MPs to debate assisted dying bill again after major changes

11 minutes ago Share Save Sam Francis Political reporter Harry Farley Political correspondent Share Save

Getty Images

MPs will debate a bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales for the first time since significant changes were made to it. The bill passed the first stage of the Commons last November – but since then the details have been pored over and dozens of amendments added by both sides. A vote to pass or reject the bill is not likely to take place on Friday, but rather in June. Friday's debate comes as the government quietly made changes to its impact assessment on assisted dying, admitting errors in calculating how many people could take up the service if it becomes law.

It reduced its upper estimate for the number of assisted deaths in the first year from 787 to 647. Several MPs opposed to the bill have described the process as "chaotic". But Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the bill, said it was coming back to the Commons "even stronger". She urged MPs to "grasp this opportunity with both hands". "The law as it stands is not working for dying people or their loved ones; that much is clear," she said. "A majority of MPs recognised this when they backed my bill in November. When they come to debate it once again today, they can be confident that it returns even stronger." Leadbeater's Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – which would allow some terminally ill adults in England and Wales to choose to end their own lives – cleared its first parliamentary hurdle by 330 to 275 votes back in November. Since then, the bill has gone through six months of intense scrutiny by a parliamentary committee and several changes, including removing the need for a High Court judge to sign off each request for an assisted death. Instead, a panel of experts - including a legal professional, psychiatrist and social worker - would oversee the process. Another amendment would prevent doctors from discussing the option of an assisted death with under 18s, unless the patient has raised it first. MPs have been given a free vote, meaning they can decide based on their conscience rather than having to follow a party line. The issue has split Parliament, with strong opinions on both sides. Those opposed to assisted dying say the mood has altered among MPs, but so far only a handful have said they've changed their minds since November and it would take dozens to block the bill. The Commons is unlikely to vote to give the bill final approval until 13 June at the earliest.

On 2 May, the government published its long-awaited impact report on the bill - projecting NHS savings ranging from £919,000 to £10.3 million. But on Wednesday, officials published a "correction notice" at the bottom of the 150-page document. The change revises the upper estimate for the number of assisted deaths in the first year after the bill is published from up to 787 to 647. Labour MP Melanie Ward, who previously voted against the bill, told the BBC: "This shows just how chaotic this whole process has been. "With the bill being amended by supporters just days before it is debated and the impact assessment being quietly corrected, MPs on either side of the debate can't really know what they are being asked to vote on. "It calls into question again whether this bill is fit for purpose and whether this private member's bill process is suited to deal with such significant and profound issues of life and death." Independent peer Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, who has campaigned against the bill and will get a vote if the bill goes to the Lords, said it had been "very disappointing to see this process". The amended impact assessment "has come out the night before very important debates," she said. "It might make the numbers look marginally better but it's a significant error - what else have they got wrong?" Meanwhile, Sarah Pochin, Reform's newest MP after winning the Runcorn by-election earlier this month, confirmed she would support the bill, telling ITV she was "confident" there were enough checks and balances to ensure terminally ill people were protected.

Broadcaster Dame Esther Rantzen, who has been campaigning for assisted dying after revealing her terminal lung cancer diagnosis last year, accused opponents of having "undeclared personal religious beliefs which mean no precautions would satisfy" their concerns. Labour MP Jess Asato, who voted against the bill, described Dame Esther's comments as "particularly distasteful" and "disrespectful to those with faith and without".

If assisted dying does become legal in England and Wales, it would be a historic change for society. Current laws prevent medics from helping any patient to carry out their wish to die. On Tuesday, a separate bill to legalise assisted dying in Scotland passed an initial vote.

The new bill in England and Wales would allow any doctor to be involved in assisted dying. GPs are often a large part of the practice in countries where it is legal. A BBC investigation found family doctors in England are deeply divided on the issue. Of the 1,000 GPs who responded to a survey conducted by the BBC, 500 said they were against an assisted dying law, with 400 saying they were in favour. The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) said it believed there were "concerning deficiencies" with the bill that would need addressing, including tougher safeguards such as using doctors known to the patient for prognosis, face-to-face checks to prevent coercion and no cuts to other care. Earlier this week, the Royal College of Psychiatrists said it had "serious concerns" and could not support the bill in its current form. Both colleges said they remained neutral on the principle of assisted dying.

Is there a genocide of white South Africans as Trump claims?

