
MP claims assisted dying could be ‘trojan horse that breaks the NHS'
An opponent of the assisted dying Bill has claimed such a service 'could become the trojan horse that breaks the NHS' after Health Secretary Wes Streeting was questioned about the availability of money to fund it.
It is expected MPs will have a vote on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on Friday, which could see it either progress to the House of Lords or fall.
It will be the first time the Bill has been voted on in its entirety since November's historic yes vote, when MPs supported the principle of assisted dying for England and Wales by a majority of 55.
While supporters of the Bill say it is coming back to the Commons with better safeguards after more than 90 hours of parliamentary time spent on it to date, opponents claim the process has been rushed and that the Bill is now weaker than it was when first introduced last year.
A key change was the replacing of a High Court judge requirement for sign-off of applications from terminally ill people, with a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
As it stands, the proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and the three-member panel.
While the Bill has the backing of some MPs from medical backgrounds, concerns have also been raised by the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Psychiatrists.
Disability campaigners have voiced worries about coercion and how vulnerable people could be caught up in any new law, although the proposed legislation is supported by MP and disability rights advocate Marie Tidball as well as former director of public prosecutions Sir Max Hill.
On Tuesday, Mr Streeting confirmed no money has yet been allocated for the setting up of an assisted dying service and reiterated the Government is neutral on the Bill.
Mr Streeting voted no last year and has since indicated he remains opposed to the Bill.
MPs are entitled to have a free vote on the Bill and any amendments, meaning they decide according to their conscience rather than along party lines.
He was asked by Labour MP Katrina Murray, who also voted no in November, whether the NHS has the money to fund assisted dying on top of its other priorities.
She said: 'If passed, the assisted dying Bill would make thousands of terminally ill people every year eligible to end their lives on the NHS.
'Does our health service have the money to fund this service as well as its priority of bringing down waiting lists?'
Mr Streeting responded: 'Of course, the Government is neutral (on assisted dying). It's for the House to decide.
'There isn't money allocated to set up the service in the Bill at present, but it's for members of this House and the Lords, should the Bill proceed, to decide whether or not to proceed and that's a decision that this Government will respect either way.'
Mr Streeting said last year that there were 'choices and trade-offs', adding 'any new service comes at the expense of other competing pressures and priorities'.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh, fellow Labour MP who is also opposed to the Bill, claimed an assisted dying service could 'rob our stretched NHS of much needed resources'.
She said: 'When asked today in the House of Commons the Secretary of State for Health made clear to MPs that there is no money allocated to the NHS to fund the assisted dying Bill.
'It's now clear that the assisted dying Bill will rob our stretched NHS of much needed resources and could become the trojan horse that breaks the NHS, the proudest institution and the proudest measure in our Labour Party's history.
'We already know from the impact assessment that this new system could cost tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds making our mission to cut waiting times and rebuild our NHS harder.
'I urge Labour MPs not to vote for the assisted dying Bill to protect the vulnerable and our NHS.'
An impact assessment published by the Government last month estimated that the establishment of a Voluntary Assisted Dying Commissioner and the three-member expert panels would cost an average of between £10.9 million and £13.6 million per year, although overall implementation costs of a service were not possible to work out yet.
While noting that cutting end-of-life care costs 'is not stated as an objective of the policy', the assessment estimated that such costs could be reduced by as much as an estimated £10 million in the first year and almost £60 million after 10 years.
Bill sponsor Kim Leadbeater has said the proposed legislation is about giving dying people choice at the end of their lives, saying it is 'about the human cost' and 'not about pounds and pence'. She has described her Bill as the 'most robust piece of legislation in this area in the world'.
Dozens of Labour MPs called for Friday's overall vote to be delayed, asking Commons Leader Lucy Powell for more time to scrutinise a Bill they say is 'perhaps the most consequential piece of legislation that has appeared before the House in generations'.
