MPs knew the weight of the moment on assisted dying debate – and they met it

Published

6 months ago

November 30, 2024

admin

I have watched hundreds of hours of parliamentary debates in my long time covering Westminster and I can honestly say that the five hours of discussion I witnessed in the Commons on Friday were some of the most memorable, moving and humane exchanges I have ever seen.

Because this bear pit of a debating chamber gave way to something entirely different as MPs put party politics aside to consider the case for and against assisted dying.

This was a day when parliament showed the public its very best side in a historic debate that has set us on the path for one of the biggest societal changes in decades after MPs voted in principle to allow you the right to choose how to end your life.

It was a debate of profound disagreement that cut across party lines.

But it was also a debate in which divisions were approached with heartfelt respect for differing points of views, MPs united in sympathy for the difficult stories shared.

Conservative MP Kit Malthouse brought the House to complete silence as he recounted the story of Mark Crampton, a former chief inspector, suffering from lung disease.

“His COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) became too much for him, and so he informed his family that he was going to take his own life. He took his oxygen tank and mask and late one night went out and sat on a railway embankment.

“He wanted a death that was instant and quick that he could rely upon. He waited until two in the morning.

“Heartbreakingly, he had worked out when the last train was going, so he would minimise disruption to the public, and he took his life in lonely circumstances in the middle of the night.”

After the vote, Mr Malthouse told me he had failed to get this bill passed 10 years ago when MPs voted against assisted dying and didn’t want to fail again.

“Mark’s daughter was out in the media saying this is just not acceptable for my dad. There should have been a better way for him.

“And I agree with her, and I’ve had so many of those stories over the years. I’m not a man easily moved to tears, but I’ve sat and wept with those people, I was determined to do everything I could to try and get us here.”

But who could not be moved too by the impassioned arguments of those who opposed the bill?

Danny Kruger, who led the opposition, made one of the best speeches I can remember hearing in the Commons as he urged colleagues to vote against assisted dying.

“The bill will not just create a new option for a few, they will, and leave everyone else unaffected,” he said.

“It will impose on every person towards the end of their life, everyone who could be thought to be near death and on their family this new reality; the option of assisted suicide, the obligation to have the conversation around the bedside in whispers in the corridor – is it time – and it will change life and death for everyone.”

This is a debate that touches all our lives

It evoked for me the end of life of my mother, my brother and my best friend, all of whom died of terminal cancer: would we have had that conversation, and what might that have meant?

I imagine that many of you reading this who have gone through similar experiences might have thought the same – contemplating a reality you never wanted to live and a conversation you’d never want to have.

Because this is a debate, a vote, that touches all of our lives.

Kim Leadbeater made the point in her opening argument that this bill was “not about people who are choosing between life and death – it is about giving dying people who have got six months or less to live, autonomy about how they die, and the choice to shorten their death.”

She is right that, should this bill pass into law, it will be limited in scope with only terminally ill people with less than six months to live given the option to end their lives.

Moving in line with public opinion

But it is, too, a moment of profound social change, as significant as the Abortion Act of 1967.

It will give some of us the right to choose when we die. And there is great anxiety about what that might mean for the most vulnerable in our society, and whether it might become the thin end of the wedge, as well as an acknowledgement that many people want to have that right.

A decade ago, MPs voted overwhelmingly against assisted dying. On Friday they voted in favour, moving in line with public opinion which backs this bill.

This of course is only the first hurdle and just the start of a national conversation we will all be having in the coming months about end-of-life care and the mechanism and safeguards around assisted dying.

MPs on Friday voted for the principle of assisted dying.

Now they have to take the bill through committee and report stages before MPs have the chance to vote on it again and pass it into law.

Parliament can feel abstract – this will affect all of us

The committee of members who will scrutinise the bill will be a cross-section of views, and the government has committed to supporting the workability of the bill.

It will – says Ms Leadbeater, who introduced this bill – be “open to amendments and open to scrutiny”. She hopes the bill will become law within six months.

