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.”
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”.
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.
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.
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.”
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”.
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.
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.
More than 60,000 disabled households in England faced homelessness last year, an increase of nearly 75% since 2019, official figures show.
Analysis of government data by the homelessness charity Crisis also shows the amount of social housing given to disabled people has gone down.
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.”
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”
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.
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”.
More than 60,000 disabled households in England faced homelessness last year, an increase of nearly 75% since 2019, official figures show.
Analysis of government data by the homelessness charity Crisis also shows the amount of social housing given to disabled people has gone down.
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.”
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”
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.
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”.
Top US diplomat Marco Rubio says he does not have high expectations for Ukraine-Russia peace talks due to be held in Turkey – and that Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin need to meet for progress to be made.
“I don’t think we’re going to have a breakthrough here until President Trump and President Putin interact directly on this topic,” he said after a meeting of Nato foreign ministers in southern Turkey.
Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed Ukraine would send a delegation for the talks in Istanbul, but criticised the “low-level” delegation being sent by Moscow.
Its head, presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, insisted the Kremlin team had “all the necessary competencies”.
Earlier in the day, Trump – who is visiting the Middle East – also suggested that significant progress in peace talks was unlikely until he and Putin met in person.
Asked by the BBC on board Air Force One if he was disappointed by the level of the Russian delegation, he said: “Look, nothing’s going to happen until Putin and I get together”.
“He wasn’t going if I wasn’t there and I don’t believe anything’s going to happen, whether you like it or not, until he and I get together,” he added. “But we’re going to have to get it solved because too many people are dying.”
Trump said he would attend talks in Turkey on Friday if it was “appropriate” but later said he would probably return to Washington.
Delegations from Turkey, the US, Ukraine and Russia had been due to meet in Istanbul on Thursday for the first face-to-face Ukraine-Russia talks since 2022. As of Thursday evening, no time for them to take place had been set. Some reports suggest they may now happen on Friday.
Watch: Nothing’s going to happen until Putin and I get together, Trump says
Zelensky then challenged Putin to meet him in person, but on Thursday the Kremlin said that the Russian president was not among officials due to travel.
Following a bilateral meeting with Erdogan in Ankara, Zelensky accused Moscow of “disrespect” towards Trump and Erdogan because of the Russian delegation’s lack of seniority and reiterated his challenge to the Russian leader to meet him personally.
“No time of the meeting, no agenda, no high-level of delegation – this is personal disrespect to Erdogan, to Trump,” he said.
Meanwhile, Medinsky told reporters in Istanbul that Russia saw the talks as a “continuation” of failed negotiations in 2022 that took place shortly after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of its neighbour.
“The task of direct negotiations with the Ukrainian side is to sooner or later reach the establishment of long-term peace by eliminating the basic root causes of the conflict,” Medinsky said.
The Ukrainian delegation will be headed by its Defence Minister Rustem Umerov, according to a decree from Zelensky issued on Thursday. It will also include its deputy heads of intelligence, military general staff and foreign ministry.
Medinsky, who led previous rounds of failed negotiations with Ukraine in 2022, will lead the Russian delegation, a statement from the Kremlin said. Russia’s deputy defence minister, deputy foreign minister and military intelligence head will also be there.
EPA
The head of Moscow’s delegation, presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, insisted the Kremlin team had “all the necessary competencies”
The Istanbul talks mark the first direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine since the unsuccessful effort in 2022.
Russia has indicated it wants to pick up where they left off.
The terms under discussion included demands for Ukraine to become a neutral country, cut the size of its military and abandon Nato membership ambitions – conditions that Ukraine has repeatedly rejected as tantamount to capitulation.
Fighting in Ukraine rages on, with Russia saying its forces had captured two more villages in the eastern Dontesk region on Thursday.
Moscow now controls approximately 20% of Ukraine’s territory, including the southern Crimea peninsula it illegally annexed in 2014.
UK Defence Minister John Healey called on Ukraine’s allies to “put pressure on Putin”. Speaking after a meeting with German counterpart Boris Pistorius in Berlin on Thursday, Healey urged further sanctions on Russia “to bring him to the negotiating table”.
Brazilian authorities say they are investigating river contamination levels after a truck accident caused a chemical dye spill in São Paulo.
The leak occurred after a vehicle carrying containers of a blue dye solution collided with a pole, causing the product to spill into a manhole connected to the Jundiai River.
City officials say they are acting to rescue and save the lives of the affected animals.
The dye is an organic chemical based on acetic acid – used in Styrofoam boxes and egg cartons.
Spectators could fly through the Los Angeles skies and escape the city’s notorious traffic during the 2028 Olympic Games if the organisers have their way.
LA28, the committee charged with planning the city’s third Summer Games, have announced a partnership with Archer Aviation to provide an air taxi service during both the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
The company says it plans to use a fleet of aircraft to ferry fans to and from venues, LA28 announced on Thursday.
Flying taxis have been a longstanding dream. They were planned to debut in the Paris Games in 2024, but were not certified by Europe’s air safety agency in time.
