the Mirror, interprets it this way: “Starmer’s reply essentially reads ‘sorry about all this, it’s exceptionally dumb, you’ll be back.’”

Here is how, in the letter announcing her departure, Louise Haigh sets out the events, before she was an MP, that have led to her becoming the first minister to leave Keir Starmer’s government. She wrote:

As you know, in 2013 I was mugged in London. As a 24-year-old woman, the experience was terrifying. In the immediate aftermath, I reported the incident to the police. I gave the police a list of my possessions that I believed had been stolen, including my work phone. Some time later, I discovered that the handset in question was still in my house. I should have immediately informed my employer and not doing so straight away was a mistake.

In its London Playbook morning email, Politico’s Sam Blewett and Bethany Dawson write:

Long-serving frontbencher Haigh – who was seen by many as one of the few remaining standard-bearers of the “soft left” – is the first Cabinet casualty of the new government. Playbook hears Haigh was on a train back from an announcement in Leeds with patchy phone signal last night while firefighting the fallout. At that point her allies said she believed she’d be staying in the post, having “fully disclosed” the “traumatic” incident to Starmer before he appointed her to the shadow cabinet in 2020.

Updated

Louise Haigh has been Sheffield Heeley MP since 2015 and held a number of shadow ministerial and shadow cabinet roles before becoming Transport secretary when Labour won the election in July.

Within days of taking office, Haigh told civil servants she planned to “move fast and fix things”, a play on the famous Facebook motto. She said “Growth, net zero, opportunity, women and girls’ safety, health – none of these can be realised without transport as a key enabler.”

In October she became embroiled in a row after describing P&O Ferries as a “rogue operator” just as DP World, its Dubai-based owner, was poised to announce a reported £1bn investment in the UK. Starmer distanced himself from the comments at the time.

Starmer tells Haigh she has 'huge contribution to make in future' as he accepts her resignation

In his reply to Louise Haigh’s resignation letter, Keir Starmer left the door open for her eventual return to government, saying:

Thank you for all you have done to deliver this government’s ambitious transport agenda.

You have made huge strides to take our rail system back into public ownership through the creation of Great British Railways, investing £1bn in our vital bus services and lowering cost for motorists.

I know you still have a huge contribution to make in the future.

Updated

Louise Haigh resigns as UK transport secretary after admitting phone offence

The transport secretary, Louise Haigh, has resigned after it emerged she pleaded guilty after she incorrectly told police that a work mobile phone was stolen in 2013.

In a letter to Sir Keir Starmer she said:

I appreciate that whatever the facts of the matter, this issue will inevitably be a distraction from delivering on the work of this government and the policies to which we are both committed.

I will always be grateful for the support you have shown me, and I take great pride in what we achieved since the election.

She added:

I remain totally committed to our political project, but I now believe it will be best served by my supporting you from outside Government.

I am sorry to leave under these circumstances, but I take pride in what we have done. I will continue to fight every day for the people of Sheffield Heeley who I was first and foremost elected to represent and to ensure that the rest of our programme is delivered in full.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
We're not surprised this explicit Mickey Mouse joke didn't make it into Deadpool and Wolverine
Oh, boy!
Total Film
Total Film
Martha Stewart has a smart alternative to a messy 'junk drawer' – it's portable and can be stored anywhere in your kitchen
Stewart found an intelligent solution to a problem that almost every homeowner faces – and we can follow her example for under $17
Homes & Gardens
Homes & Gardens
“We hit the stage, and there’s Paul McCartney. He looks at me and he says, ‘Hey, Duff’. All I can think is, ‘Paul McCartney knows my name. How the hell did that happen?!’” Duff McKagan recalls his real-life Spinal Tap moment and meeting his heroes
The Guns N' Roses bassist on meeting Sir Paul McCartney, and a life-changing encounter with Prince
Guitar World
Guitar World
How many blood types are there?
Red blood cells are complex — there's much more to blood types than A, B and O.
LiveScience
LiveScience
“I don’t believe he had any idea how rare it was before he bought it”: Kurt Cobain's $6m MTV Unplugged Martin was a historic guitar even before its Nirvana association, but a mod inspired by one of his guitar heroes made it one of a kind
According to Nirvana guitar tech Earnie Bailey, Cobain was far from a vintage guitar fiend, and had no qualms with making his already weird D-18E even more unusual
Guitar World
Guitar World
How to Clean Stainless Steel Pans — Remove Stubborn Stains and Ease Your Chores in 6 Simple Steps
Dealing with the aftermath of a culinary overload will feel far less stressful with this pro guide to cleaning up your cookware
Livingetc
Livingetc
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play