Transport Secretary Louise Haigh has resigned after it emerged she pleaded guilty to an offence related to incorrectly telling police that a work mobile phone was stolen in 2013.

In a letter to the prime minister, she described the incident as a “mistake” but said that “whatever the facts of the matter, this issue will inevitably be a distraction from delivering on the work of this government”.

It comes after Sky News revealed details of the offence last night, with Ms Haigh saying in a statement she believed her phone had been stolen after she was “mugged on a night out” but later discovered this was not the case.

She alluded to Sir Keir knowing about this in her resignation letter, telling him: “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.”

Ms Haigh then said that while she is “totally committed to our political project,” she believes “it will be best served by my supporting you from outside government”.

The MP for Sheffield Heeley added: “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.”

‘Questions’ for Starmer

In response, Sir Keir Starmer thanked Ms Haigh for “all you have done to deliver this government’s ambitious transport agenda” and said: “I know you still have a huge contribution to make in the future.”

The letters were dated yesterday, 28th November, but only made public this morning.

A Conservative Party spokesman said Ms Haigh has “done the right thing in resigning”.

They said the incident “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 judgement to the British public,” they added.

The straightforward reason for Louise Haigh’s rapid resignation

Rob Powell

Political correspondent

@robpowellnews

While government sources insist this resignation was Louise Haigh’s decision, the political weather around the now former transport secretary always made walking from her job a potential outcome.

As well as being the first cabinet minister to resign, Ms Haigh was also the first cabinet minister to be publicly rebuked by Sir Keir Starmer.

That was over calls she made to boycott P&O ferries after the mass sacking of hundreds of workers, comments that led to a £1bn investment being temporarily shelved.

Hailing from the left of Labour, the Sheffield MP also has connections with former Downing Street chief of staff Sue Gray.

But with a new team now in place at the top of Number 10 – some had already been speculating about her future in government.

The ultimate trigger for this resignation is likely more straightforward though.

In 2022, speaking about the partygate scandal, Sir Keir Starmer said “you can’t be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker”.

This appears to show what that mantra looks like when transplanted into the realities of government.

Conviction just before 2015 election

Sky News understands Ms Haigh appeared at Camberwell Green Magistrates’ Court six months before the 2015 general election, after making a false report to officers that her mobile phone had been stolen.

It’s understood her conviction is now classified as ‘spent’.

Three separate sources claimed to Sky News that she made the false report to benefit personally, with two of the sources alleging she wanted a more modern work handset that was being rolled out to her colleagues at the time.

The outgoing cabinet minister had been working as a public policy manager at Aviva, but two sources said she lost her job at the insurance firm because of the incident.

The offence was disclosed in full when Ms Haigh was appointed to Sir Keir’s shadow cabinet, Sky News understands.

‘Genuine mistake’

In her statement last night, Ms Haigh called the incident a “genuine mistake from which I did not make any gain”.

She said she had been “issued with another work phone” in the interim between making the police report and discovering it had not been stolen, and was called in for questioning when the original device was switched on, which “triggered police attention”.

“My solicitor advised me not to comment during that interview and I regret following that advice,” she said.

“The police referred the matter to the CPS and I appeared before Southwark magistrates.”

Ms Haigh continued: “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.”

Career in Met before politics

As transport secretary, Ms Haigh appointed members of the board that oversees the British Transport Police.

Before entering politics, the MP was a special constable in the Metropolitan Police – serving between 2009 and 2011 in the South London Borough of Lambeth, close to where she was convicted several years later.

She was appointed shadow policing minister by Jeremy Corbyn in 2017 and frequently drew on her experience in the Met when challenging the Tory government on the rising demands on officers.

Sir Keir promoted the MP to shadow Northern Ireland secretary in 2020 before moving her to shadow transport secretary in 2021.

The first vote on the assisted dying bill is not only hugely consequential, it’s also hugely unpredictable and even as the vote draws near it still feels like it could go either way.

MPs will debate the bill, brought forward by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, in parliament today before they get a free vote on the legislation.