Parliament and politics can perhaps feel very abstract to your lives. But this was a vote that will matter for every single one of us.

MPs knew the weight of that and met the moment, showing us they were able to handle complex issues with humanity, humility and grace.

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

It has begun something else, too: a conversation about the state of palliative and hospice care in our country and how our loved ones should die. Losing a loved one happens to us all but those conversations, that grief, is all too often hidden behind closed doors.

This historic vote on a momentous day is now just the start of a bigger discussion in this country about how we approach death and how we might try to do it better

Politics

Royal College of Psychiatrists pulls support for assisted dying bill

Published

1 hour ago

May 14, 2025

admin

Royal College of Psychiatrists pulls support for assisted dying bill

The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) has pulled its support for the assisted dying bill.

The announcement is a blow to supporters of the bill ahead of its return to the House of Commons on Friday.

It comes as plans to legalise assisted dying in Scotland passed the first stage this week.

Dr Lade Smith, president of the RCP, said: “The RCP has reached the conclusion that we are not confident in the Terminally Ill Adults Bill in its current form, and we therefore cannot support the Bill as it stands.”

The move is significant because, under the bill’s current stipulations, a panel including a psychiatrist would oversee assisted dying cases.

The RCP outlined a number of issues it had with the current bill, including: the bill not making provision for unmet needs, whether assisted suicide is classed as a treatment or not, what the psychiatrists’ specific role on the panel would be, and the increased demand the bill puts on psychiatrists.

If the college support remains withdrawn, and the bill passes, it isn’t clear what effects it may have.

Kim Leadbeater, the MP behind the bill, has confirmed it will include a clause that means anyone who does not want to be involved in the process will not have to do so.

Supporters of the bill argue it would ease the suffering of dying people, while opponents argue it would fail to safeguard some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Questions over the bill

The more prominent role of a psychiatrist in the bill came about after a previous amendment.

Initially, the bill said that after two independent doctors approved an assisted dying case, it would then need to be further approved by a High Court judge.

But MPs on the parliamentary committee scrutinising the bill voted to remove that clause in March.

Instead, Ms Leadbeater proposed a voluntary assisted dying commissioner that included an expert panel with a psychiatrist.

She said this was a “strength, not a weakness,” but opponents of the bill disagreed, saying removing the High Court judge “fundamentally weakens protections for the vulnerable”.

However, amid changes and amendments to the original bill, there has been growing concern about safeguarding and timeframes, Sky News political correspondent Ali Fortescue reported.

Friday’s debate was already delayed from 25 April, to give MPs more time to consider amendments.

If the bill passes on Friday, it will move to the House of Lords, where it will undergo similar legislative stages, and if it passes that too, it won’t come into effect until at least 2029, after its implementation was delayed.

Politics

Civil service relocation and AI officials at heart of government cost cutting measures

Published

4 hours ago

May 14, 2025

admin

Civil service relocation and AI officials at heart of government cost cutting measures

AI civil servants and sending human workers out of London are at the heart of the government’s plans to cut costs and reduce the size of the state bureaucracy.

Shrinking the civil service has been a target of both the current Labour and recent Conservative governments – especially following the growth in the organisation during the pandemic.

From a low in 2016 of 384,000 full time workers, in 2024 there were 513,000 civil servants.

Politics latest: Your views on PM’s migration speech

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is claiming a new swathe of tools to help sift information submitted to public consultations could save “75,000 days of manual analysis every year” – roughly the work of 333 civil servants.

However, the time saved is expected to free up existing civil servants to do other work.

The suite of AI tools are known as “Humphrey”, after Humphrey Appleby, the fictional civil servant in the TV comedy Yes, Prime Minister.

The government has previously said the introduction of AI would help reduce the civil service headcount – with hopes it could save as much as £45bn.

