Assisted dying bill: How Bradford district MPs voted

A majority of MPs supported a bill - tabled by Spen Valley Labour MP Kim Leadbeater - that would allow terminally-ill adults with a life expectancy of less than six months to end their lives.

Ms Leadbeater insisted her bill has strict safeguards against coercion and said a new law would give society "a much better approach towards end of life".

She insisted the approach was not that assisted dying would be a substitute for palliative care, but that when it cannot meet the needs of a dying person, "the choice of an assisted death should be one component of a holistic approach to end-of-life care".

Spen Valley Labour MP Kim Leadbeater (Image: Stefan Rousseau/PA) Voting records show Naz Shah, Labour MP for Bradford West; Imran Hussain, MP for Bradford East; Anna Dixon, Labour MP for Shipley; and Robbie Moore, Tory MP for Keighley and Ilkley, voted against the bill. Judith Cummins, Labour MP for Bradford South, did not have a vote recorded due to her role as Deputy Speaker. 

MPs have their say before vote

Before the vote, Ms Shah said: "I cannot support the proposed bill. 

"The safeguards are insufficient, and the risks to vulnerable groups are too great. 

"Our priority should be strengthening palliative care to ensure every patient receives compassionate, high-quality care.

"Over the last century, society has achieved remarkable progress in science, medicine and technology, transforming the way we live and significantly extending human life expectancy.

"At its core, I believe that in a society where the NHS is 'broken' and divisions within our communities are clear, our focus should be on fighting for opportunities to live, not pathways to death."

Mr Hussain said before the vote: "I understand and appreciate the profound suffering experienced by some people at the end of their lives, and the compassionate case they have put forward. 

"However, the risk remains that this bill opens the door to unintended consequences, including subtle or overt pressure on vulnerable individuals, particularly the elderly, disabled or those with limited resources, to see assisted dying as an option to avoid becoming a burden. 

"Despite proposed safeguards, there is no guarantee that coercion or societal pressures could be mitigated.

"I am also concerned about the impact on our efforts to improve end-of-life care. 

"Rather than focusing on providing universal access to high-quality palliative care and pain management, the legalisation of assisted dying risks diverting resources and attention from this critical area. 

"We must redouble our efforts to ensure every person can die with dignity and comfort, without feeling the need to resort to ending their life prematurely."

Before the vote, Ms Dixon said she wanted to make sure the decision made was "based on a thorough analysis of the implications".

"Decisions of such societal importance as assisted dying do not come along often," she said. 

"As a new parliamentarian, I want to make sure that my decision is based on a thorough analysis of the legal and practical implications.  

"Despite the efforts of the proposer of the Private Members' Bill to give opportunity for parliamentarians to engage with the subject, there remain many unanswered questions about the detail and complexity of implementation.  

"That is why I am calling for an independent review similar to a Royal Commission or Law Commission to provide an in-depth assessment and proposals before this is voted on in Parliament.  

"It is also vital that there is public consultation on the detail of the bill rather than relying on simple polling data."

Mr Moore said before the vote: "While I am not opposed to the principle of legalising assisted dying in carefully controlled and transparent circumstances, and only when a patient is terminally-ill, I am concerned that the full text of the legislation put forward does not have robust enough safeguards or protections contained within it to protect against coercion and exploitation for the most vulnerable people.

The bill will next go to committee stage where MPs can table amendments, before facing further scrutiny and votes in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, meaning any change in the law would not be agreed until next year at the earliest.