But a Government spokesperson pointed out that it is a Private Members' Bill and 'the amount of time for debate is therefore a matter for the House'.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
22 minutes ago
- Reuters
UK parliament votes to decriminalise abortion, repeal Victorian-era law
LONDON, June 17 (Reuters) - Britain's parliament voted on Tuesday to decriminalise abortion in England and Wales to stop a growing number of women from being investigated by police for terminating pregnancies under legislation dating back to the mid-19th century. Abortions have been legal in England and Wales for almost 60 years but only up to 24 weeks and with the approval of two doctors. Women can face criminal charges if they decide to end a pregnancy after 24 weeks under a Victorian-era law that carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. In Britain, criminal convictions for breaking this law are rare, but the number of prosecutions, opens new tab has increased following the COVID-19 pandemic when a change in the law allowed abortion pills to be taken at home to end pregnancies within 10 weeks of conception. In a free vote in parliament, when politicians were not ordered to vote along party lines, lawmakers gave an initial approval by 379 votes to 137 for an amendment to stop prosecutions for women who end pregnancies in all circumstances. Medical professionals who assist women in obtaining an abortion outside the 24-week limit could still face prosecution. The proposal could still be altered or even voted down as it is a part of a greater bill that is making its way through the House of Commons and the unelected upper chamber of parliament. Labour Member of Parliament Tonia Antoniazzi, who proposed the amendment, said the current law had been used to investigate 100 women in the last five years, including some who had given birth prematurely or had been forced into abortions by abusive partners. "Each one of these cases is a travesty enabled by our outdated abortion law," she told parliament. "This is not justice, it is cruelty and it has got to end." The vote was part of a broader government criminal justice bill that if passed in its entirety would bring the abortion laws in England and Wales in line with other Western countries including France, Canada and Australia. Some politicians warned the proposed amendment was being rushed through parliament and could have unintended consequences. Rebecca Paul, a Conservative member of parliament, warned "if this becomes law, fully developed babies up to term could be aborted by a woman with no consequences." The amendment would revoke parts of a law passed in 1861 by a then all-male parliament that made deliberately ending a pregnancy a crime and stipulated that those who carried it out could be "kept in penal servitude, opens new tab for life". A change to the law in 1967 permitted abortions in certain circumstances, but left the 19th century criminal prohibition in place. Between 1861 and 2022, only three women in Britain were convicted of having illegal abortions, according to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which works to improve women's healthcare. But since then, six women have been charged by police, the group said. One woman has been jailed. In May, a British woman, Nicola Packer, was acquitted after taking prescribed abortion medicine when she was around 26 weeks pregnant, beyond the legal limit of 10 weeks for taking such medication at home. The 45-year-old told jurors during her trial, which came after a four-year police investigation, that she did not realise she had been pregnant for so long.


The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Abortion decriminalised in the UK after historic vote
MPs in England and Wales voted 379 to 137 to decriminalise abortion, marking a significant shift in reproductive rights. The reform aims to protect women from investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment related to their own pregnancies, while maintaining penalties for abusive partners or medical professionals. The vote follows arguments that the UK 's existing abortion law was outdated and increasingly used against vulnerable women, with concerns raised about cases of women being investigated even after miscarriages. Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi highlighted that police had investigated over 100 women for suspected illegal abortions in the past five years, describing such cases as a "travesty". While Labour MP Lizzi Collinge argued the change would protect women from "brutal investigations", Conservative MP Sir Edward Leigh and DUP MP Carla Lockhart opposed the reforms, raising concerns about sex-selective abortion and the rights of unborn children.


Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
No jail sentence is long enough for the cowards who covered up for the Pakistani rape gangs
Thank heavens for Louise Casey. A report this week by the Baroness of Awkward Truths, which found that public bodies covered up horrific evidence about Pakistani-origin rape gangs 'for fear of appearing racist', has forced another humiliating reversal on Sir Keir Starmer. The smell of burning rubber is never far from our handbrake-turn Prime Minister, who has now accepted Casey's recommendation for a national inquiry. He had insisted that wanting such an investigation into those heinous crimes, the worst scandal in British history no less, was evidence you were marginally to the Right of Genghis Khan, or possibly even Tony Blair. Some 364 MPs shamefully voted against a statutory inquiry, including Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips who couldn't do enough for the traumatised victims until she stabbed them in the front. Baroness Casey's findings brought back an emotional encounter I had as I was leaving an event earlier this year. 'Forgive me for asking, Miss Pearson, but what happened to the British men?' The silver-haired American in sports jacket and tie in front of me had a concerned look on his face. I had just appeared on a panel discussing the Pakistani rape gangs chaired by Mark Steyn, who had campaigned relentlessly for their victims when he was a presenter on GB News. Survivors Sammy Woodhouse and Samantha Smith, my fellow panellists, had told the international audience about the ordeal they, and thousands of other British girls, had lived through. Not just being raped and tortured as children, but later stigmatised as prostitutes, criminals and liars in their twenties when they finally plucked up courage to speak out. Sammy recalled that police in Rotherham colluded openly with her abuser, Arshid Hussain, buying his drugs and tipping him off when he was about to have his collar felt. When officers found Sammy in bed with 'Ash', a 24-year-old British Pakistani, they arrested her for possessing an offensive weapon (which was his). The serial rapist with a rumoured string of more than 50 under-age girls in his highly-profitable harem was not held by police. Sammy was 14 at the time and pregnant. Still a child, then, although childhood and the bubbly, bright little girl who dreamed of being a professional dancer were long gone. After those two brave, articulate women up on stage finished telling their stories of almost surreal depravity, Steyn's audience – Aussies, Kiwis, Canadians, Americans, Brits – sat in horrified silence. Not quite silence; a lot of people were crying. A question hung in the incredulous air. How could the UK have allowed such monstrosities to happen to its kids and then allow it to be covered up for years until victims-turned-campaigners, like the two Samanthas, fought tooth and nail to bring it to public attention? Clearly, that's what was bothering the American. He was desperate to understand why British men had not protected their girls. 'See, where I come from, if they'd done that we'd have picked up our guns and…' I nodded. (To be fair, in the UK, when the Pakistani groomers briefly targeted Sikh girls, outraged Sikh men picked up baseball bats and taught them a lesson.) What to say? How do you account for a warped ideology that has taken hold in your country, a fatal blend of cultural incompatibility on the one hand and institutional cowardice and fear of 'Islamophobia' on the other? 'Many of the girls were in care or they came from troubled homes, so often they didn't have fathers to help them,' I began falteringly. 'Sammy's dad did try to rescue his daughter from a house where she was trafficked and police threatened to arrest him, not the groomers.' 'What the hell?!,' exclaimed the American. 'Exactly. What the hell. It's really to do with political correctness,' I went on. 'The Labour Party, which ran most of the towns where the grooming gangs operated, became dependent on Muslim votes and they were very reluctant to have the Pakistani community criticised. So the white, working-class girls (' who must have been asking for it') were not believed even though what was happening to them was evil. And anyone who dared to speak up for them was damned as 'racist', which was hugely damaging obviously, so mainly people stayed silent. Essentially, white kids were sacrificed on the altar of multiculturalism. It was Votes for Girls, that was the deal.' (Revealingly, in an interview for this week's Planet Normal, Sammy Woodhouse told me that her abuser, 'Ash', was fully aware of the protected status he enjoyed as a British Pakistani Muslim, and happily exploited it. 