There are a few reasons why the potential outcome of the vote is difficult to predict. Firstly, the last Commons vote on this issue was back in 2015. It was also a Private Members’ Bill and a free vote, that was defeated by 331 to 119 – 199 MPs didn’t vote and one abstained.

That may seem like a useful starting point to predict future results but there has been an unprecedented turnover of MPs since then.

Politics latest: Starmer blames Tories for ‘open borders’

It was less than a decade ago but over two-thirds of those MPs from 2015 are no longer in parliament. This means there’s no voting record that can help us out this time round.

Secondly, it’s a free vote so we can’t, as we usually would, look to the political parties to work out the numbers.

Every single one of the 650 MPs must make up their minds for themselves and they have all taken a slightly different approach to the process.

Some came out straight away and declared their position publicly. Some took their time and have only decided in the last few days, putting out statements on social media platforms.

There are also those who prefer to keep it to themselves, and some who are genuinely still undecided and will be until they walk through the voting lobbies.

So, to get a sense of what could happen, at Sky News we have been monitoring declarations as well as reaching out to every MP personally.

This has given us, on the eve of the second reading, an informative but still incomplete picture.

So far we have confirmed that 181 MPs will vote for the bill, while 148 say they will vote against, and 300 are either undecided or haven’t revealed their decision.

There are also 20 MPs that won’t vote – the SNP because the changes won’t apply in Scotland, Sinn Fein who don’t sit in Westminster, and the Speaker and Deputy Speakers.

Of those who will vote but whose position is still unknown, about two-thirds are Labour MPs – a big chunk of those are brand new.

This is the deciding cohort, who just a few months into their roles will make a life-or-death decision that will influence generations to come – no pressure.

Ms Leadbeater has said she hopes parliament will “show itself at its best” by voting in favour of the bill.

In a statement on Thursday night, she said: “I hope this parliament will also be remembered for this major social reform that gives people autonomy over the end of their lives and puts right an injustice that has been left on the statute books for far too long.

“People will be looking in on parliament as it debates this important change to the law – a change that, when we most need it, could bring comfort to any one of us or to somebody we love.”

Read more on assisted dying:
Analysis: Bill could be wrecked by dirty tricks
Five stories that bring the assisted dying debate home
David Cameron comes out in support of bill
How MPs are making up their minds
What does the bill propose?

What could make the difference?

Most MPs tell us they have been poring over the legislation line-by-line and listening intently to their constituents.

But beyond that, there are external factors that will no doubt have influenced their thinking.

Public opinion will be high on the list, with the latest YouGov poll – one of many – showing an overwhelming majority (73%) of the public are in favour of a change in the law.

The other will be how Cabinet ministers vote, with many high profile and respected names, Ed Miliband and Hilary Benn among them, coming out in favour.

More controversial though are those who oppose the bill.

In particular, the Health Secretary Wes Streeting and the Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood have made the news with their views.

They will both have to take a leading role in implementing the legislation if it passes.

Mr Streeting shocked Westminster when he revealed he had changed his mind after voting for the 2015 version.

He also ruffled feathers among colleagues when he appeared to breach the etiquette around free votes, by repeatedly raising concerns around extra pressures on the NHS and making the case for improving palliative care instead.

Mr Streeting’s position and approach have made the bill’s supporters nervous that new MPs will fall in behind him.

In contrast, other big beasts – the prime minister, the chancellor and the foreign secretary – remain silent on which way they will go, aware that their opinions could sway the result.

As it stands, after all the number crunching, it looks likely that this landmark legislation will pass the second reading.

But with so many unknowns, both sides will feel that even at this late stage, it’s still impossible to call.

MPs will on Friday have to make one of the biggest decisions of their careers – whether or not to back assisted dying.

The proposed law would make it legal for over-18s who are terminally ill to be given medical assistance to end their own life in England and Wales.

Politics Live: No 10 denies reports of extra bank holiday next year

The bill – called the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – sets out detailed requirements in order to be eligible.