2 hours ago Share Save Farouk Chothia BBC News Share Save

Reuters

US President Donald Trump has given members of South Africa's Afrikaner community refugee status, alleging that a genocide was taking place in the country. Nearly 60 of them have arrived in the US after being granted asylum. The South African government allowed the US embassy to consider their applications inside the country, and let the group board a chartered flight from the main international airport in Johannesburg - not scenes normally associated with refugees fleeing persecution.

Who are the Afrikaners?

South African History Online sums up their identity by pointing out that "the modern Afrikaner is descended mainly from Western Europeans who settled on the southern tip of Africa during the middle of the 17th Century". A mixture of Dutch (34.8%), German (33.7%) and French (13.2%) settlers, they formed a "unique cultural group" which identified itself "completely with African soil", South African History Online noted. Their language, Afrikaans, is quite similar to Dutch. But as they planted their roots in Africa, Afrikaners, as well as other white communities, forced black people to leave their land. Afrikaners are also known as Boers, which actually means farmer, and the group is still closely associated with farming. In 1948, South Africa's Afrikaner-led government introduced apartheid, or apartness, taking racial segregation to a more extreme level. This included laws which banned marriages across racial lines, reserved many skilled and semi-skilled jobs for white people, and forced black people to live in what were called townships and homelands. They were also denied a decent education, with Afrikaner leader Hendrik Verwoerd infamously remarking in the 1950s that "blacks should never be shown the greener pastures of education. They should know their station in life is to be hewers of wood and drawers of water". Afrikaner dominance of South Africa ended in 1994, when black people were allowed to vote for the first time in a nationwide election, bringing Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress (ANC) to power. Afrikaners currently number more than 2.5 million out of a population of more than 60 million - about 4%.

Is a genocide being committed?

AFP via Getty Images Afrikaners make up about 4% of South Africa's population

None of South Africa's political parties - including those that represent Afrikaners and the white community in general - have claimed that there is a genocide in South Africa. But such claims have been circulating among right-wing groups for many years and Trump also referred to a genocide during his first term. The claims stem from attacks on white farmers, or misleading information circulated online. In February, a South African judge dismissed the idea of a genocide as "clearly imagined" and "not real", when ruling in an inheritance case involving a wealthy benefactor's donation to white supremacist group Boerelegioen. South Africa does not release crime figures based on race but the latest figures revealed that 6,953 people were murdered in the country between October and December 2024. Of these, 12 were killed in farm attacks. Of the 12, one was a farmer, while five were farm dwellers and four were employees, who are likely to have been black.

What have Trump and Musk said?

Defending his decision to give Afrikaners refugee status, Trump said that a "genocide" was taking place in South Africa, white farmers were being "brutally killed" and their "land is being confiscated". Trump said that he was not sure how he could attend the G20 summit of world leaders, due to be held in South Africa later this year, in such an environment. "I don't know how we can go unless that situation's taken care of," he added. South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa has said it was "completely false" to claim that "people of a certain race or culture are being targeted for persecution". Referring to the first group who have moved to the US, he said: "They are leaving because they don't want to embrace the changes that are taking place in our country and our constitution." The government denies that land is being confiscated from farmers, saying that a bill Ramaphosa signed into law in January was aimed at addressing the land dispossession that black people faced during white-minority rule. But the law has been condemned by the Democratic Alliance (DA), Ramaphosa's main coalition partner in government. The DA say it will challenge the law in South Africa's highest court, as it threatens property rights. Trump's close adviser Elon Musk, who was born in South Africa, has referred to the country's "racist ownership laws", alleging that his satellite internet service provider Starlink was "not allowed to operate in South Africa simply because I'm not black". To operate in South Africa, Starlink needs to obtain network and service licences, which both require 30% ownership by historically disadvantaged groups. This mainly refers to South Africa's majority black population, which was shut out of the economy during the racist system of apartheid. The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) - a regulatory body in the telecommunications and broadcasting sectors - told the BBC that Starlink had never submitted an application for a licence. Musk has also accused the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), the fourth-largest party in South Africa, of "actively promoting" a genocide through a song it sings at its rallies. Racially charged row between Musk and South Africa over Starlink

Why does a political party sing about shooting Boers?