Speaking today, Technology Secretary Peter Kyle appeared to take aim at expensive outsourcing contracts, saying: “No one should be wasting time on something AI can do quicker and better, let alone wasting millions of taxpayer pounds on outsourcing such work to contractors.”

Move outside of London

Other money-saving plans announced today include moving 12,000 civil servants out of London and into regional hubs – with the government hoping it can save almost £100m by 2032 by not having to pay for expensive leases of prime office space in the capital.

Currently, 95,000 full time civil servants work in London.

Tens of millions of pounds a year are expected to be saved by the closure of 102 Petty France, which overlooks St James’s Park, and 39 Victoria Street, which is near the previous location of New Scotland Yard.

In total, 11 London offices are slated for closure, with workers being relocated to the likes of Aberdeen, Belfast, Darlington, Bristol, Manchester and Cardiff.

The reforms of the civil service are being led by Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden – one of Sir Keir Starmer’s most influential ministers.

Mr McFadden said: “To deliver our plan for change, we are taking more decision-making out of Whitehall and moving it closer to communities all across the UK.

“By relocating thousands of civil service roles we will not only save taxpayers money, we will make this government one that better reflects the country it serves. We will also be making sure that government jobs support economic growth throughout the country.

“As we radically reform the state, we are going to make it much easier for talented people everywhere to join the civil service and help us rebuild Britain.”

The government says it wants senior civil servants out of the capital too – with the aim being that half of UK-based senior officials work in regional offices by the end of the decade.

The government claims the relocations and growth of regional hubs could add as much as £729m to local economies by 2030.

Union welcome – cautiously

Unions appear to cautiously welcome the changes being proposed.

All of Prospect, the PCS and the FDA say it is positive to see better opportunities outside of the capital.

However, they have asked for clarity around whether roles may be lost and what will be offered to people transferring.

👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne’s on your podcast app👈

Fran Heathcote, the general secretary of the PCS union, said: “If these government proposals are to be successful however, it’s important they do the right thing by workers currently based in London.

“That must include guarantees of no compulsory redundancies, no compulsory relocations and access to more flexible working arrangements to enable them to continue their careers should they wish to do so.”

Politics

US lawmakers call for change in corporate digital asset taxes

Published

6 hours ago

May 13, 2025

admin

US lawmakers call for change in corporate digital asset taxes

Two US senators are calling on Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to “exercise [the department’s] authority” and change a provision affecting taxes on corporate holdings of digital assets.

In a May 12 letter, Senators Cynthia Lummis and Bernie Moreno suggested Bessent had the authority to change the definition of “adjusted financial statement income” under existing US law in a way that could reduce what digital asset companies pay in taxes. The proposed adjustment was suggested as a way to modify a provision of the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law in 2022.

“Our edge in digital finance is at risk if US companies are taxed more than foreign competitors,” said Lummis in a May 13 X post.

Cryptocurrencies, Law, Taxes, Senate — *May 12 letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Source:* *Cynthia Lummis*

According to the two senators, the proposed modification would provide “relief to corporations that invest in digital assets.” Lummis has been one of the most outspoken digital asset advocates in Congress, while Moreno took office in January after crypto-backed political action committees spent roughly $40 million to support his 2024 Senate race.

The Inflation Reduction Act, which went into effect in 2023, imposes a 15% minimum tax on companies that report more than $1 billion in profits for three consecutive years. The measure would seemingly include unrealized crypto gains and losses, leading to Lummis’ and Moreno’s calls for the Treasury Department to “act swiftly.”

Senate awaiting second vote on stablecoin bill

The call from the two senators came as lawmakers in the Senate are expected to consider another vote on the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, or GENIUS Act — legislation to regulate payment stablecoins in the US. A motion for consideration failed to move forward in the Senate on May 8 due to Democratic lawmakers pushing back on Donald Trump’s ties to the crypto industry.

Lummis, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, suggested that she would continue to support digital asset regulation. The Senate could take up another vote in a matter of days.

Magazine: Best and worst countries for crypto taxes — plus crypto tax tips