Will the assisted dying vote be delayed?
The concerned crowd includes, as reported by the Independent, a group of 2024ers alongside some longer-serving MPs. Former journalists Paul Waugh and Torcuil Crichton have added their signatures to the letter, alongside politicians Florence Eshalomi and Dawn Butler. Their memo makes the case for why the private members bill process is simply not a sufficient way of dealing with such a significant issue. The MPs refer to the assisted dying bill as 'perhaps the most consequential pieces of legislation that has appeared before the House in generations', before going on:
This is not a normal Bill. It alters the foundations of our NHS, the relationship between doctor and patient, and it strips power away from parliament, concentrating it in the hands of future health secretaries.
The sponsor of the bill has proudly stated that it has received more time in parliament than some government bills have. And yet MPs have had the opportunity to vote on just 12 of 133 amendments tabled at report stage. Just 14 per cent of MPs have been afforded the opportunity to speak in the chamber on this bill. Several movers of amendments haven't been able to speak to the changes they have laid.
The fact that such fundamental changes are being made to this Bill at the eleventh hour is not a badge of honour, it is a warning. The private member's bill process has shown itself to be a woefully inadequate vehicle for the introduction of such a foundational change to our NHS and the relationship between doctor and patient.
This is no longer about debating the abstract principle of assisted dying. The bill before parliament has created real concern with medical experts and charities. MPs and the government should listen to their expertise.
Strong stuff. As Mr S has long reported, the controversial bill has come under significant criticism this year. The replacement of the high court judge safeguard with Leadbeater's proposed 'expert panel' prompted angry outbursts from psychiatrists and their Royal College – one of the medical professions that was expected to make up this panel. The suggestion that the euthanasia process could see a 'voluntary assisted dying commissioner' – dubbed the 'death czar' by online critics – oversee cases provoked more fear. More concerningly, the bill committee struck down an amendment that called for support for those with Down's syndrome when initiating conversations on assisted suicide. And one of the many amendments not voted on was Labour MP Naz Shah's demand for protection for those with eating disorders like anorexia.
So will Sir Keir's top team intervene at the final hour? Watch this space…
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
36 minutes ago
- The National
70 per cent of businesses support Scottish visa scheme
A poll published today reveals 70% of Scottish [[business]]es support the introduction of a Scottish visa, with a similar percentage saying the Scottish Government should have the power to do so. Only 17% of respondents said they opposed the idea of a Scottish visa, while the remaining 14% were neutral or unsure. Scotland's rural areas have been disproportionately affected by post-Brexit immigration issues due to a reliance on EU workers in critical sectors like agriculture, care, and hospitality. READ MORE: Police Scotland investigating national Palestine demo in Edinburgh In an attempt to address those issues, the SNP Government in 2022 proposed a 'targeted migration solution' in the form of a Rural Visa Pilot. However, immigration is reserved to Westminster. The Understanding Business Survey, conducted by the Diffley Partnership and 56 Degrees North, also showed that around half believe general economic conditions are worse than a year ago, when Labour came into government. SNP MSP Stuart McMillan (above) said: 'For years Scottish businesses have suffered as a result of woeful economic mismanagement, Brexit and harmful anti-immigrant rhetoric. 'This began under the Tories but under Labour, the Westminster government is now to the tune of Farage, doubling down on Brexit and presiding over rampant inflation. 'The SNP has always opposed Brexit - the greatest act of economic harm inflicted on Scotland in decades - while calling for a distinct approach to migration here in Scotland. 'We know we face challenges that are different from those facing the UK as a whole. We want to tackle those head on and believe the Scottish Government is best placed to do that. 'I, along with hundreds of Scottish [[business]]es, urge the Labour Government to listen, get out the way of progress and devolve the power to introduce a Scottish visa to Holyrood.' Mark Diffley, founder and director at Diffley Partnership, said: 'The standout data point this quarter is the significant business support for the introduction of a Scottish visa for workers, backed by seven in 10 business, up to 75% of those with an opinion either way on the issues. 'Combined with other positive views about the impact of migration on the labour force and the economy, this should give political parties food for thought ahead of next year's election. 'Meanwhile, although the business community in Scotland is still rather more pessimistic than optimistic, the gap between the two has closed which gives some hope about the possibility of a more positive outlook ahead after a long, tough period for businesses.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Brits have their say on whether 10-year health reforms will improve NHS