Gallo Images via Getty Images Julius Malema is a controversial politician who advocates the nationalisation of land in South Africa

EFF leader Julius Malema's trademark song is "Shoot the Boer, Shoot the farmer", which he sings at political rallies. Afrikaner lobby groups have tried to get the song banned, saying it was highly inflammatory and amounted to hate speech. However, South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal has ruled that Malema is within his rights to sing the lyrics - first popularised during the anti-apartheid struggle - at political rallies. The court ruled that a "reasonably well-informed person" would understand that when "protest songs are sung, even by politicians, the words are not meant to be understood literally, nor is the gesture of shooting to be understood as a call to arms or violence". Instead, the song was a "provocative way" of advancing the EFF's political agenda - which was to end "land and economic injustice". Lobby group AfriForum filed an appeal against the ruling, but South Africa's highest court refused to hear the case, saying it had little chance of succeeding. In 2023, South Africa's former President Thabo Mbeki urged Malema to stop singing the song, saying it was no longer politically relevant as the anti-apartheid struggle was over. The ANC says it no longer sings it, but it cannot "prescribe to other political parties what they must sing".

Do most Afrikaners want to move to the US?

Reuters Some Afrikaners see US President Donald Trump as an ally

It doesn't look like it. In March, a business group said that close to 70,000 Afrikaners had expressed interest in moving to the US following Trump's offer - from an estimated population of 2.5 million. On Monday, the US embassy in South Africa released a statement clarifying the criteria for resettlement, saying it covered people from any racial minority, not just Afrikaners, who could cite an incident of past persecution or fear of persecution in the future. South Africa's most recent census, done in 2022, shows that Coloureds, (an officially used term meaning people of mixed racial origin) are the largest minority, making up 8% of the population. They are followed by white people, including Afrikaners, at 7%, and Asians at 3%. After Trump's offer, Afrikaner lobby group Solidarity posted an article on its website headlined: "Ten historical reasons to stay in South Africa". In parliament last week, the leader of the right-wing Freedom Front Plus party said they were committed to South Africa. "We are bound to Africa and will build a future for ourselves and our children here," Corné Mulder said.

You may also be interested in:

Getty Images/BBC

How India and Pakistan share one of the world's most dangerous borders

2 hours ago Share Save Soutik Biswas • @soutikBBC India correspondent Share Save

AFP A man stands inside his shell-hit home in Salamabad, Uri, near the Line of Control in Indian-administered Kashmir

To live along the Line of Control (LoC) - the volatile de facto border that separates India and Pakistan - is to exist perpetually on the razor's edge between fragile peace and open conflict. The recent escalation after the Pahalgam attack brought India and Pakistan to the brink once again. Shells rained down on both sides of the LoC, turning homes to rubble and lives into statistics. At least 16 people were reportedly killed on the Indian side, while Pakistan claims 40 civilian deaths, though it remains unclear how many were directly caused by the shelling. "Families on the LoC are subjected to Indian and Pakistani whims and face the brunt of heated tensions," Anam Zakaria, a Pakistani writer based in Canada, told the BBC. "Each time firing resumes many are thrust into bunkers, livestock and livelihood is lost, infrastructure - homes, hospitals, schools - is damaged. The vulnerability and volatility experienced has grave repercussions for their everyday lived reality," Ms Zakaria, author of a book on Pakistan-administered Kashmir, said. India and Pakistan share a 3,323km (2,064-mile) border, including the 740km-long LoC; and the International Border (IB), spanning roughly 2,400km. The LoC began as the Ceasefire Line in 1949 after the first India-Pakistan war, and was renamed under the 1972 Simla Agreement. The LoC cutting through Kashmir - claimed in full and administered in parts by both India and Pakistan - remains one of the most militarised borders in the world. Conflict is never far behind and ceasefires are only as durable as the next provocation. Ceasefire violations here can range from "low-level firing to major land grabbing to surgical strikes", says Happymon Jacob, a foreign policy expert at Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). (A land grab could involve seizing key positions such as hilltops, outposts, or buffer zones by force.) The LoC, many experts say, is a classic example of a "border drawn in blood, forged through conflict". It is also a line, as Ms Zakaria says, "carved by India and Pakistan, and militarised and weaponised, without taking Kashmiris into account".

