MPs reject assisted dying bill after tense debate – UK politics live

Key events

Three Labour MPs who opposed the assisted dying bill have warned it is “not a moment for celebration”, as they called on the government to “sort out social and palliative care”.

In a statement following the Commons vote, Ashley Dalton, Meg Hillier and Jess Asato said:

MPs have voted against this bill because it wasn’t an abstract debate but a decision about a real bill that was unsafe and unworkable.

But this is not a moment for celebration, we understand the deep concerns of so many people across the country who have campaigned hard for a change in the law.

But the truth is none of the relevant royal medical colleges, professional groups or experts will attest to the safety or workability of this bill.

The PM is right; we must fix our NHS and sort out social and palliative care before we even consider introducing assisted dying.

The rejection of assisted dying legislation is “hugely disappointing”, the bill’s sponsor Lauren Edwards said.

She accused parliament of having “dropped the ball” and described the current law as “simply too cruel and too unjust to be allowed to stand”.

She added:

This is a hugely disappointing result – not for me but for the many thousands of terminally ill people and their loved ones who were given hope when the Commons voted for this bill last year.

It is all the more heartbreaking for them because support for choice at the end of life is still as strong in parliament as it was before. The objections raised today were not about the principle of assisted dying but about parliamentary process.

The public, who strongly support a change in the law, will not understand why that couldn’t happen because a minority in the House of Lords used procedural devices to block it and MPs baulked at insisting that they do their job.

Assisted dying will come in this country, as it is already doing all across the world, but not soon enough.

Parliament has dropped the ball today. It will be picked up again as it must be, because the law as it stands is simply too cruel and too unjust to be allowed to stand.

Further to our earlier report on the row between Reform UK and the Conservatives over security patrols near a military base housing asylum seekers (see post at 12:28), we have a comment from Peter Harris, leader of Essex county council.

He said: “Operation Vanguard is a positive and proportionate response to the concerns residents have been raising for many months now regarding the daily bussing of asylum seekers from Wethersfield to Braintree, Colchester and Chelmsford.

“Concerns for community safety are clearly there, particularly among women and girls, because of the daily gatherings of asylum seekers – gatherings which will increase in number and size as the facility expands.”

The disability rights group Assist Us To Live said today’s vote was “a victory for disabled people, terminally ill people, and everyone this bill would have put at risk”.

In a statement, the group said: “As disabled people, we fight every day just to get support to eat, wash, leave our homes, and work, while palliative and social care systems remain dangerously underfunded.

“We thank MPs for assisting us to live, and we’re ready to work with government to deliver the reforms we’ve been demanding.”

Assisted dying campaigners react in front of parliament after MPs voted down the bill:

We have some reaction from charities on the Commons vote, after MPs rejected a draft law to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales.

Toby Porter, CEO of Hospice UK, said:

We recognise that today’s vote will be deeply disappointing for those who have supported a change in the law. But there is so much that can be done to improve choice at the end of the life by investing in end of life care, including funding to hospices. This would dramatically improve the choices available to the 150,000 people in England and Wales who currently do not receive the palliative care they need.

Right now nearly 60% of hospices in England have made, or are considering, cuts to frontline services at a time when demand is growing. This means more and more people are going without the care and support they need.

While the proposed legislation on assisted dying will not progress, as a society we must not lose focus on the urgent need to fix the hospice funding crisis. Opponents and supporters of the bill must now channel their energy and passion into fixing it, to ensure everyone can get the end of life care they need.

The prime minister has recently stated the need to fix palliative care funding. His support is welcome, but his words must now be accompanied by meaningful action.”

Steve Smith, CEO of St Christopher’s Hospice, said:

Today’s vote does not change the urgent need to improve funding for hospice and palliative care.

Whatever the future of the assisted dying debate, everyone approaching the end of life should be able to access high-quality care, wherever they live and regardless of their circumstances.

St Christopher’s remains neutral on whether the law should change, but the government must now follow through on the cross-party recognition of the pressures facing hospices by delivering fair, sustainable and consistent funding before more services are forced to close or cut back.”

MPs vote against assisted dying bill

MPs have voted against legislation that would have allowed terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with six months or less to live, to seek medical assistance to end their lives.

The bill was defeated by 286 votes to 270, a majority of 16.

The result represents a setback for supporters of assisted dying, after MPs backed the legislation by 314 votes to 291 in the previous Commons vote in June 2025.

The bill will not proceed in its current form following the Commons vote.

There’s been some confusion in parliament today. MPs just voted – and while many interpreted that as a vote on the bill itself, it was rather on whether lawmakers want to proceed towards a vote on the bill.

They’re now leaving the chamber to make their decisions on the bill.

The debate has ended and MPs are now voting on the assisted dying bill. The results are expected in the next couple of minutes.

Some MPs have drawn on deeply personal experiences as they debate the assisted dying bill in the Commons.

In this video, Claire Hazelgrove said her mother died alone last October after living with a rare blood cancer for half of her life, while Ashley Dalton, who has been diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, argued the bill does not adequately protect people with treatable depression who also have a terminal illness:

The Green party leader Zack Polanski also said he is considering building a stockpile for upcoming extreme weather brought on by the biggest El Niño in 1,000 years, a meteorological phenomenon which supercharges floods and droughts.

He said:

The climate crisis is very much on the ballot in this election. We know that in this constituency, people care even more about the climate crisis than the national average.

He said he is “already talking about” the proposed Jackdaw gasfield on the doorstep in the constituency. It is widely expected prime minister Andy Burnham will allow the gas field to be drilled, despite recommendations from climate experts not to allow new drilling in the North Sea.

