Reform UK's newest MP says she will back the assisted dying bill
The new MP for Runcorn and Helsby has confirmed she will vote in favor of assisted dying when the bill returns to parliament for its third reading.
Sarah Pochin was only elected on the 2nd of May, so did not get the chance to vote the last time MPs had their say on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
If passed, it would give people diagnosed with a terminal illness and less than six months to live the right to medical assistance to end their life, provided they meet certain criteria.
Speaking on ITV's Granada Debate, Sarah said "It is a very emotive subject, and I know that not everyone in my constituency is going to agree....but we were elected to give our opinions, I've considered all the facts".
The MP, who is a former magistrate, says that she's confident "there are enough checks and balances in place within the legislation" - with a panel of experts assessing each application to have an assisted death, made up of a senior lawyer, psychiatrist, and social worker.
Sarah Pochin was elected in a by-election after the resignation of former Labour MP Mike Amesbury.
Mr Amesbury had voted against the bill.
With a majority of 55 at first reading, campaigners on both sides will be watching parliament closely to see whether recent amendments to the bill during committee stage will be great enough to sway MPs either way.
One MP who is considering changing their vote is the Conservative member for Fylde Andrew Snowden, who is concerned about the parliamentary process of using a Private Member's Bill to pass such a transformative piece of legislation.
Mr Snowden says concerns raised by medical professionals recently have also given him pause for thought:
Also speaking on the Granada Debate, the Labour MP for High Peak Jon Pearce believes there is still a number of MPs who are undecided on the bill.
"I voted in principle in favour of the bill, but i'm one of a small group of MPs who voted in favour but are going to look at the final version - it's a huge job"
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
43 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour is still spending £2.2bn a year of foreign aid on UK hotels for asylum seekers - despite vowing to end the practice
The government is spending around £2.2billion a year of foreign aid on housing asylum seekers in hotels in the UK. Figures released by the Home Office show Labour only managed to reduce its spending on official development assistance between 2024/25 by around £1million, the BBC reports. That is despite the party's election manifesto pledge to 'end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds'. Official development assistance (ODA) is known at the UK's overseas aid budget and is used to promote the economic development and welfare in developing countries around the world. The Home Office is allocated a portion of this money to support refugees and asylum seekers shortly after their arrival into Britain, of which a large amount is spent on their accommodation. At the end of December 42,000 asylum seekers were in Home Office 'contingency accommodation', including 38,000 in hotels, a report National Audit Office (NAO) showed last month. This includes 735 people being housed in large accommodation sites built by the previous Conservative government, including former RAF base Wethersfield, in Essex, and Napier former barracks in Kent. Previous figures show the government spent around £2.3billion of Home Office ODA on asylum accommodation in 2024/25 while around £2.5billion was spent in 2023/24, when the Conservatives were in power. Last month, it was revealed that asylum accommodation - including hotels - will cost the taxpayer £15billion over 10 years. Data from the National Audit Office (NAO) showed that contracts originally forecast to cost £4.5billion over a decade from 2019 are now expected to run to £15.3billion over same period. It means that on average the taxpayer will spend £4,191,780 a day on housing asylum seekers over the life of the contracts. A separate breakdown from the NAO showed overall costs in 2024-25 were £1.67billion. That amounted to £4,567,123 a day on average, or £3,172 a minute. The report also found that asylum hotels 'may be more profitable' for companies holding the contracts than other types of housing. The Home Office awarded the contracts to three suppliers – Clearsprings Ready Homes, Mears Group and Serco – which operate two or three UK regions each. They are responsible for finding a range of self-catering accommodation for asylum seekers who are dispersed across the country, and for sub-contracting hotels for tens of thousands of migrants coming across the Channel by small boat. The report found Clearsprings is now set to be paid £7.3billion over the 10 years from 2019 to 2029, the NAO said, while Serco is expected to get £5.5billion and Mears will receive £2.5billion. Earlier this year it was reported that Deputy pm Angela Rayner wants the Government to terminate contracts they have made with private companies to house migrants. In its election manifesto, Labour vowed to 'hire additional caseworkers to clear the Conservatives' backlog and end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds'. But, despite the pledge, the Home Office is yet to set a definite end date on migrant hotels as it does not want to commit to 'arbitrary targets'. The only vague timeframe given by the department was by Matthew Rycroft, the department's top civil servant, in February. He told MP's that the aim is to get to 'zero by the end of the parliament', leaving open the possibility migrant hotels could stay until August 2029. A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. 'This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. 'We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026.'