Getty Images A man inspects his damaged house in Neelum Valley in Pakistan-administered Kashmir

Such wartime borders aren't unique to South Asia. Sumantra Bose, a professor of international and comparative politics at the London School of Economics, says the most well-known is the 'Green Line' - the ceasefire line of 1949 - which is the generally recognised boundary between Israel and the West Bank. Not surprisingly, the tentative calm along the LoC that had endured since the 2021 ceasefire agreement between the two nuclear-armed neighbours crumbled easily after the latest hostilities. "The current escalation on the LoC and International Border (IB) is significant as it follows a four-year period of relative peace on the border," Surya Valliappan Krishna of Carnegie India told the BBC. Violence along the India-Pakistan border is not new - prior to the 2003 ceasefire, India reported 4,134 violations in 2001 and 5,767 in 2002. The 2003 ceasefire initially held, with negligible violations from 2004 to 2007, but tensions resurfaced in 2008 and escalated sharply by 2013. Between 2013 and early 2021, the LoC and the IB witnessed sustained high levels of conflict. A renewed ceasefire in February 2021 led to an immediate and sustained drop in violations through to March 2025. "During periods of intense cross-border firing we've seen border populations in the many thousands be displaced for months on end," says Mr Krishna. Between late September and early December 2016, more than 27,000 people were displaced from border areas due to ceasefire violations and cross-border firing.

Getty Images A Kashmiri woman stands inside her shell-damaged home in Salamabad, near the LoC in Uri

It's looking increasingly hairy and uncertain now. Tensions flared after the Pahalgam attack, with India suspending the key water-sharing treaty between India and Pakistan, known as the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT). Pakistan responded by threatening to exit the 1972 Simla Agreement, which formalised the LoC - though it hasn't followed through yet. "This is significant because the Simla Agreement is the basis of the current LoC, which both sides agreed to not alter unilaterally in spite of their political differences," says Mr Krishna. Mr Jacob says for some "curious reason", ceasefire violations along the LoC have been absent from discussions and debates about escalation of conflict between the two countries. "It is itself puzzling how the regular use of high-calibre weapons such as 105mm mortars, 130 and 155mm artillery guns and anti-tank guided missiles by two nuclear-capable countries, which has led to civilian and military casualties, has escaped scholarly scrutiny and policy attention," Mr Jacob writes in his book, Line On Fire: Ceasefire Violations and India-Pakistan Escalation Dynamics. Mr Jacob identifies two main triggers for the violations: Pakistan often uses cover fire to facilitate militant infiltration into Indian-administered Kashmir, which has witnessed an armed insurgency against Indian rule for over three decades. Pakistan, in turn, accuses India of unprovoked firing on civilian areas. He argues that ceasefire violations along the India-Pakistan border are less the product of high-level political strategy and more the result of local military dynamics. The hostilities are often initiated by field commanders - sometimes with, but often without, central approval. He also challenges the notion that the Pakistan Army alone drives the violations, pointing instead to a complex mix of local military imperatives and autonomy granted to border forces on both sides. Some experts believe It's time to revisit an idea shelved nearly two decades ago: turning the LoC into a formal, internationally recognised border. Others insist that possibility was never realistic - and still isn't.

Getty Images Residents of Bakoat village near the LoC in Pakistan-administered Kashmir prepare bunkers for protection from cross-border fire

Top Australian soldier loses appeal over war crimes defamation case

45 minutes ago Share Save Share Save

Getty Images Ben Roberts-Smith's defamation case has been called the "trial of the century"

Australia's most-decorated living soldier Ben Roberts-Smith, has lost an appeal against a landmark defamation judgement which found he committed war crimes. A judge in 2023 ruled that news articles alleging the Victoria Cross recipient had murdered four unarmed Afghans were true, but Mr Roberts-Smith had argued the judge made legal errors. The civil trial was the first time in history any court has assessed claims of war crimes by Australian forces. A panel of three Federal Court judges on Friday upheld the original verdict.

Mr Roberts-Smith, who left the defence force in 2013, maintains his innocence and has not been charged over any of the claims in a criminal court, where there is a higher burden of proof. The former special forces corporal sued three Australian newspapers over a series of articles alleging serious misconduct while he was deployed in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012 as part of a US-led military coalition. At the time the articles were published in 2018, Mr Roberts-Smith was considered a national hero, having been awarded Australia's highest military honour for single-handedly overpowering Taliban fighters attacking his Special Air Service (SAS) platoon. The 46-year-old argued the alleged killings occurred legally during combat or did not happen at all, claiming the papers ruined his life with their reports. His defamation case - which some have dubbed "the trial of the century" in Australia - lasted over 120 days and is now rumoured to have cost up to A$35m ($22.5m; £16.9m).