Similarly, Archer Aviation has not yet been certified by the US Federal Aviation Administration, meaning the aircraft are not ready yet for commercial use. It’s founder and CEO has said he hoped to have that key signoff – a Type Certification that says it meets design and safety standards – by the aviation regulator this year.
If they receive certification in time for the 2028 Games, the air taxis would offer 10-20 minute flights to residents and visitors and fly between select destinations, including several of the largest Olympic venues in the region.
It is unclear how much each trip would cost, but Archer Aviation’s founder and CEO Adam Goldstein said he wants to keep prices comparable to a high-end Uber, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Like the popular ride-hailing service, customers would be able to request an air taxi through an app. The aircraft can carry up to four people and operates similarly to a helicopter in its take-offs and landings.
The piloted Midnight aircraft is part of a family of vehicles called “eVTOLs” – which stands for electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft.
Archer, which is backed by Boeing and United Airlines, is among several eVTOL makers seeking to change travel in congested urban cities by offering short-haul air travel.
The industry has seen many hurdles, including battery density, and none of the aircraft have yet been approved by the FAA.
Archer’s Midnight aircraft is built with 12 engines and propellers, and produces “less noise and emissions than a traditional helicopter”, according to LA28.
Archer Aviation hopes it will be certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) “at similar levels of safety as commercial airliners”.
“We want to transform the way people get around Los Angeles and leave a legacy that shapes the future of transportation in America,” Mr Goldstein said in a statement. “There’s no better time to do that than during the LA28 Games.”
Safety, regulations and investment have proved a big hurdle for companies trying to introduce flying taxis. Despite the setbacks and delays, many still believe they could be the future of transportation.
Archer Aviation remains confident its aircraft can buck recent trends, and sees the 2028 Olympics as a way to introduce them to the world.
The UK government announced the Future of Flight action plan in 2024, predicting that the first flying taxi could take off in the UK by 2026 and become a regular sight in the skies.
Los Angeles has previously hosted the Olympics in 1984 and 1932, making this the third time the city has hosted the Summer Games. The city has announced the 2028 Games will not allow cars, a tall order after plans were nixed to expand the area’s transit system.
Former FBI director James Comey is being investigated by the Secret Service after he shared then deleted a social media post, which Republicans alleged was an incitement to violence against President Donald Trump.
Comey posted on Instagram a photo of seashells that spelled the numbers “8647”, which he captioned: “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.”
The number 86 is a slang term whose definitions include ‘to reject’ or ‘to get rid of’, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which also notes that it has more recently been used as a term meaning ‘to kill’.
Trump is the 47th US president. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem alleged the message was a call for the assassination of Trump, but Comey said he opposed violence.
In a post in X, Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said: “We vigorously investigate anything that can be taken as a potential threat against our protectees.
“We are aware of the social media posts by the former FBI Director & we take rhetoric like this very seriously. Beyond that, we do not comment on protective intelligence matters.”
Comey deleted the Instagram post, saying in a follow-up that he “assumed [the sea shells] were a political message”.
“I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence,” he added. “It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.”
Trump survived two assassination attempts last year.
Current FBI Director Kash Patel responded on social media, saying that the bureau was “aware of the recent social media post by former FBI Director James Comey, directed at President Trump”.
“We are in communication with the Secret Service and Director Curran. Primary jurisdiction is with SS [Secret Service] on these matters and we, the FBI, will provide all necessary support.”
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said on X: “Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey just called for the assassination of Trump.”
She said her department and the Secret Service would investigate the matter.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino posted on X, accusing Comey of “a plea to bad actors/terrorists to assassinate the POTUS’ while traveling internationally”, referring to Trump’s current tour of the Middle East.
The president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr, also responded on X, commenting: “James Comey causally [sic] calling for my dad to be murdered.”
Comey served as the FBI’s director between 2013-17.
He had a tumultuous tenure that included overseeing the high-profile inquiry into Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s email just weeks before the 2016 election that she ended up losing to Trump.
He was fired by Trump amid an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
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.
Months after the appeal case had closed, Mr Roberts-Smith’s legal team earlier this year sought to reopen it, alleging misconduct by one of the reporters at the centre of the case.
They argued a leaked phone call between the reporter and a witness – which the newspapers said may have been recorded illegally – raised questions about the fairness of the trial.
On Friday, the trio of judges rejected that argument too.
Car maker Nissan says it is open to sharing factories around the world with its Chinese-owned partner Dongfeng as it shakes up its business.
The Japanese firm, which employs thousands of people in the UK, told the BBC it could bring Dongfeng “into the Nissan production eco-system globally.”
This week, the struggling company said it would lay off 11,000 workers and shut seven factories but did not say where the cuts would be made.
Speaking about Nissan’s UK plant on Thursday at a conference organised by the Financial Times, its new boss Ivan Espinosa said: “We have announced that we are launching new cars in Sunderland… In the very short term, there’s no intention to go around Sunderland”.
Nissan’s latest job cuts came on top of 9,000 layoffs announced in November as it faces weak sales in key markets such as the US and China.
The total cuts will hit 15% of its workforce as part of a cost saving effort that it said would reduce its global production by a fifth.