“People are incensed at the idea that they’ve got this new prime minister who is going to continue to drill for new oil and gas,” Polanski added.

“It’s a very, very strong way for anyone who cares about the climate crisis and wants to see better action and more effective action from the government to vote Green.”

Read more:

The Guardian just sat down with Zack Polanski to interview him after he was selected for the Holborn and St Pancras by-election.

He suggested Andy Burnham “misunderstands” London, because it is thought of as a wealthy area.

He said:

I don’t think he’s necessarily anti-London. I think regional inequality absolutely exists, and coming from Manchester, I really recognise that.

I also think what’s often missed is somewhere like Holborn and St Pancras, people assume that it’s a wealthy constituency, but actually child poverty rates are at 47% which is one of the biggest around the country.

David Lammy, the former deputy prime minister, said this week that “hipsters” could be the reason he loses his seat in Tottenham.

Polanski said:

David Lammy has been insulting the people of Tottenham for years now, and I think this is another example of that. I think the reason why David Lammy might lose his seat to the Greens alongside many Labour MPs, even under an Andy Burnham government, is that lots of people are struggling with their rents, but this government has already ruled out rent controls.

Lots of people are struggling with their water bills and are sick to death of seeing water companies like Thames Water pump sewage into our rivers and seas and charges extra for a privilege. And what we’re getting is vague hand waving over public control rather than actual public ownership.

And we’re seeing a government that’s still arresting pensioners for holding placards that are opposing a genocide or saying I support Palestine Action, so it’s not because of hipsters.

Ofcom has warned broadcasters they must comply with the rules for election-related programming ahead of the by-election in Holborn and St Pancras on 8 October.

The election is due to be held following the resignation of former prime minister Keir Starmer from the House of Commons on 1 September.

The watchdog highlighted section five of the Broadcasting Code on due impartiality and section six on elections and referendums.

Due impartiality means that news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.

Section six aims to ensure that the special impartiality requirements in the Communications Act 2003 and other legislation relating to broadcasting on elections and referendums, are applied at the time of elections and referendums.

The rules in section six of the Code apply when Ofcom determines that the election period has started.

In other news, Essex county council’s Reform UK leader Peter Harris has been accused by Conservative Tom Cunningham of “stoking division” over plans for a private security force to patrol near a former military base housing hundreds of asylum seekers.

Cunningham, the leader of Braintree district council, said Harris was taking a “confrontational approach” with the controversial three-month security trial to “protect” local residents near MDP Wethersfield, a former military base situated outside the village of the same name in north Essex.

In a strongly worded open letter to Harris, Cunningham condemned the plan for private security guards to patrol the area in a plan dubbed Operation Vanguard by Reform UK. In his letter, he points out that there are already eight police and community-led initiatives to tackle crime locally, that asylum seekers in Wethersfield have been victims of some crimes and that Braintree town centre is experiencing less crime than three years ago.

He said he has been told that Essex police do not wish officers to undertake joint patrols with the security company which implements Operation Vanguard.

“It is a cornerstone of our democracy that the police uphold the law without fear of favour. To then introduce a private security firm on the streets of Essex with the specific task of protecting one section of society risks undermining these efforts,” he wrote.

“Your own equalities comprehensive impact assessment report on this proposal highlights the risk to racial discrimination.”

He asked if the private contractors would also be policing anti-migrant “auditors” who produce critical online content about asylum seekers. He said due to concerns about their behaviour police are considering enforcement action against these auditors.

“Tasking contractors with no more powers than members of the public to patrol the streets targeting a particular demographic simply serves to stoke division and heighten concerns, rather than allay them,” he wrote.

He urged Harris to work collaboratively rather than adopt a confrontational approach.

Essex county council has been approached for comment.

Terminally ill people are already travelling abroad to seek assisted death, says Benn

Labour MP and former Northern Ireland secretary Hilary Benn, who supports the assisted dying bill, said there were already people with terminal illnesses taking their own lives who were not afforded the protections set out in the draft legislation.

He told the Commons that there is a route available to some people who want to end their lives, specifically Switzerland, where assisted dying is permitted in certain circumstances.

He said:

The biggest contradiction of all for me is the fact that there are those who travel abroad. We know this is happening, and I think it’s a very uncomfortable fact for those who oppose the bill for this reason. I think it’s a gaping hole in the argument against the bill.

The truth is that the Crown Prosecution Service was faced with a terrible dilemma, they could see the number of people going to Switzerland, and they had to ask themselves, are we actually going to prosecute mums, dads, spouses, lovers, friends, brothers and sisters for going with those that they love to be with them at the end?

And that is how they came to draw up their guidelines. And if you read them, for me, they’re full of common sense, because they say in these circumstances it’s not in the public interest to prosecute someone. And if you look at the figures, the vast majority of family members who’ve accompanied their loved ones to Switzerland have not, quite rightly, in my view, been prosecuted for what I would regard as a final act of love.”

Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran said she would vote in favour of the assisted dying bill, saying it would improve palliative care.

She told MPs that she did not believe palliative care would have been included in the government’s modern service framework for end-of-life care “if it wasn’t for this bill forcing it to”.

The chair of the health and social care select committee added:

I further don’t believe that the NHS – with all of its issues and competing priorities, let alone the competing political priorities that this government has, and any other governments that may come after it in the next four years – that palliative care, without the pressure of a bill like this, is going to improve as fast as we want it to.

And so I say to members this: I do not believe that this is an either/or proposition. I want palliative care to improve. Therefore, I will be voting for this bill.”