Image source, UK Parliament

Tory MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith says professional bodies consulted on the bill are mostly "very strongly opposed" to it.

Lib Dem MP Daisy Cooper intervenes by saying that all medical bodies are neutral on it, with two major ones welcoming amendments to it.

Duncan Smith disagrees and says medical bodies are split on it, with many opposing the bill.

He adds that palliative care in the UK is "simply not good enough", especially for the most vulnerable people to access.

We're now hearing from Labour's Vicky Foxcroft who says this is her first time speaking in the Commons since the general election, adding she wished she didn't have to speak up today.

In the debate, she says that during her four years as shadow minister for disabled people she spoke to hundreds of disabled people and organisation.

"They were and remain extremely fearful of assisted dying," she says.

As a reminder, Vicky Foxcroft has resigned as a Labour whip over the government's plans to cut disability benefits.

Foxcroft says that they "need the health and social care systems" to be fixed first and they want MPs "to assist them to live, not to die".

Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Olney is next up in the debate. She says she looks forward to the day when it's possible for people in the UK to die with dignity and peace.

Olney says that can only happen if members vote against this bill today.

Olney says that she does not believe that this particular decision is one that politicians are best placed to make.

She says that a panel of experts should have been called and the the bill needs professionals willing to deliver it.

Labour MP Dr Peter Prinsley, an ear, nose and throat doctor, says that, as a young physician, he would've considered the proposed bill "unconscionable" but now feels assisted dying to be "an essential change".

Prinsley adds that the bill is not designed for people who are not dying but that those in vulnerable positions need to be protected.

"There's an absolute sanctity of human life but we are not dealing with life or death, rather with death or death," he adds.

"Fundamental to death is surely choice. Who are we to deny that to the dying?"

Warning: This post contains distressing details

We're now hearing from Liberal Democrat MP Josh Babarinde who reads a letter from a constituent who says her partner's "final days were agony".

The dying man had been diagnosed with an aggressive tumour and lost his ability to speak, was incontinent and developed painful bed sores. He repeatedly asked for help to end his life, Babarinde tells MPs.

He then says his constituent discovered her partner trying to commit suicide. She says "this could have been avoided with an assisted dying law".

After concluding reading the letter, Babarinde says the current status quo is unacceptable and "must be reformed" - expressing his support for the bill.

If you have ever been affected by the issues discussed in this post, resources to help are available on BBC Action Line.

Image source, UK Parliament

Labour MP Naz Shah is up next.

She tabled an amendment to the bill that would prevent a person from meeting the requirement for assisted dying "solely as a result of voluntarily stopping eating or drinking" - this was nodded through in the Commons shortly before the debate began.

Shah tells the commons: "Our responsibility is to make sure the bill is safe, workable and effective and that is the test upon which we will be voting for or against today."

She adds that as the bill stands "it is a public safety issue".

She mentions the issue surround voluntarily stopping eating and drinking and says that this is due to psychiatric illness, which are "two categorically different issues".

She says this bill does not address the anorexia issue.

Image source, UK Parliament

Shadow economic secretary to the Treasury, Mark Garnier, is up next in the Commons.

He says he watched his mother suffer with pancreatic cancer and that whilst she was not frightened of dying, she was terrified of the pain.

Garnier recalls how a few years later he attended the memorial service of a constituent who had also died from pancreatic cancer.

He says that her widower told him she had been able to access an assisted dying program in Spain, that reduced her suffering.

The shadow economic secretary says that conversations with campaigners, doctors and religious leaders have led him to believe supporting the bill is the right thing to do.

Labour MP Diane Abbott continues to highlight her opposition to the bill in the House of Commons

Abbott says concerns of possible foul play in assisted dying cases have been raised by the Royal College of Pathologists as well as the former chief coroner.

She says attempts to amend the issue have been opposed at committee level.

The senior Labour MP also questions whether those who lack access to palliative care would effectively have an alternative to seeking assisted dying services.

"I ask members in this debate to speak up for the voiceless one more time," she says. "Because there's no doubt that if this bill passes in its current form people would lose their lives who do not need to."

Image source, UK Parliament

We're now hearing from bill opponent Diane Abbott, who begins by saying this bill is the "most fateful bill that we discuss this Parliament".

Outlining her opposition to the bill, she says: "It is literally a matter of life or death."

On the injustices of the current system raised by bill proposer Leadbeater, Abbott asks "what could be more unjust than to lose you life because of poorly drafted legislation?".

Abbott says it is possible to support the principle of assisted dying, as she herself does, but not support this bill.

• Conservative MP James Cleverly, who opposes the bill, is still talking

Cleverly says three questions need to be asked:

1. Whether MPs are happy for this specific bill "as drafted" - not the principle - to become law
2. Whether members are "genuinely happy to sign the blank cheque that this bill demands" - he says MPs "should listen" to medical professionals who say they don't have capacity or resource to deliver this legislation
3. When it comes to coercion, pressure individuals put on themselves, or medical professionals raising this issue: "We know there are inequalities in health division already, none of which I think will be addressed by this bill"

He raises concerns about women "who are overly deferential both to men and men in authority", adding "we cannot believe" that the bill will have "a neutral effect across all communities".