Nissan’s own brands have struggled to make in-roads to China, which is the world’s biggest car market, as stiff competition has led to falling prices.
It has partnered with Beijing-controlled Dongfeng for over 20 years and they currently work together to build cars in the Chinese city of Wuhan.
Nissan employs around 133,500 people globally, with about 6,000 workers in Sunderland.
The firm has also faced a number of leadership changes and failed merger talks with its larger rival Honda.
Negotiations between the two collapsed in February after the firms were unable to agree on a multi-billion-dollar tie-up.
After the failure of the talks, then-chief executive Makoto Uchida was replaced by Mr Espinosa, who was the company’s chief planning officer and head of its motorsports division.
This week, Nissan also reported an annual loss of 670 billion yen ($4.6bn; £3.4bn), with US President Donald Trump’s tariffs putting further pressure on the struggling firm.
India’s nuclear capable Agni-5 missile has a range of over 5,000km
In the latest India-Pakistan stand-off, there were no ultimatums, no red buttons.
Yet the cycle of military retaliation, veiled signals and swift international mediation quietly evoked the region’s most dangerous shadow. The crisis didn’t spiral towards nuclear war, but it was a reminder of how quickly tensions here can summon that spectre.
Even scientists have modelled how easily things could unravel. A 2019 study by a global team of scientists opened with a nightmare scenario where a terroristattack on India’s parliament in 2025 triggers a nuclear exchange with Pakistan.
Six years later, a real-world stand-off – though contained by a US-brokered ceasefire on Saturday – stoked fears of a full-blown conflict. It also revived uneasy memories of how fragile stability in the region can be.
As the crisis escalated, Pakistan sent “dual signals” – retaliating militarily while announcing a National Command Authority (NCA) meeting, a calculated reminder of its nuclear capability. The NCA oversees control and potential use of the country’s nuclear arsenal. Whether this move was symbolic, strategic or a genuine alert, we may never know. It also came just as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly stepped in to defuse the spiral.
President Trump said the US didn’t just broker a ceasefire – it averted a “nuclear conflict”. On Monday, in an address to the nation, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said: “[There] is no tolerance for nuclear blackmail; India will not be intimidated by nuclear threats.
“Any terrorist safe haven operating under this pretext will face precise and decisive strikes,” Modi added.
India and Pakistan each possess about 170 nuclear weapons, according to the think-tank Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri). As of January 2024, Sipri estimated there were 12,121 nuclear warheads worldwide. Of these, about 9,585 were held in military stockpiles, with 3,904 actively deployed – 60 more than the previous year. The US and Russia together account for more than 8,000 nuclear weapons.
The bulk of both India’s and Pakistan’s deployed arsenals lies in their land-based missile forces, though both are developing nuclear triads capable of delivering warheads by land, air and sea, according to Christopher Clary, a security affairs expert at the University at Albany in the US.
“India likely has a larger air leg (aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons) than Pakistan. While we know the least of Pakistan’s naval leg, it is reasonable to assess that India’s naval leg is more advanced and more capable than Pakistan’s sea-based nuclear force,” he told the BBC.
One reason, Mr Clary said, is that Pakistan has invested nowhere near the “time or money” that India has in building a nuclear-powered submarine, giving India a “clear qualitative” edge in naval nuclear capability.
Since testing nuclear weapons in 1998, Pakistan has never formally declared an official nuclear doctrine.
India, by contrast, adopted a no-first-use policy following its own 1998 tests. But this stance has shown signs of softening. In 2003, India reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in response to chemical or biological attacks – effectively allowing for first use under certain conditions.
Further ambiguity emerged in 2016, when then–defence minister Manohar Parrikar suggested India shouldn’t feel “bound” by the policy, raising questions about its long-term credibility. (Parrikar clarified that this was his own opinion.)
AFP via Getty Images
Pakistan’s surface-to-surface Shaheen II missile is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead
The absence of a formal doctrine doesn’t mean Pakistan lacks one – official statements, interviews and nuclear developments offer clear clues to its operational posture, according to Sadia Tasleem of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Pakistan’s nuclear threshold remains vague, but in 2001, Khalid Kidwai – then head of the Strategic Plans Division of the NCA – outlined four red lines: major territorial loss, destruction of key military assets, economic strangulation or political destabilisation.
In 2002, then-president Pervez Musharraf clarified that “nuclear weapons are aimed solely at India”, and would only be used if “the very existence of Pakistan as a state” was at stake.
In his memoir, former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wrote that he was jolted awake at night to speak with an unnamed “Indian counterpart” who feared Pakistan was preparing to use nuclear weapons during the 2019 stand-off with India.
Around the same time, Pakistani media quoted a senior official issuing a stark warning to India: “I hope you know what the [National Command Authority] means and what it constitutes. I said that we will surprise you. Wait for that surprise… You have chosen a path of war without knowing the consequences for the peace and security of the region.”
During the 1999 Kargil War, Pakistan’s then-foreign secretary Shamshad Ahmed warned that the country would not “hesitate to use any weapon” to defend its territory. Years later, US official Bruce Riedel revealed that intelligence indicated Pakistan was preparing its nuclear arsenal for possible deployment.
