Peers back assisted dying bill – but battles lie ahead

Published

12 hours ago

September 19, 2025

admin

The controversial assisted dying bill is still very much alive, having received a second reading in the House of Lords without a vote.

But that doesn’t tell the whole story. Day two of debate on the bill in the Lords was just as passionate and emotional as the first, a week earlier.

And now comes the hard part for supporters of Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, as opponents attempt to make major changes in the months ahead.

The Lords’ chamber was again packed for the debate, which this time began at 10am and lasted nearly six hours. In all, during 13 hours of debate over two days, nearly 200 peers spoke.

According to one estimate, over both days of the debate only around 50 peers spoke in favour of the bill and considerably more than 100 against, with only a handful neutral.

The bill proposes allowing terminally ill adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death. Scotland’s parliament has already passed a similar law.

In a safeguard introduced in the Commons, an application would have to be approved by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior lawyer and psychiatrist.

The bill’s sponsor in the Lords, Charlie Falconer, said while peers have “a job of work to do”, elected MPs in the Commons should have the final decision on the bill, not unelected peers.

One of the most contentious moments in the first day of debate last Friday was a powerful speech by former Tory prime minister Theresa May, who said the legislation was a “licence to kill” bill.

That claim prompted angry attacks on the former PM when the debate resumed from Labour peers, who said it had left them dismayed and caused distress to many terminally ill people.

The former PM, daughter of a church of England vicar, had claimed in her speech that the proposed law was an “assisted suicide bill” and “effectively says suicide is OK”.

But opening the second day’s debate, Baroness Thornton, a lay preacher and health minister in Tony Blair’s government, said: “People have written to me in the last week, very distressed.

“They say things such as: ‘We are not suicidal – we want to live – but we are dying, and we do not have the choice or ability to change that. Assisted dying is not suicide’.”

Throughout the criticism of her strong opposition to the bill, the former PM sat rooted to her seat, not reacting visibly but looking furious as her critics attacked her.

There was opposition to the bill, too, from grandees of the Thatcher and Major cabinets. Lord Deben, formerly John Gummer and an ex-member of the Church of England synod, said the bill “empowers the state to kill”.

And Lord Chris Patten, former Tory chairman, Hong Kong governor and Oxford University chancellor, said it was an “unholy legislative mess” and could lead to death becoming the “default solution to perceived suffering”.

Day two of the debate also saw an unholy clash between Church of England bishops past and present, with former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey claiming opponents led by Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell were out of touch with public opinion.

While a large group of bishops sat in their full robes on their benches, Lord Carey suggested both the Church and the Lords would “risk our legitimacy by claiming that we know better than both the public” and the Commons.

“Do we really want to stand in the way of this bill?” he challenged peers. “It will pass, whether in this session or the next. It has commanding support from the British public and passed the elected House after an unprecedented period of scrutiny.”

But Archbishop Cottrell hit back, declaring he was confident he represented “views held by many, not just Christian leaders, but faith leaders across our nation in whom I’ve been in discussion and written to me”.

And he said the bill was wrong “because it ruptures relationships” and would “turbocharge” the agonising choices facing poor and vulnerable people.

One of the most powerful speeches came from former Tory MP Craig Mackinlay, awarded a peerage by Rishi Sunak after a dramatic Commons comeback after losing his arms and legs after a bout of sepsis.

He shocked peers by revealing that in Belgium, terminally ill children as young as nine had been euthanised. “I’m concerned we want to embed an option for death in the NHS when its modus operandi should be for life,” he said.

And appearing via video link, a self-confessed “severely disabled” Tory peer, Kevin Shinkwin, was listened to in a stunned silence as he said the legislation amounted to the “stuff of nightmares”.

He said it would give the state “a licence to kill the wrong type of people”, adding: “I’m the wrong type. This bill effectively puts a price on my head.”

After the debate, Labour peer and former MP Baroness Luciana Berger, an opponent of the bill, claimed a victory after peers accepted her proposal to introduce a special committee to examine the bill and report by 7 November.

“The introduction of a select committee is a victory for those of us that want proper scrutiny of how these new laws would work, the massive changes they could make to the NHS and how we treat people at the end of their lives,” she told Sky News.

“It’s essential that as we look at these new laws we get a chance to hear from those government ministers and professionals that would be in charge of creating and running any new assisted dying system.”

After the select committee reports, at least four sitting Fridays in the Lords have been set aside for all peers – a Committee of the whole house – to debate the bill and propose amendments.

Report stage and third reading will follow early next year, then the bill goes back to the Commons for debate on any Lords amendments. There’s then every chance of parliamentary ping pong between the two Houses.

Kim Leadbeater’s bill may have cleared an important hurdle in the Lords. But there’s still a long way to go – and no doubt a fierce battle ahead – before it becomes law.

Politics

UK and Ireland agree deal to address ‘unfinished business’ of the Troubles

Published

12 hours ago

September 19, 2025

admin

UK and Ireland agree deal to address 'unfinished business' of the Troubles

The UK and Irish governments have agreed a new framework to address the legacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles.

The framework, announced by Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn and the Irish deputy prime minister, Simon Harris, at Hillsborough Castle on Friday, replaces the controversial Legacy Act, introduced by the Conservative government.

“I believe that this framework, underpinned by new co-operation from both our governments, represents the best way forward to finally make progress on the unfinished business of the Good Friday Agreement,” said Mr Benn.

He added that it would allow the families of victims killed during violence in Northern Ireland between the 1960s and 1990s, to “find the answers they have long been seeking”.

