Assisted dying bill – latest: Historic vote is ‘beginning not the end’ of debate, says MP Kim Leadbeater

Sir David Davis, a Conservative MP, has called on the government to give MPs the time “to get this right”, adding: “If we get this right it will be one of the things we can be most proud of”.

Sir David said he was in favour of the Bill in principle and would vote for it today.

He added: “We have the example of a very wide range of outcomes of other countries who have tried this. If I think after second reading that this Bill is heading towards Belgium or Canada I would vote against.”

Sir David said there were problems with the Bill that he wanted to see fixed, such as the ability for doctors to suggest an assisted death to a patient. But he added that he was voting first on principle and urged government to give time for MPs to debate it after today’s vote.

LibDem MP Tim Farron has argued that “there are no safeguards in this Bill” to prevent coercion. He said there was a risk of “self-coercion”, with people wanting to die earlier to relieve pressure on their loved ones.

Mr Farron is saying that the countries in Europe without assisted dying have increased their spend on palliative care compared to those who have legalised it.

“To opt for assisted dying is to opt to divert resources away from palliative care,” Mr Farron argued. “Palliative care is a postcode lottery in this country, especially for the poor, especially for the old.”

On the other hand, Labour MP Marie Tidball has said she is in favour of the Bill. She told MPs that she would like control over the circumstances of her own death.

“It is right that this Bill is tightly drawn around the final stage of terminal illness for adults,” she said.

She said there are changes she would like to see at committee stage, such as a proper definition of coercion and pressure within the Bill. She said the Bill would give people “the dignity they need in that moment of death”.

The assisted dying Bill is the “wrong and rushed answer to a complex problem”, Labour MP Rachael Maskell said.

She told the Commons: “The Bill falls woefully short on safeguarding patients, too flawed to amend. It’s the wrong and rushed answer to a complex problem.”

The MP for York Central said coercion is her “greatest concern”, adding: “While we recognise coercion in relationships or elder abuse in dying – where there is malign intent – this Bill fails to safeguard.”

Ms Maskell also raised concerns about the Bill’s impact on disabled people, she said: “We fight in this House to take stigma, give dignity, equality and worth, it is why disabled people fear this Bill. It devalues them in a society where they fight to live.”

“If you stand for equality, you will recognise the safeguarding failures in this Bill,” she added.

Conservative MP Sir Edward Leigh has said that the UK needs a wider discussion about how doctors can alleviate pain at the end of life.

He told MPs: “When I talk to consultants in palliative care, they say they can manage pain.

“I really think if we are going to have a serious debate about this. I really think we need something equivalent to a royal commission to really determine what doctors can or cannot do.

“Until we clear this up, I don’t think we can make the progress that this issue deserves. We have to fund a hospice movement seriously. It is very worrying that we will fund the NHS to fund death, but we are not adequately funding our hospice movement.

“I don’t personally believe that a private members bill which only has five hours of debate…is the right mechanism.”

Sir Edward alluded to the amount of time that MPs had to debate the Rwanda Bill in the past parliament: “Surely this is even more important, surely we should have had two or three weeks or consider this Bill. The devil is in the detail in terms of possible coercion.. The law around how you can or cannot relieve pain. Cannot we just pause for a moment. This is so important, so many vulnerable people are at stake.”

Sir Edward concluded saying: “I will be voting for hope at 2:30 and I will be voting against this Bill.”

Dr Ben Spencer, a Conservative, who would have qualified to be a medical assessor under the Bill before he became an MP, said there is limited scrutiny available for the legislation proposed.

“Why is this Bill limited to the terminally ill? What even comes within the scope of terminal illness?” he asked MPs. He said that if the Bill is passed for just the terminally ill then it will be discriminatory against others who are in suffering but who are not expected to die within six months.

“Where is the line, if there is one, between indirect coercion and the national human responses in a stressed family unit looking after a sick loved one?” he added.

Dr Spencer argued that MPs were not voting on the principle of assisted dying, saying: “In reality it is a vote on the implementation as put forward in this Bill.”

“This Bill risks placing implicit pressure on people who are already vulnerable,” he argued.

Dame Meg Hillier, Labour MP, agreed that MPs were not arguing on the principle but on the text of the Bill, but raised concerns that the Bill gives unprecedented new powers to the State.

She argued: “This is a fundamental change in the relationship between the State and the citizens, and the patient and their doctor. If we have a scintilla of doubt about allowing the State that power, we should vote against it today.”

Adverts promoting assisted dying have appeared at Westminster Tube station in central London ahead of a crucial parliamentary vote.

Some ads, from campaign group Dignity in Dying, have been covered up by posters from the Samaritans, a suicide prevention charity, in protest.

Labour MP Rachael Maskell, who is against the Bill, has argued that “evidence shows that disabled and ethnic minority people experience bias in healthcare. If you stand for equality, you will recognise the lack of safeguards in this Bill.”

She told MPs: “We must beyond reasonable doubt of error when voting on this Bill…Death as with life is too precious to get this wrong.”

Layla Moran, LibDem MP and chair of the health and social care select committee, said she will be voting for the Bill “because I want this conversation to continue.”

She argued: “This is the second reading, the media is asking all of us – are you for or against this Bill?.. The question that I will be answering today is ‘do I want to keep talking about the issues in this Bill? Do I want to keep grappling with the detail until I get to third reading, when I reserve the right to vote no.’

James Cleverly, Tory MP, rose to argue that MPs were not debating the general question of assisted dying, but rather the specifics in the Bill in front of them.

He said: “We are speaking about the specifics of this Bill. This is not a general debate.. My honourable friend has highlighted numerous deficiencies.”

He put to Ms Moran: “If it is positive, why are we denying it to children?”

Ms Moran said “that is something he might like to put to the Bill committee at later stages.”

Actress and disability rights campaigner Liz Carr has said there is a “fine line between terminal illness and disability” at a protest against the assisted dying Bill outside Parliament.

Speaking from Old Palace Yard, Ms Carr, 52, who has starred in TV shows Loki and Silent Witness said: “As disabled people, there’s a really fine line between terminal illness and disability.

“Our lives go in and out of the NHS and the medical system, and I think we are probably slightly less trusting than your average person.

“We know doctors are fallible, we know mistakes are made about prognosis, and we are concerned that the power that the medical profession wields in our lives will become more uncontrolled if this Bill goes through.”

Labour MP Andrew Slaughter has said that under the Bill a terminally ill person will need to consider their decision at least eight times, assuring MPs that there are safeguards in place.

“The decision for me is about human dignity, and it is about agency, and I would like to think that even at the end of life, especially at the end of life.. That they can still exercise that agency and make those decisions for themselves,” he argued.

Tory MP Kit Malthouse has said that the “death bed for far too many is a place of misery, torture and degradation”.

On the issue of the capacity of the High Court, Mr Malthouse said it was ridiculous to suggest that “I should drown in my own fecal vomit because it is too much for the judges to deal with… they will cope as they have done all these years.”

Mr Malthouse has said that if the Bill is not passed people will continue to take their lives in painful ways, saying: “I guarantee that there will be someone over the river in St Thomas’s now who will be starving themselves to death.”