AFP via Getty Images
Indian soldiers patrolling the edge of a crater, the site of the May 1998 underground nuclear test
But there is scepticism on both sides over such claims.
Former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan Ajay Bisaria wrote in his memoir that Pompeo overstated both the risk of nuclear escalation and the US role in calming the conflict in 2019. And during Kargil, Pakistan “knew the Indian Air Force wouldn’t cross into its territory” – so there was no real trigger for even an implicit nuclear threat, insist Pakistani analysts.
“Strategic signalling reminds the world that any conflict can spiral – and with India and Pakistan, the stakes are higher due to the nuclear overhang. But that doesn’t mean either side is actively threatening nuclear use,” Ejaz Haider, a Lahore-based defence analyst, told the BBC.
But nuclear escalation can happen by accident too. “This could happen by human error, hackers, terrorists, computer failures, bad data from satellites and unstable leaders,” Prof Alan Robock of Rutgers University, lead author of the landmark 2019 paper by a global team of scientists, told the BBC.
In March 2022, India accidentally fired a nuclear-capable cruise missile which travelled 124km (77 miles) into Pakistani territory before crashing, reportedly damaging civilian property. Pakistan said India failed to use the military hotline or issue a public statement for two days. Had this occurred during heightened tensions, the incident could have spiralled into serious conflict, experts say. (Months later, India’s government sacked three air force officers for the “accidental firing of a missile”.)
Yet, the danger of nuclear war remains “relatively small” between India and Pakistan, according to Mr Clary.
“So long as there is not major ground combat along the border, the dangers of nuclear use remain relatively small and manageable,” he said.
“In ground combat, the ‘use it or lose it’ problem is propelled by the possibility that your ground positions will be overrun by the enemy.” (‘Use it or lose it‘ refers to the pressure a nuclear-armed country may feel to launch its weapons before they are destroyed in a first strike by an adversary.)
AFP via Getty Images
The Chagai Hills, whitened at the top after Pakistan’s nuclear tests in May 1998, in south-western Balochistan
Sumit Ganguly, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, believes that “neither India nor Pakistan wants to be labelled as the first violator of the post-Hiroshima nuclear taboo”.
“Furthermore, any side that resorts to the use of nuclear weapons would face substantial retaliation and suffer unacceptable casualties,” Mr Ganguly told the BBC.
At the same time, both India and Pakistan appear to be beefing up their nuclear arsenal.
With new delivery systems in development, four plutonium reactors and expanding uranium enrichment, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could reach around 200 warheads by the late 2020s, according to The Nuclear Notebook, researched by the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project.
And as of early 2023, India was estimated to have about 680kg of weapons-grade plutonium – enough for roughly 130-210 nuclear warheads, according to the International Panel on Fissile Materials.
Despite repeated crises and close calls, both sides have so far managed to avoid a catastrophic slide into nuclear conflict. “The deterrent is still holding. All Pakistanis did was to respond to conventional strikes with counter-conventional strikes of their own,” writes Umer Farooq, an Islamabad-based analyst.
Yet, the presence of nuclear weapons injects a constant undercurrent of risk – one that can never be entirely ruled out, no matter how experienced the leadership or how restrained the intentions.
“When nuclear weapons can be involved, there is always an unacceptable level of danger,”John Erath, senior policy director at the non-profit Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, told the BBC.
“The Indian and Pakistani governments have navigated these situations in the past, so the risk is small. But with nuclear weapons, even a small risk is too large.”
GPs are deeply divided over assisted dying, with personal beliefs shaping their views
Family doctors in England are deeply divided on the issue of assisted dying, BBC research on plans to legalise the practice suggests.
The findings give a unique insight into how strongly many GPs feel about the proposed new law – and highlight how personal beliefs and experiences are shaping doctors’ views on the issue.
BBC News sent more than 5,000 GPs a questionnaire asking whether they agreed with changing the law to allow assisted dying for certain terminally ill people in England and Wales.
More than 1,000 GPs replied, with about 500 telling us they were against an assisted dying law and about 400 saying they were in favour.
Some of the 500 GPs who told us they were against the law change called the bill “appalling”, “highly dangerous”, and “cruel”. “We are doctors, not murderers,” one said.
Of the 400 who said they supported assisted dying, some described the bill as “long overdue” and “a basic human right”.
“We are keeping human bodies alive in the most inhumane manner,” one said. They asked: “How do we ethically justify forcing these bodies to continue to exist in decrepitude?”
We cannot know whether the GPs who responded to the BBC are representative of all family doctors.
It comes as MPs will this week again debate proposed changes to the controversial bill, with a vote in parliament expected on whether to pass or block it next month.
If assisted dying does become legal in England and Wales, it would be a historic change for society.
The BBC’s research, carried out over a few weeks in March and April, is the first in-depth look at how GPs in England feel about the proposed new law.
Nine out of 10 GPs who said they were against legalising assisted dying worried terminally ill patients would consider it because they felt guilty about being a burden on their loved ones or the health service.