A new Ipsos survey indicates that nearly half of the British public is sceptical about the government 's 10-year health plan improving GP appointments or A&E waiting times. The poll found that 35 per cent of respondents believe the plan will have no impact on GP access, with 14 per cent anticipating it will make appointments more difficult. Despite this widespread scepticism, key proposals within the plan, including the establishment of neighbourhood health centres and the expansion of the NHS app, garnered significant public support. Over three-quarters of those surveyed backed the creation of neighbourhood health centres and a ban on the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks. The Department of Health and Social Care affirmed the plan's popularity, stating it resulted from extensive consultation and aims to deliver improved care for all patients.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Reeves is about to be punished for doing the right thing
It is often pointed out that our main political parties are coalitions, made up of people with overlapping, rather than common, aims. This is certainly true of Labour, whose divisions over basic principle, as well as policy, have been painfully exposed in the last year. While a majority of its MPs seem willing to follow Starmer's lead on issues like welfare reform and the cutting of pensioners' winter heating allowances, a significant minority of them – supported by a worryingly large number of ordinary party members and trade unionists – would prefer to forge an altogether different set of policies and even a different type of government. On the crucial area of whether a 'soak the rich' tax policy needs to be adopted, Labour is split into two very different, opposing, camps. This issue is one that will define the government between now and the next general election. Whatever promises Labour made in its general election manifesto last year not to raise taxes for working people, now that it enjoys an overwhelming majority in the Commons, Left-wing back benchers are becoming impatient. Why can't the government just do what the party wants? And the party, as represented by former party leader, Lord Kinnock, as well as a swathe of back benchers and union leaders, wants a wealth tax. Regular claims by the Left that the rich 'don't pay their fair share' of tax are easily countered by the observation that the top one per cent of income tax payers already provide 30 per cent of all income tax revenue. A wealth tax – here envisioned as a two per cent levy on assets worth over £10 million – could hardly be seen as a tax on 'working people' because, according to Left-wing lore, wealthy people do not work but spend their days shooting grouse on their country estates and laughing at children who are forced to climb up chimneys. That a number of countries have already attempted such a tax and been forced to repeal it after it proved effective only in driving individuals out of the country is an inconvenient fact that can be ignored. And such arguments are indeed dismissed by people who give the impression that the purpose of such a tax increase would be less about raising money to spend on social programmes than about punishing rich people for the crime of being rich. That has always been a temptation of the Left and it took the election of Tony Blair as leader in 1994 to persuade them – or start to persuade them – that tax rises are not a good thing in themselves, and that they should only be used to fund a particular project rather than about signalling a particular principle or virtue. The Chancellor Rachel Reeves has learned that lesson and is robustly holding out against her comrades' urgings to take a more Left-wing approach to the 'problem' of the presence of wealthy people in our country. She recognises that as well as failing to raise the promised revenue, a wealth tax would be seen internationally as a sign that Britain has turned its back on wealth creation, a place where wealth creators – who tend to be wealthy themselves – are not welcome, which is precisely the opposite strategy that Reeves and the government wish to pursue. But back benchers have tasted blood. They got their own way by forcing a humiliating climb-down by Keir Starmer over welfare reform – the idea that the welfare budget should not be expanded while Labour is in office is anathema to the government back benches – and now they see an opportunity to get their way again by forcing an unwanted and unworkable policy on the Chancellor. No doubt this would be seen as a weapon that could be used against the threat of an emerging Jeremy Corbyn-led party that threatens to tempt Left-wing voters away from Labour. Reeves can see that this is all self-defeating nonsense. The one thing that could spell the demise of this administration would be if it proved an incompetent steward of the public purse and the economy. Attractive though populist quick fixes of the kind that can be summarised in a shouted slogan during student protest marches through central London might be (one of those slogans that is inevitably followed by the demand 'NOW!'), the Chancellor knows that real life demands real world solutions. Reeves must stand firm against the childish demands of back benchers who are too reluctant to accept that the roles of party activist and parliamentarian have very different, and often conflicting, responsibilities.