The proposed framework includes a dedicated Legacy Commission to investigate deaths during the Troubles, a resumption of inquests regarding cases from the conflict which were halted by the Legacy Act.

There will also be a separate truth recovery mechanism, the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, jointly funded by London and Dublin.

“Dealing with the legacy of the Troubles is hard, and that is why it has been for so long the unfinished business of the Good Friday Agreement,” said Mr Benn.

Mr Harris described the framework as a “night and day improvement” on the previous act. Scrapping the Legacy Act, introduced in 2023, was a Labour government pledge.

What this means

A section of the Legacy Act offered immunity from prosecution for ex-soldiers and militants who cooperate with a new investigative body. This provision was ruled incompatible with human rights law.

The 2023 law was opposed by all political parties in Northern Ireland, including pro-British and Irish nationalist groups.

The Irish government, which brought a legal challenge against Britain at the European Court of Human Rights, also opposed it.

Both governments said the new plans will ensure it is possible to refer cases for potential prosecutions.

It will ‘take time’ to win families’ confidence

Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Harris, said in a statement that the framework could deliver on Ireland’s two tests of being human rights-compliant and securing the support of victims’ families, if implemented in good faith.

He added that winning the confidence of victims’ families would take time.

Dublin will revisit its legal challenge against Britain if the tests are met, it said.

Restoring strained relations

The UK’s Labour government had sought to reset relations with Ireland, after they were damaged by the process of Britain leaving the European Union.

The Conservative government had defended its previous approach, arguing prosecutions were unlikely to lead to convictions, and that it wanted to draw a line under the conflict.

A number of trials have collapsed in recent years, but the first former British soldier to be convicted of an offence since the peace deal was given a suspended sentenced in 2023.

Politics

Gary Gensler doubles down on crypto approach amid SEC sea change

Published

15 hours ago

September 19, 2025

admin

Gary Gensler doubles down on crypto approach amid SEC sea change

The former SEC chair and Paul Atkins, the current head of the agency, both made media appearance this week to address significant policies proposed by US President Donald Trump.

Politics

‘Diplomatic efforts’ under way to resolve Your Party row

Published

15 hours ago

September 19, 2025

admin

'Diplomatic efforts' under way to resolve Your Party row

“Diplomatic efforts” are under way to settle the row that has erupted between Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, Sky News has been told.

A source close to the pair said they were mediating behind the scenes to salvage the future of Your Party following a bitter public spat between the co-leaders.

The new left-wing outfit descended into chaos on Thursday when Mr Corbyn told followers to ignore an “unauthorised” email urging them to become paid members and said he was seeking legal advice.

Ms Sultana admitted to launching the membership portal without the former Labour leader’s sign-off but claimed she did so because she had been “sidelined” by a “sexist boys club”.

The former Labour MP had been sharing the portal on social media all morning and claimed 20,000 people had become members by Thursday afternoon.

With membership fees of £5 a week or £55 a year, that means more than £1m could have been raised before the row broke out.

Mr Corbyn told people to cancel their direct debits but Ms Sultana insisted the portal was a “safe and legitimate” way to pay.

The matter has now been referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office, who can issue fines up to £17.5m or 4% of global turnover, or pass fraud and negligence cases to police.

A spokesperson for the ICO told Sky News on Friday: “We can confirm we have received a report and are assessing the information provided.”

Timeline of the row

Suspicions were aroused after Ms Sultana started sharing the membership portal on Thursday but Mr Corbyn did not. In one tweet she told followers to ignore “right wing bad faith actors” who are “desperate to claim this link is fake”.

Mr Corbyn then issued a statement claiming the portal was not legitimate.

It said: “This morning, an unauthorised email was sent to all yourparty.uk supporters with details of a supposed membership portal hosted in a new domain name.

“Legal advice is being taken. That email should be ignored by all supporters. If any direct debits have been set up, they should be immediately cancelled.”

The statement was signed by four other independent MPs who were part of the founding process of Your Party – Ayoub Khan, Adnan Hussain, Iqbal Mohamed and Shockat Adam.

However, it was not signed by Ms Sultana, who quit Labour to launch the new left-wing party with Mr Corbyn in July.

In a statement of her own, the Coventry South MP admitted the portal did not have the “dual authorisation” of herself and Mr Corbyn “which was the agreement made at the start of this process”.

However, she added: “After being sidelined by the MPs named in today’s statement and effectively frozen out of the official accounts, I took the step of launching a membership portal so that supporters could continue to engage and organise.”

She insisted that this was a “safe, secure, legitimate portal for the party”, adding: “My sole motivation has been to safeguard the grassroots involvement that is essential to building this party.

‘Sexist boys club’

“Unfortunately, I have been subjected to what can only be described as a sexist boys’ club: I have been treated appallingly and excluded completely.”

Later that evening, Your Party said it had reported itself to the ICO, the UK’s data protection watchdog.

It claimed that a “false membership system has been unilaterally launched”, with data collected and payments taken.

It also denied Ms Sultana’s claims that she had been excluded from discussions, calling the developments a “blow for everyone who has put their hope in a real alternative”

The split was described as “messy” and “embarrassing” by many of those who gave the party their financial backing.

Sam T, who signed up to the monthly membership, told Sky News he was considering cancelling his membership and “might as well go and give £5 to someone on the street”.

‘Get behind the Greens’

The row is the latest bump in the road for a party yet to officially agree on its name, decide policies, select candidates or hold a conference.

Ms Sultana appeared to blindside Mr Corbyn when she announced the venture in early July. There have also been internal rows about the leadership model as well as clashes over different views on trans rights.

Your Party insiders had previously told Sky News they wanted to be ready to fight the local elections next May