Edinburgh Reporter
an hour ago
- Edinburgh Reporter
Lorna Slater will stand for leadership and selection
In just under a year's time the Scottish Parliamentary election will have decided who will be running the government for the following five years. As is the way of the polls there are some showing that Labour will win, and others that the SNP will win. The proportional representation by which MSPs are elected is not supposed to return a majority government – it happened only once, unusually, with the SNP under Alex Salmond in 2011. Labour won most seats and most votes in 1999 and 2003 but no overall majority. In 2021 the SNP was one short of a majority (there are 129 seats so the majority is 65). In an effort to do business more easily, then First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, entered into the Bute House Agreement with the Scottish Greens and Lorna Slater and Patrick Harvie, the co-conveners of the party became government ministers. Now that there is one year before the election Lorna Slater said that her party offers the 'real, hopeful' and 'transformative' change that Scotland needs. We met with Ms Slater on the day when the programme for government was about to be announced by John Swinney the First Minister. She did not believe it would bring many changes, but was proved wrong on one policy – the scrapping of peak rail fares. However the Scottish Greens later responded to the announcement to say that while very welcome and a 'huge win for commuters and climate' the policy change amounted to a U-turn by the government. They also pointed out that this policy was 'initially secured by the Scottish Greens through budget negotiations in 2023 before it was then dropped by the SNP who said the numbers did not stack up to allow them to continue supporting it'. Ahead of the Programme for Government Ms Slater – who hopes to be selected to stand as Green candidate next year, and who hopes to continue as co-leader after an internal election in the summer, said: 'I don't think there'll be any new news. I think it will absolutely be a holding pattern. They don't have a plan for bringing down people's bills, because that would involve having an ambitious heat and buildings bill to insulate homes and improve the grant system and really roll out that programme. 'I think that they're going to kind of curl in on themselves and be unambitious because they're worried about doing anything ambitious before an election.' Out of government Asked if she misses being in government Ms Slater said: 'I really miss the ambitious positive energy we have because we had some really good, ambitious things going, and all the bills that have come out since we've been in government without our influence have been gutted. 'Natural Environment Bill, gutted, heat in buildings Bill, gutted, rent controls watered down. And it just goes to show that with the Greens in there, we were much more ambitious on taking practical action on climate, much more ambitious on tackling landlords, tackling polluting corporations, tackling the vested interests – and the SNP have a lot less interest in that. They have much more interest in keeping things as they are, sort of steadying the ship instead of making big change. And the Greens were about making that big change.' As to the fallout from Scotland's deposit return scheme which has landed the government in court, being sued by Biffa for their expenses getting ready for legislation which did not materialise, she is matter of fact. She said: 'The legislation for that was, of course, passed before I was elected. So in 2020 Scottish Parliament agreed that Scotland would have a deposit return scheme. So that already existed before I was in post, my role was to work with industry to implement that scheme. And that I did, we were weeks away from launching the scheme. 'We had nearly all the producers in Scotland lined up. I think it was 95% of the items that were on shelves in Scotland. The producers of those items had paid their money. They were part of the scheme and we had a workable scheme. It would absolutely have launched on time. It would have had maybe a bit of a rocky start, a bit of a phasing in period, but we absolutely would have launched on time. 'But then because Alister Jack (then Secretary of State for Scotland) interfered with it from February 2023 by putting doubts in the media, (and that was despite the fact that he had stood on Boris Johnson's manifesto to implement a deposit return scheme with with glass), he was able to use the internal market act to veto the scheme. 