Cleverly ends his speech by saying he doesn't believe bill is ready to go to the House of Lords.

Image source, UK Parliament

Labour MP Dame Siobhain McDonagh discusses her personal experience with her terminally-ill sister.

Dame Siobhain says her sister's consultant had advised against her seeking treatment for a blood infection "because she had a brain tumour and she was going to die" - a suggestion the MP says resulted in a row.

She says her sister received treatment, came home and died peacefully.

She asks James Cleverly what he thinks would have happened had the bill been in place at the time her sister needed treatment. Cleverly says he suspects the "outcome could have been very, very different".

Image source, UK Parliament

Cleverly says MPs were told earlier in the process that "a lot of worries would be resolved".

He adds that they were promised a "gold standard of protections and safeguards", but says these protections did not make it out of the committee stage.

Cleverly then talks about the bill being sent to the House of Lords for amendments, saying it is "not right to sub-contract" making these changes to Parliament's second chamber.

Conservative MP and former cabinet minister James Cleverly speaks next - he's one of the leading opponents of the bill.

He has no doubt the vast majority of MPs are sympathetic with underlying motivation of the bill.

He tells the House his closest friend died earlier this year from oesophageal cancer, and he suffered greatly in the final weeks of his life.

"I come at this not from a position of faith, nor from a position of ignorance," Cleverly says to a quiet Commons.

As Leadbeater ends her speech, she says her colleagues should consider the legal implications, saying there needs to be "scrutiny before people die - not after".

She reiterates that the main goal is ensuring terminally ill people are given the opportunity to decide "how they die" - giving them "control, dignity and bodily autonomy".

"Surely we should all have the right to make our own decisions about our own bodies and decide when enough is enough," she says.

As the debate into the bill continues, Leadbeater turns focus to those who refuse life-sustaining or life-saving treatment.

She notes it is legal in the UK to discharge yourself and decline medical care, adding that that there is no requirement for two doctors, a psychiatrist, a social worker, a lawyer or a judge to do so.

"It simply does not make sense," she tells MPs in the Commons.

She says the bill is "far, far safer and significantly more compassionate than what we have now".

Leadbeater is asked why so many doctors and groups oppose not only the principle of this bill, but the bill itself.

She says these are non-homogeneous groups with different views and different opinions.

She then pivots back to her speech and looks at the "inconsistencies of the current law".

Leadbeater says it's legal for someone to voluntarily stop eating and drinking, making it "legal for them to starve themselves to death," which she says is a "deeply traumatic experience – for the person and their loved ones".

"We have a system where it is legal to starve yourself to death, which can take days or weeks, but it is not legal to seek assistance from a doctor to take an approved substance - yourself - to end your pain or suffering and take back control in your dying days," she adds.

Image source, PA/House of Commons

Leadbeater notes "people working in palliative care have mixed views" as Conservative MP James Cartlidge raises concerns on whether underfunding could force patients to chose assisted dying as an alternative to care.

Leabeater goes on to say that conversations she has had with terminally ill people and their families highlighted some of the failings in the current system.

She cites the case of Adil, whose father took his own life by buying drugs on the dark web and who later had to experience an extensive police investigation.

Leadbeater also cites the case of Catie, whose mother "had a peaceful and dignified death" after seeking assisted dying services in Switzerland.

She says, however, her family had no chance to say goodbye in person and her father was left without support upon returning "grieving and alone".

Leadbeater tells MPs that the bill aims to "correct the profound injustices" of the current system and offer a "compassionate and safe choice" to terminally ill people.

She adds that the bill has "many safeguards" and only people eligible under "strict criteria" will be able to access assisted dying.

Lib Dem MP Wera Hobhouse tells the Commons she "felt disturbed" by emails from constituents that "imply we here are too stupid or careless" to care for the vulnerable.

Leadbeater notes that safeguards are in place, adding that "no-one is more vulnerable than someone who is dying".

Image source, UK Parliament

Kim Leadbeater, the proposer of the The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, is now addressing the House of Commons.

She says it has been “a long journey to get here and I do not underestimate the significance of this day”.

“It is not often we are asked to wrestle with issues of morality, ethics and humanity… Benjamin Franklin told us that ‘In this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.’"

Leadbeater adds that in the Commons and "the country as a whole – discussing death is something we tend to shy away from".

She pays tribute to the way in which the overwhelming majority of colleagues have approached this subject.

But, she says it’s also important to remember “we are not voting on the merits of parliamentary procedure. We are voting on an issue that our constituents care about deeply”.

Just before the debate began in the House of Commons, MPs had been voting on a series of amendments.

They voted in favour of the final amendment 94, which proposed to give the devolved Welsh Government powers to set regulations for some aspects of the bill in Wales.

MPs voted in favour, 274 to 224.

• We'll bring you a recap of all the amendments MPs voted on shortly