Cumbrian MPs to debate assisted dying bill in parliament
Cumbria's MPs were split on the issue when it was first voted on in parliament with Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington, Labour) and Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and the Solway, Labour) voting for the bill and Julie Minns (Carlisle, Labour), Michelle Scrogham (Barrow, Labour) and Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale, Liberal Democrat) all voting against the bill.
Opponents to changing the law have argued some people could feel pressured to have an assisted death against their will, and have called for more focus on improving and ensuring equal access to palliative care.
Campaigners who are terminally ill or have watched loved ones die in pain have called the existing legislation 'unbelievably cruel' and pointed out that animals suffering severely can be legally euthanised.
Since the last vote, Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, has brought forward amendments for a so-called 'judge plus' system, after hearing concerns during expert evidence sessions last month.
She has now proposed a judge-led Voluntary Assisted Dying Commission that she said would give a greater role to experts, including psychiatrists and social workers, in overseeing applications.
The commission would be led by a High Court judge or a senior former judge and receive all applications and reports from two independent doctors, which would then be referred to a three-member panel chaired by what has been described as a senior legal figure.
MPs opposed to the Bill said the new proposals weaken safeguards, not strengthen them.
Writing in this newspaper, Julie Minns MP said she could not support the bill.
READ MORE: Sycamore Gap tree fellers 'were suspects' in alleged assault probe | News and Star
'While I recognise the intention behind this amendment, I don't believe it offers the same level of protection as a judicial decision,' said Julie.
'We are talking about an irreversible act, the ending of a life, and I believe the courts must remain involved. I fear this sets a dangerous precedent that could normalise assisted dying without fully understanding the long-term consequences.'
Cumbrian MPs who did vote for the bill have called for the appropriate safeguards to be applied in the assisted dying process.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Government asks body to consult on axing ‘discriminatory' minimum wage age bands
The Government has said it is pushing forward with plans to look at removing 'discriminatory' age bands for the national minimum wage as it extended the remit of the Low Pay Commission (LPC). It said the advisory body will consult with employers, trade unions and workers on narrowing the gap between the minimum wage rate for 18 to 20-year-olds, and the so-called national living wage – the UK minimum wage for workers 21 years and older. The LPC will also be required to put forward 'recommendations on achieving a single adult rate in the years ahead'. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: 'To ensure the right balance is struck between the needs of workers, business affordability and the wider economy, the LPC is being asked to consult on several issues before recommending the new rates.' Last year, Labour committed to removing these age bands to create a 'genuine' national living wage, as part of efforts to bolster employment rights. Currently, the national living wage for workers aged 21 and older is £12.21. Meanwhile, the minimum wage for workers aged between 18 and 20 is £10. There is also a minimum wage for those aged under 18, and apprentices, of £7.55. The Government said the change to the LPC remit will also ensure it actively considers the cost of living in its recommendations for changes to the minimum wage which are next applied from April 2026. The LPC, which was founded in 1997, provides recommendations to the Government each October regarding how it believes the minimum wage should be changed. The Government ultimately sets minimum wage rates for the following April after this advice. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said: 'Low pay drags down living standards for our workers and in turn hurts our high streets and local businesses. 'This Government's plan for change will put money back in people's pockets, with this new remit marking the next step in considering how we ensure a fair deal for our lowest-paid workers while maintaining a competitive economy that boosts businesses and their employees alike.' Baroness Philippa Stroud, chairwoman of the LPC, said: 'We are pleased to receive our remit from the Government. 'Already, since the beginning of the year, we have spent significant time speaking with workers and employers to understand the pressures in the economy and the effects of the most recent increases in the minimum wage. 'We have held a successful call for evidence and received detailed submissions from all sides.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tories demand Reeves ‘urgently rule out' investment tax hikes