'I'll just play the race card,' he used to say.) One thing I didn't mention to that American guy was the complicit role played by the media, notably the BBC, and others in the metropolitan bubble. Until 2013, when Andrew Norfolk of The Times revealed Sammy Woodhouse's story (with characteristic courage the Yorkshire lass waived her anonymity), the overwhelming evidence that Pakistani Muslim men preyed on 11-year-olds whom they disdained as 'white slags' was simply not admissible in polite society. (Even the heroic Norfolk, who sadly died a few weeks ago, initially held back on publishing because he feared the story was catnip to the far-Right). But Sammy had lifted the lid on child sex exploitation cases in her home town, prompting the Alexis Jay report which identified at least 1,400 victims in Rotherham alone. I vividly recall some of the hostile media reaction two years later to a previous take-no-prisoners Louise Casey report into opportunity and integration. The one in which the Baroness criticised public institutions that 'have ignored or even condoned regressive, divisive and harmful cultural and religious practices for fear of being branded racist or Islamophobic'. The Rotherham child abuse scandal, Casey concluded, was 'a catastrophic example of authorities turning a blind eye to harm in order to avoid the need to confront a particular community'. In the impeccably-liberal Prospect magazine, reviewer Oliver Kamm shuddered fastidiously. He condemned Casey's striking honesty as a 'vapid and ill-conceived intervention' which might have been designed to appeal to – quick, pass the smelling salts! – Farage and anti-immigrant tendencies. 'It warns that segregation and social exclusion are at 'worrying' levels,' Kamm complained. 'And it does so… without indicating what it would accept as countervailing evidence.' Such wilful blindness by members of a liberal elite to the problems posed by 'a particular community' continues to this day. Not long ago, in an interview for The News Agents podcast, former BBC maven Emily Maitlis attacked Rupert Lowe (ex-Reform MP, now an independent who has set up a separate inquiry with Sammy Woodhouse) for obsessing about Pakistani grooming gangs 'because probably you are racist and you don't believe there are white perpetrators'. It is Maitlis's sneering brand of superior ignorance, her arrogant stigmatising of critics of failed integration, that created the climate that allowed Pakistani perpetrators to continue violating the Samanthas and tens of thousands of other young girls with almost total impunity. Racism being a far worse crime than child-rape in the best circles, darling. The Home Office data which Maitlis drew on – saying most group-based child sexual offenders are white – always seemed absurd. (A quick look at the police mugshots for most grooming-gang trials quickly told you that white men, although heavily represented among paedophiles, were not the major villains in the trafficking of pre-teen and teenage girls.) How marvellous to see our Islamist-friendly Home Office thoroughly debunked in this new report from Baroness Casey. 'This audit found it hard to understand how the Home Office [2020] paper reached that conclusion, which does not seem to be evidenced in research or data.' Oops. Astoundingly, in our interview, Sammy Woodhouse recalled that 'in council safeguarding meetings, when I was a child who was being raped by a 24-year-old Pakistani man, there was an anti-racism co-ordinator'. That tells you everything you need to know about the priority of Labour authorities – and it sure as hell wasn't protecting innocent little girls. Keir Starmer must have had high hopes that Louise Casey would save him from the acute political embarrassment of the authorities in Muslim-voting Labour areas coming under scrutiny. (She had indicated she opposed a national inquiry.) What Labour really fears, I suspect, is that the discovery of a widespread cover-up of the industrial-scale rape of British children will pose existential questions about the ability of certain British Pakistani men to ever integrate into a society where women and girls are created equal. That's what Sammy Woodhouse thinks – she says any dual-national child-rapists must be deported. And which of us would disagree? 'I don't think this inquiry is going to get the justice that we need,' Sammy told me, 'because it's Labour investigating Labour. They're just chucking this out there to keep us quiet.' I pray that she's wrong, I pray that all her passionate campaigning for the ones who couldn't fight as she has fought pays off. Let's hope we will need to build new jails to house all the cowards who covered up for the rape gangs. Police, councillors, social workers, MPs, community leaders. Grown men who allowed little girls to endure such fathomless depravity. At least they will be sleeping less well tonight thanks to the Baroness of Awkward Truths.