Keir Starmer warned he is dooming assisted dying law to failure

Sir Keir Starmer was today warned he is dooming an assisted dying law to failure as he refused to give more time for MPs to debate the issue in the House of Commons.

The Prime Minister said there was 'sufficient time' already allocated to a private members' bill, which - if passed - would give terminally ill people the right to end their life.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill aims to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales and was introduced to Parliament by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater.

It is due to have its second reading in the Commons on 29 November, when MPs are likely to vote on assisted dying for the first time since 2015.

But Tory former minister Alec Shelbrooke accused Sir Keir of 'shortcutting democracy' by not allowing more than one day of debate on the Bill before a vote.

He said that undecided MPs like himself are set to oppose the Bill without being able to 'debate these issues in full'.

Speaking at Prime Minister's Questions this afternoon, Sir Alec urged Sir Keir to allow two days of debate prior to the Bill's second reading at the end of this month.

'On 29 November this House will be asked to consider the second reading of one of the most consequential pieces of legislation to this country's make-up,' he said.

'I am genuinely approaching this with an open mind but have many concerns. And what concerns me, Prime Minister, is the short space of time on that day.

'So could I ask you Prime Minister, before we get to 29 November, that the Government will make a commitment that we can have two days - 16 hours - of protected time on the floor of the House in Government time.

'So that we can examine and debate in this House the report stage so that many of the arguments we are concerned about may be able to be brought out then.

'Because otherwise, Prime Minister, people like myself may decline a second reading over fear that we may not get to be able to debate these issues in full.'

But, in response to Sir Alec, the Prime Minister insisted MPs already had ample time to debate the Bill.

'I know that there are strongly-held views on both sides of the debate across this House. And that's why it will be a free vote,' he replied.

'Every member needs to decide for themselves how they will vote on it - it's a free vote. I do think there is sufficient time allocated to it, but it is an important issue.'

Posting on social media after PMQs, Sir Alec warned Sir Keir was making it harder for MPs to reach a decision on how to vote. 

'Like many, I was genuinely undecided on this Bill, waiting to hear the debate and seek answers to my questions,' he wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.

'The response from the PM today makes it harder for MPs to properly consider what is a deeply sensitive issue. We shouldn't be shortcutting democracy.'

Downing Street said the allocation of Commons time for a private members' bill was a 'matter for Parliament'. 

The PM's official spokesman said: 'As with all legislation, there are multiple stages. 

'Second reading is the first stage where there's a debate and there'll be further scrutiny and debates on the Bill as its progresses through Parliament.

'The Government is very clear it won't stand in the way of the Bill as it progresses.'

Earlier, Health Secretary Wes Streeting suggested implementing a new assisted dying law could come at the expense of other NHS services.

The Cabinet minister, who plans to vote against the Bill, told Times Radio that 'it would be a big change'.

He added: 'There would be resource implications for doing it. And those choices would come at the expense of other choices.

'And of course, we'd need to work through with the medical profession what would be a very new way of working.

'No-one should be compelled, for example, to take part in assisted dying if they've got moral or ethical objections as clinicians.

'That certainly would be one of my red lines. And that's one of the reasons why, whatever my own vote on this, I do welcome the debate.

'I welcome the debate in principle and also welcome the debate in practice.'