The Conservatives are demanding Chancellor Rachel Reeves 'urgently rule out' raising shares taxes in the autumn budget, claiming that leaving investors 'in limbo' will damage the economy. The Tories claim scrapping the £500 dividend allowance will drag an estimated 5.22 million more people into paying investment levies. The party is seeking to pile pressure on ministers after a memo sent by Angela Rayner to Ms Reeves, in which the Deputy Prime Minister suggested a series of tax hikes, was leaked to the press. In the document, Ms Rayner proposed removing the dividend allowance to raise around £325 million a year in revenue, as well as axing inheritance tax relief for AIM shares and increasing dividend tax rates, the Telegraph reported. Shadow chancellor Mel Stride said: 'The Government need to urgently rule out these tax hikes on savers and investors before speculation causes further economic harm. 'Labour don't understand how business works and how to create growth. More taxes on investment, entrepreneurship and saving are the last thing our economy needs right now.' The Government's U-turns over welfare reform and winter fuel payments have left the Chancellor with a multibillion-pound black hole to fill, fuelling speculation that she will seek to raise revenue through tax hikes. The Tories claimed axing the dividend allowance would drag 'an estimated 5.22 million more people into paying dividend tax'. This figure appears to be based on an assumption that at least 8.82 million people in the UK hold shares that pay dividends. Some 3.6 million are already subject to dividend tax, according to data obtained by investment platform AJ Bell through a Freedom of Information request. The Chancellor last year said she would not be 'coming back with more borrowing or more taxes' after her first budget but has since refused to rule out raising specific levies, saying it would be 'irresponsible' to do so. A Labour Party spokesperson said: 'The Conservatives have some brass neck. They've still not apologised for the damage caused by the Liz Truss mini-Budget, nor the £22 billion black hole they left – which hammered firms and families across the country. 'Labour is doing more to support business than the Tories ever could. 'We've already delivered three historic trade deals and four interest rate cuts – to reduce costs and put money back in people's pockets.'
Refinery29
14 hours ago
- Refinery29
Diane Abbott & The Unspoken Rules Of Talking About Race In Britain
When news broke that Diane Abbott had been suspended again by the Labour Party for doubling down on her comments about Irish, Jewish and Traveller communities not experiencing racism, I wasn't surprised. Frustrated? Sure. But surprised? Not really. We've seen this playbook before, especially when it comes to Black women who dare to speak boldly and unapologetically. For context, in 2023, Abbott wrote in a letter to The Observer that while Irish, Jewish and Traveller communities experience prejudice, they don't experience racism in the same way as Black people. The backlash she faced was immediate, with the Labour Party suspending her and Keir Starmer labelling her comments as antisemitic. Eventually, she apologised, withdrew her remarks, and was reinstated just in time to stand as a Labour candidate in last year's general election. Recently, when she was asked if she regretted her comments in a BBC radio interview broadcast two weeks ago, she said, 'No, not at all," adding: 'Clearly, there must be a difference between racism which is about colour and other types of racism, because you can see a Traveller or a Jewish person walking down the street, you don't know.' It was these remarks that led to her being suspended once again. Let's be clear: what Diane Abbott originally said the first time around was poorly worded, lacked the nuance required, and, legally, was false. While Jewish and Traveller communities are not necessarily racial groups, they are ethnic groups, because they have a collective identity based on shared history, culture and ancestral ties. And under UK law — specifically, the Equality Act 2010 — these ethnic groups are protected as 'races' to prevent them from becoming subject to discrimination. So, although these communities may not constitute as races, they can still, by law, experience racism — making Diane Abbott's claim partly wrong, but not wholly wrong. Ultimately, how we define race can get messy. What really is 'race', anyway? Quite frankly, it's an obsolete term that was created by European scientists during the Enlightenment period to ascribe varying levels of 'intelligence' to people of different skin colours. The very concept of race, therefore, is rooted in prejudice towards people of colour. It has always been weaponised against us and used as a tool to justify white supremacy, the myth of Black inferiority, and atrocities such as slavery and colonialism. This is why there was a very valid truth in what Diane Abbott said, and the backlash she faced tells us more about Britain's discomfort with conversations on race than it does about any single line in her letter. After all, if race