David Cameron has become the first former prime minister to come out in support of the assisted dying bill.

The former Tory leader has written a piece in The Times explaining his decision, and saying that in the past he opposed moves to introduce measures allowing terminally ill people to end their own life.

Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton wrote: “My main concern and reason for not supporting proposals before now has always been the worry that vulnerable people could be pressured into hastening their own deaths.”

However, he says he has now been reassured by those arguing in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater will put the bill forward for a vote in the House of Commons on Friday.

“As campaigners have convincingly argued, this proposal is not about ending life, it is about shortening death,” Lord Cameron wrote in The Times.

His intervention comes after Gordon Brown, Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss all came out in opposition to the bill.

None of Sir John Major, Sir Tony Blair or Rishi Sunak have made their positions public.

In his article, Lord Cameron says he asked four questions before reaching his conclusion – whether there are sufficient safeguards to protect vulnerable people, whether this is a “slippery slope”, whether it would put unnecessary pressure on the NHS and will the proposed law lead to a meaningful reduction in human suffering?

On the first point, Lord Cameron says protections like two doctors needing to give approval as well as a judge, alongside the requirement of self-administration of the fatal drugs, are enough.

He also highlights the criminalisation of coercing someone to end their own life.

On whether the bill is a “slippery slope” – as Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood claimed – he says such an argument can be made for any social change.

The former prime minister writes that the bill is in “a sensible and practical resting place for public policy in this area”, and is explicitly only for the terminally ill, rather than those with mental illnesses and disabilities.

Read more:
What is in the assisted dying legislation?
Lawyer says Canada’s assisted dying has gone too far

The most senior Conservative to back the bill

Jon Craig

Chief political correspondent

@joncraig

Former prime ministers David Cameron and Gordon Brown both lost a child in tragic circumstances. But they’ve now come to a different conclusion about assisted dying.

Lord Cameron lost son Ivan, aged six, who was severely disabled and suffered from epilepsy and cerebral palsy, in February 2009. Mr Brown, the then prime minister, cancelled PMQs out of respect.

When assisted dying was last debated in the Commons in 2015 – when he was prime minister – Mr Cameron voted against it. But now, in a major and potentially influential intervention, he’s changed his mind.

“When we know that there’s no cure, when we know death is imminent, when patients enter a final and acute period of agony, then surely, if they can prevent it and – crucially – want to prevent it, we should let them make that choice,” Lord Cameron writes in The Times.

But the former premier is in a minority of Conservatives who back the bill and most senior Tory MPs, including Kemi Badenoch, Priti Patel and former leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, are opposed.

Lord Cameron is also the first of all the UK’s living former prime ministers to back Kim Leadbeater’s controversial bill, which is being debated in the Commons on Friday.

This week three former Conservative PMs – Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss – let it be known that they oppose the bill. Baroness May, like Lord Cameron, will have a vote if the bill reaches the Lords.

Mr Brown’s daughter Jennifer, born seven weeks prematurely weighing 2lb 4oz, died after just 11 days in January 2002 following a brain haemorrhage on day four of her short life.

A son of the manse who was strongly influenced by his father, a Church of Scotland minister, Mr Brown says the tragedy convinced him of the value and imperative of good end-of-life care, not the case for assisted dying.

On whether it put undue pressure on the NHS, Lord Cameron dismisses the argument.

“It’s not just that the bill would be applicable in only a very small number of cases, it is that the NHS exists to serve patients and the public, not the other way around,” he writes.

On the fourth point – whether it will reduce human suffering – the former prime minister says: “I find it very hard to argue that the answer to this question is anything other than ‘yes’.”

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

Lord Cameron adds that, as a member of the House of Lords, he gets letters from terminally ill patients and that poses questions.

He wrote: “When we know that there’s no cure, when we know death is imminent, when patients enter a final and acute period of agony, then surely, if they can prevent it and – crucially – want to prevent it, we should let them make that choice.

“It’s right that MPs are having a free vote on this issue – and our tradition of free votes on such moral issues should be maintained.

“The fact it is a free vote gives legislators the chance to think afresh and, if the evidence convinces them, to change their mind. That’s what I have done. And, if this bill makes it to the House of Lords, I will be voting for it.”

Detectives have launched a new investigation into more than five people suspected of helping Mohamed al Fayed commit widespread sexual abuse over almost 40 years.

The fresh allegations against the former Harrods and Fulham FC boss, including rape and sexual assault, span the years between 1977 and 2014, with the youngest victim aged just 13 at the time she was allegedly targeted.

The Metropolitan Police were previously contacted by 21 women, who made similar allegations about incidents between 2005 and 2023, but the billionaire businessman was never charged before his death aged 94 last August.