“The right to die becomes a duty to die for those who feel a burden on family,” said one GP.
Another common concern was patients might be coerced. Some told us they had treated elderly people with family members they suspected of being more focussed on their inheritance than their relatives.
More than half of the group who opposed a law change said it would be against their religious beliefs.
They spoke about life being “sacred” and called assisted dying “sinful”. Some referred to the commandment “thou shalt not kill”.
Another argument from those who said they were against assisted dying was the health system should instead focus on improving end-of-life care.
One GP said creating an assisted dying law was “scandalous” when hospices were largely funded by charities rather than by the state.
Separately, on Tuesday the Royal College of Psychiatrists said that while the group “remains neutral” on the principle of assisted dying, it “just cannot support this bill”.
In an interview with BBC’s Newsnight, the college’s president Dr Lade Smithcited a lack of requirements concerning the “unmet needs” of patients, and a shortage of psychiatrists to process requests.
“We’re concerned that there isn’t a requirement to think about any unmet needs a person might have. A person with a terminal illness… they may be in pain, they have difficulty with their housing, their finances because they haven’t been able to work, they might feel lonely, isolated,” Dr Smith said.
Dr Gordon Macdonald, CEO of Care Not Killing said there was a “black hole” in the hospice budget and “we need better care not killing”.
Dying with dignity
More than 400 GPs told us they supported a law change, with some describing feeling “traumatised” and “haunted” by watching people die in “severe pain or distress”.
Of those who said they were in favour, more than nine in 10 respondents believed it could allow patients to have a dignified death.
Some shared personal experiences: telling us about watching their parents losing dignity or begging to die. One said their sick wife prayed every evening to not wake up in the morning.
Those who backed assisted dying often spoke about patient choice, arguing it was patronising not to let people decide how they wanted to die.
Wanting the option of an assisted death for themselves or their loved ones was another common reason for supporting the law.
“Personally, I would find this a comfort and I resent those who take this choice away from me,” one told us.
‘Unpredictable’ timeframe
If assisted dying does become law in England and Wales, it would apply to certain terminally ill patients who were reasonably expected to die within six months.
But more than a quarter of all the GPs who responded told us they would rarely, or never be confident assessing if a patient was expected to die in that time frame.
“It’s unpredictable even in the severely frail,” one said.
No doctor would be obliged to work in assisted dying. Of the 1,000 GP respondents, more than 500 told us they would be willing to discuss assisted dying with a patient.
Nearly 300 would assess if a patient was eligible and 161 said they would prepare a substance for a patient to take to end their own life.
Legal risks
Prof Kamila Hawthorne, chair of the Royal College of GPs, said the BBC’s research showed GPs had “real concerns about the practical and legal implications of a change in the law on assisted dying”.
“These must be acknowledged and addressed, so that any legislation is watertight,” she said.
Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said GPs and other medics will “rightly be considering how they will navigate” the proposed law.
She said evidence from assisted dying laws in Australia and the US showed it could be carried out “safely and effectively, with far reaching benefits for end-of-life care and robust protections for both patients and doctors”.
Additional reporting by Vicki Loader, Elena Bailey, Natalie Wright and Hannah Karpel
Get our flagship newsletter with all the headlines you need to start the day. Sign up here.
Just before Christmas, in a private dining room in the upmarket Charlotte Street Hotel in the heart of London’s Soho, the BBC’s director general gathered some of the UK’s leading TV creatives and executives for lunch. As they ate, surrounded by kaleidoscopic-patterned wallpaper and giant artworks, they were also chewing over the future survival of their own industry.
As solutions were thrown around to what many see as an acute funding crisis in the age of global streaming, one of the invitees suggested, in passing, that BBC Studios (the corporation’s commercial content-producing arm) could merge with Channel 4 to create a bigger, more powerful force to compete with the likes of Disney Plus, Netflix and Amazon.
As another diner knocked down the idea, I’m told that Tim Davie, the BBC’s DG, asked why it was so ridiculous.
I relate that not because it has come to fruition. It hasn’t. Nor even to suggest that the Director General supports the idea.
Instead the story illustrates the belief, among some within the broadcasting industry, that nothing should be off the table when it comes to contemplating how to ensure the survival of British-originated and British-focused TV as we know it.
Getty Images
With viewing habits having shifted, the industry is attempting to ensure the survival of British-originated and British-focused TV
Many of the people I spoke to for this piece didn’t want to be quoted. But Sir Peter Bazalgette, the former Chairman of ITV, told me that what he termed the current “generous spread” of British broadcasters (BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5) will need some consolidation or, at the very least, more cooperation in future.
“We’re in danger of having no public service broadcasting within a decade, certainly within 20 years,” he says. “We don’t have a strategy for their survival. It’s that serious. The regulators need to start thinking about it.
“Mergers may well be part of the answer. There should be fewer companies in the future.”
Lord Vaizey, who was Culture Minister under David Cameron, put it baldly. “ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 should merge.
“The UK only has room for two domestic broadcasters.”