In June 2023 Federal Court Justice Antony Besanko threw out the case against The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Canberra Times, ruling it was "substantially true" that Mr Roberts-Smith had murdered unarmed Afghan prisoners and civilians and bullied fellow soldiers. He also found that Mr Roberts-Smith lied to cover up his misconduct and threatened witnesses. Additional allegations that he had punched his lover, threatened a peer, and committed two other murders were not proven to the "balance of probabilities" standard required in civil cases. The "heart" of the appeal case was that Justice Besanko didn't given enough weight to Mr Roberts-Smith's presumption of innocence, his barrister Bret Walker, SC said. There is a legal principle requiring judges to proceed carefully when dealing with civil cases that involve serious allegations and in making findings which carry grave consequences. Mr Walker argued that meant the evidence presented by the newspapers fell short of the standard required.

Rise in disabled people facing homelessness in England

A government spokesperson said £1bn was being given to councils this year to "support families faster and stop people becoming homeless in the first place"

The numbers are likely to add to unease in the Labour Party over planned cuts to disability benefits, with one MP warning the government against going "further and faster in the wrong direction."

Analysis of government data by the homelessness charity Crisis also shows the amount of social housing given to disabled people has gone down.

More than 60,000 disabled households in England faced homelessness last year, an increase of nearly 75% since 2019, official figures show.

Figures released last week show that 21% of households facing homelessness in the last three months of last year had some sort of physical ill health or disability.

Overall homelessness rose significantly in recent years, before peaking in early 2024, but these figures show that homelessness among households with a disability has risen faster.

Some 62,040 households with physical ill health and disability needs faced homelessness in 2023/24, compared with 35,860 in 2018/19.

Government data shows the number of social housing lettings given to households with a disability fell from 20% in 2022/23 to 16% in 2023/24.

A number of Labour MPs have expressed concern in recent weeks about cuts to welfare payments for pensioners and people with disabilities.

Labour MP Paula Barker, who co-chairs a cross-party group focused on homelessness, said that "certain people" in government "talk about going further and faster, but we need to go further and faster in the right direction, not the wrong direction".

She said the disability homelessness numbers were "hugely significant" and would have "a real detrimental and knock-on impact" when combined with the benefit changes.

In March, the government announced a major welfare shake-up to save money, including changes to a disability benefit called personal independence payment (Pip).

Barker added that the Treasury had "imposed a straightjacket" on the government.

She said there was a "deep-rooted Treasury orthodoxy from civil servants that has sadly fitted hand-in-glove with a chancellor who has been willing to go along with that".

During last year's general election, Sir Keir Starmer promised that a Labour government would bring forward a strategy "to put Britain back on track to ending homelessness".

Some Labour MPs have become increasingly concerned that 10 months on from the election, no such strategy has emerged.

"Having a permanent home is so important for your health," says Julie, who has severe osteoarthritis.

Two years ago, Julie and her teenage son spent five months in temporary accommodation in Oxfordshire.

This included staying in three hotels, one of which couldn't accommodate her mobility scooter in her room and another of which had no cooking facilities and no fridge.

"It was really difficult and it really affected my health," she says, "we couldn't cook, we were eating instant pasta. It was hard to get around in the old wheelchair I had at the time."

Julie says she developed type-2 diabetes during the time she was living in temporary accommodation.

Alex Bax, chief executive of homelessness and healthcare charity Pathway, says the "health service is too often unable to provide the care that people facing homelessness need".

He called on ministers to take "bold action to treat poor health and homelessness in the joined-up way that these figures show is so desperately needed".

Matt Downie, chief executive of Crisis, said ministers need to "provide renewed security and stability for people across the country" and called on the government to build 90,000 new social homes a year.

He said the figures on disability homelessness were "really concerning" and would lead to "more hardship, and more pressure on already overstretched councils".

A government spokesperson said ministers had inherited "a devastating housing crisis and a broken social care system".

They said they were providing £1bn "for crucial homelessness services this year" and "tackling the root causes" by building 1.5 million new homes in England.

A senior Treasury source said "the Labour government has invested an additional £40bn into our public services, including the NHS, and increased capital investment in our roads, rail and housing by more than £100bn".