'Alister Jack never gave any justification or basis for that interference. We asked repeatedly why he didn't want glass in the scheme. He never produced any evidence for that. So that was purely political interference in terms of the scheme itself.' At the time in April 2023 the Scottish Greens called for an investigation into the comments Mr Jack made, saying he had misled the House of Commons. Ms Slater said that this particular interference shows how the Internal Market Act has been used to 'stifle devolution'. She said: ' The deposit return scheme was a fully devolved matter, protecting the environment, recycling schemes – all fully devolved. That the internal market act can be used to undermine Scotland's ambitions and to harm Scottish businesses is a shocking state of affairs.' Under the still relatively new UK government administration she still holds the view that devolution is under threat. She said: 'It's an interesting question about how the Labour government is going to treat this. I have noted of course, that Wales is being allowed to continue forward with a deposit return scheme that has glass in it, even though that does interfere with the Internal market act. So why can't Scotland? Why does Wales get a free pass, and Scotland doesn't. So it isn't clear at all that Keir Starmer is changing direction. He hasn't said he will repeal or even revise the internal market act. So the status quo remains. It depends on the goodwill of individual ministers.' One of the reasons that the Scottish Greens and the SNP made for a relatively easy marriage was over the question of independence on which they agree. Ms Slater said: 'I'm a proponent of Scottish independence, and that is the only way we can be sure to put in place plans and programs that we know won't be interfered with by the UK government.' Whether or not I am selected as a candidate, the Scottish Greens will be standing on being a proudly progressive party of Scottish independence. Other parties, Labour, SNP, have conceded that left ground are moving toward the centre. They're allowing Reform to pull them in that rightward direction. You can see that with Labour, with its anti immigration policies, with its neglect of the social security net, the betrayal of the WASPI women, betrayal of disabled people, people who need benefits to live on – sick and disabled people. 'The Scottish Greens will not betray that ground. We are solidly behind equalities. We are absolutely trans rights supporters. We are absolutely in favour of ambitious work toward net zero. We are not going to give this ground. All of these things are really important to us. Human rights are important to us. A secure social safety net. Taxing the rich to pay for it is something we will we are not shy about saying, the rich for too long, have been under taxed. Have increased their wealth enormously well the poorest suffer. We have hungry children in this country. We also have billionaires. The Scottish Greens don't think that that's right, and that's the ground that we are going to contest the election.' This then shows little change in any policy which the party has stood on before – and their numbers improved at the last election. She continued: 'We are a party of values. We are a value led party. We believe in peace, equality, sustainability and human rights. Radical local democracy. We are not going to change our values, we believe that we set out a vision for a fairer, greener, independent Scotland, and it's how effectively we can persuade people that we have the power to implement such a vision, that it is possible that the future can be brilliant. We just have to decide to make it so. Constituency As to her constituents in Lothians they tell the stories of poverty and lack of benefits that are heard all too often. Ms Slater said that at the top of people's minds is their 'quality of life, and that includes everything from being able to pay their rent, being able to find housing in Edinburgh to anti social behaviour, whether it's in Portobello or Corstorphine. And people are experiencing anti social, social behaviour in the streets, all the usual troubles that go with having an NHS and care system industry and people being able to find places for loved ones in care homes people being able to get medical procedures in a timely manner. 'All those things are, of course, what people are concerned with. We also get a reasonable amount of case work because of decisions of the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). Those are decisions that are not taken it at the Scottish level, but we work with constituents who are, you know, facing exorbitant fees, deportation, uncertainty in their visa status because of paperwork problems, those are all the kind of things we can support people with.' But there is at least one small chink of light. Asked if it is easier to work with the UK Government under Labour she concedes it is 'slightly easier, yes it is slightly easier. The Conservative government was extremely hostile to Scottish interests. Some of their MPs wouldn't take, correspondence from MSPs, wouldn't help our constituents if they went through an MSP – so they had to always go through an MP. 'I think things are definitely more cooperative, but it doesn't solve the problem that so much of what we need to do we can't help people with because it has to go to London, because it's not devolved. 'And every single day we come across things, Oh, can we help with this? No, it's not devolved. If only Scotland were an independent country, we could take action these things, and that is frustrating every single day.' Lorna Slater MSP Like this: Like Related
Scotsman
3 hours ago