AFP via Getty Images
Tim Davie is set to give a speech on Wednesday that lays out his vision for, among other things, embracing the digital age
Others, however, argue that distinctiveness is good for viewers. Channel 5 President Sarah Rose told me she “couldn’t disagree with Ed Vaizey more” – calling it a “Doomsday prophecy”.
Channel 5 is profitable, she tells me; it invests in smaller production companies and offers plurality for British audiences. By having just one commercial channel, “You’re taking the funnel from three to one types of content for British audiences.”
Channel 4 also rejects the suggestion of any merger. Its outgoing CEO Alex Mahon argues that, “The unique structure of competition between our publicly funded and commercially funded broadcasters” is what makes UK public service TV “so excellent”.
And yet the days of turning on your TV and finding an electronic programme guide listing channels – with BBC1 and BBC2 at the top, then ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 – are disappearing. The proposed date for the dawn of a new era is 2035; the end of traditional terrestrial TV as we know it.
When the increasingly expensive contracts to provide broadcast channels and digital terrestrial services like Freeview come to an end, the UK’s broadcasters are likely to pivot to offering digital-only video on demand. (However this won’t happen without a campaign to ensure older people are protected, as well as rural and low-income households who may not have high quality internet access.)
But if the aerials are turned off in 2035, is this the moment TV as we know it changes forever? If it becomes a battle between online-only British streamers and their better-funded US rivals, can the Brits survive? And, crucially, what will audiences be watching?
How TV could look by 2035
Flash forward to switching on the television in 2035 and there will of course have been certain technological transformations – perhaps more immersive viewing experiences or some shows viewed through augmented reality glasses. What’s highly likely, though, is that the communal big screen will still be a staple, (albeit probably voice-activated by then).
It’s a shift that has already begun with YouTube viewers changing their viewing habits and moving to the bigger screen. In 2024, for the first time, TV sets were the most-used device for watching content on the video sharing site at home, according to recent data from Barb Audiences. In all, 41% of YouTube viewing was done on TV sets, ahead of 31% on smartphones.
With YouTube an apparently unstoppable force, in ten years’ time it could well become the go-to viewing for the majority.
“We are likely to continue to see a shift in the share of viewing time and advertising revenue towards globally-scaled players and user-generated content platforms like YouTube and TikTok,” all within the next five years, according to Kate Scott-Dawkins, Global President for Business Intelligence at media investment company Group M.
There’ll also likely be Netflix, Disney, Apple, Amazon. In other words, the global players, based in the US, many of which also have other revenue streams (whether parks, computer hardware or a vast shopping platform).
Getty Images
The BBC has lost income in real terms over the last 10 years through licence fee decline
Kate Scott-Dawkins tells me the UK broadcasters are facing what could be an “existential” battle against US-based media companies with “wildly different business models”.
The shift to streaming TV has, she says, “enabled large globally-scaled players to get even bigger and pour money into content that they can put in front of worldwide audiences”.
The “big players with big pockets” already pay for a bespoke button on certain remote controls, or their own content tile front and centre on the homepage on smart TVs.
Ms Scott-Dawkins believes that in the future it will be “a position of strength” to own the operating systems themselves, as well as the media that people are watching on them. Examples include Apple showing its films and television series on Apple TVs and iPhones, or Amazon showing its own productions via its Fire devices, or Google through its own computers and phones.
Questions of revenue
Part of the problem is that the UK terrestrial channels can’t compete financially with the streamers. Netflix, for example, is valued at $472bn (£356bn).
The BBC has lost 30% of its income – or £1bn a year – in real terms since 2010, as the licence fee has become worth less. ITV’s share price hasn’t yet recovered since the advertising downturn in 2022, despite its vast production arm, ITV Studios, boosting its earnings before tax to £299m.
Meanwhile, Channel 4’s recorded a deficit of £52m for 2023. Alex Mahon told Parliament last month, “We will pretty much break even in the year”.
Getty Images
Sir Peter Bazalgette (seen here at the back with Big Brother contestants in 2005), is calling on regulators to make a strategy to secure the future of the industry
Some TV insiders think the solution will be one gateway or app for all public service content: one place to find all shows from BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and 5.
Alex Mahon recently told a newspaper that there needs to be “more collaboration” between the UK broadcasters – a way of “making sure we’re not duplicating the same technology”.
ITV has spent hundreds of millions to create ITVX, its streaming platform for the Netflix-age. Channel 4 took a pioneering approach to its own digital transformation, launching 4oD back in 2006; the first broadcaster in the world to offer television content on-demand.
But while its current £1bn a year revenue enables it to compete as a significant content creator, this may not be enough to sustain a modern distribution platform with all the associated investment costs into the long term, according to some insiders.
Lord Hall, the former BBC Director General, is among those arguing that it’s not sustainable for individual broadcasters to continue going it alone. “The notion that everyone has their own portals when you are competing against the huge streamers is not going to survive into the future,” he says.
‘One big streamer under iPlayer’?
Could the solution be for BBC iPlayer, which has been built with public money, to become the portal for the other British public service media content, too? It would be a single place where viewers could find ITV’s The Chase, Channel 4’s The Great British Bake Off and Channel 5 News, alongside BBC’s The Traitors. This was one idea suggested to me by multiple TV insiders. “One big streamer under iPlayer”, as one TV executive described it to me, “a modern public service streaming service”.