Some 150 people have since contacted the force, 90 of whom have been identified as potential victims, and officers are now looking at Fayed’s associates who are suspected of facilitating or enabling abuse.

More than five people are under investigation so far, the force said, although no arrests have yet been made.

Commander Stephen Clayman said: “I recognise the bravery of every victim-survivor who has come forward to share their experiences, often after years of silence.

“This investigation is about giving survivors a voice, despite the fact that Mohamed al Fayed is no longer alive to face prosecution.

“However, we are now pursuing any individuals suspected to have been complicit in his offending, and we are committed to seeking justice.”

In response to the new probes into associates of Fayed, Harrods said in a statement: “We are aware of and wholeheartedly support the Met police’s investigation. We have an open, direct and ongoing line of communication with the Met police for the benefit of the survivors.

“We continue to encourage all survivors to engage with the Met police and we welcome the investigation in supporting survivors in their wider pursuit of justice.”

Detectives are also reviewing the Met’s previous investigations, including 50,000 pages of evidence, to identify any missed chances or misconduct.

The force said previous investigations were “extensive and conducted by specialist teams” but accepts “contact with and support for some victims at the time could have been improved”.

Two files – the first in 2008 and the second in 2015 – were passed to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for a charging decision, but the CPS has said no charges were brought because there wasn’t a realistic prospect of conviction.

The Met already referred two cases to the police watchdog the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) after receiving complaints from two women about investigations in 2008 and 2013.

Commander Clayman said: “We are aware that past events may have impacted the public’s trust and confidence in our approach, and we are determined to rebuild that trust by addressing these allegations with integrity and thoroughness.

“We encourage anyone who has information or was affected by Fayed’s actions to reach out to us. Your voice matters, and we are here to listen and to help.”

Hundreds of women – many of whom worked for Fayed – have contacted lawyers alleging abuse following a BBC documentary about his behaviour.

Harrods has previously said it is “utterly appalled” by the claims and said it is a “very different organisation to the one owned and controlled by Fayed between 1985 and 2010”.

Fulham previously said they were trying to establish whether anyone at the club had been affected, and were encouraging people to come forward to the club’s safeguarding department or the police.

Lucy Letby’s father threatened a hospital boss while the trust was examining claims that the neonatal nurse was attacking babies in her care, an inquiry has heard.

Tony Chambers, the former chief executive of the Countess of Chester Hospital, described how Mr Letby became very upset during a meeting about the allegations surrounding his daughter in December 2016.

Mr Chambers led the NHS trust where neonatal nurse Letby, who fatally attacked babies between June 2015 and June 2016, worked.

It was the following year in 2017 that the NHS trust alerted the police about the suspicions Letby had been deliberately harming babies on the unit.

“Her father was very angry, he was making threats that would have just made an already difficult situation even worse,” Mr Chambers told the Thirlwall Inquiry.

“He was threatening guns to my head and all sorts of things.”

Earlier, Mr Chambers apologised to the families of the victims of Letby, but said the failure to “identify what was happening” sooner was “not a personal” one.

He was questioned on how he and colleagues responded when senior doctors raised concerns about Letby, 34, who has been sentenced to 15 whole-life terms for seven murders and seven attempted murders.

Mr Chambers started his evidence by saying: “I just want to offer my heartfelt condolences to all of the families whose babies are at the heart of this inquiry.

“I can’t imagine the impact it has had on their lives.

“I am truly sorry for the pain that may have been prolonged by any decisions that I took in good faith.”

He was then pressed on how much personal responsibility he should take for failings at the trust that permitted Letby to carry on working after suspicions had been raised with him.

“I wholeheartedly accept that the operation of the Trust’s systems failed and there were opportunities missed to take earlier steps to identify what was happening,” he said.

“It was not a personal failing,” he added.

“I have reflected long and hard as to why the board was not aware of the unexplained increase in mortality.”

Read more:
Lucy Letby likely murdered or attacked more children, doctor tells inquiry
Lucy Letby: Nursing boss tells inquiry she had ‘best intentions’

Mr Chambers also said he believed the hospital should have worked more closely with the families involved, saying “on reflection the communications with the families could have and should have been better”.

The Thirlwall Inquiry is examining events at the Countess of Chester Hospital, following the multiple convictions of Letby.

Earlier this week her former boss, Alison Kelly, told the inquiry she “didn’t get everything right” but had the “best intentions” in dealing with concerns about the baby killer.

Ms Kelly was director of nursing, as well as lead for children’s safeguarding, at Countess of Chester Hospital when Letby attacked the babies.

She was in charge when Letby was moved to admin duties in July 2016 after consultants said they were worried she might be harming babies.

However, police were not called until May 2017 – following hospital bosses commissioning several reviews into the increased mortality rate.