- Scotsman
Readers' Letters: After by-election win Labour needs to sell message of positive change
Labour's surprise win in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election had readers talking Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Reform UK's 26 per cent vote share at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election is a warning that the populist party with a toxic ideology can make inroads in next year's Holyrood election. Political expert Sir John Curtice estimates Nigel Farage's party could come third, with 18 seats, based on recent polling (your report, 2 June). He said Reform's success is 'very bad news' for the Tories who polled just 6 per cent at the by-election. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Unfounded remarks by Farage about Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar allegedly favouring the Pakistani community were condemned as racist by all major parties in Scotland apart from the Tories, who remain toothless against a party that has overtaken them in the polls and threatens to render them obsolete. The recent resignation of Bellshill-born Reform party chairman Zia Yusuf, after its newest MP suggested the banning of the burka, is a blow to Farage. This follows Reform's controversial views on banning asylum seekers from Reform-held councils, an unworkable net zero migration policy and the recent comments against Mr Sarwar. Scottish Labour Deputy leader Jackie Ballie, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar and Davy Russell, newly elected Scottish Labour MSP for Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse yesterday (Picture: Jeff) Reform has no place in Scottish democracy as it is difficult to justify any support for a party with outdated views on multiculturalism and climate change. Labour must show that Hamilton was not a blip to defeat two decades of failed SNP policies and the toxic politics of Reform. Voters are more likely to engage if there is tangible hope of positive change. Neil Anderson, Edinburgh Counting chickens? While Labour's victory in the Hamilton by-election on Thursday seemingly points to the party winning the Scottish Parliament elections next year, if I were Anas Sarwar I wouldn't be sizing up the curtains of Bute House just yet. The seat was won comfortably by the SNP in the last Scottish Parliament election in 2021 and is just the sort of seat Labour needs to win if Sarwar is to become Scotland's next First Minister. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The SNP has made little progress in restoring its fortunes following its heavy defeat in last summer's Westminster election, with polls suggesting the party's support across Scotland is still 15 points down on its tally in 2021. In the event, the fall in the party's support in Hamilton was, at 17 points, just a little higher than that. However, Labour's own tally was also down by two points on its vote in 2021, when overall the party came a disappointing third. That drop was very much in line with recent polling, which puts the party at just 19 per cent across Scotland as a whole, while the SNP has around a third of the vote. In addition, Labour is losing somewhere between one in six and one in five of its voters to Reform since last year's election. After nearly two decades in the political wilderness, there is little sign that Labour, as it currently stands, is set to regain the reins of power at Holyrood. Alex Orr, Edinburgh Real winner After all the hype by First Minister John Swinney talking up Reform and ignoring Labour it was obviously a tactic by the SNP to try and salvage a win in Hamilton. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Similarly, despite a dreadful campaign by Labour, voting SNP was simply not an option for many on the left. In comes the real winner, Reform UK, with a spectacular vote from a near nil base. Mr Swinney has unleashed a force that will do real damage in the 2026 Holyrood election. The SNP has proved itself too self-congratulatory too many times. Eighteen years of misrule cannot be rewarded by another term in office. All bets are off as to the make-up of Holyrood in 2026. The SNP is tired, Labour has yet to prove itself effective, Reform UK has the bit between its teeth and the Tories might yet recover. A year is a long time in politics. Gerald Edwards, Glasgow Swinney must go The loss of the Hamilton by-election to the risibly inept 'Scottish' Labour – a party so devoid of ideas it could barely muster a coherent manifesto – is not merely a setback. It is a catastrophe of the SNP's own making. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This was an entirely avoidable humiliation. Instead of seizing the moment – with independence support now at a formidable 54 per cent in a Norstat poll – John Swinney chose to dither. His response? A pledge to wait until 75 per cent of Scots beg for freedom before lifting a finger. When Keir Starmer declared he would block any independence referendum, Swinney's silence was deafening. Not a word of defiance, not a hint of resistance to the colonial farce of Section 30. Instead, he opted to align with Labour – a party whose sole distinction from Reform is a marginally more polished veneer of hypocrisy. Both are unionist to the core, united in their mission to siphon Scotland's wealth southward while offering nothing but condescension in return. The campaign itself was a masterclass in misdirection. Rather than rallying the independence movement with a bold vision, Swinney fixated on Reform – as if thwarting Nigel Farage's band of reactionary clowns was the defining struggle of Scottish nationalism. The result? A muddled, defensive mess that left voters uninspired and Labour undeservedly triumphant. The truth is stark: the SNP has no plan for independence. No strategy beyond grovelling to Westminster for permission to hold a vote – a humiliation masquerading as diplomacy. It is a spectacle so pitiful it verges on self-parody. Swinney must go. Not with a whimper, but with the swift, decisive exit his failures demand. The independence movement deserves leaders who grasp that freedom is seized, not negotiated – and who possess the courage to act accordingly. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Until then, the SNP's decline will continue, and Scotland's potential will remain shackled by the timid and the unimaginative. Alan Hinnrichs, Dundee Let teachers teach As a retired primary teacher who worked for 40 years in primary education, I think there is a simple solution to the 'excessive workload'. Stop expecting detailed forward plans, lesson plans and reviews of the same and let teachers teach instead of being overburdened with paperwork for the sake of accountability. The Curriculum for Excellence has a lot to answer for. It was what changed things so drastically and made teaching so much more stressful. When I began teaching in the 1970s, teachers completed a Record of Work every two weeks. This showed the work that had been completed in all the subjects taught in the primary curriculum in the previous two weeks. From there the progress that was made was clear and any teacher taking over the class (say as sickness cover) knew what was being taught. This was not as detailed as the Forward Plan which replaced it, but it was a clear record, in one slim book, of what had been achieved over the school year. Pupils' work was marked daily and preparations for next day made daily. The pupils left literate and numerate and, for the most part, behaved responsibly. Forty years later we were required to make a 'Forward Plan' for each subject for the term ahead and then assessed as to how we felt it had been achieved before writing the next Forward Plan! A daily diary of the plan for each day was also required. This was to be written up for the week so any teacher could take over. This was detailed to show subject, aims and objectives. On top of this there was, of course, the marking and noting of any problems and collecting materials for the next day's work. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the last year or so of my career we had a school inspection. The HMI 'dropped in' to observe one of my lessons and said at the end, 'That was an excellent lesson, but I'm afraid I cannot grade you on it as you didn't have a detailed lesson plan'. My reply was that I had never written a full lesson plan for any lesson since graduating from Callendar Park teacher training college. If teachers are allowed to teach without all the emphasis on accountability their workload would be greatly reduced and they could enjoy working with their pupils and seeing them love to learn, as I did at the start of my career. Barbara Wilson, Edinburgh Cringe no more I must disagree with Alexander McKay, and by extension, Billy Connolly, on the charge that the Scottish Parliament is 'pretendy' (Letters, 6 June). Far from it. Rather, it brings democracy and answerability to our doorstep. If the Scottish Parliament were pretendy, the Westminster Parliament is undoubtedly toxic. Politicians of the calibre of Mhairi Black and Stephen Flynn, disillusioned with Westminster, are seriously thinking of transferring their allegiance. Scotland struggled long and hard to achieve a Scottish Parliament in 1999, with the likes of Donald Dewar, Winnie Ewing, David Steel and Alex Salmond playing leading roles. Hopefully, Holyrood is here to stay, and grow in stature and personnel, with more and Parliamentarians choosing to be MSPs rather than MPs. Let's hear no more of the infamous 'Scottish cringe'. Ian Petrie, Edinburgh On the buses Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Andrew Clark, who expressed absolute dismay over bus lanes (Letters, 5 June), got the wrong end of the stick. Bus priority lanes are not, in the first instance, about reducing pollution, but about minimising congestion for those who are prepared to travel together. And to encourage people to do so, buses need to be able to progress reliably, especially on the main arteries. Cars have a vastly disproportionate footprint compared to buses. Bus lanes go some way towards reallocating the communal road space more fairly. Harald Tobermann, Chair, Edinburgh Bus Users Group Write to The Scotsman