Part of their argument is that it’s the fastest growing streaming service in the UK – and the only existing platform of plausible scale to compete.
With political support and the right deal, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 could potentially get behind sharing tech (after all, the streaming service Freely, which launched last year, already hosts their content with the BBC’s and others).
But the idea of branding this all under the BBC iPlayer is – unsurprisingly – not something that commercial broadcasters would likely entertain, according to conversations I’ve had.
Comic Relief via Getty Images
Some have suggested that shows like Channel 4’s Great British Bake Off could one day be made available on BBC iPlayer
Lord Hall believes, “It could be branded differently… It would be a very good step.”
He says: “The public would have to get used to the fact that BBC material would be free of advertising, and other parts of the platform would have adverts.”
If the idea of a shared streaming service sounds familiar, that’s because it was proposed years ago. Project Kangaroo was a plan by BBC Worldwide, ITV and Channel 4 for a UK video-on-demand joint venture. Think an early rival to Netflix.
But the UK’s Competition Commission blocked the project in 2009 because of concerns it could harm competition in the emerging VoD market.
Other regulators across Europe have also blocked mergers: In France, the TFI and M6 channels were prevented from merging. Two of the largest TV and radio broadcasters in the Netherlands, which would have combined eight national TV channels and four national radio stations, were also stopped for competition reasons.
Any form of merger between different public service broadcasters would be subject to the same scrutiny. It’s perhaps why Sir Peter Bazalgette is calling on UK politicians and regulators to focus on creating a strategy – or risk the end of British TV as we know it.
Should the audiences care?
The BBC remains the most watched of the traditional broadcasters. Today, people in the UK spend more time watching traditional broadcasters than they do streaming services. Figures show 87% of people age four and above watch the traditional broadcasters each month and they spend an average of 137 minutes a day doing so. By comparison, 78% of people watch a streaming service and they spend only 40 minutes a day doing so.
If this does shift and the pattern reverses, TV producers and executives may be worried. But does it really matter to audiences?
Netflix is already making the types of shows that may have previously been made by the likes of the BBC (Adolescence, Toxic Town and Baby Reindeer are all very British stories made by the streamer). So what is the problem? (Aside from the obvious point that you need a subscription to watch Netflix.)
Getty Images
Netflix’s hit show, Adolescence, sparked international conversations about male rage and misogynistic influences online
Ms Rose argues that the picture is “much more complex”. Creatives involved in those shows often cut their teeth in public service TV, she says – one of benefits of the traditional broadcasters is, she believes, that it is a pipeline of talent.
Sir Peter Bazalgette argues that they’re needed more than ever in our AI age to serve as “a gold standard of trusted news for our democracy, amid the online Tower of Babel.”
He also argues for programmes that reflect “our shared values and national conversation”. Would a US-based streamer have chosen to make Mr Bates v the Post Office (ITV), for example, or ‘Wolf Hall’ (BBC) or ‘It’s A Sin’ (Channel 4) – stories that are uniquely British and reflect who we are?
Backing producers to take risks is, says Lord Hall, “exactly what the BBC should be doing – but of course [it] has been doing less because the licence fee has been consistently cut”.
Start of the ‘martini streaming age’
Ultimately, the American streamers are here to stay; they’re spending billions and their UK operations are often led by British executives who are supportive of Britain’s public service broadcasting scene.
I have also picked up a sense from those inside Netflix that the company is often used as a battering ram to persuade the government that the UK’s traditional broadcasters need more protections.
Some have also been critical of the BBC for, as they see it, wanting everything on its own terms: “‘We want you to give us your money for co-productions, but the BBC will make all the creative decisions’,” is how one insider put it to me, unfairly or not.
In 2018, Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos was invited to the BBC’s New Broadcasting House in London. Invitees recall that he talked warmly about how influential the BBC’s iPlayer had been to the success of Netflix, describing how impressed he had been by a piece of kit that had got British viewers used to getting their video on demand.
With more than 17 million Brits now subscribed to Netflix, there is a certain irony to that.
Today, as the BBC’s Director General Tim Davie starts to position the BBC ahead of the renewal of the corporation’s charter after 2027, the TV landscape is changing fast. And the challenges are clear.
Lord Hall tells me: “Our lives will be enriched by having not only what the streamers can offer, but also what the public service broadcasters can bring. It’s unthinkable not to build on what the BBC and others can deliver”.
Sir Peter Bazalgette predicts that, “Small doesn’t cut it,” adding that, “The winners will have to be big enough to [both] afford high end dramas for winning subscribers and maintain large back catalogues to keep subscribers happy.”
He says we now live in “the ‘martini’ streaming age – any time, any place, anywhere”.
The question is whether the leaders of the public service broadcasters can forge the right plan to safeguard their industry in that age.
BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
More than 1,000 GPs in England have shared their views about the assisted dying bill with BBC News
If you ask these three doctors about being GPs, their answers are remarkably similar.
“It can be the best job in the world,” one tells me. It’s “a privilege” another says. They all talk about how they love getting to know their patients and their families.
