Assisted dying bill: MPs vote after debate marked by personal stories – live

Key events

Show key events only

Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature

MPs vote on assisted dying bill

MPs are now voting.

This is the second reading division.

Kit Malthouse stood up and moved “that that question now be put”. That is a closure motion. When MPs are debating private member’s bill, supporters often have to call a closure motion vote to stop the debate being talked out and to ensure that the house can move on to a proper vote.

Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, called the closure motion by acclamation. No one opposed it, and so he moved on immediately to the second reading vote.

Alex Davies-Jones, a justice minister, is winding up now the government.

She says she is speaking not as a constituency MP, but as a minister in the department responsible for the administration of the law. She will not express her personal views now, she says. But she will be voting, she says.

If MPs vote for the bill, the government will “respect its duty to the statute book” and ensure any bill is workable.

She pays tribute to the way Kim Leadbeater has campaigned on this, and argued her case with respect and dignity.

Two frontbenchers are now winding up.

Kieran Mullan, a shadow justice minister, is summing up for the opposition. But it is a free vote, so there is no party position to sum up. Mullan says even the best pain relief cannot help some people who are dying.

But he also acknowledges that opponents of the bill, who place a premium on the sanctity of life, have a good argument.

He says MPs should vote with humility, and with respect for each vote cast, in whichever direction.

If you want to read the debate, Hansard will have full transcript online here.

At this point the online version covers all speeches up to Kit Malthouse’s. The transcript is normally about three hours behind proceedings in the Commons. The whole thing should be up by 5.30pm.

Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, calls Vikki Slade, the Lib Dem MP. He says hers will be the final speech before the wind-ups.

Kim Leadbeater makes a point of order. She says she wants to correct the record. She says in her speech earlier she said she had consulted the medical profession and the judiciary at the highest levels. She says she has been in correspondent with the Judicial Office. But she says the serving judiciary have not expressed a view on the bill, and she wants to make that clear.

The Labour MP Florence Eshalomi said that she was opposed to the bill in part because minority groups would be particularly vulnerable. She explained:

We must recognise the hard truth that health inequalities are wide and persistent. We know that black and minority ethnic disabled people have far worse health outcomes than the national average.

I’ve seen this first-hand, caring for my mother who suffered with sickle cell anaemia.

As a teenager, I would be by her side when she was in excruciating pain, explaining to a doctor who would not believe her when she told them she needed lifesaving medication, and sadly this is still the reality today.

I am reminded of the death of Evan Smith on April 25 [2019] at North Middlesex Hospital.

Evan suffered from sickle cell too. He was in so much pain that he had to ring 999 from his hospital bed because he was denied oxygen and basic care by the doctors.

Put simply: we should be helping people to live comfortable, pain-free lives on their own terms before we think about making it easier for them to die …

How can we be possibly satisfied that this bill would deliver equality and freedom in death when we do not yet have this in life?

The Green party MP Siân Berry told MPs in the debate that she was in favour of the bill.

While we don’t have to choose between this Bill and better palliative care, we do have to give dying people the right to choose which ending is right for them, so please, please vote for this bill today.

Robert Jenrick claims bill will be changed 'fundamentally' by 'activist judges in Strasbourg' if it's passed

Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, told MPs that he was opposed to the bill and that, if it passed, “activist judges in Strasbourg” would change it. He explained:

Let’s think about the role of judges. The test which is to be applied is a low one, it’s the civil law threshold, this is a balance of probabilities. This means a judge could see real risk of coercion and still sign-off this individual for assisted death; if the threshold was not reached of 50% or more, the judge would sign-off the individual.

I worry, in fact I am as certain as night follows day, this law if passed will change. Not as a result of the individuals in this chamber or in the Lords, but as a result of judges in other places.

We’ve seen that time and again. It may be on either side of the debate but it will happen. This act, if passed, will be subject to activist judges in Strasbourg [where the European court of human rights is based]. They will change it fundamentally and we have to be prepared for that. I don’t want to see that happen.

Jenrick was speaking from the backbenches, not as a party spokesperson. But when he was standing to be Conservative leader, calling for withdrawal from the ECHR was his most important policy proposal.