as a social construct was created to legitimise the dehumanisation and commodification of Black and brown bodies, then is it wholly wrong to claim that people of colour have a monopoly over the experience of racism? For Black and brown people, racial prejudice plays out differently because we don't get to hide the difference in our identity. We can't take off our skin and put it back on as we please, in the same way a Jewish man can with a kippah or a Roma woman can with a dikhlo headscarf. We have no choice but to wear the very thing that subjects us to hostility and violence everywhere we go. ' Diane Abbott's comments warranted some correction, yes. But they also deserve context. Because if we can't have difficult conversations about the clear differences in how racism operates — in how it shows up depending on who you are and what you look like — then we're not fighting racism. ' I'll never forget when I was refused entry into a club in France while studying abroad. There I was, dressed up, standing outside the club while the white girls I was with were all waved through with ease just minutes earlier. Even after explaining I was with them, and one of them vouched for me, he refused to budge — then let in more white girls after me. Not much needed to be said. His cold glare spoke a thousand words. I wasn't good enough to enter the club because I was Black. It was humiliating. That's what racism rooted in skin colour does. It denies you your humanity before you've even opened your mouth. Just by laying their eyes on you, people decide, 'You don't belong here'. The socioeconomic impact of this is striking. According to the McGregor-Smith Review, people of colour in the UK are less likely to be hired and routinely face hiring discrimination based on their names, racial disparities which cost the UK economy £24 billion annually. We're also less likely to receive business investment or approval for bank loans. In the criminal justice system, we're more likely to be stopped, searched and arrested, and Black defendants are 40% more likely to be jailed than white defendants for the same offences. These aren't just perceptions. They're real-life consequences of institutional racism. And beyond the material impact is the psychological toll of constantly seeing Black bodies brutalised in headlines, on social media, and in the streets we walk every day. I grew up hearing about my male friends getting roughed up by the police for no reason other than the fact that they were teenage Black boys. We were just kids, but society had already decided we were threats. That feeling of constantly being 'othered' simply because of the colour of your skin does something to you. It wears you down. It's a feeling that Diane Abbott is all too familiar with. After all, she was the first Black woman ever to be elected to Parliament and has endured constant racist and sexist abuse throughout her political career. According to Amnesty International, she received almost half of all abusive tweets directed at female MPs in the 2017 election. So when she tried to draw a line between racism faced by people of colour and prejudice faced by other minority communities, she was speaking from her lived experience. I got what she meant. So did most people of colour. It's not that one experience of hostility is worse than another; it's that they're not the same. That difference deserves interrogation, not silencing. But instead of engaging with nuance, Labour weaponised her words – and her apology – against her. It's hard to ignore the fact that this all happened under the leadership of Keir Starmer — a man who called Black Lives Matter 'a moment', and delivered a speech that claimed that further immigration would risk making the UK an 'island of strangers'. Besides, Starmer has been unequivocally vocal about denouncing the 'stain' of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, promising to 'tear out this poison by its roots'. But if suspending Diane Abbott is part of his attempt to do just this, then he is barking up the wrong bush. As Abbott rightly said, any rational, 'fair-minded person' should be able to accept that there is a distinction between racism towards people of colour and discrimination towards white people who have their own ethnic subculture. To pretend this is not the case is simply disingenuous, and, in some way, can be seen as invalidating the reality of racism and its scientific roots. In a statement reacting to her suspension, Abbott said, 'It is obvious this Labour leadership wants me out.' She is probably right. This whole scandal isn't about standards or values. It's about punishing a Black woman for making white people uncomfortable, and doing it loudly and unapologetically. Diane Abbott's comments warranted some correction, yes. But they also deserve context. Because if we can't have difficult conversations about the clear differences in how racism operates — in how it shows up depending on who you are and what you look like — then we're not fighting racism. We're oversimplifying it and protecting white feelings. And that helps no one.