But all three have different views on assisted dying.
Right now, the law here is clear: medics cannot help patients to take their own lives. But that could change.
Dr Abdul Farooq is 28 and relatively new to his career as a GP.
We meet at his home in east London. He gives his baby daughter a bottle of milk before heading around the corner to pray in his local mosque.
His religion is absolutely key to his views on assisted dying.
“I believe in the sanctity of life. As a Muslim, I believe that life is a gift from God, and that no one has the right to take that away,” he says.
Dr Farooq feels taking your own life is wrong, and so, he says, it would be “sinful” for him to be involved in that process – even indirectly.
If this law passed – and a patient came to him asking for help to die – he would refer them to another doctor.
He says anything beyond that would be “a red line I would never cross”.
Dr Farooq’s objections are also informed by his professional experience, particularly his time working in a hospital.
He describes seeing “undignified deaths” – people passing away on busy wards – and says the health system is not getting the basics right in end-of-life care.
“There is so much we can do to make patients comfortable, if we have the right resources available,” he tells me.
“We have a whole field of medicine called palliative medicine that is there to help people towards the end of their life. So why are we not throwing all our resources and money into that and actually making the process of death less scary?”
He’s also concerned about specific parts of the proposed law. Doctors would have to assess if terminally ill patients are expected to die within six months before they are approved for an assisted death.
Dr Farooq sees this as problematic. The final day or so is easy to predict, he says, but adds that some patients he’s expected to die within six months can still be alive a year later.
Is there anything that could change his mind on assisted dying?
“No,” Dr Farooq says without hesitation. “I’m strongly against it. Personally and professionally, I think it’s the wrong thing to do for patients.”
‘I’ll be at the front of the queue to help’
Dr Susi Caesar has been a GP for 30 years and thinks she probably wouldn’t have previously been so vocal in her support of assisted dying.
Now, she says she is ready to “stick her head above the parapet”.
Recently she lost her beloved dad, Henning. We meet at a lake near Cirencester because being near water reminds her of him.
“My father was the most amazing person and this is so evocative of everything he loved,” she says. “The outdoors, walks, sailing, boats, kayaking, swimming.”
She thinks Henning would be proud of her for talking to us about her views because he was a long-term believer in assisted dying.
When he was diagnosed with a terminal illness, Dr Caesar says he became “terribly scared about the manner of his dying”.
“My father was a very proud man, and the thing that was unbearable to him was the idea that he would lose control at the end of his life – of his bodily functions, of his mind, of his ability to be the person that he was.”
By the end, Dr Caesar says her father’s “medication never quite kept up with his symptoms.” For her, the argument over assisted dying comes down to patient choice.
“Everybody is going to die. Every individual deserves the comfort of choice about how they die. I would want it for myself,” she tells me.
She acknowledges that many of her colleagues have “very, very reasonable concerns” about assisted dying. But she says “we have the wisdom to set up systems that will work and get over some of these hurdles.”
I ask if Dr Caesar’s support for assisted dying would translate into her working in this area.
“I will be at the front of the queue to help people to have the death that they wanted,” she says. “I think that’s the core joy of my job – being with people to the very end of their health journey.”
‘A very guilty place’
Dr Gurpreet Khaira doesn’t have any of the certainty of Dr Farooq and Dr Caesar.
She describes herself as “pretty conflicted about the whole subject” of assisted dying.
Dr Khaira is a GP in Birmingham but also has first-hand experience as a patient.
In 2017, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She found chemotherapy gruelling and says if the cancer ever came back, she wouldn’t want to go through it again.
“I remember feeling very passionate that I should have the choice of whether I go through this kind of treatment, or to say ‘that’s enough now’,” she says.
She says it felt very important for her to have a choice about the end of her life.
Now, she’s a picture of health, striding along a hillside with ease.
As a GP with decades of experience, she worries that vulnerable patients might opt for assisted dying rather than be a burden to their loved ones. Or that some families might coerce vulnerable patients into it.
“That is one of my biggest areas of personal conflict. I know that there are lots of plans to put safeguards in.
“You can be the best doctor or advocate in the world, but you may not pick up where someone is being controlled or manipulated.”
For her, there’s a fundamental conflict between her personal and professional experiences.
But, she adds: “As a doctor, I’d be very reluctant to be handing over a syringe for a patient to make that choice.”
Balancing up these two sides leaves her “in a very guilty place”, she says, but adds that it’s not a weakness to be open minded. For her, making this decision is an “evolving process”.
Personal experience shaping opinions
It’s striking when talking to Dr Farooq, Dr Caesar and Dr Khaira, how much their views on assisted dying reflect their core belief systems.
In that respect, GPs are possibly much like the rest of us.
If this bill does pass into law, doctors will have to consider whether they are willing to work in the area of assisted dying, or not. They could be asked to be involved in the process – whether that’s holding preliminary discussions with patients who want to die, to prescribing a substance for someone to end their own life.
If they don’t want to, no-one will force them.
They will have time to think about it. If MPs do vote in favour of this next month, it could still take years to come into effect.