The Labour MP proposing it, Kim Leadbeater, says the safeguards are the “most robust” in the world, but others argue it is a “slippery slope towards death on demand”.

What is in the bill?

The purpose of the bill is to allow adults aged 18 and over, who have mental capacity, are terminally ill and are in the final six months of their life, to request assistance from a doctor to die.

This is subject to “safeguards and protections” which include:

• They must have a “clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life” and have reached this decision voluntarily, without coercion or pressure;
• They must have lived in England or Wales for 12 months and be registered with a GP;
• Two independent doctors must be satisfied the person meets the criteria and there must be at least seven days between the doctors making the assessments;
• If both doctors state the person is eligible, then they must apply to the High Court for approval of their request;
• If the High Court decides that the applicant meets the bill’s requirements, then there is a 14-day reflection period (or 48 hours if death is imminent);
• After this, the person must make a second declaration, which would have to be signed and witnessed by one doctor and another person.

What happens if the eligibility criteria is met?

If a person meets all this eligibility criteria, a life-ending “approved substance” would be prescribed.

This would be self-administered, so the individual wishing to die must take it themselves.

This is sometimes called physician-assisted dying and is different from voluntary euthanasia, when a health professional would administer the drugs.

As well as all the conditions set out above, the bill would make it illegal to pressure or coerce someone to make a declaration that they wish to end their life, or take the medicine.

These offences will be punishable by a maximum 14-year prison sentence.

How is this different from the current law?

Suicide and attempted suicide are not in themselves criminal offences. However, under section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961, it is an offence in England and Wales for a person to encourage or assist the suicide (or attempted suicide) of another.

Ms Leadbeater says the current framework is “not fit for purpose”, as people who are terminally ill and in pain only have three options – “suicide, suffering or Switzerland”.

Assisted dying has been legal in Switzerland since 1942, with the Dignitas group becoming well-known as it allows non-Swiss people to use its clinics.

There is no government-held data on the number of Britons travelling abroad for assisted dying, but other countries where a form of this is legal include the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and some US states.

Why is it being debated now in England?

The issue has gained renewed attention recently due to campaigning by broadcaster Dame Esther Rantzen. The 84-year-old Childline founder has stage-four lung cancer and revealed last year that she had signed up to Dignitas.

Over the past two decades, the debate has largely been driven by legal challenges to the current regime, brought by people who are suffering and say the current laws violate their human rights.

Parliament last considered the issue in 2015, when MPs voted down assisted dying by 330 votes to 118.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈

Ms Leadbeater has brought the issue to the fore through a private members bill, meaning it has been introduced by an MP who is not a government minister.

She wants to give people who are terminally ill and in pain a choice, insisting the bill is about “shortening death rather than ending life”.

What are the main arguments for and against?

Lots of campaigners support Ms Leadbeater’s position. The Campaign for Dignity in Dying says it will give people who are facing unbearable suffering control, so they can have a peaceful death.

They do not support a wider law, unlike My Death, My Decision, who want the bill to apply to people who are suffering with an incurable condition, even if it is not terminal.

However some people oppose any change to the current position. This can be for a variety of reasons, but one of the main arguments is the risk of a “slippery slope” – that the eligibility criteria would widen over time.

Others say good end-of-life care needs to be prioritised, and fear some people will feel pressured to opt for assisted dying if they feel like a burden to society.

Read More:
Gordon Brown says assisted dying should not be legalised
Wes Streeting to vote against assisted dying over end of life care concerns
Has assisted dying in Canada ‘crossed the line’?

How will the bill be scrutinised?

MPs will debate and vote on this bill on Friday 29 November.

It is a free vote, meaning MPs can side with their conscience and not party lines.

The government is taking a neutral position, though individual cabinet ministers have come out both strongly for and against the proposal.

If passed on Friday, the bill will have to pass many more parliamentary hurdles before it becomes law.

MPs will get a chance to debate the bill again in greater depth during its committee stage and peers will also have ample opportunity to express their views on the legislation in the House of Lords.